Mitchell Mark: Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMitchell Mark: Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 12 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:11064. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I have some sympathy for the member David Clark who has just taken his seat. That was a real struggle for him. If actually you have a look and try to find the substance in that speech you will struggle. It was a whole lot of flimflam and that is what we saw during the select committee process as well. There was a heavy focus on process. So let me very quickly just address the process side of things because I want to acknowledge that we have got Dr David Clark as the trade portfolio holder who subbed on to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. We did not see him for all the hearings—David Bennett: Didn’t see him for any of it.MARK MITCHELL: Well that is probably true. Dr Kennedy Graham from the Greens of course will probably focus on process as well and I will acknowledge Fletcher Tabuteau from New Zealand First.The process—what we did first of all was we doubled the amount of time for people to be able to make submissions on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The text itself was publicly available in November of last year and of course we had the national interest analysis as well which was available to people. We also as a committee made a decision that we would accept late submissions and we did that and we worked with submitters who came to us. Professor Jane Kelsey is a high-profile example of someone who was also working on the Waitangi Tribunal hearing around the TPP and she requested additional time. We accommodated her we gave her additional time and she came along and she was able to make her submission.Hon Simon Bridges: Did you win her over?MARK MITCHELL: To be honest with you we were surprised at her submission. It was very low-key and there were not any major issues that were raised during her submission that the committee had not already heard.I want to address some of those issues but one thing I do want to raise—and I find it very interesting looking across at the Labour benches. I know there are free traders in the Labour caucus. I do not see any of them in the House today. Maybe “Stuie” Nash—Stuart Nash maybe. Stuart will have a great feeling in terms of how important it is for the manufacturing businesses in the primary industry—very strong primary industries—that he has in his electorate and he will understand the importance of the TPP to them. So let us see if he takes a call. I will be interested to see who takes a call.It was great to see Grant Robertson come on to the committee. It was great to see him come on to participate in the deliberation because what he did when he came on to the committee was he highlighted some points that were actually very positive and that were very very good. He highlighted things that were great about the agreement that actually had not been picked up. You did a great job of that Grant. We actually appreciate your input. It might have been helpful if you had spoken with David before you came to the committee but anyway I do not want to dwell too much on that.What I want to dwell on is the bottom lines—[Interruption] No that is right. Let us dwell on the bottom lines that Andrew Little gave us because there is something here that needs to be addressed. So let us go through the first one: “Pharmac must be protected …”—Pharmac must be protected. Let us go to our committee report. “The PHARMAC model will remain unchanged under TPP including PHARMAC’s ability to prioritise which pharmaceuticals get listed for reimbursement … and its negotiating practices. However there would be some additional transparency requirements associated with PHARMAC’s processes and this would involve potential costs of $4.5 million … and $2.2 million of ongoing costs per year.” So the Pharmac model is protected. Tick—let us tick that one off. Pharmac is protected Grant. Great news.The second bottom line is that “Corporations cannot successfully sue the Government for regulating in the public interest …”. So this goes back to investor-State dispute settlement. Let us see what the committee uncovered in terms of investor-State dispute settlement: “The ISDS mechanism in Section B of Chapter 9 provides for the settlement of disputes between foreign investors and the government of the country in which the investment is made. If a dispute cannot be settled within six months through consultation and negotiation the investor may submit the issue to arbitration. The ISDS mechanism applies only to the investment provisions in the TPP. Despite ISDS governments retain the right to regulate in the public interest under TPP. Important safeguards include protecting discriminatory regulatory actions by the New Zealand Government to protect legitimate public welfare objectives such as public health safety and the environment.” It could not be any clearer.It also says: “We note that the ISDS provisions enable protection for New Zealanders who may be operating in countries with a different legal system from New Zealand. We also note that there is no way in which TPP affects New Zealand’s sovereignty and New Zealand’s right to legislate in the public interest.” We could not be any clearer. Let us tick that box. Another of Labour’s bottom lines is that “The Treaty of Waitangi must be upheld …”. Well we have seen the recent findings from the hearing that was held around that. Let us tick that box. Another is that “Meaningful gains are made for our farmers in tariff reductions and market access …”.What I find very interesting is that we are not going to hear from the Hon Phil Goff. Why? As a past trade Minister he supports this agreement along with another past leader Helen Clark. She also supports it and says that we cannot afford to be out of it. The interesting thing is the Hon Phil Goff has no economic portfolio and no trade-related portfolios. We have got David Shearer who made a very good contribution on the committee. Again he has no economic and no trade portfolios. Where is he? I do not know if we will hear from him.The Hon Damien O’Connor—a free trader. He is a free trader. He holds the primary industries portfolio. Let us see who came and made a submission to the committee and who said this agreement was critically important to their industries and the future growth of New Zealand. We had the Meat Industry Association and we had Beef and Lamb New Zealand the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association New Zealand Winegrowers the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand Fonterra—of course—Export New Zealand ManufacturingNZ Horticulture New Zealand Inc. the New Zealand Horticultural Export Authority Federated Farmers—I could go on and on. I would be very interested to see whether the Hon Damien O’Connor as the primary industries portfolio holder will come to this House today and stand up and say—Hon Simon Bridges: Oh I doubt it—I doubt it.MARK MITCHELL: —Labour is not supporting this free-trade agreement. I doubt that we will see that—I agree with you. I do not think that we will see that. Let us tick that box.The other thing that I am very interested for the next speaker to get up and address is this. When we had the five bottom lines put out by the Labour Party by the Labour leader the wording around the restriction of farmland and housing was just that—the “restriction”—“The restriction of foreign sales on residential properties and farm land.”Dr David Clark: No it was a ban.MARK MITCHELL: No it is not. No it was not a ban.Dr David Clark: It was clear in our policy.MARK MITCHELL: No it was not a ban. The ban has been introduced. This is very clear—the fact that it was a restriction. We have the right settings. We have the ability right now and we manage the restriction on foreign ownership of our farms and residential property very very well.If you have changed your position and if you are trying to—this is an omnibus bill. You guys are faced with a big problem. How are you going to back yourselves out of your position? That is what you are doing right now. You are—Grant Robertson: Hey Mark thank you so much for the advice eh.MARK MITCHELL: I am sure that there are some interesting conversations going on in your caucus room. Grant how are you going to back yourselves out of this position? You know it is a very poor one. Thank you.