Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Malo ni Mr Assistant Speaker in recognition of Tokelauan Language Week. As I rise to take a call on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill I want to begin by addressing some of the rather flippant comments addressed to us on this side of the House by members opposite who have said that it's been a pendulum swing a swing in political something that I didn't quite catch—indicating that it's been a rather arbitrary decision made by this Government to now support the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) when we didn't support the Trans-Pacific Partnership initially. I want to begin by saying that a Government—any Government and this Government definitely—has the duty to govern in a way that we advance the status of our people to ensure that we further the well-being of New Zealanders and of course to be a good global citizen as well. So it wasn't an arbitrary decision at all. We had five bottom lines. There were reasons why we opposed the agreement that was previously ratified and signed by the previous Government and I'll get to that in a minute. I also want to point out from discussions with many people outside of this House some of the benefits and the importance of trade to the person on the street to the average New Zealander. Now the export sector in New Zealand sustains over half a million New Zealand jobs. It is an important driver of productivity of employment and of incomes in New Zealand. Research tells us that productivity per New Zealand worker is 36 percent greater if they're in a firm that is exporting compared to if they're in one that isn't. Independent economic modelling tells us that once the CPTPP is fully in effect we're expected to see New Zealand's real GDP increase by $4 billion. The opportunity cost of not signing up is a $173 million decline in our GDP. So there is an argument there of course that signing up to this would be beneficial. What we had an issue with previously was the cost that this would pose to New Zealand and that's where the five bottom lines came into play. Before I get into that—just very briefly—what does this bill do? Basically it makes changes that are necessary for New Zealand to ratify the CPTPP as it is now post-negotiation by this Government. As others have also pointed out of course it's a free-trade agreement that involves New Zealand and 10 other countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Now the bottom lines that I just want to touch upon: the first was meaningful gains in tariff reductions and market access and that's what we have seen. Tariffs will be eliminated on New Zealand exports to CPTPP economies with a few exceptions but it also means that our exporters are not disadvantaged when it comes to important high-value markets like Japan that we haven't previously had trade agreements with. The protection of Pharmac continues which is retained and incredibly importantly—and as I began—the duty of a Government is to look out for the interests of our people and one of our bottom lines was the ability to restrict house sales to foreigners and to govern in our national interest. That was one that we stuck by and that this Government fought for and advocated for. So when members opposite claim that there's not been much change I refer you to the 22 suspensions within the CPTPP and of course the fact that we have passed the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill—which came into effect on 22 October—that actually allows us to do just that. The fourth: upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The clause was almost unheard of internationally because of the strong rights that it provides in terms of regulating for the benefits of an indigenous population here. The final point: the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses which of course most of the submissions pointed to. Not perfect—the Government considers that we do have robust safeguards to protect Government's rights to regulate and prevent the abuse of ISDS by investors but of course shares the overarching concerns about the fact that it even exists. But I come back to the point that I made at the start: it's about weighing the costs and benefits. Is it perfect? No. Are there significant gains for New Zealanders as a result of the renegotiated CPTPP? Yes. Is the opportunity cost of not signing up high? Yes. As such I feel that this bill—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member's time has expired.