Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill

Thanks, Mr Chair. Hey, look, it’s a real privilege to be up here and speaking in terms of the title. If ever there was a bill where the title was important, this is one of them. This is one of them. The CPTPP—what a mouthful. And you know what? We—

💬 Michael Wood: That’s not the title.

Ha, ha! We—this is our bill. This is our bill. OK? The Hon Todd McClay and the Hon Tim Groser—they worked for years negotiating this 6,000-page document, so this is ours; we are claiming it. There’s so much in a title here. There’s so much in a title. The Government, they protested in the streets over this bill. They said that this was wrong, wrong, wrong. There were so many things wrong with it they protested in the street. They told their supporters they were going to oppose this with every bone in their bodies. And you know what? This free-trade agreement, it’s all about improved market access. But this Government has not negotiated one single change in the market access provisions, not one—zero. Not one single change. So their claims are exaggerated.

So the only real changes we’ve got here are two letters, “C” and “P”. This Government, they’re defensive about this. They’ve spent so much time telling the public that this was a bad free-trade agreement. They promised their supporters they wouldn’t support it. They said that the market access agreements were rubbish in respect of dairy and the rest didn’t amount to much. Now they have to admit that they were playing cynical politics, siding with the isolationists and extremists that simply never back free-trade. Now, Professor Jane Kelsey, a strong opponent to this bill when it was the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), has said there is no significant change in the new deal since this new Government’s got involved. It’s essentially the same bill, which is why this Government is very prone to exaggerating minor changes to things like the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) clause.

So these changes are minor. This is a 6,000-page document, and there are two pages of changes—that is 0.03 percent of this document that has been changed. So it goes from some gross, terrible piece of legislation to the best thing since sliced bread, with zero—

💬 Barbara Kuriger: And two more letters in the name.

Ha, ha! Yeah, two more letters in the name, two pages, and a 0.03 percent change, and all of a sudden it’s rocking and rolling. Now, I’ve looked at this departmental disclosure statement and it said there are 22 suspensions to this document—22 suspensions. Most of them relate to the USA pulling out. They relate to intellectual property and pharmaceuticals and they relate to the USA pulling out, and they can be reinstated if the USA comes back in.

So, look, we know it’s our bill. We know it is good for our country. We know that there’s been 0.03 percent of change in it, so that’s why we’re behind it. That’s why we’re supporting it. Now, this ISDS clause that’s in it—that’s been in trade agreements for years and we’ve never been sued by anyone else, with this ISDS clause. So this was held up as the bogeyman, but it isn’t. It’s been in every clause. The ISDS clause was a straw man, and New Zealand First knows it.

So we’re changing it to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). It’s the same agreement. It’s good for New Zealand. It’s good for our exporters. We’re supporting it. We’re not going to stand in the way. So with all the bluff and bluster and BS that we’re hearing from the other side of the House, for the good of New Zealanders, we, the National Party, are going to support the CPTPP, which is the TPP with two letters on the front, and that’s why we supporting it. I commend this bill to the House.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I think, actually, it’s twofold on the member who has just resumed his seat, Michael Wood, that, one, they’re trying to shut down this discussion before we’ve even had a second speech and, secondly, more words were uttered by that member who stood up to ask that the question be put than actual changes in the agreement. So thank you for the symbolism there.

In terms of these title and commencement clauses 1 to 3, I will try to keep my comments relatively brief. I’m not actually going to be proposing a whole lot of name changes. But the primary purpose is that, actually, the name change is not the substantial aspect. Really, it’s symbolic, if you will—and I know other members have pointed out that simply changing the name has not materially changed what was once known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). But I do want to acknowledge all those who have been part of this process, from the naming to the 6,000-plus pages. Although, as the Minister in the chair, Damien O’Connor, has pointed out—is it 30 sections or 30 parts? The count’s still continuing.

But a number of people have been involved in pulling this agreement together: obviously, the Ministers who took the nominal lead from Tim Groser—Todd McClay and now the Hon David Parker. They need to be acknowledged. But, I suppose, in some ways, in entitling this bill and talking to it—acknowledgment to all the officials, the advisers, and the negotiators, who put in the hard yards and then, I would suggest, perhaps have to put down some patience when we go through this rightful theatre in the Chamber.

There have not been substantial changes. There have been side letters, which are important, obviously, in continuing the Government’s intention, and that’s their full right. But why I wanted to take this call—and I don’t intend to introduce those titles but those really particular elements that have been of concern to people remain protected and always were protected. So Pharmac and the Treaty of Waitangi were two that were quite often mentioned, and, perhaps, particularly for the likes of the Green Party, which I’d suggest at times have created mischief around this along with some of the protest groups—Pharmac remains protected. Pharmac was always protected. Those that we negotiated with did understand, or came to understand, the model that we operate, and so there were no further protections, I would suggest. In terms of the Treaty of Waitangi, the sovereign right of this realm to actually work with indigenous people, to be a cosignatory in that agreement, was never under threat. So, to that end, it’s a good agreement and it was a good agreement when it was the TPP.

It’s excellent that the commencement date is the date after Royal assent. There is no need now that we’ve reached this point to slow things down, I would suggest, any further. Again, without belabouring the point, the agreement itself, the trade treaty, has been ratified, and this is the domestic legislation to bring it into effect. There is no need to delay it any further, and it would be my hope, here in clause 2, that once this particular bill does become law through Royal assent at the hand of the viceregal representative, we are able to move very swiftly into that which is clause 2, around the actual commencement—that’s obviously up to the Minister or Ministers to decide. In terms, then, of any other titular changes, it’s all fairly minor.

So, as I say, in order to actually give some seriousness to this, I think I’m not going to try to play around with the words—or, rather, the two letters “C” and “P”—but, rather, to again acknowledge the work that’s been done to get us this far; to acknowledge that, in this side’s view, there have not been the substantial changes that have been often put forward in discussions; and, again, to emphasise that those really important aspects to New Zealand, I think, have always been recognised by our negotiators, particularly that around the Treaty of Waitangi and Pharmac. So I’ll end my contribution there, if I might.

Mr Chair, thank you very much. I do take pleasure in speaking in this part of the debate, in the title and in the commencement. The Government whip has just asked me to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to change the name, but there’s no need to, because whether it’s called “Comprehensive and Progressive” or just the same old Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the public understands that it is the same deal that was negotiated over a very long period of time under the previous Government, particularly when Tim Groser was the Minister, and since then there have been some changes which almost every submitter, bar none, thought were only slight changes. In fact, those who submitted and came before the committee who had heard the Government say that it was a completely different trade deal had a very, very different opinion. And these are some of the very same people who, when Government parties were in Opposition, were out on the hustings, out on the campaign trail, out on the protest street saying that it wasn’t a good deal.

So it’s called the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. It could be called the “Revised Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement” because, actually, it’s just been revised. It could be the “Same Old TPP with Some Very Minor Changes Bill”. It could be “Just the TPP”. It could be “Look, It Actually Looks Exactly the Same as the TPP”. There are many ways to describe this.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: How about the “National-Negotiated TPP”?

Well, there we heard it: the “National-Negotiated TPP”. But here is the interesting thing: how did the Labour Government, in a very short period of time—in fact, in a matter of days—come up with the words “comprehensive and progressive”—

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: There is no Labour Government.

—to put at the beginning of this? How did they do that? Maybe it was New Zealand First—the Labour-led Government. Well, it’s quite straightforward. At a previous meeting that had been held in Vietnam, the Canadians came up with the idea. The Canadians said that if they were to go ahead with the TPP without the US there they agreed there would have to be some changes, perhaps some of the things that the US had wanted or had negotiated should be held back. And all of the remaining countries got around the table with the officials and they started working this through—long, long before we had an election in New Zealand, this was worked through.

The Canadian trade Minister, who is still the Canadian trade Minister, said in that meeting, “We would need to change the name and we would need to show the world that this is a different agreement.” And others—I think the Minister from Australia—said, “How would we do that?” He said, “Well, we would need them to think it was comprehensive and it was progressive. So why don’t we call it the comprehensive and progressive agreement? And if we change nothing else but the name, then actually we will show that it is a new agreement.” So I want to congratulate the new Government—the Labour-led Government, followed closely behind by New Zealand First—for actually accepting the great wisdom of the trade Minister from Canada, who said, “If we merely change the name, that will be enough.”

Now, we know other things were changed as well. I think it is good that what’s happened is that the issues around Pharmac—and about biologics and patents and so on for medicines—have actually been suspended, because at the time, of course, that they were negotiated in the original TPP, we as a Government said, “The Pharmac model is not up for negotiation. It has been protected.” And now what we hear from the new Government is it’s been taken out, and it was protected anyway, but it’s protected even more.

But what they haven’t told the public is that the original TPP deal remains there on the books, and it can still enter into force if the original requirements of that deal are met. And if it does, every single suspension that this Government has spoken of up and down the country to assure people enters into force—every single one, including every part of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). So for New Zealand First, who has proudly said they’ve fixed ISDS—actually, they haven’t, because this legislation doesn’t stop that. It doesn’t say that biologics are protected more or less than under the original TPP. Should the original TPP enter into force, and it’s on our books and it still can, because all this legislation does is change the name, and the other countries have agreed to hold back these suspended clauses—they enter into force.

The Minister needs to get up and confirm whether I am correct in this or not, because, actually, I am relaxed about that. I have no fear of these clauses. The original TPP was negotiated in the best interests of New Zealand, but the Government shouldn’t be saying the problem has gone away when it actually can come back.

Mr Chairman, just in response to a couple of those things, the member is correct, I guess. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) can come back into place, but hell will probably freeze over before that happens, so let’s be realistic about that. I think that the US will have to buy into it, and then we have to have one of three other major countries to do that to put the GDP calculation beyond 85 percent. The chances of that happening when we have the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) in place are very, very slim.

Can I say that it is important that the name be changed, because it does reflect not just a token commitment to a change in objectives but a real commitment. We want trade for all, not trade for traders. Canada did lead the charge on that—I accept that—but we bought into that in the way that trade agreements now around the world, through the EU, through the UK, are wanting more than just trade for traders. There needs to be a clear benefit across the population in the countries that are negotiating. And New Zealand has bought into that. We campaigned on it, and we’re following through.

There are 22 suspended provisions in this new piece of legislation. That is not insignificant, and they are in place to ensure that we meet the promises that we had prior to the election of supporting the agreement in principle, subject to five provisions. Even in the area of concern for the Green Party, the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions, there are safeguards here—11 substantive safeguards—to ensure that we are protected in the unlikely event that a company should take exceptions that limit the scope of the investment chapter and therefore limit the scope of ISDS. Our provision allows Government to rule out ISDS challenges over tobacco control measures. There are all of these things that should allay the concerns of the Green Party.

When it comes to the ISDS, yes, we did not wish them in there. They are in there. It is the outcome of a negotiated agreement that, on balance, we in Government think is a good deal for New Zealand and for our future, but it has the safeguards to protect our sovereign rights over who can buy our houses, who can buy our land, and whether Pharmac is protected into the future. These are important things that New Zealanders across the board wanted to see in place. We’ve carried these through.

I thank and acknowledge the efforts of the previous member who spoke, Todd McClay. As trade Minister, he did do a really good job, but we saw improvements were possible, and Minister Parker and the Prime Minister negotiated those improvements. I acknowledge the support of the Opposition in passing this through as quickly as we can to ensure that we are one of the early countries that can ratify and see the CPTPP in place, and we can start to enjoy the benefits from that. So I look forward to the Opposition’s support for this, and I’m sure that the agreement that we’re passing will be an improvement on the TPP, one that offers more security for New Zealanders, whatever party you’re in, into the future.

Mr Chair, thank you very much. I want to confirm for the Minister that of course we are supporting it. We supported the original legislation and we will be supporting this, but I want to just ask a couple of questions of him further, based on the explanations that he gave. But, first, I would say, when he says that actually it is technically correct that the provisions that are suspended can enter into force if the full Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) enters into force but he says that hell would freeze over before that was the case, he needs to clarify whether or not, if the US came back to the table, he’s saying his Government would not welcome a trade deal with America.

Actually, we’re one of the few countries of the world that has a positive trading relationship with the US, but we don’t have a trade deal with them. If we did have a trade deal with them, we wouldn’t find that the tariff rates on aluminium and steel exports from New Zealand to the US would have gone up, because we would have had that protection. Now, we don’t sell a lot of steel or aluminium to the US, but that’s not the point. It’s a point of principle that, actually, we are a good friend of the US. We buy more from them than we sell to them. The US is our number one beef market and our number one wine market and our number two dairy market, and, in an area that actually is not important to them, they have all but sanctioned us by increasing tariffs on us. Therefore, if the US comes back to the table and says, in a future administration, we want to adopt the original TPP, is he saying this Government would say no? Because, actually, this Government couldn’t say no, because we have already ratified and we’ve already posted the letter of ratification to ourselves, and Japan has ratified, and, actually, others would be able to and it would only take Mexico.

Of course, it’s not that long ago—in fact, it was earlier in the year last year—when he and his colleagues were on this side of the Table and we went through the final third reading to ratify the TPP, when they said it was less than a token gesture because it was dead and it was buried and there was no point in New Zealand doing that and showing leadership. Of course, if we had accepted their point then, there is a very great likelihood that we wouldn’t have the Comprehensive and Progressive TPP before this committee now—a deal that will deliver significant benefits for New Zealanders and New Zealand exporters and will deliver jobs for us.

When he says a change of the name and putting “Comprehensive and Progressive” in front of the title is more than a token gesture, he needs to demonstrate that, because, actually, in saying that we want trade for all, if all we’ve seen is the suspension of clauses that wouldn’t greatly harm New Zealand, actually, it feels token. Now, I do accept that the Government wants trade for all, but you’re going to have to do more than talk about trade for all for it to be delivered, and it will be future trade deals, not this one, because all that’s happened with this one is there have been some clauses that have been suspended that actually don’t change things significantly.

For instance, the Minister said, when he took an intervention there, that, actually, in as far as the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions are concerned, the Green Party should be happy. The Greens are the only ones that have stuck by their principles in this debate. He said, actually, that there have been carve-outs when it comes to the protection of the Government. Well, all the Government’s done in ISDS is protect itself over a dispute when it comes to the payment on Government contracts—nothing else. And when he says that companies can’t sue the New Zealand Government when it comes to tobacco, they couldn’t under the original, either. That was there. They’ve carved out 81 percent of all foreign direct investment into New Zealand, so ISDS doesn’t apply, with a side letter with Australia. That’s the exact same side letter that was in the TPP. But the Government has signed other side letters with five other countries, so the majority of the TPP members have signed side letters and therefore ISDS is not included in our relationship with them, and it accounts to a total of 0.2 percent of all foreign direct investment to New Zealand.

So what the Government has said to the country is they have protected them. Well, actually, they’ve carved out under ISDS the bit around Government contracts and dispute over payment, and what they’ve done is protected New Zealanders from 0.2 percent of foreign direct investment. The question is: why didn’t you do it with Mexico, Minister, and why didn’t you do it with Canada? Because they said they wouldn’t and they didn’t want to.

So I accept that this is a good deal. The original deal was a good deal, but you need to be more upfront with New Zealanders in saying that you’ve made it comprehensive and progressive, otherwise the name change is merely token.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I don’t imagine that I’ll need a full five-minute call to note a couple of points in relation to the title and commencement, but thank you for the opportunity to do so, however.

The bill is the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill. My eye was actually caught by the acronym in brackets after those words “Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement”, because it caught my eye that the acronym was, in fact, not the same as the words that preceded it. Suspecting that there might be a typographical error, I had a look and realised that in fact, actually, it’s perfectly correct because, of course, what the drafters of the legislation are saying in their wisdom is that it’s amending the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement—that is, the TPP—and it’s doing that by way of bringing this new thing, a Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, into our law. So far, so good.

As far as the date of the amendment Act, as it will become—2018, of course—that’s not usually a debate point. The date of a piece of legislation passing—that much is actually very much automatic. However, I just do note and bring into the debate quickly that between 2016 and 2018, in a way, much has changed in those two years in the political positioning of parties opposite—or, at least, two out of three, noting the consistency of the Green Party position—but not very much has changed as far as the nature and content of the agreement, which, as I say, on this side of the Chamber we regard as no bad thing.

Moving on quickly, the commencement of the Act—well, it will come into force the day after the date of Royal assent. It is, in that way, an executive Act. “Executive Act” I suppose is a bit of a tautology but, as discussed before, with the constitutional implications of the executive, not only the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Minister himself—and I mean Minister O’Connor but also Parker, and following in the footsteps of Ministers Groser and McClay. It is their Act that this House will be allowing to take place, to be ratified, to be confirmed, so to speak. That wording, “[to come] into force on the day after the … Royal assent.”, is the legislative equivalent of a.s.a.p. You can’t really have much sooner than that. It would be the day after the Governor-General signs it, and that’s for two reasons, I think, and actually Minister O’Connor touched on both of those himself. One I would call symbolism, which is to say the benefit of being proactive and upfront, and, I think, in his words, being one of the first if not the first to ratify the agreement is viewed as a good thing in the sense that it shows that we are committed in word and in deed to this agreement.

The other is—again, as touched upon by the Minister in the chair—that the benefits will flow only once the agreement is ratified and in force. So New Zealand’s part in that now—or this Parliament’s part in it, more precisely—is to give effect to that. That is what this amendment bill will do. That is why we continue to support it on this side of the Chamber. We acknowledge others who have been involved in the process to date, and thank you, sir, for the opportunity to make these points regarding the commencement and title.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for an opportunity to take a call on the title and commencement. It’s interesting that when we think back prior to the election, the Labour Party campaigned against the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA), and then did the right thing, in my view, and made some changes that were really just based on symbolism to get it across the line to appease some of their voters who were against this particular bill. If you think back to Jane Kelsey and her public views, they were very much along the lines that she saw this as essentially the same bill.

So I’m following on from Todd McClay, who gave two very good contributions on the title and commencement. I don’t want to go through and propose different titles like the “Essentially the Same Bill”, like Jane Kelsey did, because I think that’s really a waste of the committee’s time. What I want to do is ask a couple of questions to the Minister. We heard from Damien O’Connor, who said that it’s more than just tokenism and that the commitment is real in terms of “comprehensive and progressive”—two words that came on the front of the TPPA. What I really want to ask the Minister, and he will know this, is, when they went and effectively changed these clauses and tried to strike a new deal—and it was good to hear from Todd McClay that this all came about from the Canadian minister of trade—did David Parker or Damien O’Connor go and seek greater market access for our growers and farmers? I’m interested to know. So that’s a question to the Minister in the chair, and all he needs to do is look up and nod or shake his head. Did he or David Parker seek better market access for New Zealand exporters as a result of making this deal comprehensive and progressive?

He nodded. OK. So it would be good for Damien O’Connor to take a call—because I’ve got all the details here—and show us and tell us this evening: what is so comprehensive and progressive about this bill from the original TPPA bill, focusing directly in on gains to do with market access? If he can produce any evidence that will show that it got a better deal for farmers, for beef processors, into Japan, a better deal for our dairy farmers and dairy exporters into other countries, a better deal for our horticulture growers into 10 countries as a result of this being comprehensive and progressive, then I would welcome that. I would welcome the Minister taking a call and pointing out to me where those gains are as a result of an original bill that’s now a comprehensive and progressive bill, in terms of market access.

What is also interesting is to acknowledge the hard work that’s gone into this. We talk about the politicians who have put the hard work in. I know that Tim Groser and Todd McClay did a huge amount of heavy lifting. I felt for Todd McClay when the US came out. President Trump just did what he said he was going to do in the campaign. In January 2017, he came out and said, “The US is out.” I felt that in the depths of my stomach, and I thought, “How can we resurrect this deal?” And I want to acknowledge Todd McClay for getting in the plane, flying around these key countries, and brokering a deal. Maybe, in time, the US may indeed come back in. But while it’s worthwhile noting that Ministers and the Prime Minister and David Parker got this to where it is now—and we support it—I’m keen to hear how it’s even more comprehensive and progressive for our farmers and growers. I’m not sure we’ll get a decent answer.

I just want to take a couple of moments and acknowledge the officials. The officials have done a huge amount. Ministers fly in and out of the world and negotiate deals with their counterparts, but officials work tirelessly with their contacts around the world to get a comprehensive deal. We have heard there are 6,000 pages in this deal—it’s massive. I just want to pay a tribute to all of the officials that have done a huge amount to get this bill to where it is.

I move, That the question be now put.