 Kia ora koutou, hei mihi nu i kia koutou. Gosh, can't really see people there, so I'll talk into the ether. I want to reflect a bit on our incredibly privileged job as academics and how we can use that to perform both our role and our responsibilities as public intellectuals and many of the people who've spoken today are exemplars of that. I want to focus in particular on the work that we've been doing for the last six years around the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and talk in particular about the problems of how you perform that academic role for something that is secret. When I say secret, I mean that when the negotiations began there was a decision made by the 12 countries to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement that no documents will be released until four years after the agreement comes into force, which is at least four years from now. That means trying to generate a public debate around what is happening in a really important set of negotiations when there isn't any information available was a challenge. When I was thinking about how to describe this, I identified four steps. One was discover, the second was decode because it's highly technical stuff. Third was demystify so that people felt able to engage with the concepts and fourthly democratise so that people could have a say in what was being negotiated. I'd like to just focus in particular on the how because I think it raises some questions about innovative steps that we can take as academics using the kind of access routes that we have. The first step was to consciously create spaces. If this was a closed negotiation, how did we generate enough debate to achieve what I said is the initial goal of us setting the terms of the debate in the void that was there so that the government would be forced to come out and defend and explain what it was doing. We started by creating the spaces through an FRDF grant to fund a round table. The round table brought together experts from Australia and New Zealand on previous agreements that were likely to feed into what was on the table in this negotiation. I had 12 people come, all of whom prepared short papers but with a commitment to preparing longer papers that would then form an edited book. The round table was funded by an FRDF grant. I had a researcher as part of that grant who trawled as much information as possible and set up a website so that we had a database, website, media coverage and so on that could start to provide a repository of information for people. The book was turned around within three and a half months thanks to my wonderfully committed publisher Bridget Williams Books along with a subvention from the Law Foundation whose role is a commitment to having public debate around legal issues, not taking any partisan role but to try to generate a debate. That book of essays was published and we brought over Laurie Wallach who is one of the most prominent voices in the US and we did a lecture tour. We did public launches and lectures in Auckland, in Wellington, in Christchurch and Dunedin, spoke at a conference at Parliament, set up media conferences and so on and that generated a real engagement with this as a serious academic issue and not just a bunch of NGOs waving the anti-globalisation banner. As a result of that, the media became informed and engaged. So creating spaces was a first step. The second step was using spaces. One of the things that we did was to shame governments about the secrecy of the process. People don't like secrecy and so we forced the governments into, in each of the rounds they were holding different countries, hold a stakeholder event where people could go and present their views to the negotiators. Through that, the negotiators were exposed to analyses that they actually realised were quite useful and so relationships then started to be built with negotiators, not with the New Zealand ones but ones from other countries. And that then led to, once the negotiations went underground which they did about halfway through when they stopped holding the stakeholder processes because they were being a bit too effective, about five of us continued to go and hang around and talk to negotiators and influence the process, do technical work for them and so on. In addition to that, we used the Official Information Act and other networks to be able to try to secure information, constantly upskilling constituencies such as the media, politicians. Other constituencies coming on board like the doctors, forming a group of doctors for healthy trade, lawyers coming out and signing a letter saying they didn't support offshore tribunals that would bypass our courts in dealing with foreign investors' rights. Other forms of outreach that we developed over time. The Law Foundation funded me to go to many of these rounds because I could then come back, write op-eds for the Herald, do other media stuff to get information out there that wasn't otherwise going to be there. And the New Zealand Herald has always run these stories because there is no other source available. We took a court case on the Official Information Act, Māori took a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal. All of that has set a platform of understanding and awareness for the next round of negotiations that begin next week in Sky City for a China-led alternative to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. Also in secret. So what we've done, and now we've forced those negotiations open and we will use the platform that's been created through this mechanism for ongoing debates. Thankfully, and my last point is that the... Not only has the university been very supportive of this, but the Marsden Fund has granted me another Marsden grant to look at strategies and options for exiting these agreements because many countries are currently in the process of finding conflicts between things they need to do and the agreements that have been signed that lock the door on them. And so it shows that you can be a dissident, you can be a public intellectual, and I've got to be creative about how you create the spaces and opportunities to do so.