Nash StuartHon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Madam Assistant Speaker if you've been listening to the debate over the last 20 minutes you would have seen two polar opposite sides of the argument here; both I think a little bit out of balance. You heard Mr Brownlee talk about the fact that this was the best thing since sliced bread—it was going to deliver in a way that nothing ever could possibly deliver for New Zealand. Then on the other side you heard from Golriz Ghahraman who basically said that we're ceding our sovereignty that this isn't about trade and that this is going to be the death knell of the New Zealand economy and democracy.My view is that neither of those represents the really true situation. However as someone who used to engage in international trade this is a document and this is an agreement that I think we need to support. The Prime Minister herself has said and the Minister for Trade and Export Growth himself has said that this is not the perfect agreement but we do need to be part of it—of that there is no doubt.If we have a look at the report of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and go through the points that they noted I think it's worth having a look at those. There are strategic reasons for signing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and these are important reasons. We had a choice to make. We had a choice about whether we were inside the tent and could influence global trade and decisions going forward certainly in our sphere of influence; or we could be outside the tent. To be outside the tent would be absolutely purely idealistic and you know what in the end I just don't think it would have been the right thing for us to do. I think it's better for us to have an agreement like this be inside the tent and actually play an active role in changing things that we don't necessarily agree with. I think that this is what the report says and I absolutely agree with that. There are commercial interests in respect of signing the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Again we are a trading nation. We have acknowledged that. I think every speaker has spoken about that. This is how we are going to grow our economy. One of the problems—if it is a problem; and I'm the Minister for Small Business—of the New Zealand economy is that we've got a population of 4½ million people. You can only get so big if you're operating inside New Zealand and for those with aspirations we know you've got to be able to export. We know you've got to be able to export on the same footing as those from competitor nations. I would have the concern that as trade develops—and it is developing at a great rate of knots. It's moving from being large multinationals only with platforms that are operating these days like Alibaba and eBay; and it's moving towards being small organisations and small to medium sized enterprises that actually operate from places like Napier or Gore or New Plymouth or wherever. You don't have to be a massive multinational to be able to export.I think the commercial reasons are very sound for us to be in this. I don't think it reduces tariffs fast enough—let's be honest about this. But again what negotiations are about is compromise. I don't think in my time of doing this I've ever entered into a negotiation and got absolutely everything I wanted. That's what free-trade agreements are about: it's about putting down a set of principles and it's about going out there and it is about negotiation. That's why it's called a negotiation: there's a little bit of give; there's a little bit of take. We ceded sovereignty when we signed the anti-whaling convention. It means that as a nation we are now no longer allowed to whale. Well that's fair enough and we agree with that. But I'm just saying: don't say that because a free-trade agreement erodes a little part of sovereignty that that is necessarily bad.When we come to ISDS or the investor-State dispute settlement clauses I don't want to say that Sandra Kelsey's wrong but I think that she takes a different view than I take—Louisa Wall: Jane.Hon STUART NASH: —having had a look at it. Jane Kelsey sorry—Jane Kelsey.You know in order for ISDS clauses to kick in there has to be egregious harm. The test for that is incredibly high. One thing I would say about ISDS clauses or arbitration is they have sort of moved away from where they were originally supposed to be. It was supposed to be a quick and relatively inexpensive way to sort out dispute settlements. Now they take a long time and they cost millions of dollars. But as Mr Brownlee highlighted and I have to agree with him on this point this also benefits New Zealand exporters as well. But I don't think the ISDS clauses are the big bogeymen that everyone paints them out to be. I just want to reiterate: this is not the perfect agreement. This is not nirvana but it is an agreement that I think we need to be part of and I'm proud of the fact that David Parker did such a good job to get us there.