Penk Chris; Rurawhe AdrianCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to add a few words of my own to the debate on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)—excuse me the CPTPP or the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. I was going to note actually—and have inadvertently made my first point which is that that it seems like déjà vu all over again in the famous words of Yogi Berra—it has been some time now that this nation and indeed this Parliament certainly prior to my time of arriving here has been debating this particular agreement and now the variation to it or according to taste perhaps a new agreement based on the old one. Much has been made of the different acronyms: CPTPP versus TPP versus TPPA and so forth. I would actually like to focus on a few key words that have been associated with this agreement and the parliamentary process that goes along with that. The first phrase that I would like to pick out is export exposed" which was used by a speaker in this debate recently to describe areas of New Zealand that are exposed to exports and hence will be beneficiaries of this particular trade agreement. I might add that not only are such areas exposed to trade but the fact that they are able to trade well—an ability that will be enhanced by this agreement—is that they are in fact reliant on trade too. It's almost a truism to note that New Zealand as a small country at the end of the world is very reliant on its export economy but actually we could go further and say that an area that is reliant on trade is New Zealand itself because all areas of New Zealand are in turn reliant on those areas that are particularly engaged in trading commodities with other nations' peoples. Briefly then the Helensville electorate is one such area that not only trades directly—various businesses are contained within its boundaries—but it is also reliant on the hard work of our cousins across this great land who also engage in exports and thereby increase the common good or the commonwealth if I may use that term. Focusing on the words "the agreement" it's tempting to say that at times the TPP and/or the CPTPP could actually more accurately be described as a disagreement but that's really reflective of a domestic political phenomenon as opposed to the way in which the agreement has been discussed debated and ultimately concluded by various nation States around the world of which New Zealand is of course one. An agreement in international law is often described as a treaty. It's international by definition but it's not dissimilar to a contract that private parties might enter into. Like a contract between individual persons whether legal or natural it is a meeting of minds or perhaps a herding of cats—to pick up on the theme that a colleague noted earlier—given the difficulties sometimes and the complexity of the different nations and their respective interests and dare I say it their respective politicians complicating matters when it comes to having an agreement come into force. The complexity involved actually gives me an opportunity to note the hard work done by many people within this institution and I refer to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee staff as well as those of us fortunate to serve on it and Ministers various across two parliaments now—or two executives more properly—but also many who have engaged in the process very thoroughly and very passionately. I thank and commend all of those who have done so on whichever side of the debate they have found themselves at any given time. Some useful contributions to my mind were made in relation to the constitutional aspects by various submitters to the select committee but also those in civil society who have engaged very diligently. I hope Mr Bruce King will not mind me mentioning him in this connection as someone who has advocated strongly and clearly for further parliamentary scrutiny than is currently the case for international agreements. My own views on that—I hope reflecting those of my party—are not only that in this case that's not something we have an appetite for given the benefits of the trade deal but also speaking personally if there is to be a wider constitutional discussion and change regarding international treaties and the way they are entered into which is currently essentially by the executive and signed off by Parliament then that should be part of a broader discussion that we might have if some person or party intends to commence that. The fact that it is a multilateral agreement I think is worth noting. It is literally across many different parties and I've talked about the complexity of that. If we're talking about for example New Zealand beef being a beneficiary of that well there have been many beefs that New Zealand has had with other countries and their respective negotiators but our negotiators have acted very skilfully to maximise this country's benefits and minimise this country's costs. But it is of course in the nature of any kind of agreement and in an international treaty no less so that there is give and take. There are pros and cons. So when we talk about the consideration of this agreement we talk not only of the way that the agreement is considered by this place in the sense that Parliament is scrutinising the bill and giving it consideration in that sense but also in the technical legal meaning of the word "consideration" which is in the context of a contract something which is given up by one side in exchange for something given up by the other side or in this case sides—plural. So there's a formal requirement in a contract that something is given up—that's almost by definition. Certainly that's what our domestic law states although that can of course be circumvented by way of a peppercorn type of consideration. I should have looked up before I started speaking as to whether there are any literal peppercorn farmers in the Helensville electorate. This would have been a good opportunity—Greg O'Connor: You should have done a lot of things before you started speaking. CHRIS PENK: —to acknowledge them. But notwithstanding the feedback that I'm receiving in real time on my speech from one of the Mr O'Connors who inhabit this Chamber—"Mr O'Connor the Third" perhaps—I will proceed with noting that New Zealand is indeed giving up something. That's inevitable and natural in an agreement in which we are also gaining something. So there are pros and cons—literally things that are for and things that are against—and it's quite right that people engaging in the debate and discussion about the TPP whether a political party or perhaps interested or even concerned citizens but it is important that we all do acknowledge through the process that we will gain much and we will give up something. That as I say is not only inevitable but also natural and is not in itself something that we should fear or resile from. My colleague Alastair Scott gave a very good dissertation on intellectual property in relation to wine—particularly ice wine—and it brought to mind the fact that a rosé by any other name would smell as sweet. So while there are restrictions of course in the way that we can talk about certain products that we formulate or products that we produce so to speak none the less the world will continue to turn in the way that our people will continue to produce these things and sell these things offshore as well as onshore and we will all be the beneficiaries of that. Part of the benefit that we derive as a country is in relation to the fact that these industries are supported such that they can also provide with the benefits of economies of scale domestically. But also of course they're paying taxation to our Government and that's revenue that's needed for many different things that whichever Government of the day inevitably does need. So through various forms of GST income tax and so forth it's a good thing in itself that we have a productive economy—"productive" of course in the literal sense that we are producing goods and services that those who are overseas wish to purchase from our people. I will conclude on my theme of examining particular words because of course the words of the treaty itself are important. The words of the law that is ratifying the treaty are important as well. There are some suspensions which is a point of difference I note between different parties within the Government so it's a suspension of disbelief I suppose as far as Labour and New Zealand First go given the before and after analysis that we can provide in terms of their positions pre- and post-election. But also there are some aspects of the agreement that can and may come back into force. That detail has been well canvassed by other speakers before me in this debate so I'll leave it there except to congratulate all those involved and say that we look forward to the benefits and we accept the costs of this agreement going forward. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call—five minutes."