Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill

I move, That the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill. A report to be presented by the committee later this year will be a significant step for New Zealand in completing our domestic procedures necessary to ratify the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. The amendments introduced by the bill will take effect only from the date that the TPP agreement enters into force for New Zealand.

New Zealand needs to trade with the rest of the world. We will not become more prosperous or richer simply by selling to ourselves. Taking what we do best to the world—high-quality primary products, innovative solutions and technologies, and the world’s best place to travel and study—is what provides for our Kiwi standard of living. Improving access to international markets is part of the Government’s wider plan to create a stronger economy with more jobs and higher incomes for all New Zealanders. This Government strongly believes that with an open, innovative economy we can succeed in the global market.

Successive New Zealand Governments have pursued free-trade agreements to support New Zealand’s global connections and maximise opportunities for exporters. The TPP agreement is the latest in this legacy. I want to acknowledge the previous Labour Government and the foresight of Helen Clark and Phil Goff for kick-starting the negotiations that led to this very good agreement. I equally want to recognise the courage of David Shearer and Clayton Cosgrove for standing up for free trade. They appreciate that New Zealand’s future lies in being an open, confident country on the world stage.

The TPP is our largest free-trade agreement to date and it places us centrally in a region encompassing nearly 40 percent of global GDP. The TPP will deliver benefits to New Zealand and, ultimately, to all New Zealanders. The 12 TPP countries total 800 million people, who already buy over 40 percent of New Zealand’s exports—that is, $20 billion in goods and $8 billion in services. The TPP is New Zealand’s first free-trade agreement with the US, Japan, Canada, Mexico, and Peru, and together these countries buy around $12 billion of New Zealand’s goods and services annually.

Tariffs will be eliminated on 95 percent of New Zealand’s trade to these five countries once the TPP agreement is fully phased in, and, in total, it will see savings of around $274 million a year on goods exports, around half of which will accrue immediately when the agreement comes into force. This is around twice the savings initially forecast for the China free-trade agreement. With the exception of some dairy products to some markets and a reduced tariff rate on beef to Japan—where the rate falls from 38.5 percent to 9 percent for beef into Japan; the lowest ever agreed—all New Zealand - originated exports to TPP countries will ultimately be duty-free. The TPP will also reduce non-tariff barriers to trade and ensure fair access for New Zealand firms doing business in these 11 other countries.

The real strength of the TPP, however, lies in the fact that it is a regional set of rules greater than the sum of its parts. The TPP will help New Zealand exporters build regional supply chains, trade across multiple markets under the same rules, and build new partnerships, and ultimately it is estimated that the TPP will add at least an additional $2.7 billion a year to New Zealand’s GDP by 2030. Some will say that this is an insignificant amount. Well, it is $2.7 billion worth of additional economic activity, securing jobs in all of our regions.

The reasons for New Zealand becoming a party to the TPP are both economic and strategic. It is important to note that as a founding member of the TPP, New Zealand will gain an opportunity to exercise influence on the development of rules that the agreement will set for the region. This is both in respect of its present form and, more significantly, in the future, as membership may well increase.

The Asia-Pacific region is the world’s fastest growing and offers immense opportunity for New Zealand. Through agreements like the TPP, we will be exceptionally well placed to take advantage of those opportunities and shape future trade liberalisation in our region. A counterfactual scenario, where New Zealand is left out of such an agreement, puts New Zealand at risk of marginalisation and decline in the region. As a former Prime Minister said, it would be unthinkable that New Zealand would not sign up to the TTP—a real visionary for the Labour Party of old.

Over the past few months I have been talking with New Zealanders in large numbers at events around the country, including at TPP roadshows and hui, and it is clear that people understand that trade is critical to New Zealand’s prosperity, but there is some misinformation or misconceptions out there. The TPP preserves our core interests and it meets publicly stated bottom lines by those no longer pro - free trade. The TPP does not change the fundamentals of the Pharmac model or the standard, 20-year length of patents for medicines. Consumers will not pay more for their subsidised medicines as a result of the TPP. The TPP will not change the Government’s ability to make good law and regulations. Investor-State dispute settlement exists in many New Zealand agreements, and the risk of an investor-State dispute settlement case being taken against the Government, let alone it being successful, is extremely low.

In the TPP the Government has preserved the right for a future New Zealand Government to restrict the purchase of residential land by non-resident foreigners. Flexibility remains to impose new discriminatory taxes on purchases of residential property by TPP investors, and this could be extremely helpful for a future Government that wants to further restrict the 1 percent of foreigners who are buying homes in New Zealand.

Nothing in the TPP will prevent the Crown from meeting its obligations to Māori. The TPP includes a specific provision preserving the pre-eminence of the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand. The Waitangi Tribunal’s report on the claims concerning the TPP, which came out last week, found no breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. The TPP delivered meaningful gains in tariff reductions and market access, with total savings of $274 million a year in tariffs for New Zealand exporters and tariff elimination on 95.4 percent of New Zealand’s exports to new markets in the US, Japan, Canada, Mexico, and Peru.

This is a good trade deal for New Zealand, negotiated by the very same people who negotiated the China free-trade agreement. All of those bottom lines have been met, so the question must be asked—and it must be answered—has the Labour Party really turned its back on trade? If, as I suspect, it was higher in the polls, it would be voting in favour of the TPP, because it is clear that if Helen Clark or Phil Goff or David Shearer was still the leader of the Labour Party, they would be supporting the TPP.

This bill is the latest step in New Zealand’s domestic processes, with the TPP text and national interest analysis having just been examined by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. The committee utilised a substantially longer period for its examination than is specified by the Cabinet Manual, and received public submissions both in writing and in person.

New Zealand is already an open, transparent, and trade-friendly country, so most of the TPP’s obligations are met by New Zealand’s existing domestic legal and policy regime. However, a number of legislative and regulatory amendments are required to align New Zealand’s domestic laws with certain obligations. This bill is an omnibus bill, which makes all of the domestic legislative changes required to comply with New Zealand’s obligations in the TPP, except for obligations relating to plant variety rights, which New Zealand has a 3-year period following the TPP’s entry into force to consider and then implement. It is necessary for New Zealand to pass this bill before it is able to ratify the TPP.

The key amendments contained in the bill enable the application of a preferential tariff rate for imports originating from TPP countries, the increase of New Zealand’s overseas investment screening thresholds for significant business assets from $100 million to $200 million for certain non-government investors, and the implementation of the TPP intellectual property obligations. This follows a consultation carried out in March by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on the proposed implementation of certain intellectual property changes to New Zealand law required to ratify the TPP.

The TPP provides for an initial period of up to 2 years for all TPP countries to complete their respective domestic processes necessary to ratify. To make the economic opportunities of the TPP a reality for the people of New Zealand, we must progress our domestic ratification process, allowing New Zealand to bring the TPP into force along with our trading partners.

The TPP is our biggest and our most valuable free-trade agreement to date and it places us centrally in the world’s fastest-growing region. It will deliver immense opportunity for New Zealand businesses. It will level the playing field for our exporters, whom this Government backs to succeed and to grow. It gives me pleasure and pride to commend this bill to the House.

This National Government has destroyed a bipartisan approach to trade that has existed for decades. It has destroyed a convention that saw the leading parties in Parliament work together in the long-term interests of this country, and it has done that through its wilfully arrogant approach to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations. This Labour Government over here is a Government—sorry, this Labour Party over here, not yet a Government, is a party that supports free trade. We always have. The first Labour Government pushed for increased access for trade in Europe. But we wish to protest, in the strongest possible terms, the current Government’s failure to effectively represent the long-term interests of New Zealand in the TPP negotiations. As it stands, we cannot support the ratification of the TPP agreement.

The legislation before us is an attempt to codify in the law an agreement that, through a wilfully arrogant approach, has failed to represent New Zealand’s long-term interests as well as it could have. As a result, our sovereignty is being unnecessarily curtailed for an agreement with dubious benefits. It is consistent with a National Government that has lost its way. It is increasingly arrogant and out of touch. It is ignoring the big issues facing everyday New Zealanders: the housing crisis, health cuts, jobs, wages, and rising education costs. It is too focused on those at the top—the mega-rich—and it is not looking out for middle New Zealand. Well, a Labour Government will look out for those in middle New Zealand. We would restore the Kiwi Dream.

The Government’s chief negotiator could not give any confirmation that it had sought to preserve the right of future Governments to legislate for a ban on non-resident foreign speculators in New Zealand’s housing market, and then in this House the Minister stood up and said that the Government never asked for one. It did not ask for a ban on non-resident foreign speculators. The Minister confirmed it in the House, in February. It was so arrogant that it abandoned the previous approach to trade that has served this country for decades. That is the nature of this Government. It abandoned the consensus model that has worked for decades, and as a consequence we have got a worse deal. We have not got the best deal that New Zealanders could have got, to consider in this Parliament.

Other countries preserved the right of their sovereign Governments to legislate in the national interest. Let us not forget when we look at the annexes in the TPP agreement that Singapore, Viet Nam, and Australia, to name three countries, sought wider powers to legislate that could, would, and should, if they wanted to, include a ban on non-resident foreign speculators in their housing market. Our country did not get that. But worse, it did not even ask for that right, despite it being the policy of one of the major parties in this Parliament for a couple of years. It was introduced by David Shearer. It was confirmed by Andrew Little as a clear policy that we in future wanted to introduce a ban on non-resident foreign speculators in the New Zealand residential housing market because they are distorting our economy. But the Government is not interested in that. It is interested in protecting the interests of the wealthy few. At least it is consistent.

But it is a great shame because the agreement that has been put before this House for consideration, the legislation that it is based on, which we are looking at today, is not as good as it could be. It is not in New Zealanders’ interests in the way that it might have been had the approach been taken that previous Governments have taken, where they included unions, businesses, and academics in the shaping of the negotiating documents. I have learnt that other countries in the TPP process have included those bodies in the development of their negotiating documents in a way that this Government did not do.

The Government thought it was above consulting with New Zealand businesses. I have heard from businesses in New Zealand that are not happy with the way that this process has been conducted. The Government thought it was above consulting with unions on the development of this deal because it thought it knew better. The Government thought it was above consulting with academics on putting this trade deal together in New Zealand’s interests, because it is arrogant. It is increasingly out of touch with middle New Zealand, and it is increasingly saying that it is above the interests of specialists in this country too. And, of course, all of this leads to a situation where the Government has not even asked for the things that would help New Zealand’s future economy to shift away from the speculative sector and towards the productive sector, which we know will be in our long-term economic interests. It is, essentially, the mark of a Government that seems prepared to manage decline in our economy. It used to speak of aspiration; it does not any more. Now it is just about being a part of the club.

The Labour Party believes that the ability to act in the interests of New Zealand residents and citizens is a principle that builds faith in participative democracy. Unnecessary weakening of sovereign State powers achieves the opposite. We are opposed in principle to this deal.

We also want to register our protest at the shameful curtailing of the processes that led up to this point. In the select committee process that I participated in, we had a 6,000-page document, negotiated over 5 years with corporates in the room. We were given a matter of weeks for submitters across New Zealand to work through it, come to their views, and share what might be in New Zealand’s wider interests, because they had not been a part of that wider consultation period that previously existed. So these people expected New Zealanders to come to terms and give good advice in that very short period of time. Of course they did their best.

Then the Government changed the process again, so that the parliamentarians receiving the submissions did not have the time previously allocated to work through them to make sure that we could make the best recommendations back to this Parliament. That is the arrogance. That is the increasingly out-of-touch nature of this Government. It knows better. It knows better than the experts in New Zealand. It knows better than the businesses. It knows better than the unions. It knows better than the academics. It is determined to ram this process through before Christmas because it does not want to be dealing with this in election year. It knows that the transparency of sunlight—the wider examination—is not going to be popular with the public when they see what this Government has traded off in order to get a deal done to be a part of the club.

We have already seen some warnings, too, in the material that has come through from Treasury. We have not seen it all. The regulatory impact statements were revealed just a couple of days ago, out from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—very late in the piece. We have scanned through them, of course, quickly. We have seen little titbits of advice from Treasury—of course not publicly released. There is more secrecy than needs to be in this process, and it continues. But Treasury says: “the timeframes for decisions have not allowed for a full assessment of the potential impacts or risks involved in some of the proposals. Further work is needed with stakeholders to ensure the proposals are workable and any unintended consequences are mitigated if Ministers wish to reduce the risk of substantive amendments being required as a result of information emerging at the select committee stage.”

Of course, when all of that happens, those decisions will be made on the fly, too. This is not the way to make good legislation in the national interest. It has not been, the whole way through. It is the sign of a Government that is increasingly arrogant and out of touch, and interested only in being a part of the club. It is not working in the interests of middle New Zealand and it is not working in the interests of future sovereign Governments by regulating in the national interest.

We saw also in the previous examination processes that the modelling was flawed. Submitters pointed out that one of the calculations involved in the modelling for the national interest analysis was out by a factor of 300. I have never seen such a thing in economic modelling in all my time, and yet we are supposed to rely on that as an indication that this deal is good for New Zealand. On top of this, the Government has not supplied proper, thorough analysis on the employment outcomes, the income distribution outcomes. What analysis is available comes from overseas and suggests up to 6,000 job losses as a result of this agreement by 2025 and a drop in the proportion of income that goes to wages, as opposed to capital, over time. That should concern all New Zealanders.

Tim Groser said he would pull out of the deal if there was nothing for dairy. Well, there is $90 million by 2030 for dairy, in terms of increased output. Traditional modelling would say that all of that value would accrue to consumers overseas, so we have no value to New Zealand in that—perhaps nine jobs. That is the output of three large dairy farms—perhaps nine jobs by 2030. If that is what Mr Groser thinks is the big deal for dairy, then we have really seen how far ambition has fallen under this Government.

We know that the modelling is very rough. We have had it pointed out to us that gains, on a very optimistic model, as a result of the tariff barrier reductions would amount to 0.05 percent of GDP by 2030. Normal growth, without this agreement, in the New Zealand economy on historical averages over that time would be 47 percent—47 percent without the TPP and 0.05 percent with—

I am sorry to interrupt the member, but his time has expired.

I have some sympathy for the member David Clark, who has just taken his seat. That was a real struggle for him. If actually you have a look and try to find the substance in that speech, you will struggle. It was a whole lot of flimflam, and that is what we saw during the select committee process as well. There was a heavy focus on process. So let me very quickly just address the process side of things, because I want to acknowledge that we have got Dr David Clark as the trade portfolio holder who subbed on to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. We did not see him for all the hearings—

💬 David Bennett: Didn’t see him for any of it.

Well, that is probably true. Dr Kennedy Graham from the Greens, of course, will probably focus on process as well, and I will acknowledge Fletcher Tabuteau from New Zealand First.

The process—what we did first of all was we doubled the amount of time for people to be able to make submissions on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The text itself was publicly available in November of last year, and, of course, we had the national interest analysis as well, which was available to people. We also, as a committee, made a decision that we would accept late submissions and we did that, and we worked with submitters who came to us. Professor Jane Kelsey is a high-profile example of someone who was also working on the Waitangi Tribunal hearing around the TPP, and she requested additional time. We accommodated her, we gave her additional time, and she came along and she was able to make her submission.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Did you win her over?

To be honest with you, we were surprised at her submission. It was very low-key and there were not any major issues that were raised during her submission that the committee had not already heard.

I want to address some of those issues, but one thing I do want to raise—and I find it very interesting looking across at the Labour benches. I know there are free traders in the Labour caucus. I do not see any of them in the House today. Maybe “Stuie” Nash—Stuart Nash, maybe. Stuart will have a great feeling in terms of how important it is for the manufacturing businesses in the primary industry—very strong primary industries—that he has in his electorate, and he will understand the importance of the TPP to them. So let us see if he takes a call. I will be interested to see who takes a call.

It was great to see Grant Robertson come on to the committee. It was great to see him come on to participate in the deliberation, because what he did when he came on to the committee was he highlighted some points that were actually very positive and that were very, very good. He highlighted things that were great about the agreement that actually had not been picked up. You did a great job of that, Grant. We actually appreciate your input. It might have been helpful if you had spoken with David before you came to the committee, but, anyway, I do not want to dwell too much on that.

What I want to dwell on is the bottom lines—[Interruption] No, that is right. Let us dwell on the bottom lines that Andrew Little gave us, because there is something here that needs to be addressed. So let us go through the first one: “Pharmac must be protected …”—Pharmac must be protected. Let us go to our committee report. “The PHARMAC model will remain unchanged under TPP, including PHARMAC’s ability to prioritise which pharmaceuticals get listed for reimbursement … and its negotiating practices. However, there would be some additional transparency requirements associated with PHARMAC’s processes, and this would involve potential costs of $4.5 million … and $2.2 million of ongoing costs per year.” So the Pharmac model is protected. Tick—let us tick that one off. Pharmac is protected, Grant. Great news.

The second bottom line is that “Corporations cannot successfully sue the Government for regulating in the public interest …”. So this goes back to investor-State dispute settlement. Let us see what the committee uncovered in terms of investor-State dispute settlement: “The ISDS mechanism in Section B of Chapter 9 provides for the settlement of disputes between foreign investors and the government of the country in which the investment is made. If a dispute cannot be settled within six months through consultation and negotiation, the investor may submit the issue to arbitration. The ISDS mechanism applies only to the investment provisions in the TPP. Despite ISDS, governments retain the right to regulate in the public interest under TPP. Important safeguards include protecting discriminatory regulatory actions by the New Zealand Government to protect legitimate public welfare objectives, such as public health, safety, and the environment.” It could not be any clearer.

It also says: “We note that the ISDS provisions enable protection for New Zealanders who may be operating in countries with a different legal system from New Zealand. We also note that there is no way in which TPP affects New Zealand’s sovereignty and New Zealand’s right to legislate in the public interest.” We could not be any clearer. Let us tick that box. Another of Labour’s bottom lines is that “The Treaty of Waitangi must be upheld …”. Well, we have seen the recent findings from the hearing that was held around that. Let us tick that box. Another is that “Meaningful gains are made for our farmers in tariff reductions and market access …”.

What I find very interesting is that we are not going to hear from the Hon Phil Goff. Why? As a past trade Minister, he supports this agreement, along with another past leader, Helen Clark. She also supports it and says that we cannot afford to be out of it. The interesting thing is the Hon Phil Goff has no economic portfolio and no trade-related portfolios. We have got David Shearer, who made a very good contribution on the committee. Again, he has no economic and no trade portfolios. Where is he? I do not know if we will hear from him.

The Hon Damien O’Connor—a free trader. He is a free trader. He holds the primary industries portfolio. Let us see who came and made a submission to the committee and who said this agreement was critically important to their industries and the future growth of New Zealand. We had the Meat Industry Association and we had Beef and Lamb New Zealand, the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association, New Zealand Winegrowers, the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand, Fonterra—of course—Export New Zealand, ManufacturingNZ, Horticulture New Zealand Inc., the New Zealand Horticultural Export Authority, Federated Farmers—I could go on and on. I would be very interested to see whether the Hon Damien O’Connor, as the primary industries portfolio holder, will come to this House today and stand up and say—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Oh, I doubt it—I doubt it.

—Labour is not supporting this free-trade agreement. I doubt that we will see that—I agree with you. I do not think that we will see that. Let us tick that box.

The other thing that I am very interested for the next speaker to get up and address is this. When we had the five bottom lines put out by the Labour Party, by the Labour leader, the wording around the restriction of farmland and housing was just that—the “restriction”—“The restriction of foreign sales on residential properties and farm land.”

💬 Dr David Clark: No, it was a ban.

No, it is not. No, it was not a ban.

💬 Dr David Clark: It was clear in our policy.

No, it was not a ban. The ban has been introduced. This is very clear—the fact that it was a restriction. We have the right settings. We have the ability right now, and we manage the restriction on foreign ownership of our farms and residential property very, very well.

If you have changed your position, and if you are trying to—this is an omnibus bill. You guys are faced with a big problem. How are you going to back yourselves out of your position? That is what you are doing right now. You are—

💬 Grant Robertson: Hey, Mark, thank you so much for the advice, eh.

I am sure that there are some interesting conversations going on in your caucus room. Grant, how are you going to back yourselves out of this position? You know it is a very poor one. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker, can I have the 2 minutes that Mark Mitchell didn’t take?

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just get into it.

Earlier in my working life, I had the honour of being an adviser in the office of Helen Clark. During that period of time, one of the jobs that I had was to work on the China free-trade agreement, and, in particular, one of the jobs that I had was to work with stakeholders across the community on their views on the China free-trade agreement. There were people with very, very strong views coming to the table—people from industry, from primary industries, from manufacturing, from the union movement, from the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, and from environmental groups. The Labour Government took seriously the job that we had on behalf of the people of New Zealand to have a discussion with them about trade, about what New Zealand could benefit from in the China free-trade agreement, and about the challenges and the risks within that free-trade agreement. That was an important job—a leadership role that the Government could show. So as we worked our way through the China free-trade agreement, public support for it grew. By the time it was signed, yes, there were still people with concerns about it, but, fundamentally, it enjoyed public support, and a big part of that was because we took New Zealanders with us. We were not so arrogant as to think: “We know everything, and we don’t need to bring the public with us.” That is the approach of this National Government to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Tim Groser is a bit of a figure of fun sometimes in this House, or he has been. I am always reminded of the quote from Mike Moore that the problem with Tim Groser is that he did not get enough credit for splitting the atom. That is the kind of thing people have said about Tim Groser. But today, for me, the humour that was sometimes generated by Tim Groser goes into the background because of how he has let down New Zealand with the way this process was undertaken: in secret, without conversation with New Zealanders, and without bringing New Zealanders along with him.

One of the main concerns about the TPP that members of Parliament—right across this House, I would judge—have heard from people is the feeling that somehow or other the interests of corporations are more important than the interests of citizens. That is what people have been saying. [Interruption] I do not expect Mr Muller to agree with me on that, but I am saying to him that that is what he will have heard, because that is how New Zealanders feel when there is this inside route, this inside access, that gets you influence over the Government, be it Ken Whitney on trusts or be it people on the inside of these negotiations. Most New Zealanders—ordinary citizens of New Zealand—have not been brought along with this agreement, and that is the responsibility of the Government, and that is the responsibility of Mr Groser.

As my colleague David Clark said, the Labour Party is proud of the trade agreements that we have been a part of, right back to the first Labour Government—right back to Walter Nash and Peter Fraser, who said: “We know that we need to support our exporters.” We agree, and we have fought for that. But the fundamental point about the TPP that the Government does not want to acknowledge is that it is not a trade agreement. It is not a trade agreement; it is an agreement about investment and regulation, and, ultimately, it is an agreement that, on this side of the House, the Labour Party, regretfully, cannot support. We would have wanted to support an agreement that opens up market access and that gives our exporters a greater chance on the world stage. But then, when we contrast that with the agreement that sits in front of us today, we cannot support it.

My colleague David Clark has gone into the fact that, actually, it is a poor agreement in many ways, particularly in the case of dairy, the very sector about which Tim Groser stood up and said: “If there’s not a good deal for dairy, we’re walking away.” That is what he said—“If there’s not a good deal for dairy, I’ll be happy to walk away.” And he ends up with a deal on dairy that is worth the output of three farms—there you go. He is prepared to trade away all sorts of things for the output of three farms. He told New Zealanders that. He told New Zealanders that if it was a bad deal for dairy, he would walk away. It is a terrible deal for dairy.

💬 Hon Member: It’s not a terrible deal for dairy.

It is a terrible deal for dairy. But all that is dwarfed by a fundamental concept for us in the Labour Party—that is, the ability of a future Government to make a decision in New Zealand’s national interest to limit offshore buyers from buying existing residential property. This is Labour Party policy. It has been Labour Party policy for several years. That is the policy that we have taken out to New Zealanders, because they are rightly worried about having an out-of-control housing market in which buyers from offshore exert a disproportionate influence on the housing market. They come with deeper pockets, and they push up the prices. People are worried. Labour has got a clear, direct policy to deal with that: a ban on offshore buyers buying existing residential property. The Australians do it. The Australians are in agreement. They have protected their right to do it. Viet Nam has not actually implemented the policy yet, but it has protected its right to do it. But the New Zealand Government went into these negotiations and failed to do that.

This is the issue that upset us, but you can take this issue more widely. Why have we all come to this House as MPs? We have come here on the basis of saying that we want to do things to improve the well-being of New Zealanders. Our job as parliamentarians is to come here and make laws, pass policies, and pass Budgets that will do things for New Zealanders. Today the Government expects us to vote for a piece of legislation that, effectively, enables it to stop us from doing that—to stop us from putting in place a policy that we believe to be fundamentally important. That is why the Labour Party cannot support this bill, because, fundamentally, it should be the right of this Parliament to make the decision to put a ban on offshore buyers buying property. This Government has failed to do that for us.

The Government seems to think that its big, exciting ploy here—Mark Mitchell’s entire speech was to go through and read out all about what different Labour Party members might think about this or that. And then, you know, his clever little tactics, which he is putting up here—stop playing games, Mr Mitchell. Stop playing games and give an honest speech about why you think New Zealanders should support this agreement, because that is what people want to hear—that is what people want to hear. They do not want to hear your speculation about the Labour Party. Stop playing political games with this bill—stop playing political games. Stand up and explain to New Zealanders why it is that you have taken away the right of a future Government to legislate in New Zealand’s interest in respect of the offshore buyers of existing residential property.

That is what this comes down to for those of us on the Labour Party side. We have a fundamental belief in the importance of the democratic process. We have a fundamental belief in the right of New Zealanders to make laws for themselves and in their interests. That is what we should do.

We support exporters, and we support good quality free-trade agreements. What we do not support are poor agreements signed off in secret by a Government not interested in taking the New Zealand people with them. This Government knows today—its members think they are being clever; they think they can play little political games about this—that it is more important than that. This Government should be bringing to this House an agreement that New Zealanders have been brought along with, that New Zealanders have an understanding of, and in which New Zealanders know that their rights and interests are being protected. Instead, most New Zealanders find themselves asking whose side this Government is on. Is it on the side of ordinary New Zealanders—hard-working New Zealanders—or is it on the side of the very fortunate few who got the inside access and who get the inside running with this Government?

We need good-quality trade agreements, ones that create jobs, ones that support New Zealanders’ rights, and ones that fundamentally uphold democracy. Sadly—tragically for New Zealand—this Government has failed that test.

I just want to bring a couple of items to the notice of the House. The first is Speaker’s ruling 68/5, and the second is Speaker’s ruling 69/2, which is about interjections. The debate on this bill is going to be wide. You are going to be given a lot of latitude to be able to draw attention to the issues that members wish to do so. But there is not going to be a whole lot of latitude for people constantly interjecting, repeating phrases, and asking questions of the person who is on their feet. I remind the House of the findings of previous Speakers, particularly—my personal favourite—Speaker Hunt, who said that interjections should be rare and reasonable and, hopefully, witty. So a barrage that comes from either side, depending on who is on their feet at the time, is not in order.

💬 Grant Robertson: “Courtesy is contagious.”

Courtesy is contagious, and so are a number of other afflictions.

The only party in this Parliament that is playing political games is the New Zealand Labour Party. It is a party that is playing political games with $28 billion worth of New Zealand exports to Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) countries, because that is what it comes down to. That is the bottom line: $28 billion of exports go to TPP countries; 40 percent of New Zealand’s total exports go to TPP countries. This agreement gives New Zealand exporters access to a third of world economic output—800 million consumers—and that is what this bill is all about. It is implementing the agreement that this Government has signed up to, the TPP agreement, and New Zealand’s obligations under it.

What a good day for the Government. It is a good day for the Government because the Government is standing up and supporting New Zealand exporters. The Government is standing up and supporting those who wish to help to grow the economy. It is standing beside those who are productive in this country and wish to export more goods to other nations around the world. Undoubtedly, trade agreements improve New Zealand’s access to other nations, and that means we sell more goods to other nations. That means we grow faster as a nation. That means we build more jobs and have greater growth in this country.

The speeches from David Clark and Grant Robertson show us that the Labour Party has now abandoned New Zealanders and has abandoned free trade. I thought it was against the Standing Orders to misrepresent in this House. A statement saying that the Labour Party supports free trade is misrepresenting. It is misleading the House. Labour Party members are showing by their very actions, by their very statements, and by their very speeches in this House that they no longer support free trade. What is their argument—what is their argument for opposing the TPP? Their argument for opposing the TPP is that they came up with a policy that they believe is important, and the Government did not go and consult the Labour Party and ask whether we should put in place, in the trade agreement, provisions to allow it to implement its policy. It is a policy that the Labour Party did not have when it started negotiating the TPP. It is a policy that is not necessary, based on the figures we have seen this week, but it is those members’ only reason for opposing the TPP.

Labour members cannot stand up and say that it is bad that New Zealanders have greater export opportunities. They cannot stand up and say it is bad that greater job creation and greater growth for New Zealand should be in place. They cannot stand up and say that we have not met their bottom lines, because we have. Pharmac must be protected—done that. Corporations cannot successfully sue the Government for regulation in the public interest—done that. The Treaty of Waitangi must be upheld—done that. Meaningful gains are made for our farmers in tariff reductions and market access—done that. Residents from overseas can be restricted if they wish to buy a property—can do that, too; done that. Every single one of Labour’s bottom lines we have met, because you can restrict those who wish to buy from overseas. It can be done—it can be done. We just cannot ban them, which is not what its bottom line was. Labour’s bottom line was not that foreigners be banned—

💬 Dr David Clark: Yes, it was.

—it was that a restriction can be put in place. Well, Mr David Clark, let us have a look at the press releases that Labour has put in place. The press releases Labour put in place said that “restriction” is what should be looked at. But why are we even having this debate over Labour Party policy? This is a trade agreement. This is about getting better access for New Zealanders. Overwhelmingly, those who are in the business of helping to grow this economy, those who are in the business of helping to grow exports, and those who are in the business of helping to sell goods and services to overseas markets support this agreement.

The New Zealand National Party, alongside our support partners—with the exception, I think, of the Māori Party—is standing beside New Zealanders and working towards greater exports. The Labour Party used to believe in that. In fact, under the China free-trade agreement, which Grant Robertson referred to, New Zealand has seen year-on-year 20 percent increases in exports. We know through previous trade agreements that when we do implement them we see greater export growth compared with countries that do not. That is why the only successful Labour leader of the current generation recently said this: “What always haunts one as the New Zealand Prime Minister is: will there be a series of trade blocs you’re not part of? Because that is unthinkable for New Zealand, an exporter and small trading nation. So of course New Zealand has to be in the action with the Trans-Pacific Partnership”.

💬 Hon Member: Who said that?

That is from Helen Clark, the only successful Labour leader of the current generation. Labour should be listening to her.

The New Zealand Government is doing what is right for New Zealand exporters and for New Zealanders. We are going to see more jobs, we are going to see greater growth, and that is what New Zealand deserves.

Every once in a while there is something that occurs in national politics that becomes a seminal moment. In 2016 the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement has highlighted, to a considerable extent, the political misjudgment of this Government and the shortcomings in our constitutional system of governance. In the general debate yesterday I highlighted the shortcomings of the procedural observance by the Government in the select committee process, and even our constitutional shortcomings in according full powers to the executive and no real role to the legislature in the examination of major international treaties such as the TPP. I shall not rehearse these views here, other than to repeat that because, by a majority decision, there is to be no parliamentary debate on the treaty itself, I am left with no alternative but to have complete freedom to address the policy considerations of the treaty. There is no other way to record due respect to the people of New Zealand, who have submitted in large numbers and with deep passion before the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and who oppose—by 39 to 26 percent—ratification.

I turn now to the substance of the treaty, setting aside the content of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill, which will be referred to us in the select committee. The Green minority view, which is part of the committee’s report, identified the substantive shortcomings of the TPP agreement. They can be read online, but here is a summary. First: “The Government is adopting the wrong criteria for judging the national interest. Even applying its own criteria, the net economic benefit is weak; the Government’s commitment to TPP is essentially political, and its political judgment is contestable.” Second: “The TPP is portrayed as a ‘free-trade’ document which it demonstrably is not; it envisages partial economic integration with provisions on investment, land ownership, and public health policy that are invasive of recognised levels of national sovereignty, potentially intimidating for our national legislature.” Third: “The TPP provisions, as with other contemporary FTAs, is inimical to the imperative of sustainability, relegating environmental protection measures (particularly climate policy) to ‘clip-on’ status rather than having them as central and integral to public policy.”

These three criticisms come together into one overall critique when we search for the reason why this Government attaches such high importance to the TPP itself, and also to rushing it through with unseemly haste. The fundamental question to be asked of the Government, the bottom line of the whole complex debate, is this: what is the basic rationale for determining that ratifying the TPP agreement is in the net national interest? The explanatory note states that this is an omnibus bill introduced under the Standing Orders because it deals with “an interrelated topic that can be regarded as implementing a single broad policy.” So what is the single broad policy the Government is pursuing with this bill, which seeks to amend 11 existing Acts? This is nowhere specified. The explanatory note asserts that there is a single broad policy, but it does not say what that policy is.

So we are left to turn to a press release by the Minister of Trade, who, unsurprisingly, advances the ministerial view that the TPP is important for New Zealand because it will remove trade barriers for exporters. That is as close as we get to the single broad policy identified by the Government for this massive, ominous, mysterious, and altogether intimidating legislation. But that is not a single broad policy; it is a specific national policy—the promotion of New Zealand exports. If that is a single broad policy, it is insufficient in itself. It ignores other economic considerations. It ignores broader political considerations, and there are many of those, as identified by the huge majority of New Zealanders who sent in 3,000 written submissions and the 255 who testified before the committee. Yet, in the name of the export interest, the bill will change New Zealand legislation in the following areas: agriculture, health, copyright, customs, hazardous substances, the internet, overseas investment, patents, trademarks, and horticulture.

The national interest analysis, prepared by intelligent people in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, runs to 277 pages. It is a useless document because it was prepared by the negotiators even as the ink was drying. It therefore lacks any pretence of objectivity. In fact, it should be, naturally, viewed with suspicion for that reason. But let us peruse the national interest analysis for its content. “The reasons for … becoming a Party to TPP”, it says, “are … economic and strategic. Trade is critical to continued growth and prosperity,”. There is the goal of growing exports to 40 percent of GDP by 2025. Key to this is the removal of barriers to trade and investment. Standing aside from TPP “risks marginalisation and decline for New Zealand in the region.”, as we heard from the Minister of Trade. Our competitiveness would be “eroded, and trade and investment would be diverted away”. Joining TPP, therefore, provides “a significant net advantage for New Zealand, resulting from increased exports and greater regional economic integration.”

That is the stated rationale used by the Government for ratifying the TPP. With respect, it is wrong. The fundamental mistake is asserting that “Trade is critical to continued growth and prosperity.” That is incorrect. The World Bank statistics show clearly that there is no close evidential correlation between a country’s percentage of exports to GDP and national wealth. Of the 161 countries ranked by the World Bank, New Zealand is ranked at 105. We are at 29 percent. Above us are some very poor countries. There is Maldives at 108 percent, Viet Nam at 66 percent, the Republic of the Congo at 73 percent, Cambodia at 62 percent, Guyana at 51 percent, and Benin at 36 percent. Below us are some, quite richer, countries. The UK is below us, so are Australia and Japan, and so is the United States of America, at 13 percent. The fundamental assumption that underpins the whole edifice of “New Zealand Inc.” is based largely on myth—the higher the export to GDP ratio, the wealthier a country becomes. That is not necessarily correct.

Comparative advantage underpins trade, but a blind devotion to trade at any cost does not necessarily underpin the global public good. Clearly, exports as a fraction of GDP are not, as alleged by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the national interest analysis, the critical driver to growth and prosperity. There is nothing wrong with trade per se; it depends on the terms. There was not one submitter who opposed trade. The Green Party supports having a healthy trading regime for New Zealand that meets the strict standards of sustainability and fairness required of our 21st century global society, of which a sound global economy is a legitimate part. But we must be honest with ourselves, whether in Government, Opposition, or the public. Let us not delude ourselves that export growth is the Holy Grail to national riches—something to which this Government, locked in the grip of “New Zealand Inc.”, pays humble obeisance.

The Green Party does not accept the underlying rationale for the TPP, and will oppose its ratification and this implementing legislation.

Most New Zealanders are tired, to be honest. They are tired of this Government just ignoring them. They are tired of the simplistic and dishonest spin campaigns that suggest to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is to oppose trade. This is not even called a trade deal.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Big night out, was it?

They are tired, and they resent this Government for not listening, just like that Minister over there. They are tired, and they want to be heard. They wanted to be consulted, in fact. Members of the public were not engaged with. They were not consulted or listened to. Instead, they were told extensively and repeatedly that the consultation process was the most prolific and robust in the country’s history. Yet despite the great spin from the Government, the stark and frightening reality is that just about every submitter noted the lack of consultation, and that is the true reality of the situation we are in today.

Did I mention they were tired, Mr Bridges? They want to be heard as submitters. As submitters spoke to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, this Government was writing the select committee’s members’ report for them. Before submitters had finished—in fact, before some of them had even started their submission—the report was being written for the Government. That is the quality of democracy that this Government holds to heart. No wonder it has no qualms signing our democracy away: the Government holds no value in it. How can it be giving democracy and sovereignty away if it is already gone?

Apparently in the Government’s world—its little quasi-dictatorship—you do not need to listen to the people, but you do need to be seen to be going through the motions of listening to the people. You have got to have hearings across the country, but to write down what the majority of submitters actually said in their submissions—apparently that is just way out of line for this Government. It is not necessary for the report to actually reflect the submitters’ collective wisdom. Well, thank you, National Government.

As to the enabling legislation, let us be honest: this is perfectly good legislation if the intent of this Government is to sell us up the river. Actually, we do know that now. That is exactly the intent of this Prime Minister and every other MP sitting on the other side of this House, sitting there like adoring sycophants, nodding their bobble heads, saying: “Trade—trade is good.” They have bought into the rhetoric from the 1 percent: make the top incredibly wealthy, and somehow everyone else will benefit from this. It just does not work that way.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What a load of nonsense.

I want to take this opportunity to educate Mr Bridges and other members on the other side of the House on the consolidation of corporate welfare and entitlement. It is a huge problem in the US right now. Given that those entitled corporates wrote the trade agreement that we are debating now—at least, 605 of them anyway—I think it will be hard to argue that their very simple intent is to expand that entitlement around the world and here into New Zealand, because right now their profits are not as good outside their borders as they are inside them. By passing this legislation through the House, all that this Government is doing is enabling corporate power and corporate dominance.

Do you know why the World Trade Organization trade talks have stalled? Do you know why it has taken decades for them to make progress? It is because those discussions are the ones that local businesses, local small to medium sized enterprises, think they are getting from the TPP. The trade facilitation agreements, the Doha rounds, are the ones that are truly seeking to remove barriers to trade. They are not making good progress because most of our major trading partners, including the major players in the TPP, do not want to fully open their borders or liberalise their economies to outside trade. No, what they want is the TPP.

What the TPP gives New Zealand businesses is this supposed carrot in the form of tariff removals that even our Government’s own analysis says will benefit the country by less than 2 percent in about 25 years from now. Other more reliable and independent research says less than 1 percent, and they are very careful not to say that it will benefit the country, because they are clear in their estimations and their projections that this trade deal will, again, only benefit the few.

As the presidential wannabes in the US move around the country, they can see that the investment settings in their trade deals have gutted the country of its businesses and meaningful employment for Americans. That is the truth of the situation. That is what the TPP will do for New Zealand. Objective analysis has shown this to be true. History has shown this to be true. If it was just a trade deal, then I would support the few businesses that came before the select committee and told us how it would benefit their industries. I believed them and I agreed with them—tiny, but a good start. That would be true in isolation. So I thank those submitters who came before us to tell us how good tariff reductions are—no argument from me and no argument from New Zealand First on that. But it is the role of this Government, and most certainly today the role of the Opposition, to advocate for and act in the best interests of all New Zealanders—all New Zealanders.

I pointed out before that the TPP is a partnership agreement. It does not even pretend to call itself a trade deal. That would be too audacious. It is a partnership agreement. It is only the political salespeople on the other side of the House who have decided the best pitch to the country and the masses is to call it a trade deal: “Trade—trade is good.”

In the US right now a debate is raging, mainly because of the response to some outsiders who have upset the mainstream presidential candidates. The debate is on the power of the giant corporates. This is not a fringe debate; it drives to the heart of the American Dream, and I suggest to everyone here that New Zealanders are of a similar inclination. A person of skill and talent who is prepared to put in the hard graft should be rewarded for that. The problem is that corporate America is making that harder by the day. They are shutting out competition, stifling innovation, and building moats around their own companies. This is what the intent of the TPP is—not to enable big New Zealand business to do the same here, but for international corporates to export their entrenchment, their entitlement, their privilege around the world and into New Zealand.

I end with several quotes: “The ability of big firms to influence and navigate an ever-expanding rule book may explain why the rate of small company creation in America is close to its lowest mark since the 1970s.” This is what we are signing up to. This is not the New Zealand we know, nor is it the New Zealand we want. We are a country of small businesses, of entrepreneurs, of battlers.

In the 1990s adventurers from around the world piled into America, with the share of output from foreign-owned subsidiaries rising steadily. But since 2003 foreign firms contributing to the US economy have been flat, at about 6 percent of private business output. So I do not expect huge gains for New Zealand businesses in the US economy. They may be reducing their tariffs by 1 to 2 percent, and I am not understating the case. They have their moats built around them and they have their Government subsidies to protect them. We all know this is true for Japan and Canada too. So New Zealand First says on behalf of all supposed trade advocates that we cannot expose our New Zealand businesses to this type of competition, to this type of privilege.

As I said at the start of my contribution, this enabling legislation does exactly what it sets out to do, concisely and effectively, as far as I can see at the moment, and it is for that very reason that New Zealand First cannot support it. Thank you.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will benefit New Zealanders and will benefit Māori. Listening to the many public submissions, several themes came through and today I want to focus on one primarily; that is, TPP and the impact on and for Māori. I want to discuss that under several headings: first of all, Māori engagement and consultation, Māori economic benefits, and then Māori protections. As we look at specific TPP engagement and engagement with Māori, engagement started way back in 2008 with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade when it put out public submissions. It also did the same in 2011. Back in 2008 Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporation was one of the first to reply to public submissions, followed over the time with meetings with the Federation of Māori Authorities and Te Ohu Rata o Aotearoa. Specific TPP engagement clearly occurred with Māori, but the ministry had wider engagement with the Māori business community, which, of course, took into account TPP as well. In fact, as part of that wider outreach programme the ministry had engagement with Miraka Ltd, Tuarōpaki Ltd, Sealord, Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, Waikato Milking Systems, Te Ohu Kaimoana, Te Awanui Huka Pak Ltd, Tainui Group Holdings, Ngāi Tahu Holdings Corporation, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and Te Tumu Paeroa—the Māori Trustee. Clearly, a wide spread of Māori businesses were engaged in a general capacity with the ministry in quite a short time frame—between 2013 and 2015, so quite contemporaneously. So I would make the case that, where we heard from some submitters that Māori engagement and consultation did not occur, quite clearly it did.

I want to move on to Māori economic benefits. Business and Economic Research Ltd’s Māori Economy Report 2013, commissioned by Te Puni Kōkiri, valued the Māori asset base at $40 billion. Significant amounts of Māori assets are orientated towards the primary sector and the export sector; therefore, Māori can expect to benefit from a free-trade agreement like this. In fact, Māori own between 10 and 40 percent of key primary sectors, including red meat, dairy, kiwifruit, forestry, and seafood. Māori will benefit from this free-trade agreement, from tariff savings and from the other benefits that come from it.

Turning to Māori protections, the Treaty of Waitangi carve-out, TPP Article 29.6 states in clause 1: “nothing in this agreement shall preclude the adoption by New Zealand of measures it deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Māori in respect of matters covered by this Agreement, including in fulfilment of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.” Clause 2 further goes on to say: “The Parties agree that the interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, including as to the nature of the rights and obligations arising under it, shall not be subject to the dispute settlement provisions of this Agreement.”—that is, investor-State dispute settlements. As we also look at further protections, the Waitangi Tribunal looked at this agreement and made several statements. Its findings, of course, were generally in favour: “The Treaty of Waitangi Clause in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) should provide a reasonable degree of protection to Māori interests”—straight from the Waitangi Tribunal—and that “The inclusion of Treaty clauses in the TPPA and earlier trade agreements was to the credit of successive New Zealand Governments.” The Tribunal did note other issues, I accept that, but they made no findings against them.

I have focused on just one part of the TPP, primarily of importance to Māori, and Māori are, in a global context, generally seeking distribution of assets and their own self-autonomy. To that end, we had a submitter who said something quite poignant, I thought. We heard him in Christchurch, and it may not be his original quote, but it is a good one, so I want to quote it back: “Before you can distribute wealth, you have to create wealth.” This agreement does that. This creates wealth, it creates wealth for Māori, it creates wealth for New Zealanders, and I commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call. Is the Green Party taking the 5-minute call? I am calling David Seymour—5 minutes.

I proudly rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this bill. This is a great day for the trading nation New Zealand, because it connects New Zealand in more intricate ways with our trading partners in the Pacific who, together, have $27 trillion of GDP—40 percent of the world’s GDP.

I would say to the earlier speaker, “Professor” Tabuteau, that when he says this is a way for companies to do business across borders he is absolutely correct. This agreement is sophisticated, and it does allow people to do sophisticated business across borders. It is about supply chains. For instance, this is about a company like Icebreaker, which grows wool in Otago, which has it manufactured in Asia into clothing that was designed by talented designers here in Wellington, and which you can then find in the stores of North America. That is an example of an outstanding, successful , innovative, value-adding New Zealand company that will do better under the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

It is interesting, given the amount of controversy that we heard about in the lead-up to the signing of the TPP agreement, how mundane the provisions in this bill turn out to be. I have got to say that I am a little bit disappointed. We are going to have to, for instance, amend the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act so that we can allocate export licences so that we know how much milk we are sending into the United States. I would prefer that the Americans got rid of all of their barriers, but the fact is that they have lowered their barriers and they have allowed some products from New Zealand into their country, so we are going to have to make a technical amendment in order to allow that to be administered from within New Zealand. We are going to have to amend the Customs and Excise Act. We are going to have to change the way that the Customs Service values imports when they enter the country.

This is not exactly the end of New Zealand sovereignty, as we had heard ad infinitum from the Opposition leading into the signing of the TPP agreement. As it turns out, we are no longer allowed to call artificially frozen wine “ice wine”. The Canadians appear to have had a bit of a French moment, as the French people did with champagne, and they will not allow us to call wine made from grapes that were not frozen on the vine “ice wine”. That is a concession and I think that is actually a shame for the very innovative and very brilliant New Zealand ice wine industry. But there is give and take in trade wherever you do it across the world.

You might pause to reflect on what the debate over the TPP has said about New Zealand, because there are people on the other side of the House who go on and on about Mr Trump in the United States and how they would never, ever become anything like Mr Trump. I mean, the guy from New Zealand First who spoke a moment ago, Fletcher Tabuteau—I think he thought he was in the US presidential election. The people on the left generally say “We would never become anything like Mr Trump.”, but we have a Trump movement here in New Zealand. It consists of Opposition members who, whenever anything happens remotely connected to global commerce with foreigners involved—and especially with wealthy people involved—they do their bananas. They did it on the TPP, they did it on foreign buyers of housing, and most recently they have done it on the Panama Papers.

But in every single case, including the case of this bill, what we find is that when the facts are revealed and all of the hysteria and the xenophobia and the tall-poppy syndrome and the hatred of global commerce from the Opposition dies down, what is left is a set of very, very sensible and minor enactments that will allow New Zealanders to benefit from being a bigger part of $27 trillion of global GDP and 40 percent of the world economy.

Thank you. I commend this bill to the House.

It is great to have the warm welcome from the Government, and an opportunity to speak on this bill, which is a really, really significant moment in terms of the history of this country. There are many coherent arguments that have been articulated for months and months about the concerns around the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, including those related to the environment, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, pharmaceuticals, the idea of genuine benefit to New Zealand businesses—the list goes on and on—but I think it is really important to acknowledge that this is not just about us; this is about a global movement of opposition to unfair trade. Every country that is associated with the TPP agreement has got its people’s movements, its challenges to Government, its legal challenges, where people have made every attempt to point out that this is not a trade agreement; this is an investment agreement, and it is an investment agreement to benefit the United States of America more than its own Government—more to do with its own corporates.

The global corporates, which are beyond Governments, will benefit from this so-called free-trade deal. But the reality is that for people on the ground, in ordinary life, they are legitimately raising issues about whether their medicines will become harder to access, whether, in fact, they will have the right to defend the environment, and whether the deal will have real benefits to New Zealand - owned businesses that cannot compete with large-scale multinationals. This bill is the first step in what is a very, very damaging process of further undermining the sovereignty of this country.

If we think, first, about the environment, a good example of why people are against the TPP agreement in this legislation is to do with investor-State dispute settlements: an extraordinary process that involves courts, which are not conducted by judges, in rooms that are not open to public scrutiny, so that the powerful can talk to the powerful about their right to sue the Governments that dare to stand up to them. I will give you an excellent example of that: OceanaGold, which happens to have large gold mines in Reefton and Macraes Flat, and also in my area of the Coromandel—it now owns the former Newmont mine. It is suing, under a free-trade deal with very similar provisions to the TPP agreement, the Government of El Salvador for $301 million for daring to say that it should protect its water. Their communities asked the Government to stand up and say “No”, but because it had signed the deal it was impossible. We have major problems with this deal. We have major problems with it in terms of the risk to the environment.

Also, listening to Shane Reti’s speech, I just have to disagree about the interpretation of the clauses around the Treaty—all of those clauses say that the Government, the Crown, will decide whether the Treaty is being breached. Hello—that is not Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Crown does not get to decide. If it was a genuine negotiation, and if the clauses in the TPP agreement said that tangata whenua will decide whether there is a Treaty breach, and they would advocate for that Treaty breach, that would be one thing. But the Crown will decide. It is clear—Mr Reti read out the clauses—who gets to decide. It is clear that investor-State dispute settlements will not apply if the Government decides they should not apply, but the Government is not tangata whenua and the Government is not the Treaty partner on both sides of the agreement.

That is why we have real concerns about the Treaty clauses, and that is why some of our most senior Māori leaders—not the businesses that were apparently consulted, but some of our most senior Māori leaders in terms of constitutional law and Treaty law—went to the Waitangi Tribunal and have raised issues, supported by thousands of tangata whenua.

💬 David Seymour: What did the Tribunal say?

The Waitangi Tribunal got it wrong, because what it said was that the Crown’s protection is sufficient. The Crown’s protection is not sufficient. The articles of the Treaty must be honoured in actuality, not through the Crown defining—

💬 David Bennett: It says “sovereignty of the Crown”.

There is not sovereignty of the Crown when you are talking about the articles of the Treaty. It is a shared sovereignty arrangement, but that is a little bit deep for some of the members here.

We need to look at the long-term effects of a trade deal that will not be about trade. It will be about very, very minor access to a few other markets, and for all the hype, for all the claims, it turns out to be a very, very, very serious erosion of sovereignty—in exchange for what? And that is why the Greens will keep fighting it. Kia ora tātou. [Interruption]

This debate, it is quite intense. There are some frictions on either side, and we understand that, but I ask that each member respect the rights of other people to have their say, and to respect that.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement is a trade agreement, and today we are hearing a number of excuses from the left around why they will not support the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill through the House. We have heard from the Labour Party members that they do not believe that they will support this agreement because they want a ban on the ability of foreign buyers to buy land and property in New Zealand. The Labour Party members never went into the negotiations with this agreement, when they talked to the Government and to the Minister, seeking a ban. All they wanted was a restriction on the ability of foreign buyers to buy land and property, and that is what the agreement provides.

The Labour Party members have conveniently come to this stage of debate in the House and asked for a different requirement now to enable them to have the ability to not support this bill through the House. That is pure politics being played by the Labour Party members. They have changed the wording to enable them to have the ability to pull out of supporting this agreement. It goes against the history of this Parliament; it goes against the history of that party. Labour signed the Chinese free-trade agreement. Did it put “ban” in there? No, and if it is saying that banning was its policy, for ever and a day, why did it not put that in the agreement? Why did it not require that in the Korean agreement?

No, that is not what the requirement of Labour is. It is a convenient excuse used by the Labour Party members to try to weasel their way out of supporting something that they think is against the public opinion. I can tell you why the Labour Party members are doing that. It is because the party is captured by the union movement—it always has been and it always will be—and they are representing the far left of that party. It is a shame that the members of that party who have got an interest in trade—members of that party like Phil Goff, David Shearer, and Stuart Nash, who is sitting here today—do not have speaking rights in this debate on this bill, when they have sat through hours of submissions on this bill. The reason is that the Labour Party has told David Shearer and Phil Goff not to come into the House today. They have been told not to be here—

💬 Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The current speaker is reflecting upon the absence from the House of various Labour members, and he should not be doing so.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): That is a very good point. I will ask the member to confine his comments to the first reading speech. You cannot refer to members who are not present in the House.

OK. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

We look at the New Zealand First Party. Well, we know that the New Zealand First Party is just against trade. It is just against any links with the real world. The New Zealand First Party wants to take us back to the 1950s. It is the “Don Trump Party” of New Zealand politics. It does not believe in having any connection with the world, and especially the Asia-Pacific region, which we live in. The New Zealand First Party is totally against that, and that is why it is against this bill. It knows that is good for trade, but it is against it. I bet you that during the next election campaign the New Zealand First Party will roll through every region in New Zealand saying: “We are there to support farmers. We are there to support farmers.” Well, I say to every farmer who is listening to this over the next year: remember who voted against giving you farmers access in trade. The New Zealand First Party voted against New Zealand farmers having access to trade.

Then we have the Green Party. The Green Party is actually a principled party when it comes to trade—it just does not believe in it. That is fine. That is what the Green Party has always stood by. That is OK. It will never vote for a trade agreement like this. That is fine, and its arguments are those that the Green Party members always support. But the Labour Party members have no excuse, apart from playing politics today, and the New Zealand First Party—it would be very rich of you to go out into the public and try to explain—

💬 Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member referred to the Speaker just then in a most disparaging way—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Look, I am the judge of relevancy and reflection on the Speaker.

It is a common practice for Opposition members to try—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No—

—to do points of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No. There is to be no comment on a ruling that I have made, and we shall continue on with the first reading speech.

OK, if we look at trade—and the argument, basically, that the Opposition is putting out there is that trade does not work and that New Zealanders will not benefit from trade. Well, let us have a look at some of the benefits New Zealanders have got from previous trade agreements. Australia: 735 percent absolute export growth since the trade agreement. China: 341 percent export growth since the agreement. That is what trade does for New Zealanders. It is what it has done for all New Zealanders over time, and it is what it has done for other countries.

💬 Sue Moroney: How does it compare with the merits of this one?

How does it compare with America? Well, you have got open access to a lot of American markets, and if we look at it—

💬 Sue Moroney: No, with the merits of this one—debate this bill.

OK, kiwifruit—open access for kiwifruit. Look at other products that have got open access. Sue Moroney should be supporting the Waikato producers who will actually benefit from this agreement. Thank you.

At the beginning of this whole process, Labour set out five bottom lines before it would support the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, and one of those bottom lines was that Pharmac must be protected. Pharmac is a model that, as members know, is set up for the negotiation, the purchase, and the subsidisation of medicines for New Zealanders, and it has been supported by this Parliament since its establishment in June 1993.

Over time there have been some minor changes to Pharmac. It actually started off as a joint-venture company owned by four regional health authorities, but by 2001 it became a Crown entity. There have been changes in things like reference pricing and multi-product tendering, and changes to the Pharmacology and Therapeutics Advisory Committee and the Consumer Advisory Committee. There have been changes to operating procedures, and, quite recently, Pharmac got the right to buy medical devices. There has even been the rare political Government interference in Pharmac. Who could forget John Key saying in 2009 that stepping in to fund a 12-month course of Herceptin was his proudest achievement during National’s first 100 days?

I would say that in the main we have had cross-party support for this agency, so we were keen to watch and wait to see what the secret negotiations under the TPP would do for Pharmac. I have to say that we got the first indication when a number of Labour MPs were briefed by the then Minister of Trade, Tim Groser. He briefed Andrew Little, Phil Goff, me, Grant Robertson, and David Shearer. I questioned him about Pharmac; at that point he became very obtuse. He was very slow to understand the questions—

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: That doesn’t sound like him.

No, it might not. You can be very sure, Minister, that he was, first of all, very obtuse, very slow to understand our concerns. When we pressed him about the negotiations in relation to the patents on data exclusivity as they affect biologic drugs, he became very collusive—very collusive, indeed—and, finally, he became constructive. He called the TPP approach to Pharmac and the patent period for biologic drugs “constructive ambiguity”. “Constructive ambiguity”—those are the words of the former trade Minister. And this was what he said about the patents: “What we’ve put in place”—

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Don’t forget, it was a confidential briefing.

No, it was not. Wait a moment—can I address that issue, because the Minister is waving at me and saying that it was a confidential briefing. We asked at that briefing—and if those members and my colleagues who were there would like to back me up—“Can we quote you on this?”. What did he say? And you were not there, Minister. You were not there.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: No; he told me about it, though.

Oh no, you were not there, so do not make it up. He said: “Yes, you can.”

“Constructive ambiguity”—these are the words the then trade Minister said about Pharmac, and ambiguity is exactly what we have got.

No. 1: “The TPP will not change the Pharmac model.”, thundered Todd McClay.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: That’s right.

But the agreement does change the model, Minister.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: It doesn’t.

Of course—when Mr Mark Mitchell was speaking, I asked Minister McClay. I asked him questions, because he said there will be administrative changes and increasing transparency for the big Pharmac companies. How, Minister? How will that administrative change work? Have we been told how the administration changes giving more transparency will work? No—not one word on it.

The second administrative change, we are told, is that there will be a setting of a time frame for considering funding applications. How long? What sort of time frame? How will that work? No, we have not been told that.

The third one is that there will be a review or an appeal process when Pharmac declines an application. How will that work? Who will make that decision? How will the review work? What sort of an appeal will it be? Where will the appeal go? None of that has been provided. We still have ambiguity going on around this issue.

We were then told that the best guess of the cost was $4.5 million in establishment costs and $2.2 million a year in operating costs, but, you see, I do not believe that because I believe what Treasury provided when it released its papers. This is what Treasury said: “the impact of the agreement on the cost of pharmaceuticals is uncertain”—I am quoting directly from the Treasury paper, for the members opposite—“and will only materialise over time. This makes it difficult for the current government to make credible commitments on funding.” Minister, that is what Treasury said. “In particular: the costs associated with transparency provisions (if they eventuate) will be unpredictable and lumpy. The estimate provided (average annual cost over the long-term) is essentially a quantifiable risk, rather than a precise costing that can be funded”. That is what Treasury said. When we get the flannel from the members opposite—not one of them has answered the questions that I have put to them and that Treasury raised around transparency and the way it would work.

Then we got the grand statement from Minister McClay that the TPP is going to have a minimal impact on New Zealand. This is where Mr Groser’s constructive ambiguity was mentioned: “The term of the patent currently on biologic drugs for the data exclusivity is 5 years.” But what was negotiated was deliberately ambiguous. It was ambiguous.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: It was ambiguous.

It was ambiguous—the whole thing is ambiguous. I have to say, it was deliberately done to have ambiguity. [Interruption] That is it; that is what he said.

💬 Grant Robertson: That’s what he said.

While Mr Robertson is here—Minister Coleman has been disputing that we are allowed to use the words “constructive ambiguity”. He said we were not allowed to use them because the previous Minister would not let us. That is totally untrue—he said that we may.

We will get back to the biologic drugs. These drugs are produced from a variety of natural sources—from humans, animals, or micro-organisms—and they are cutting-edge technologies. They are expensive. New Zealand needs to be able to have access to these drugs as soon as possible, and if the patent on the data exclusivity of these drugs is not 5 years, but some other number that is tied up in ambiguity—

💬 Grant Robertson: Eight.

—like 8, or 12—thousands of sick New Zealanders will have to wait a long time to get medicines for life-threatening conditions.

I then looked at the Cabinet paper—Minister Coleman, you may have read it; we could not read most of it. Can I just show the Minister why most of us could not read it. This is the Treasury paper on the biologic drugs. It is full of what you call redacted information. As I would say, it is blankety-blank, blankety-blank-blank, and blankety-blank-blank. That is what we got from this Government opposite around the biologic drugs.

Then we had the real oil come out, when the trade negotiator from the US, Michael Froman, said that the administration is developing ideas for how to resolve complaints by congressional Republicans that the TPP’s required market exclusivity period for biologic drugs is too short. They sent down some trade envoys to give us a tutorial on what we ought to be doing in New Zealand. They are saying that they do not want 5 years; they want 12 years—but there is somewhere in the middle, which could be around 8 years. What we have got in this constructive ambiguity is for New Zealand to say: “Well, look, it’s going to be 5 years, but along with other measures that deliver a comparable outcome.” What does that mean—5 years, plus other measures to deliver a comparable outcome? Comparable to 12 years? Or comparable to 8 years? It is 5 years plus—plus—so it is not just 5 years. This is where the dishonesty has been about Pharmac. That is why—

💬 David Bennett: Oh, come on. She can’t say that.

Yes, I can. That is the dishonesty about Pharmac and how it is going to work. I am going to oppose it—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member’s time has expired.

Every now and again in this House we get an opportunity to debate something that talks to the defining difference in philosophy of the political parties that are represented here. Over the last hour and a half I do not think we could have had put more clearly the choice that sits in front of us, in respect of this legislation, and, indeed, in front of us as a country.

In this document we outline a framework that talks to the way we believe, as the National Government, we should engage with the world. It is an opportunity to back our exporters, to ensure that we are a part of a global world, and that we are there, successful and delivering for our exporters. There are others who see this as an opportunity to pull up the drawbridge—“Fortress New Zealand”—because they do not believe, they do not back our exporters, and they want to pull New Zealand out of what is the largest trading bloc, which will be created once this bill is passed.

When you think of whom we are sent here to represent, you see that this is a country of traders, and we have always been a country of traders. But we then have a set of parties that hold the view that it is better for New Zealand to step out of that emerging trading bloc, a trading bloc that has seen the future of globalisation and the challenges of investment and regulation and tariffs, and say, actually, they have got a framework here to reduce them over time, and stand in this House and say: “We back exporters, and we want to pull you out of that agreement.” The Labour members and the New Zealand First members and the Green members should come up to Tauranga and have that conversation with the small businesses of my community and say to them that the opportunities that are listed and outlined and enabled in this document should be spurned. It is their capital they put at risk.

I wonder sometimes whether anybody on the other side of the House has any idea of what it takes to put your capital at risk, to hold a view, and to create a service or a product and sell it on the world market. All we have heard this afternoon is process and academic treatise. Quite frankly, I would ask any one of them to come to Tauranga in the Bay of Plenty and try to hold that view in front of a community that is incredibly globally connected, has the most efficient port in the country, and has an absolute focus on ensuring that it is delivering to the world market. That is the future of this country, not the fortress, isolationist, academic nonsense we have had to listen to over the last hour and a half.

Last year, while David Walker and his team, who should be commended for the Herculean task they have delivered on behalf of this country, were out negotiating and regularly updating, there was a party in this House whose members decided they would spend the year reflecting on the future of work. They had a navel-gazing exercise around globalisation and the forces of talent and capital moving and what that was going to mean for this country. Well, I could have saved your angst, Grant Robertson, because this document is the future of work. This treaty is the future of work. This treaty connects our small businesses and middle businesses and exporters to 40 percent of the global output.

That is the future of work, and every single entity, every single sector, every single company that is exporting talked about the opportunities and the jobs that will come from this agreement. But, instead, all we get from the other side is politics of the short term, as opposed to backing people who win for their country and win for their community and family, like this Government does. I support this bill.