Graham Kennedy: Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGraham Kennedy: Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 12 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:11070. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): Every once in a while there is something that occurs in national politics that becomes a seminal moment. In 2016 the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement has highlighted to a considerable extent the political misjudgment of this Government and the shortcomings in our constitutional system of governance. In the general debate yesterday I highlighted the shortcomings of the procedural observance by the Government in the select committee process and even our constitutional shortcomings in according full powers to the executive and no real role to the legislature in the examination of major international treaties such as the TPP. I shall not rehearse these views here other than to repeat that because by a majority decision there is to be no parliamentary debate on the treaty itself I am left with no alternative but to have complete freedom to address the policy considerations of the treaty. There is no other way to record due respect to the people of New Zealand who have submitted in large numbers and with deep passion before the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and who oppose—by 39 to 26 percent—ratification.I turn now to the substance of the treaty setting aside the content of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill which will be referred to us in the select committee. The Green minority view which is part of the committee’s report identified the substantive shortcomings of the TPP agreement. They can be read online but here is a summary. First: “The Government is adopting the wrong criteria for judging the national interest. Even applying its own criteria the net economic benefit is weak; the Government’s commitment to TPP is essentially political and its political judgment is contestable.” Second: “The TPP is portrayed as a ‘free-trade’ document which it demonstrably is not; it envisages partial economic integration with provisions on investment land ownership and public health policy that are invasive of recognised levels of national sovereignty potentially intimidating for our national legislature.” Third: “The TPP provisions as with other contemporary FTAs is inimical to the imperative of sustainability relegating environmental protection measures (particularly climate policy) to ‘clip-on’ status rather than having them as central and integral to public policy.”These three criticisms come together into one overall critique when we search for the reason why this Government attaches such high importance to the TPP itself and also to rushing it through with unseemly haste. The fundamental question to be asked of the Government the bottom line of the whole complex debate is this: what is the basic rationale for determining that ratifying the TPP agreement is in the net national interest? The explanatory note states that this is an omnibus bill introduced under the Standing Orders because it deals with “an interrelated topic that can be regarded as implementing a single broad policy.” So what is the single broad policy the Government is pursuing with this bill which seeks to amend 11 existing Acts? This is nowhere specified. The explanatory note asserts that there is a single broad policy but it does not say what that policy is.So we are left to turn to a press release by the Minister of Trade who unsurprisingly advances the ministerial view that the TPP is important for New Zealand because it will remove trade barriers for exporters. That is as close as we get to the single broad policy identified by the Government for this massive ominous mysterious and altogether intimidating legislation. But that is not a single broad policy; it is a specific national policy—the promotion of New Zealand exports. If that is a single broad policy it is insufficient in itself. It ignores other economic considerations. It ignores broader political considerations and there are many of those as identified by the huge majority of New Zealanders who sent in 3000 written submissions and the 255 who testified before the committee. Yet in the name of the export interest the bill will change New Zealand legislation in the following areas: agriculture health copyright customs hazardous substances the internet overseas investment patents trademarks and horticulture.The national interest analysis prepared by intelligent people in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade runs to 277 pages. It is a useless document because it was prepared by the negotiators even as the ink was drying. It therefore lacks any pretence of objectivity. In fact it should be naturally viewed with suspicion for that reason. But let us peruse the national interest analysis for its content. “The reasons for … becoming a Party to TPP” it says “are … economic and strategic. Trade is critical to continued growth and prosperity”. There is the goal of growing exports to 40 percent of GDP by 2025. Key to this is the removal of barriers to trade and investment. Standing aside from TPP “risks marginalisation and decline for New Zealand in the region.” as we heard from the Minister of Trade. Our competitiveness would be “eroded and trade and investment would be diverted away”. Joining TPP therefore provides “a significant net advantage for New Zealand resulting from increased exports and greater regional economic integration.”That is the stated rationale used by the Government for ratifying the TPP. With respect it is wrong. The fundamental mistake is asserting that “Trade is critical to continued growth and prosperity.” That is incorrect. The World Bank statistics show clearly that there is no close evidential correlation between a country’s percentage of exports to GDP and national wealth. Of the 161 countries ranked by the World Bank New Zealand is ranked at 105. We are at 29 percent. Above us are some very poor countries. There is Maldives at 108 percent Viet Nam at 66 percent the Republic of the Congo at 73 percent Cambodia at 62 percent Guyana at 51 percent and Benin at 36 percent. Below us are some quite richer countries. The UK is below us so are Australia and Japan and so is the United States of America at 13 percent. The fundamental assumption that underpins the whole edifice of “New Zealand Inc.” is based largely on myth—the higher the export to GDP ratio the wealthier a country becomes. That is not necessarily correct.Comparative advantage underpins trade but a blind devotion to trade at any cost does not necessarily underpin the global public good. Clearly exports as a fraction of GDP are not as alleged by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the national interest analysis the critical driver to growth and prosperity. There is nothing wrong with trade per se; it depends on the terms. There was not one submitter who opposed trade. The Green Party supports having a healthy trading regime for New Zealand that meets the strict standards of sustainability and fairness required of our 21st century global society of which a sound global economy is a legitimate part. But we must be honest with ourselves whether in Government Opposition or the public. Let us not delude ourselves that export growth is the Holy Grail to national riches—something to which this Government locked in the grip of “New Zealand Inc.” pays humble obeisance.The Green Party does not accept the underlying rationale for the TPP and will oppose its ratification and this implementing legislation.