4. Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership—Differences with the Trans-Pacific Partnership AgreementDARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Trade and Export GrowthComprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership—Differences with the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement4. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding trade and export growth?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): Last month our negotiators finalised the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (CPTPPA) in Tokyo. The 11 nations plan to sign the agreement in Chile on 8 March. Securing this agreement ensures a level playing field for our meat exporters to the world's third-largest economy Japan. Without the CPTPPA our meat exporters face far higher tariffs than their Australian and European counterparts rendering them uncompetitive. This coalition Government made it clear that it would seek a fairer deal for New Zealanders than the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA) and thanks to the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister we've negotiated changes to the agreement that address the concerns that New Zealanders raised.Darroch Ball: How has the Government improved the CPTPP in comparison with the TPP?Hon DAVID PARKER: The new agreement retains the market access improvements from the TPP agreement that will benefit New Zealand firms large and small. The jobs of 620000 New Zealanders depend on exports and this agreement will sustain and grow those jobs and income not least across our regions. We've done away with the TPP agreement's 20-year extension to the copyright term put an end to the imposition of additional costs on Pharmac and removed limitations on our intellectual property rights. We've narrowed the scope of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses. Additionally through a side letter with Australia 80 percent of foreign investment from TPP or CPTPP countries is exempt from the ISDS clauses. We also hope to announce a number of side letters that will further limit the use of ISDS clauses. In short the CPTPP is a fairer and better deal for New Zealand than the former TPP.Darroch Ball: How is this Government ensuring New Zealanders' rights are protected under the CPTPP? Hon DAVID PARKER: Before the CPTPP comes into effect we will ensure that only those who have the right to live here long term have the right to buy a home here. The past Government said this was impossible and could not be done without breaching many free-trade agreements and losing thousands of jobs. They were wrong. We don't have to choose between improving exports and controlling who owns our land; this coalition Government is doing both.Hon Todd McClay: Will the Minister give an assurance to the thousands of New Zealanders he joined in protest just one short year ago against the TPP agreement that the New Zealand Government cannot be sued under the new ISDS provisions contained in the revised TPP agreement?SPEAKER: Before the member answers I'm going to ask the member to re-state his question. I will let him have another go at it without the extraneous material—only what's necessary for the question.Hon Todd McClay: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could you direct me as to which part was unnecessary—SPEAKER: I think for the sense of the question there was one very obvious part that was unnecessary. If the member can't work it out we'll move on to someone else.Hon Todd McClay: Can the Minister give an assurance to the thousands of New Zealanders who protested against ISDS clauses in the original TPP agreement just one year ago that the New Zealand Government cannot be sued under the revised ISDS provisions in the new agreement?SPEAKER: That was closer and so I'll let the member have a go.Hon DAVID PARKER: I can assure the member of that but for the changes that we've made in respect of land if we as a Government had chosen to do that later we would have been at risk of being sued under the old TPP agreement. I can also say that whilst the ISDS provisions have been narrowed they have not been completely eliminated as we would've liked. We've narrowed them as to scope: you can't be sued on a contract with the Government now. We've narrowed them as to the number of countries who can in effect use them but sadly we couldn't get rid of them completely because the prior Government hadn't even tried to start that process. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Order! Before we move on I'm having a little bit of trouble focusing on what are very important answers mainly because the nearly father of the House and the person with the most experience are having an interchange across the House—I think mainly the responsibility of Dr Nick Smith. I will ask him if he can to restrain himself. Hon Dr Nick Smith: It would help if the member answered the question.SPEAKER: Oh for goodness' sake!Hon Todd McClay: Can the Minister confirm that under the revised TPP agreement the New Zealand Government and New Zealand can be sued under the ISDS provisions for fracking over environmental policy and water policy in New Zealand?Hon DAVID PARKER: The national interest analysis which will soon be released publicly as well as be presented to the select committee answers that very question and says that in the view of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade which I share there is no prospect of New Zealand ever being successfully sued in respect of those measures.Hon Todd McClay: Successfully sued?Hon DAVID PARKER: That's correct. The member is correct as I have already adverted to that there is no absolute prohibition on ISDS cases being started. We have narrowed that. We have narrowed it substantially. We've reduced the number of countries that would do that in respect of their foreign direct investment (FDI) in respect of over 80 percent of that FDI but in respect of less than 20 percent remaining foreign direct investment they could bring a case but they would not succeed.Hon Todd McClay: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was some noise and I just didn't hear a part of the answer. Could the Minister just clarify. Did he say couldn't be sued" or "couldn't be successfully sued."? I didn't hear that bit.SPEAKER: The latter.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have just ruled that the previous questioner had introduced what I think you described as extraneous material into the question. I would like you to have a look at today's Hansard particularly with regard to answers in the House today from at least three other members on the front bench and indeed Mr Parker himself and consider how much extraneous material was in their replies. Perhaps early next week I could come and discuss those with you.SPEAKER: I'm happy to discuss it with the member. I think at least two of the front-bench members' answers have been curtailed today because they were going too far. I think I'm possibly equally unpopular."