Goff joined former Republican Trade Representative Susan Schwab in New York in early 2008 together with ministers from Brunei, Chile, and Singapore to announce the launch of negotiations for what ultimately evolved into TPP.
Said Schwab: "The United States is pleased to stand with this group of like-minded countries, whose vision for trade liberalisation and Trans-Pacific economic integration we share.
"We are particularly interested in this high-standard agreement potentially serving as a vehicle for advancing trade and investment liberalisation and integration across the Trans-Pacific region and perhaps beyond."
The move was celebrated by Clark and Goff. But the party which also displayed sufficient political pragmatism in Government to, for instance, recognise China as a "market economy" (a step that was frowned on by the US and Australia) as a precursor to moving to full negotiations on the bilateral trade agreement between New Zealand and China, is just as capable now of balancing domestic priorities with the wider agenda of the bigger players.
Ardern and Parker will have calculated that their proposed workaround to ensure foreigners cannot buy existing residential housing will pass muster with bigger trading partners who signed the TPP agreement in Auckland in February 2016. The devil, as it always is, is in the detail.
The jury is out on whether they will add the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) to Labour's impressive track record
Ardern has announced the Government's chosen mechanism is to introduce an amendment to the Overseas Investment Act to classify residential housing as "sensitive".
She says that means non-residents or non-citizens cannot purchase existing residential dwellings. Australians will be exempt as New Zealanders are in Australia.
There are fish hooks in this approach. Not every foreign buyer of existing residential housing stock is a "speculator". Some - such as business people who have come to New Zealand to work - simply want to buy a house to live in.
It is not clear how the OIO amendments will work in practice.
Will the OIO have to police acquisitions of these "sensitive" assets? Can foreign developers buy "sensitive" land on which to build housing? Or will the policing be transferred to the lawyers?
The Government may be holding off on the detail until after next week's Apec meeting. But clarity is needed to avoid damaging misperceptions in the market. What is of concern is the Ardern revelation that the prior Government did not treat seriously Labour's concerns when it came to negotiating the final detail on the original TPP agreement.
It was obvious that National allowed immigration to run hot. Not only was it a great domestic growth kicker but the increased demand for housing stock did help spur the property market to new heights bringing with it a "wealth effect" for some but creating losers for those who could not afford to buy in.
Labour now says it was incorrect to claim the house ban could not be done without breaching other free trade agreements.
"The advice we have had from officials is that we can give effect to the ban by a simple amendment to the Overseas Investment Act without breaching any agreement except the Singapore Closer Economic Partnership," says Ardern.
This chain of advice should be released to the public.
Did National weigh all the factors when deciding to opt for the possibility of applying stamp duties to curb foreign demand for housing - as it said the TPP agreement allowed? Or was its agenda to continue to ride the immigration and housing tiger?
