O'Connor SimonDEBATE ON INTERNATIONAL TREATIESSimon O'Connor (Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee): I move That the House take note of the report of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on the International treaty examination of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This is not the first time as chair of the committee that I've stood to speak on this somewhat revised version of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) nor is it the first time to speak on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee's work around various treaties. Look overall I am pleased that we are seeing some progression of the TPP and I'll talk to it a little bit in terms of how effectively there isn't much change. But I think it goes without saying particularly as a member of the National Party that we are pleased to see this free-trade agreement proceeding. So I do acknowledge the Minister who is leading it at the moment and for his efforts but importantly too the efforts of many trade Ministers prior to that and I'm sure we're going to be hearing from the likes of Todd McClay and also other foreign Ministers like Gerry Brownlee later in this discussion. The committee has been undertaking a treaty examination. It's fairly important to understand—probably more for the interest of the public than the House—that a treaty examination is not a moment where the select committee outlines massive changes. So you'll notice that the recommendations of the committee are really for the House to take note and note that the Government also is intending to bring in some domestic legislation to bring this about. It's something that—and those sitting on the select committee know because we had to explain it many times to the public: we examine the treaty. Obviously the committee itself can raise matters of concern but the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee understands that the negotiations have already been done and it's in the prerogative of the executive to ultimately sign these agreements. But it is important that our select committees such as the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee look at a treaty like this have a fuller understanding of the national interest assessment have a good talk to the ministry involved—in this case of course the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade—and then engage with the public and report back what they've heard.Obviously if this agreement continues—and in this particular case it's up to the Government and the Minister responsible to table a piece of legislation to take what is an international trade treaty and bring it into New Zealand's domestic law. So it's called the Comprehensive and Progressive TPP. Speaking more personally as the chair I have well serious concerns about those two words or rather the addition of them. I haven't really seen much evidence of it being any more comprehensive or progressive. I suppose if I had to be completely generous it is progressive in so far as it is moving forward but it's moving forward in the same guise that it was. I say that mainly to echo just about every person who came before our select committee. So we had a number of people write in nowhere near as many people writing in as when this side was in Government. That itself raised a number of queries. One can theorise about why there may be a fundamental difference—in this case so few people writing in. But to those who did my thanks and to those who came to speak before the committee here in Wellington and the committee also made time to go to Auckland.Look the fundamental message we got back from business—so think of those in the areas of say agriculture for example but right across the spectrum. Business was incredibly supportive of this agreement. They explained the reasons why from what they see of the anticipation of the growth in their industries—jobs of course. Better jobs—that was importantly stressed. So New Zealand businesses are very much behind this. They themselves did note though that very little had changed. And the individuals that came before the committee as well and very notable opponents of the bill the likes of Professor Jane Kelsey amongst others not to take away from those other people who spoke—but almost to the person people noted that nothing really has changed here. I'm sure there'll be remonstrations from other speakers that it has been a comprehensive and progressive change. Again there's no evidence of that. In fact those who have long supported the TPP continue their support and say effectively it is what it is. Those who are opposed have continued to oppose this bill on the basis that nothing has changed. A number did raise why a particular political party that had championed—or champed at the bit—to not vote for the TPP are now voting for it. There was a lot of confusion if you will—it's probably the generous way to put it—from the public of why in this case New Zealand First and I'm sure there'll be a contribution had very vociferously spoken against the bill saying they would—sorry not the bill; the agreement the international treaty.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Just like Donald Trump.SIMON O'CONNOR: They are going to—well it's interesting that a member cries out Just like Donald Trump.". Actually yes it's been very interesting that the number of parties now in Government have been well-aligned to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump's position of being anti-trade—talking a very big game until they got the Treasury benches and then all of a sudden had an about-face.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Because we fixed it.SIMON O'CONNOR: I'm now hearing too—I'm not sure where but I'm hearing words about "fixing it". As I've laboured the point—all puns intended—those presenting to the select committee had noted there are no effective changes in this agreement and I for one am quite relaxed for that.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Twenty-two massive changes.SIMON O'CONNOR: There are they say 22 items which are effectively nonconsequential. It's a bit akin—I'd better be clear Madam Deputy Speaker; I'm not saying this is literally what's happened. But simply if by analogy removing a comma and a full stop makes a change then you could begin to add that up. One of the ones that's often mentioned is around the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS)—that's the dispute settlements scheme. I think it's one of those cases where acronyms sort of freak people out. In effect very little change there. There's a lot of talk about side letters. Smarter people than me in the area of foreign affairs and trade—the likes of Gerry Brownlee and Todd McClay—I'm sure will talk to that. There has been a little bit of change around the copyright provisions—DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll just remind the member he is reporting from the select committee as a select committee chair.SIMON O'CONNOR: Indeed. Fortunately Madam Deputy Speaker I am reading here from the report. The report itself also indicates a change between 50 to 70 years—a point of discussion and one I suspect is going to be ongoing—and then a reaffirmation which is one of the changes again. It led the committee to be somewhat confused but a reaffirmation that the purchasing model of Pharmac will continue to be protected. So one of the changes is to continue an element that's already there.So this was being brought home often and clearly by submitters and it was actually well appreciated. Importantly now with the committee having reported back this debate will occur. I am hoping it will be quite comprehensive unlike the agreement. But it will be quite comprehensive and that then will lead to a moment—and I'm sure the Minister will elucidate more on that when a bill will be put before the Parliament and that will be debated. It will be important to note that the committee will once again I suspect have to go out and engage the public probably in a shortened process. I don't want to presume that; it's not my role—but a somewhat shortened process. I certainly encourage those people who wish to have their voice heard again that they may do so. But I think as I was noting at the start the committee is very clear on this: it is in the prerogative of Government or the executive to pass these. But the committee was very pleased to go through the process to engage and hear from people.As I say the public itself and the committee I think as a whole—not representative of all parties; sadly that's just the nature of who can get on the committee—remain very supportive of free trade. We were as a committee interested in how we may further engage with America. I mean it's one of the elements we're very aware of—that America is not part of this deal. We'll be very interested to see whether they can come on board. There was a mixture of opinion as the Minister I'm sure knows of whether America would be interested or not but of course it's up to them to make those decisions. What we're seeing at the moment with some of the tensions around the North America Free Trade Agreement—so that in North America it will be interesting to see whether that flows over as well into the engagement with the revised TPP.New Zealand remains as we understand it keen to be at the forefront of this. I think—and I hope it's not pre-empting another person's speech—New Zealand is keen to be the first or at least one of the first to bring this treaty into its domestic laws. Importantly New Zealand is what they call the depository. We are the central nexus for all the others to inform us when they have signed it. When I think it's at least six people have signed—or six countries rather not six people. When six countries have signed the bill and the treaty begin to take effect. So that was a very quick summation of what was an incredibly large treaty but I think that the major take-out from the committee was continued opposition in some circles great support but a feeling that really the treaty has remained as it is and at which point I commend this to the House."