Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): It was the wave that did it—Madam Chair thank you for your excellent choice there. Could I also thank the Minister who's just resumed his seat Damien O'Connor because as I mentioned to him when we were having a discussion at the start of this session it is appreciated when Ministers engage with the Opposition and their questions. I want to thank him for having responded to a number. I was just a little concerned that he got the call when he did because I have a few more questions I'd like to put to him and I hope he'll have a chance to respond.Hon Member: Gosh that's a surprising tactic!Hon TIM MACINDOE: I do also—ha ha!—want to acknowledge my colleague the member for Kaikōura because I was utterly incensed when he stood up and got the call before I did but I thought that he actually gave—Andrew Bayly: A very good speech.Hon TIM MACINDOE: —a very good summary. It was a very good speech Mr Bayly. You're quite right.Andrew Bayly: But you could be even better.Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you. I'll do my best. If you would stop interrupting I'll certainly get on with it. The point I was going to make was that not only did Mr Smith answer in an intelligent and clear fashion the National Party's thoughts on the Greens' Supplementary Order Paper but also he gave a very clear explanation at the end of his speech as to the primary benefits of this particular agreement and free-trade benefits overall. So that is constructive and useful.My colleague the member for Tāmaki made the point in his contribution earlier that this is a fairly technical bill with two quite small parts. I want to acknowledge him again for the fine job that he has done steering this bill through the select committee. He is an excellent chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and that's widely felt right across the House. It's a great pleasure to work with him and I know that submitters felt that he treated them with great courtesy throughout the whole of the submission process.Let me just remind the committee that what we're dealing with here is a bill which makes changes necessary for New Zealand to ratify the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). That's probably fairly self-evident. The second thing is that it incorporates most of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA) which had been signed and ratified back in 2016. The third thing is that the bill would amend the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Act to reflect the new CPTPP agreement.I made the point when we were debating Part 1 that a number of submitters came along to express their real concern and in particular their feeling that it was a cosmetic change and really there was no substantive change. What I'd like to do now is just give those submitters a bit of a chance to be heard because I think while I am firmly in favour of this agreement and by extension naturally—Andrew Bayly: It's not called an agreement; it's a treaty.Hon TIM MACINDOE: —support this particular bill—thank you Mr Bayly. I see you've piped up again. I will try to do my level best to help you through yours as well.What I just wanted to put on record was that when submitters came to talk about the different sections of this bill it was notable that all of the individuals—and I do mean all of the individuals—who made submissions were opposed to the bill. I looked through and I recognised quite a few names—in fact I think we've got quite a strong list of Green Party members here. But nevertheless it's valid that their concerns are not only put into the record—and to some extent we did that in the second reading—but in the committee stage to give the Minister in the chair a chance to answer some of those questions because ultimately it is desirable for the public to have a good understanding and a clear—if not acceptance at least an awareness of why decisions have been made.So I'm going to ask the Minister a few questions which I think are relevant to this Part 2 of the bill. In particular one of its key features is that it includes commitments to safeguard and enforce high labour and environmental standards across the Asia-Pacific region and yet one or two of the submissions—and I can't cover all of them but on behalf of Mrs Bronwyn Judge her submission included the concern that The haste with which the CPTPP has been signed leaves the question as to whether the goals of the CPTPP have been considered in relationship to more important goals such as the zero carbon emissions target by 2050." I would simply ask the Minister if he would like to comment on that. I'm sure that Mrs Judge and others who share that view would be grateful for an answer even if they may not necessarily agree with it.Oliver Hailes is a well-known submitter to select committees and he came along to our committee both in the previous Parliament when the TPPA was being discussed and again when the CPTPP came up. One of the points that he made was that "The overriding purpose of the TPP has always been to secure the formal separation of politics and economics"—well that's his view—"Thus it serves disproportionately the interests of foreign investors and multinational corporations over those of voters workers consumers local businesses indigenous peoples taxpayers patients and their environment"—[Bell rung] Thank you very much Madam Chair; pity the bell has interrupted—"And when the projected economic gains are so trifling" says Mr Hailes "it is clear that ratification of the TPP"—or in this case the CPTPP—"would be against New Zealand's national interest."Now I accept the fact that the Minister has already to some extent covered the national interest but I now would like just to pick out a little bit more from Mr Hailes' submission in the hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of his concerns: "One need only turn to the NIA's breakdown of the sectoral winners" says Mr Hailes "in order to see how the TPP is unlikely to create new opportunities for international trade: meat dairy and other agriculture are poised to enjoy nearly 72 percent of the total estimated tariff savings." Now I fundamentally disagree with that view but I'm hoping that the Minister might be able to take the call and explain to Mr Hailes—because I'm assuming that he disagrees with that view as well—why he feels that way. Mr Hailes also went on to say "it is clear that the TPP is likely to entrench New Zealand's long-lamented dependence on animal agriculture rather than create new opportunities for economic diversification." It's really helpful that not only is the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister for Trade and Export Growth but he is also the Minister of Agriculture because I'm sure that he would want to be able to answer that question from the benefit of his considerable knowledge of that portfolio and that issue.Just another one from Jen Olsen who's the organiser for TPPA Action Dunedin—and I apologise to the others who submitted on this bill; time obviously wouldn't permit me to go through all of them and I am trying to ensure that I make this relevant to Part 2 of our discussion. Jen Olsen who's the organiser for TPPA Action Dunedin said that he was "seriously concerned by the potential human social and environmental impacts of the … (CPTPP)." He is a social worker and he concluded by saying he didn't want to see a future "where we are locked into a system that permanently damages our social and environmental well being." So I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to his concerns when he takes his next call.Maybe just one last one—and I'm not entirely sure that I've got the name of the submitter but he had previously opposed the TPPA he continues to oppose the CPTPP—or "whatever it's called" as he said—and he made this particular claim: "There are many errors in the cult of free trade that has dominated New Zealand thought since the mistakes of the mid-1980s and the unquestioning allegiance to principles that are fundamentally and fatally flawed remains evident in the blind pursuit of a path that will lead inexorably to ruin within the next two decades." Now I have to say there's such a rhetorical flourish in that it could almost have been uttered by my learned colleague the member for Hunua. Although I'm not sure that it would've met philosophically with his direction certainly the hyperbole the rhetoric seems Bayly-esque in the extreme.But I do hope that the Minister would like to respond to that particular submitter because as I say I think it is an important part of a functioning democracy that we give the Minister the chance to respond to the concerns of submitters. These were the things that we were hearing along with many other concerns during the course of the select committee process. I recognise that this is a very technical bill. To some extent it might seem that philosophically this goes well beyond the provisions of the bill which is simply designed to make the changes from the TPPA to the CPTPP but I think that the public of New Zealand in particular those who take the effort to make submissions do have a right to feel that their concerns have been heard have been articulated in the Parliament. I do again acknowledge the fact that the Minister in the chair has been responding to a number of questions and concerns that have been raised by speakers in the committee tonight and I'm hoping that he will take the opportunity to respond to some of those submitters at all.Now having mentioned that all of the individual submitters were against the bill—and I do farewell the Deputy Speaker as she makes her way—it would nevertheless be remiss of me not to point out that of the organisations that submitted on the panel a large number were in favour and they included some pretty significant players. Perhaps if I could just mention a few: we had Agcarm Export New Zealand Federated Farmers of New Zealand Fonterra the Fresh Fruit Company of New Zealand Horticulture New Zealand Medicines New Zealand the New Zealand Horticultural Export Authority New Zealand Winegrowers the New Zealand International Business Forum the Wellington Chamber of Commerce and Zespri just to name some of the better-known ones. But the fact that all of those organisations took the trouble to make detailed submissions to the committee in support of this bill and in support of this agreement shows that it is something that is having wide-reaching implications and as the Minister in the chair and Mr Smith have both noted underlines just how significant and how special this opportunity is for New Zealand."