12. Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership—Announcements and ImprovementsRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Trade and Export GrowthComprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership—Announcements and Improvements12. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: What announcements has the Government made regarding trade and export growth?SPEAKER: Just before the member answers National just lost two supplementaries thanks to Nathan Guy from tomorrow.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): Today the Government published the full text and the national interest analysis for the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (CPTPPA). It will deliver significant benefits for New Zealand workers and exporters particularly in meat kiwifruit and wine sectors as well as small business. It's conservatively estimated the agreement will boost New Zealand's real GDP by between $1.2 billion and $4 billion annually whereas if New Zealand does not sign up we'll suffer a net GDP loss. The national interest analysis finds there will be a net positive outcome for employment and no negative impact on social regulation health human rights the environment or the Treaty of Waitangi. This is a progressive agreement that's good for New Zealand and I thank our trade negotiators who have worked so hard on the agreement as well as the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister for their leadership in critical aspects closing the deal.Rino Tirikatene: Why did the Government publish the national interest analysis before the CPTPPA is signed?Hon DAVID PARKER: Governments are not required to publish the national interest analysis until after a trade agreement is signed and tabled in Parliament but this Government believes it's critical the public are informed about the impact of the agreement as soon as possible. It's been less than a month since the negotiations were concluded and officials have worked day and night to get the national interest analysis completed and out to the public. There will be a rigorous treaty examination process before we ratify the agreement with multiple opportunities for the public to have their say as well as debates within this House.Rino Tirikatene: What significant improvements has the Government made in the CPTPPA compared to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA)?Hon DAVID PARKER: Under the CPTPPA Pharmac is fully protected. We've narrowed the ability of overseas corporates to sue the Government in overseas tribunals. We would have liked to remove investor-State dispute settlement clauses completely but we couldn't given the late stage in which we took over negotiations.Hon Steven Joyce: Did nothing. Come on Sir Humphrey sit down! Sit down Sir Humphrey!Hon DAVID PARKER: Perhaps the most significant change is that we have ensured—Hon Steven Joyce: You're not convincing anybody. Come on Sir Humphrey sit down!Hon DAVID PARKER: —that New Zealanders have the ability to control the sale of their homes to overseas buyers now Mr Joyce—Hon Steven Joyce: Sit down Sir Humphrey! Sit down!Hon DAVID PARKER: —and into the future and compared with where that Government was leading us we have secured the outcome for New Zealand.David Seymour: Supplementary.SPEAKER: Order! Before that member has a supplementary—and I will give him one—I do want to say to the Hon Steven Joyce that this is an important issue and to suggest that Ministers don't have the right to answer and to address them in the terms that he did is unparliamentary and it's not becoming of a member as senior as he is. [Hon Steven Joyce rises] No I'm not going to entertain discussion on that.David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that the so-called CPTPPA is simply the exact original text of the TPPA plus a four-page cover letter?Hon DAVID PARKER: There are 22 changes from the TPPA and we have protected the right of New Zealand to control who owns our homes. We pressed strongly for these changes that were made because they're important to New Zealanders. If the member cannot comprehend the difference between the two agreements and why we sought to gain the changes that we've made particularly around homeownership it demonstrates that he's really out of touch with what New Zealanders want.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister is it not a fact that since the substantial changes have been made the Americans who were opposed to the original deal the TPPA are now expressing interest in coming back in; and is that not some evidence of a substantial change that was concerning both their country and our country on issues of sovereignty?Hon DAVID PARKER: I think that the Deputy Prime Minister has hit the nub of the issue. New Zealanders and Americans were concerned that the prior form of the agreement unduly encroached on the ability of future Governments to do what was in the interests of their people. I think the most obvious example of that was that as the deal was proceeding New Zealand was going to lose the right to control who buys New Zealand homes. We've fixed that. David Seymour: Is it not the case that because the original TPPA text is all still completely intact under the CPTPPA if the Americans were to try and re-enter the deal as the Deputy Prime Minister has hinted they would be able to reactivate perhaps all of the conditions that were struck out?Hon DAVID PARKER: No the member is completely wrong.Ian McKelvie: I seek leave to table evidence that we are neither comatose nor mouldy in the Manawatū.SPEAKER: Well I think the member might want to be a little bit more specific in the form of the documentation he proposes to table. I presume he's not going to sit on the Table.Ian McKelvie: I was going to table myself Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: The experience from a very long time ago is that that's not helpful. Does the member want a point of order or is he just standing up?Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I just confirm that the term Sir Humphrey" is now an unparliamentary term?SPEAKER: I think it's a matter of context and during question time when a serious matter is being addressed continued interjection and the interjection—it was partly the term used but more the suggestion—I think made five times by the member that the Minister should sit down is an indication that he is not showing due respect to a Minister answering a question."