start date adjusted for Malaysia. That suspension affects
the obligations of
obligations of Malaysia, not New Zealand.
Zealand. Kia ora, thank you.
I call Chris Penk.
Thank you Madam Speaker, for the
chance to speak on
Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill. I will
follow the convention of others who have
spoken before me and adopt a
shorthand version of that. Madam
chair, Madam Speaker, I was part of the
select committee that considered the
bill, as well as the select committee that
considered a number of submissions
in relation to
the agreement itself. In the second phase, we considered
submissions that were made in
relation to the legislation that
would ratify the agreement and so
I'd like to focus on some of
those contributions. Previous
contributions. Previous speakers, including the one who
resumed his seat v mentioned
changes we recommended. I would like
to focus on changes that as a committee the
majority thereof, we did not rec but
I think nonetheless deserve the
credit for
credit for being intelligently proposed and made in good faith. I
proposed
proposed and made in good faith. I think it is important that we do
have a political approach as the
member, Michael Wood, encourages,
notwithstanding that politics,
as opposed to politiking, might
be different things. I don't wish to
get into that, except to
say that I do believe in an adversarial system
of
do believe in an adversarial system
thrash out all the ideas in a way that is passionate, but
nonetheless reasonable, we have the best
possible chance of arriving at the
least dangerous laws for
our land, Madam Speaker. I would
like to focus, as I say, on the
change proposed, albeit
proposed, albeit not recommended, proposed to the
select committee, albeit not reccomended by it. That
was by the NGO named It's
Our Future. It was supported
by the Green Party in its minority
report and I think it is worth setting out
the reasoning and, indeed
t proposed amendment itself. Essentially
it's to limit the expansion
of the agreement, such that
other parties will not be able to
agreement, such that other parties
will not be able to join the agreement except a couple
of conditions applying. The
first of those would be that New Zealand
would negotiate and sign
a binding instrument with that
new country, proposing to be joined in which
such an agreement
proposing to be joined in which such
would waive the right for investor state dispute settlement mechanisms.
The second criterion was
in relation to full parliamentary
examination as though the whole treaty
and ratification process were to
begin anew. I think those have a
certain logic that is very reasonable if,
from a constitutional
perspective, namely Parliaments should
have oversight
namely Parliaments should have
is certainly not the traditional case in the Westminster
system whereby the executive has the
power to execute
to execute foreign policy, originally derived from the monarch
and so it is that
essentially what has been proposed here, while it
would be in favour, I suppose,
of greater consultation, would
represent a considerable
constitutional
constitutional change, and one that I think is more appropriate for a
broader conversation about the way
in which laws are made
internally in this country and with respect to
international obligations. For
example, if the laws that we make
locally to ratify
other agreements, for example, the Paris
Climate Accord, needed to be subject to
parliamentary scrutiny every
time another state signed up to that,
or perhaps withdrew
perhaps withdrew from that, then that would be something that I
suspect those who are proposing
this kind of change
now for this agreement with which they do not
agree would find perhaps unplatable.
So a consistent approach across that
constitutional proposal, I think,
would be very
helpful to bear in mind, Madam Speaker. The rules of
the game are known,
as they currently stand. So what
Parliament is doing now is considering a bill
that will ratify
a particular agreement, that is known with a
particular set of parties that are
known, and also other parties that
may wish to join on the
terms currently agreed in
that agreement. On that basis, my party is very
happy to maintain our
original position in favour of an agreement
that we think will do very good
thicks for our country and other
countries, too, incidentally, in
respect of boosting trade and
do that in a responsible, safe way.
Other parties have apparently
changed their position on
that somewhat, but I do note
the principled consistency of the
Greens at least in that regard to recognise
the things they found objectionable
before they still find
objectionable now. I will bring my contribution
to a close now, Madam Speaker, with
a close now, Madam Speaker, with that final plea to encourage
those who would suggest changes
to the way that we make our laws in
this country, that if it
is good enough for this particular agreement,
with which they are not enam oured, that
should be the case for
others as and that would be a broader debate that
is something of
a constitutional one and I would welcome very much. I
call Priyanca Radhakrishnan. Thank
you Madam Speaker. I stand to
take a brief call on this bill. Really t
point they wanted
to make, having sat on the
select committee that considered this bill and listened
to submitters, is that so much about
politics and, indeed, trade,
is about choices and about cost
benefit analysis and so I challenge what