O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much. I'm just contemplating what I'm going to say. The great thing is that I've got nine minutes and 54 seconds to work it out. I say that for a particular reason and without taking away from the seriousness of this bill. We have well covered as a House and as a committee this Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill. That's the title of the bill but as we know the title once this becomes an Act of law is the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)—well it will be then an Act. But we've well traversed it. Like other speakers who have recently taken their seats there are actually a number of people to thank and there's going to be no particular order in this. First and foremost it is my thanks to the many people who throughout this process have submitted to bring us to this point so far. As I've probably belaboured far too much it's always important Madam Assistant Speaker—sorry rather than Madam Chair earlier; this was a really bad start wasn't it? This is a very particular bill. It is not the Trans-Pacific Partnership itself; that's a 6000-plus page document. It's something that we had a national interest analysis on a good few months back now and on which the public were at that time able to have their say. As the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee we were able to hear and report back what were the major concerns to the Parliament primarily so that through the Parliament the executive could understand what those concerns were. Fundamentally trade agreements like this—in fact any international agreements—are the exclusive domain of the executive. So I think it's really important for the public to understand that it's the rightful prerogative of the executive to undertake treaty negotiations to decide whether to sign them and then as has been done to bring them to this Parliament for discussion and where possible for the Parliament to feed back.What we've been going through recently is a relatively small piece of legislation this Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill which in effect allows this international treaty signed by the Government to come into force here in New Zealand. It's probably not lost on people in this House but it may be for some at home that New Zealand simply signing an international agreement—it doesn't matter if it's a trade agreement an agreement around copyright around the law of the sea or around nuclear weapons; we've dealt with actually most of those in the select committee so far—doesn't necessarily bind it into New Zealand law unless there is a domestic piece of legislation which puts it on to the books. And that's what this piece of legislation is about. So to those New Zealanders who have spent a good amount of time—often they would feel as they have said to me repeating themselves through the process. They've had heartfelt and strong opinions more often than not opposing this bill and opposing the trade agreement which is I'll be honest—well I don't have to be honest; it's all on the public record. I'm very much in favour of this trade agreement even in its current form—Dan Bidois: That's good to know.SIMON O'CONNOR: Yeah. As Dan Bidois from Northcote says That's good to know" as if there was somehow some doubt but actually it doesn't take away from the respect of listening importantly to those that had to speak and where necessary questioning one's own thoughts and judgments. But through that process I want to thank the many people who have spoken and more recently the almost 600 people who submitted on this bill. To be fair the submissions were more on the concept of the treaty the Trans-Pacific Partnership itself than the technicalities of the bill although importantly some suggestions were made and we heard from just over 30 of those. So the first sort of round of thanks on this third reading goes to the New Zealand public who have made their voices heard. I hope that in some way the select committee's report at least indicates to this Parliament what we heard and what the Parliament may want to consider in the future. Thanks too goes to the select committee. I've mentioned in a few points during the process of this bill that we moved very swiftly to hear from submitters and to bring this back to the Parliament. The fact that actually we're discussing this now and that we've even reached third reading is indicative of a cooperative approach from all the parties regardless of their viewpoint—because I know there is at least one party up to this point though one lives in hope that they might kick in in support. But actually regardless of where the final votes go all the parties worked quite cooperatively in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to make sure that we could get this bill back before the Parliament. Otherwise it could have been up till December. But I really want to stress on the record and in voice that the committee didn't cut any corners and it didn't expurgate the process. What it did was it just made sure that once the submissions were in we prioritised hearing from New Zealanders and were able to move also quite swiftly to write up what we'd heard and importantly not slow the process down as we reached this third reading. So thanks to those members of the committee and to the Ministers of course—and it is "Ministers". It is important to recognise the current Minister the Hon David Parker and the work that he's led but I think it's also important that we all acknowledge actually—not just this side of the House—the work of Todd McClay and before him Tim Groser to bring the agreement to pretty much where it is now. I know it's a debating point between what has and has not changed—I certainly don't see substantial or material changes—but it doesn't take away from what's effectively a good agreement with New Zealand and 11 other countries. Obviously Ministers don't act alone. I think it's been very present to me—and I'm sure the other members of the committee and hopefully this House—that it's been the trade negotiators and officials who to me have been an absolute stand-out. I indicated very briefly in the committee stage last evening my thanks to them but the third reading provides a better opportunity. The clarity of their thought and understanding to the select committee I think is a great credit to them not just because it helps us as members of the committee to understand what can at times be a fairly complex system but it shows the skills that they bring into the negotiation. So on record my thanks go to them. Look New Zealand has been and remains very keen to be one of the early ratifiers of this agreement. It has been signed off; that's why we're at this stage of the bill. Once we pass this piece of legislation the Minister of trade—and it's very specific—will instruct either the Sovereign or the Governor-General to ratify the agreement and then it will be lodged and importantly lodged here in New Zealand. New Zealand as a country is the lodgement country of those 12 interested CPTPP parties and I think it's both material and symbolic that New Zealand is one of the early adopters. It's not purely altruistic. There are benefits to being some of the early signers—if you are amongst the first six I think there are if you will added benefits. I won't go into all of those but there is benefit to that and it probably begins to explain why we are moving as swiftly as we can despite the fact that I have now taken up eight minutes. But that aside—Alastair Scott: Keep it up! Keep going.SIMON O'CONNOR: Oh no we've got more to go; I was just sort of conscious of the—Hon Christopher Finlayson: Tim Groser could speak for three hours. SIMON O'CONNOR: That's quite true. Hon Christopher Finlayson: All about himself.SIMON O'CONNOR: Very good. However it's good that New Zealand is signing very early and I would expect—although I do not know—that the Minister will move swiftly after this third reading to talk to the Governor-General and move this through to ratification. There've been a number of issues that have popped up from time to time around this whole agreement: the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) disputes. Look I certainly sit on the side that says actually there is a place for these. I think there's been a lot of fear and misunderstanding around them. They exist these mechanisms to protect New Zealanders as much as anyone else. I know it's easy to blame corporates but the long and the short of it is that if a New Zealander or New Zealand company invests money into another country into another sovereign nation which then does something effectively illegal—such as I don't know nationalising those assets—I think a New Zealander would want to have some ability to claim back against that Government in the same way that if we in New Zealand were to act against our principles effectively and take away the rights of a company or another individual even if they were foreign there should be some mechanism for that to be addressed. There's been talk around the Treaty of Waitangi. That's always been strongly protected. It's certainly part of New Zealand's legal structure. It's been protected right through this process as too has Pharmac. I followed that relatively closely when I chaired the Health Committee. Pharmac's always been protected. There hasn't been any change there and I don't think anyone needs to worry. I suppose the final part—and it remains a wider let's say philosophical political discussion—is really are trade treaties fundamentally about trade or do they become I would argue sticks or levers for other agendas? You can argue the merit of that or not but there has been some talk in this whole process of whether trade agreements should be used to promote issues on climate change or gender or other things—a discussion for another day. But I just acknowledge and commend this bill to the House."