Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Madam Chair. It's an absolute pleasure to be talking on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill—Simon O'Connor: You missed Comprehensive and Progressive".ANDREW BAYLY: Well that's part of the debate. My colleague is just identifying that I've missed the "Comprehensive" but of course that is one of the issues that we're talking about in Part 2 isn't it—Hon Member: Part 1.ANDREW BAYLY: —Part 1—which is that we all knew that this bill was about the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and of course that was when it came into force under our Government some time ago. Obviously there was a lot of opposition at that stage but—Simon O'Connor: Who from?ANDREW BAYLY: Who from my good colleague asks. There was of course widespread opposition including members from the other side but also renowned commentators from the outside. Professor Kelsey springs to mind as someone who is always prepared to share her views in the most open transparent manner and of course she's got a lot to say on this issue. So the issue was that we understood it as the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement TPPA and it was a massive agreement that we put in place which was going to be a catalyst for huge amounts of growth in the Pacific—huge amounts. And of course it was going to have a huge or a significant impact for New Zealand. I seem to recall I think an estimate of about $2 billion a year—from memory I'm going from here. But what Part 1 talks about is the issue around what title we should give it and of course we've now got this new rather unwieldy title "CPTPP".Dr Duncan Webb: Come on you can spell.ANDREW BAYLY: Yeah I can. I can spell. Thank you for that helpful comment across the way. And of course it says "Comprehensive and Progressive".Hon Tim Macindoe: What do you think the impact of adding those words is?ANDREW BAYLY: I don't know but we've dropped the "agreement" at the end so it's now the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership. I personally prefer the word "agreement" because I think that implies some form of negotiated outcome where all parties actually know what they're going to do. But for some reason—and no doubt Minister Damien O'Connor's got a view on this—it is far more important to have the words "Comprehensive and Progressive". I've got to just suggest to you if you're going to sign an agreement surely you want to achieve comprehensive and progressive development. That's self-evident. That's why you enter into these agreements because you want to see the country grow or you want to see living standards improve or all those sorts of things. But for some reason we think we have to put a self-evident title in front of it which says "Comprehensive and Progressive". But as I said before the missing word is that sense of agreement. That sense of cohesion.Chris Penk: It's agreeable.ANDREW BAYLY: Agreeable—that's another alternative. I could've quite happily lived with that or even an alliance. Those are all good words. They're excellent words because they sort of show what you're trying to achieve. But anyway we've got to that outcome. I'm sure the Minister is going to explain to us one day why this is so vitally vitally important that we have these words.The other thing of course is around the commencement date. I think we've got to differentiate between the two dates. One is the date that the bill comes into existence and one is the date that we essentially allow this piece of legislation this bill as it currently stands to come into existence. Of course I haven't actually checked the day that the bill comes into existence. I think the bill comes in after the third reading and Order in Council. There's nothing unusual about that. But the interesting thing about this in Part 1 is the issue around when this bill actually becomes operative—operative. Of course in this bill we've got a couple of processes. Normally such a thing is undertaken either through an Order in Council but when is the treaty operative? In this case we've got this double approval process—one might even say double jeopardy; oh no maybe that's not very appropriate in this case—but anyway this requires the Minister for Trade and Export Growth to do that.I think this is an interesting bill. I'm looking forward to the debate on it as we go forward."