Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: Will he be formally raising the issue of New Zealanders detained in Australia when he meets with Malcolm Turnbull later on this week?

Yes.

💬 James Shaw: When he meets with Malcolm Turnbull, will he be requesting that Australia bring back to the mainland those New Zealanders being detained in offshore detention centres?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I will be raising the issue of New Zealanders being sent to detention centres—in particular, the offshore processing centre on Christmas Island.

💬 James Shaw: At the meeting, will the Prime Minister be requesting that Australia increase the imprisonment threshold for deportation of New Zealanders?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Obviously, we will have a wide-ranging discussion, but what is causing the problems are the changes that were made by the Australian Parliament late last year—effectively, to lower the mandatory cancellation of visas - threshold—and on that basis, yes, we will be discussing that issue.

💬 James Shaw: At this meeting, will the Prime Minister be requesting that Australia do a case by case analysis for New Zealanders on humanitarian grounds prior to deportation?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot be sure that that will be one particular issue that will be raised.

💬 James Shaw: Given that he is now criticising the use of offshore detention centres for New Zealanders, why did he negotiate a deal with Australia that would have seen the use of these very centres for refugees seeking asylum in New Zealand?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No one really likes to see detention centres, full-stop. But the main purpose was, of course, to try to take those people out of the refugee detention centres. That is why we agreed to take 150.

💬 James Shaw: Is he aware of the information that another 40 to 50 New Zealanders are due to be shipped to Christmas Island in the next fortnight; if so, will he be asking Malcolm Turnbull to stop this?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, I do not have those specifics.

💬 James Shaw: Given that he knew about the plight of New Zealanders being detained in Australia, why did he not raise the issue with Tony Abbott at their last meeting in Papua New Guinea, and why was the memorandum of understanding progressed only following a massive public outcry?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is not true, actually. In fact, I first raised the issue with Tony Abbott during the bilateral talks that I held with him in February of this year, and again when we met in Wellington in April. I raised the issue also with the Australian Foreign Minister in New York. The New Zealand Foreign Minister has raised the issue on numerous occasions, and officials have raised it—so this issue has been raised for some time. In the end, the rules that the Australian Government sets are the rules that the Australian Government sets. I cannot necessarily demand a change any more than Helen Clark could when she agreed back in 2001 to allow a position whereby New Zealanders would, in certain circumstances, have fewer rights than others in Australia. That was the situation that Helen Clark accepted.

Overseas Investment—Overseas Ownership of New Zealand Properties and Trade Agreements

2. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “I don’t want to ban foreigners from buying residential property”?

I stand by my full statement, which went on to say: “I don’t think that’s actually good public policy that works. And … around New Zealand, there would be a whole lot of people who’d say, ‘I don’t want to stop an Australian buying a house in Queenstown or an American buying a place in the Bay of Islands or actually people buying a house in Wellington.’ ”

💬 Andrew Little: Does he accept that it is a loss of New Zealand’s sovereignty if future parliaments cannot pass laws without being sued to stop Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement nationals buying our homes?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, I do not believe that is the case. In fact, the Labour Party not only supported but actually helped with negotiations of free-trade agreements to which it was a party, and it did exactly that.

💬 Andrew Little: Supplementary question. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition is standing to ask a supplementary question, but the level of interjection coming from his own colleagues is unacceptable.

💬 Andrew Little: Why did his Government fail to protect the sovereign right of New Zealand to limit foreign buying of existing houses when the Australian Government was able to do it?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I know the member has had so many positions on the Trans-Pacific Partnership that it is embarrassing—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —but, actually, he is just continuing to show that he does not even understand how it still works, because the Australian Government had negotiated its position around bans on foreigners buying houses long before the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement came along.

💬 Tim Macindoe: Has the Prime Minister received advice on whether New Zealanders can freely buy residential property in other developed countries?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I have. I am advised that New Zealanders can buy residential property with few, if any, restrictions in at least the following OECD countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. That tells me that, more than ever, New Zealand’s future lies in being open and connected with the rest of the world—which overwhelmingly should be the case—which is far less xenophobic than the Labour Party is.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Andrew Little: What advice has he received from the trade Minister on our efforts to carve out protection for the right of New Zealand to limit foreigners buying existing homes, as Australia has done, as Malaysia has done, and as Singapore has done?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Australia had those provisions prior to going into the Trans-Pacific Partnership. What the Government did do as part of the carve-out that it wanted to follow was to allow extra taxes to be applied for foreigners who buy property in New Zealand if the Government of the day deemed that to be possible. Why? Because that will work. What will not work is a ban on foreigners. It did not work in Australia and it would not work in New Zealand.

💬 Andrew Little: When Tim Groser described the deal as having “dead rats”, did he mean the meagre increase in access for dairy exports over an extended period of time, higher costs for medicines, and the loss of sovereignty over who owns our land? Why will you not stand up for New Zealand?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What Tim Groser was meaning when he very successfully on behalf of New Zealand—and I personally want to congratulate him—negotiated the Trans-Pacific Partnership was that he was going to give this country access to 40 percent of the global economy, with 93 percent tariff-free. But I look at this quote and I hear these words ringing in my ears: “What always haunts a Prime Minister is ‘will there be a series of trade blocs develop that you are not part of?’ Because that is unthinkable for New Zealand as an export-oriented, small trading [economy].” Once again, I agree with Helen Clark, just like I did—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Tim Macindoe: How would a ban on foreigners buying residential property sit within New Zealand’s network of trade agreements?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As well as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, such a ban would be inconsistent with CER, the Singapore free-trade agreement, our agreement with Chinese Taipei, our free-trade agreement with Korea, and, as a consequence, our free-trade agreement with China. New Zealand entered those agreements in good faith, with support from both sides of the House. It would be a sad day for New Zealand’s international credibility if a party started picking and choosing with bits of an agreement, to blatantly flout it.

💬 Andrew Little: In light of that answer, why has his Government introduced and, in fact, passed legislation requiring foreign buyers to register with the Inland Revenue Department and have a New Zealand bank account?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because the Government is interested in getting more information on foreigners, and is happy for them to pay taxes, which is exactly the very point that we negotiated in the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

💬 Andrew Little: Why does the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement compel Pharmac to reveal its negotiating strategy to drug companies, when his own Government itself said that it would be insanity for a party to give away its negotiating strategy to the other side?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because we are quite comfortable with it. Those provisions will not see any material change in the way that Pharmac operates. If one looks at the Trans-Pacific Partnership in its wider context, with all of them, I agree with this: “There are huge advantages from being involved with TPP and even bigger disadvantages of being locked out.” These words were said with force; they were said with meaning—they were said by the leader of the Labour Party; they were said by Phil Goff in 2013.

Economic Outlook—IMF Forecasts

3. to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the outlook for the world economy, and what are the consequences for the New Zealand economy?

The IMF and World Bank meetings in Peru affirm that slowing growth in China and other emerging economies like Brazil is a risk for the world economic outlook. There are also a number of positives, including improving growth in the US and the UK. The IMF projects that in 2015 global economic growth will be 3.1 percent—a bit weaker than it thought just 6 months ago. This weaker world growth highlights the importance of continuing to expand our international connections, particularly through trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The more markets our exports have access to, the more resilient they will be if any particular market runs into economic headwinds.

💬 Alfred Ngaro: How is the global decline in commodity prices affecting the New Zealand economy?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Generally, there has been a decline in commodity prices across most global economies, and, of course, in New Zealand the impact was through the dairy price. From a high in February 2014, dairy prices fell 65 percent to their low in early August. Since August, dairy prices have regained about a third of those falls. It is too early to know whether those increases are permanent, but it is pleasing to see some stabilisation. The effect of this has been cushioned by a significant reduction in the exchange rate, which is down more than 25 percent against the US dollar since mid-2014, and similar adjustments are occurring in other commodity-type economies such as Australia.

💬 Alfred Ngaro: What was the IMF’s view about the growth prospects for New Zealand?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The IMF’s latest set of forecasts was released earlier this month, and they had the New Zealand economy growing at 2 to 2.5 percent. The early half of calendar year 2015 now shows fairly soft growth, and it is possible that growth could drop below 2 percent for calendar year 2015. That is certainly slower than the 3 percent that Treasury was forecasting last year, but in the context of slowing growth around the world, it is moderate, sustained growth that will continue to deliver more jobs and higher wages for New Zealanders.

Australia—Detention and Deportation of New Zealand Citizens

4. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “in the order of about 1,000” people with New Zealand citizenship could be deported here from Australia due to criminal convictions?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. Advice provided to me by officials suggests there are currently around about 1,000 New Zealanders in the pipeline for deportation from Australia, but this number will move around.

Given Australia changed its deportation policy last year, and his Government immediately began making preparations for an influx, why has it taken him until now to speak publicly about the implications for New Zealand?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think that is correct. The law there was changed in December of last year. That was obviously freely available to everyone in the world to see. I raised the issue at the first possible instance with Tony Abbott at my bilateral talks in February.

Does he believe that it is right that New Zealand is forced to take in people who left New Zealand as infants, were raised in Australia, educated there, and committed crimes there?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I have been saying, my preference would be for Australia not to lower the threshold in the way that it did. My preference would be for it to make some alteration to reflect that, but if the member is asking whether I believe I should strip those New Zealanders of their New Zealand citizenship as well—and make them Stateless—then I do not think I should do that. I know the Labour Party has some really wacky ideas these days, but that is a dumb one.

Why is his Government accepting into New Zealand deportees who have lived their entire lives in Australia, including children who do not even have New Zealand citizenship?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because that is their legal right as New Zealand citizens to come back to this country. The fact that they may be being returned to this country against their will does not fail the test that they are New Zealand citizens.

Why will he not stand up for New Zealand when he meets Malcolm Turnbull this weekend and tell him that what our Australian mates are doing to New Zealanders is just wrong?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I raised this issue with Tony Abbott in February. Secondly, I raised this issue with him in Wellington in April. Thirdly, I raised this issue with the Australian Foreign Minister in New York. Fourthly, this issue has been raised by the New Zealand Foreign Minister on numerous occasions. Fifthly, I will be more than happy to raise the matter with Malcolm Turnbull. But I do think that it is just, frankly, a little bit rich getting lectured by the Leader of the Opposition when Labour was the Government that signed New Zealanders up to worse rates, and like a lapdog accepted it for 7 years and did nothing about it.

Trans-Pacific Partnership—Outcomes

5. to the Minister of Trade: What recent progress has he made in improving access to international markets and supporting New Zealand exporters to grow and create new jobs?

Last week trade Ministers from 12 Pacific countries, covering almost 40 percent of the global economy and 800 million consumers, successfully concluded negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership—the largest free-trade agreement that New Zealand has been a part of. Under its provisions we will eliminate tariffs on 93 percent of New Zealand’s exports to our new free-trade agreement partners and, using the very conservative measure of tariff savings, that will save New Zealand businesses a little more than a quarter of a billion dollars per year, which is roughly twice the estimate given for the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement.

💬 Mark Mitchell: What reaction has the Minister seen to the outcomes of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations?

💬 Hon TIM GROSER: Many, many reactions. I will quote you a couple of the more interesting political ones—or interesting to me. First of all, the Federation of Māori Authorities has said: “Māori have always traded across Te Moananui A Kiwa so the TPP is a contemporary expression of age-old trading routes”—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I require the Minister to resume his seat. I will not put up with the level of interjection coming from somewhere on my left. If I can sight where it is coming from, then those people will be leaving the Chamber immediately for at least the balance of question time.

💬 Hon TIM GROSER: I would concede that I am being very provocative with the quotations that I am using here, in terms of their political constituencies. I quote: “The removal of tariffs is an immediate advantage for Māori exporters, and the agreement sets the stage for better gains in the future.” I would like to quote also the chairman and president of World Wildlife Fund in the United States: “No major trade agreement before this one has gone so far to address growing pressures on natural resources, like overexploited fish, wildlife and forests. … the conservation committees in this trade agreement could be game-changers”.

💬 Mark Mitchell: What outcome was achieved for dairy, and is the sector going to be worse off because of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, as some have suggested?

💬 Hon TIM GROSER: First of all, using the metric that we traditionally use, the paradox is this: the dairy sector is the largest single source of gains from the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, accounting for roughly 40 percent of the gains. This is only because although we are very regretful that the United States blinked and failed to use this as an opportunity to restructure global dairy trade, what we did achieve represents very significant gains for the dairy industry, and I am certain that we will build on that in the future.

💬 David Seymour: Could the Minister characterise some of the key motivations for opposing free-trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I cannot see any ministerial responsibility for that.

Trans-Pacific Partnership—Pharmac

6. to the Minister of Health: What is the estimated cost to Vote Health of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement?

The best estimate of the cost to Vote Health from the Trans-Pacific Partnership is $4.5 million in one-off costs, and $2.2 million per year in ongoing operating costs to Pharmac. That is a tiny 14/1000ths of 1 percent of the $15.9 billion health budget. The Government does not foresee any additional cost to Pharmac from the provisions relating to biologic drugs. Consumers will not pay more for subsidised medicines as a result of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Most prescribed medicines are fully subsidised, and New Zealanders will still pay no more than $5 per prescription item—the Trans-Pacific Partnership does not change this in any way. Pharmac’s ability to negotiate with drug companies to keep prices down is unchanged.

💬 Hon Annette King: What has he been informed are the “comparable outcomes” to enable New Zealand to deliver a longer period than the current 5 years’ data exclusivity on biologics under the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The point underlying that question is that we do not need to make any change to our policy settings to fulfil the requirements of—

💬 Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A very specific question: I asked has he been informed what are the “comparable outcomes”—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the member to repeat the question.

💬 Hon Annette King: What has he been informed are “comparable outcomes” to enable New Zealand to deliver a longer period than the current 5 years on data exclusivity on biologics under the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: They are those delivered by the existing policy measures. So you have got 20-year patent protection—that remains intact. That is going to exceed the 5-year data protection. And when you put that together with the Medsafe process, that actually meets the requirements of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

💬 Hon Annette King: Has he been informed what a comparable outcome would mean in actual years added on to the 5-year data exclusivity protection in New Zealand with changes negotiated under the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: There will not be any change, because our existing policy framework meets all the requirements of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

💬 Rt Hon John Key: What does the Minister think will be the impact on the health budget if and when the New Zealand economy is much larger and more successful as a result of having a good free-trade agreement?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial responsibility, the Hon Jonathan Coleman.

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: That is the best question of the day. The reality of it is that because we have signed up to the Trans-Pacific Partnership we are going to have the economy increasing by $2.7 billion per year by 2030. That is going to mean that we are going to have much more money to put into the health budget to provide more medicines and better care for New Zealanders over time. It is a real shame that Labour cannot make up its mind whether to support this or not.

💬 Hon Annette King: What will be the cost to the health of New Zealanders of a 1-year delay in making biologic drugs available, in light of an article in the Medical Journal of Australia that states “pharmaceutical monopoly protections … cost Australian taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars each year.”?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Do not forget this is the member who said the Trans-Pacific Partnership—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is a very simple question that has been asked of the Minister. If he would rise and answer it, please.

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is a very complex hypothetical question. What I have said is that there will be no added cost. It will not be the $1 billion that Annette King said would be added. It—

💬 Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Annette King.

💬 Hon Annette King: Once again the Minister has to bring the Labour Party into the answer, when it was a straightforward—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, the first attempt—

💬 Hon Annette King: No.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! My patience will probably run out fairly quickly with this member. The question was not attempted to be answered in the first place. I took issue with the Minister and he now has, to my satisfaction, addressed the question. If the member has further supplementary questions, that is the way to proceed.

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I finish my answer?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes, the Minister can complete his answer briefly.

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: OK. I just want to clarify: it will not cost a billion dollars a year as Annette King said; it will not cost lives as Annette King said; and, most important of all, it will not undermine the Pharmac model as Annette King said. So, quite frankly, she needs to apologise—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, we have had the—[Interruption] Order!

💬 Hon Annette King: Does he agree with Tim Groser in relation to Pharmac and the decisions made under the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement that “there is constructive ambiguity”?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have not seen that quote. I mean, you may well be making it up, but I will have to check with Mr Groser now.

💬 Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take exception to being told I made things up. I am sure the Minister of Trade will confirm it. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. It was certainly not a helpful remark from the Minister. I accept that, but it is hardly one that I think the member should take offence at. If she really requires me to ask the member to withdraw, I will do so. Is the member offended by that remark?

💬 Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I will allow the member—

💬 Hon Annette King: No, I will not ask him to withdraw. I will not. I would just ask whether it is possible for the Minister of Trade to confirm what I just said.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, no. That is not a point of order at all.

Trans-Pacific Partnership—Regional Development

7. to the Minister for Economic Development: How would the Trans-Pacific Partnership help regional New Zealand?

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is exciting news for businesses across New Zealand, but particularly for those in regional New Zealand. The Trans-Pacific Partnership allows New Zealand exporters access to up to 800 million potential customers and covers 40 percent of existing global trade. In the US, the world’s largest economy, in Japan, the world’s third-largest economy, and across the rapidly developing Asia-Pacific region, the Trans-Pacific Partnership will benefit all our exporters by opening up fairer access to more markets, whether they are farmers in Hawke’s Bay or the Manawatū, winegrowers in Central Otago, or manufacturers in the Waikato. As a Government, we back our farmers, our horticulturalists, our wine growers, and our manufacturers. We are confident they are equal to the best in the world. With this agreement, they will get access to the big consumer markets to compete on a more equal footing with local suppliers.

💬 Sarah Dowie: What does the Trans-Pacific Partnership—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! To Mr Prosser, that is the last warning he will be getting during this question time. Would the member Sarah Dowie please repeat that question.

💬 Sarah Dowie: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What does the Trans-Pacific Partnership do for our farmers and other exporters in regional New Zealand?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The impact will be significant. In 2014 our trade with Trans-Pacific Partnership countries was worth more than $28 billion, or 45 percent of our total trade, including $2.7 billion in meat, $4 billion in dairy, $1.4 billion in forestry, nearly a billion in wine, and $1.2 billion in food and vegetable exports. Tariffs on beef exports to Trans-Pacific Partnership countries will be eliminated, with the exception only of Japan, where tariffs will reduce from 38.5 percent to 9 percent. Tariffs on all other primary sector exports, except some dairy products, will be eliminated completely, including fruit and vegetables, sheepmeat, forestry products, seafood, and wine. By 2030 the overall benefit of Trans-Pacific Partnership to New Zealand is conservatively estimated to be at least $2.7 billion a year, and it is likely to be much better than that given our track record of exceeding the predictions of the China free-trade agreement.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: What will individual Kiwi dairy farmers in the regions expect to receive between 2038 and 2048 from the US when—if—it finally, possibly, axes tariffs on milk powder and a line of cheese?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government is being quite open that we did not get all we wanted from dairy, but dairy benefits are $102 million in terms of $260 million of tariff reductions, which is the largest single beneficiary. As we have seen, it is not even so much the tariff reductions, even though that is good; what is really the benefit is the increase in trade that occurs as those tariffs drop. That is what we have seen in China, that is what we will see in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and I invite New Zealand First to continue to argue against the benefits of the Trans-Pacific Partnership for regional New Zealand.

💬 Sarah Dowie: Why are free trade and international linkages important for regional New Zealand?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As a small country located at the bottom of the world, to grow our economy it is critical that we trade with larger countries and that we sell more of our products and services on the world stage. For places like the Bay of Plenty, the home of kiwifruit and Zespri, which have grown their sales by 16 percent in the last year, this is important. For places like Marlborough, Hawke’s Bay, and Central Otago, part of a wine industry that has seen 8 percent annual growth in exports, this agreement is important. For dairy provinces like Waikato, Southland, and Taranaki, where tariffs are dropping by $102 million, this deal is important. For all parts of regional New Zealand, where beef export revenues are up by over a third from the previous year, this agreement is important. This is a Government that stands unashamedly in favour of trade access for regional New Zealand as the best way to grow our regional economies for the benefit of New Zealanders.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: How much will regional New Zealand actually benefit from a 3.25 percent slice of Canada’s dairy industry, for example, given that that country’s high level of subsidies will continue to undermine our exporters’ efforts?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There will be some benefit from that. There will also be benefit in Mexico, benefit in Japan, benefit in the US, and benefit around the Asia-Pacific region. Again, I invite Mr Tabuteau to continue with this line of attack. I invite him to go out to regional New Zealand and run these arguments and see what short shrift he gets.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: Can the Minister confirm that Kiwi beef farmers will benefit more from the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement or actually more from a free-trade agreement with Russia, given the US Department of Agriculture says that Russia could fall 40 percent short of meeting its own beef needs, in complete contrast to the Trans-Pacific Partnership markets?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is free to argue for a free-trade deal with Russia ahead of one with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, ahead of one with China, ahead of one with, I do not know, the EU—wherever he likes. But, actually, this agreement marks a red-letter day for New Zealand. It will supply access to the beef markets, for example, in Mexico, which we have been shut out of, and in Japan. The member can decry it all he likes and suggest that we should do something else instead, but most New Zealanders, particularly in regional New Zealand, know the benefits that this agreement will bring.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: Would Mr Joyce not have more credibility selling coal to Newcastle—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! A question worded in that way is quite out of order. Question No. 8, Fletcher Tabuteau.

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it beyond the Standing Orders to question the credibility of a Minister at question time now, because that is the effect of your warning?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member has been here a long time, and it is certainly out of order to in any way accuse a member of not telling the truth. [Interruption] Order! Iain Lees-Galloway, if he carries on like that, will be leaving the Chamber. That is the way I took that question. [Interruption] Order! I felt that question was out of order. I have ruled it out of order. I will look at it again later on today. If I have made a mistake I apologise, but a question like that is not in line with the Standing Orders. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Question—[Interruption] No. Order! All members will resume their seats—all members resume their seats. I have made a ruling, and that is the end of that matter. If any member wishes to raise a fresh point of order, I am only too happy to hear from them, but—[Interruption] Order! I have not finished. If I interpret their point of order as in any way relitigating what I have just ruled on, then that member who raises the point of order will immediately be leaving the Chamber.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I simply ask that the same standard that you have just made very clear—about questioning members, telling the truth or whatever in questions—is also applied to the answers as well, because we have had several examples today where Ministers have questioned the truth telling of those asking the questions. It cannot be one way or the other; it has to be for both.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will do my best. Further points of order?

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Do you think you could find it within yourself to allow the member to rephrase his question?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion, I will allow the member to rephrase that question, and I will allow it.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: Thank you very much. Would it be of more benefit to the country, in terms of credibility for the country, to sell coal to Newcastle rather than claiming the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be of benefit to New Zealand forestry, especially when it comes to the dominant Canadian and US markets?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This particular agreement provides benefits to a whole range of industries, and the benefits occur in different countries. What I can tell the member is that this agreement, in terms of tariff reductions, is roughly double the impact of the China free-trade agreement, which has been hugely positive for New Zealand, and will continue to be so, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement will continue to be so—[Interruption] Again, the member is welcome to argue against it, but the benefits to regional New Zealand, whether it is in forestry, wine, kiwifruit, meat, or dairying, are clear to everybody except Mr Tabuteau.

Trans-Pacific Partnership—Release of Information and Non-discrimination Provisions

8. to the Minister of Trade: Will he release the full details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement immediately, given that the 12 Asia-Pacific countries have concluded their negotiations?

The Government will release the texts as soon as it possibly can, but it will not be a unilateral decision of the New Zealand Government. This is a partnership among 12 countries, and everyone has recognised that there is absolutely legitimate and intense interest in some quarters in seeing the whole picture. This is fully understood, and we agree that it is a completely legitimate position, but we are waiting until our experts can reach an agreement that as much of the text as can be available—and on some estimates we are talking thousands of pages—will be released as soon as is humanly possible.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: Can the Minister deny that the non-discrimination provision within this agreement will mean that this Government will not be able to protect New Zealand citizens when they are buying New Zealand homes; instead, they will forever have to compete with overseas investors from Trans-Pacific Partnership nations?

💬 Hon TIM GROSER: It is really very unusual to find people trying to assess a trade agreement in terms of Auckland house prices. The reality has already been spelt out by numerous Ministers. You know where we stand. We want to send a message of connectivity to the rest of the world. We realise that New Zealand First is in a totally different space.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: Given the most favoured nation provision in the China free-trade agreement, can he protect future generations of New Zealanders from overseas investors from this trade partner speculating in our housing market also?

💬 Hon TIM GROSER: This arrangement is about strategic gains; it has nothing to do with speculation in housing markets. That will continue so long as both New Zealand residents and foreigners can anticipate a future price change. We are trying to fix a strategic problem for New Zealand.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: The Prime Minister said: “I’m not saying it’s OK. I’m just saying technically”—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I have the question, please.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: Did the Prime Minister not say “I’m not saying it’s OK. I’m just saying technically any Government can flout any free-trade agreement rules … there will be a process … if someone wants to take a case against them.”; are you comfortable that that process will include a secret tribunal process?

💬 Hon TIM GROSER: I do not have the quotation in front of me, so I cannot address whether or not it is an accurate or contextual statement of the Prime Minister. But, broadly speaking, I would say that that was correct. You cannot stop people taking out cases against you under domestic or international law. What you can do is try to frame agreements that are legally tight and make the cases of litigious or badly conceived cases almost impossible to succeed. Our experts have done an outstanding job in this context—as they usually do.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: Is the Minister not aware that discriminatory actions against the member nations are a contravention of this trade agreement, and, therefore, the Prime Minister’s preferred solution of a tax on foreign land buyers would also come under the investor-State provisions, meaning that we will still get sued in a secret tribunal?

💬 Hon TIM GROSER: The introduction to the question was completely incomprehensible. I have no idea what he means.

Finance, Minister—Return to Surplus

9. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that the Government’s top fiscal priority is “returning to surplus this year and maintaining surpluses in the future”?

I stand by my full statement from Budget 2015. The Government has five priorities: returning to surplus and maintaining surpluses in the future—that is, this year, 2014-15; reducing net debt to 20 percent of GDP by 2020, including repaying debt in dollar terms in 2017-18; further reducing ACC levies; beginning to reduce income taxes from 2017, with a focus on low and middle income earners; and using any further fiscal headroom to reduce debt faster.

💬 Grant Robertson: Is it correct that the first line of the Minister’s letter of expectations to the Earthquake Commission is “Returning to surplus is a key priority for 2014-15.”, and is this what led to the $2 billion that was set aside to meet the Earthquake Commission’s shortfall mysteriously shrinking to $500 million in the 2014-15 accounts?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, it is simply not possible to politically direct the Earthquake Commission on its assessment of liabilities. The fact is when you have 400,000 claims in Christchurch, including many very complex claims, the commission is continuously re-estimating its liabilities. It turns out that it was fairly conservative to start with, and we took the hit at that time. If the liability is dropping, that is good news, not bad news.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: What was the state of the Government’s finances when National first came into office in 2008?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The projected numbers were pretty awful, including never-ending deficits. But what was worse is that the Labour Government’s attitude to spending had permeated the Public Service, which believed it should get money for any purpose it could think of, with no accountability. We have now changed that.

💬 Grant Robertson: Was Judith Collins correct when she said that ACC levies were not lowered “because we need to get to surplus and we’re very honest about that.”?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The decisions about ACC levies have been made in order to be assured that ACC is in a sound financial situation. Ms Collins was quite right that we were fairly conservative about the reductions in levies, but now that we have achieved over $1 billion in reductions and levies—and the motor vehicle registration levy, for instance, is now consulting on a reduction from $330 per car just a couple of years ago to $130—we think that is progress.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: What progress is the Government making towards its target of returning to fiscal surplus this year?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Most of the progress has been based on the Government being active in restraining spending. Four years ago the Government showed an $18 billion deficit, around 9 percent of GDP, following the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquakes. That deficit was halved in 2012, halved again to $4.4 billion in 2013, and reduced to just around $3 billion in the year to June 2014. It is clear that the return to surplus was always a stretched target, as evidenced by the fact that Treasury’s last forecast showed a deficit for 2014-15. So regardless of whether the annual accounts tomorrow show a small surplus or a small deficit, the overall trend is in the right direction because the Government is making sure that public money is used effectively—that is, to make sure children learn at school, prisoners who leave prison do not reoffend, fewer children are abused, and we get rid of some scourges in our community such as rheumatic fever.

💬 Grant Robertson: Is it not correct that the small surplus for 2014-15 that he will announce tomorrow was created by accounting fudges, ripping off the people of Canterbury, and making New Zealanders pay more for their ACC than they should have, and that it will actually be the only surplus he will achieve in three terms in Government?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have yet to see what the annual accounts will show, but I can confirm for the member that the Government has been able to run small increases in expenditure—around half a billion per year on a $70 billion spending base—and achieve better public services. I know that is what really makes the Labour Party angry, because it thought the National Government would slash and burn and the social sector, in particular, would support the Labour Party. But, in fact, it does not. It is supporting our efforts to do a better job for New Zealanders with the money that we have.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: What progress has the Government made on its other fiscal priorities?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Quite good progress. In Budget 2015 we signalled another $500 million reduction in annual ACC levies, on top of the $1.5 billion reduction in annual levies since 2011. The Government’s net debt is projected to fall to around 20 percent of GDP in 2020-21 and, according to the IMF, we now have one of the lowest net debt levels in the developed world. Any further fiscal headroom, including from positive revenue surprises, would be used to get debt down sooner.

Marine Protected Areas—Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary

10. to the Minister for the Environment: What specific species and natural features does the Government aim to protect from the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary announced by the Prime Minister at the United Nations in New York on 28 September?

The Kermadecs area is one of the most pristine places on earth and is host to over 6 million seabirds of 39 different species; 35 species of whales and dolphins, including the largest animal on earth, the blue whale; and hundreds of species of fish and other marine life unique to the area. Significant natural features include the longest underwater chain of submerged volcanoes anywhere in the world and the second-deepest ocean trench in the world, which, at over 10,000 metres deep, is deeper than Mount Everest is tall. The Prime Minister’s announcement of this huge sanctuary is akin to a national park of the sea and is as historic as that of Prime Minister Seddon’s in the 1890s in creating our first national park in Tongariro and the announcement of the largest national park in Fiordland by Prime Minister Holland in the 1950s.

💬 Scott Simpson: How does this new ocean sanctuary compare internationally, and what feedback has the Minister received on the Prime Minister’s announcement?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The new sanctuary of 620,000 square kilometres is twice the area of New Zealand’s land or about the size of France. It will be the largest contiguous area of completely protected ocean in the world. The new sanctuary ensures that we meet our commitments as a country, under the Convention on Biological Diversity, to have 10 percent of our sea in marine protected areas. To give some sense of scale, this new sanctuary will be 35 times larger than the total of all of our existing 44 marine reserves and sets us at 15 percent of our marine area and above that target. The Prime Minister’s announcement has been widely welcomed internationally, with strong commendations from people including former US President Bill Clinton, the current Secretary of State for the US, John Kerry, and advocates for improved oceans management like Prince Albert of Monaco and Richard Branson.

💬 Scott Simpson: How does this Kermadec announcement fit within the Government’s broader ambition of being a world leader in responsible management of our oceans?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Firstly, New Zealand has a world-class fisheries management system with the quota management system. Secondly, the new exclusive economic zone legislation that we passed in 2012 addressed the anomaly of an absence of environmental regulation for activities in that area and matches up with world best practice. Thirdly, we have made good progress with marine protected areas, with 10 new marine reserves in the territorial sea established last year and now with the Kermadec Islands, which we will aim to have in place by 1 October next year. The next steps will be revising our outdated marine reserves legislation and continuing our efforts internationally to establish a marine protected area in the Ross Sea, through the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources process, which meets in Hobart in a fortnight.

Employment—Gender Pay Gap

11. to the Minister for Women: Does she stand by the Prime Minister’s statement on the gender pay gap that “I don’t think it’s discrimination, it’s just the occupations they are more typically involved in”?

Yes, in the context in which it was given.

💬 Jan Logie: Could the Minister tell us how this Government will address the underpayment of women-dominated industries, such as midwifery, rest home work, and social work?

💬 Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The issues associated with the gender pay gap are complex. The member raises issues around pay equity, which, as the House is aware, is a matter that is before the courts at the moment. So although I am watching the issues carefully, I am not able to comment while it is before the courts.

💬 Jan Logie: Does the Minister think it is acceptable that due to Government inaction, the only recourse women have to address such inequality seems to be through our courts?

💬 Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I have said on numerous occasions that the gender pay gap is unacceptable. It is a very complex issue, with a range of contributing factors. Some of the measures that the Government has been undertaking include getting more women into high-demand, high-growth, and highly paid industries such as construction, and we have doubled the number in Canterbury in the last 2 years. We are increasing the number of women in leadership. We have made employment legislation to increase paid parental leave, we have parental tax credits, and, most important, there is the introduction of the right for every worker to request flexible work. In addition, we are directly countering unconscious bias.

💬 Jan Logie: Given that the gap between men and women’s median hourly earnings has risen by almost 20 percent in the past year and not one ministry has reducing the gender pay gap as an action point in its statement of intent, will the Government put a comprehensive plan in place to reduce the gender pay gap?

💬 Hon LOUISE UPSTON: That member will be pleased to know that, actually, the State Services Commission is leading the work on the public sector pay gap. It is currently decreasing. It is 14.1 percent, so it is coming down. But the member will also be pleased to know that the State Services Commission has a particular focus on developing future leaders and has a specific focus around increasing the ability for public sector employees to have increased levels of flexibility, which, as that member will know, is a significant aspect that women require in terms of their being supported in employment.

Trans-Pacific Partnership—Housing Market

12. to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does he stand by his statement, “I want to do things as Housing Minister that are going to make a material difference to my kids and their generation having access to more affordable homes”; if so, is he still confident he can do that under the terms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement?

Absolutely. The Trans-Pacific Partnership will help housing affordability in three ways. The measures of housing affordability use three components: incomes, interest rates, and house prices. The Trans-Pacific Partnership will grow the incomes of New Zealanders by giving Kiwi businesses access to markets of 800 million people, representing 36 percent of the world’s economy. As John Key and former Prime Minister Helen Clark said, we are not going to grow incomes by selling stuff to ourselves, with a population of just 4.5 million. Secondly, the Trans-Pacific Partnership helps the competitiveness of the materials and technologies that build homes. I welcome the entry of alternative technologies from countries like those in the Trans-Pacific Partnership that will actually help us build more affordable homes. Thirdly, open markets help keep interest rates and inflation low. Members opposite need to recognise that interest rates are at the lowest level in 40 years. That is a big help to the affordability for young families wanting to own their own home.

💬 Phil Twyford: Do the provisions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement mean New Zealand will not be able to ban non-resident foreigner buyers from buying existing homes?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, but we do not believe that will make any difference to the price that New Zealanders pay for homes. That certainly is the experience in Australia. I do find the Opposition party’s position very confusing. Its members say they are quite happy to have Aussies buying New Zealand homes, but if they happen to be Canadians, Americans—

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Or anybody with a Chinese name.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —or maybe those with Chinese-sounding names, they have a different position, although there are so many different positions that the Opposition party has had on the Trans-Pacific Partnership—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister can resume his seat.

💬 Phil Twyford: Is he aware that last year Australia’s restrictions on existing homes being purchased by non-resident foreigners drove nearly $30 billion of foreign investment into residential property development, more than the total value of residential construction in New Zealand in the same period, and does he really consider that to be ineffective?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Absolutely. The Australian policy has not worked because the prices of homes in Australia have gone up by more and are less affordable than what they are in New Zealand. If the Labour Party believes that Australia is the answer to housing affordability, it needs to explain why the housing price in Melbourne and Sydney is significantly greater than what it is in Auckland. It actually just shows what a nonsense Labour’s Chinese-sounding name policy is in respect of housing.

💬 Phil Twyford: Can he confirm that some of the countries that are members in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations successfully protected future lawmaking on issues like housing ownership; if so, why did not his Government?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Trans-Pacific Partnership—on which I think this House should be tremendously proud of the work Tim Groser did—specifically enables the Government, if it wishes, to put on a stamp duty or other measure. That is an option that might be effective if we were concerned about foreign ownership. Our Government’s position, though, is that we are going to make the decision on the basis of facts, not Chinese-sounding names. That is why we have passed legislation that will give us those facts.

💬 Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question about future lawmaking protection.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think the member has got a reasonable point. Can I invite him to repeat the question for the benefit of the Minister.

💬 Phil Twyford: Can he confirm that some of the countries in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiated protections for future lawmaking on issues like housing ownership; if so, why did not his Government?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Because we did. The Minister responsible, Tim Groser, specifically included provisions that might be used by our Government, such as a stamp duty that could be imposed on overseas owners, because it is our view that the instrument of a ban, which that member has advocated, is inconsistent because it would not apply, even under his policy, to Australia, would be inconsistent with the free-trade agreement that his Government negotiated with China, and would not make any material difference to the core issue of improving housing affordability for Kiwi families.