Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill

I move, That the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Can I begin by thanking the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for its detailed consideration of the bill. The committee’s recommendation is that it be passed with a number of amendments. Although most of New Zealand’s Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) obligations can be met by New Zealand’s existing domestic legal and policy regime, some changes are required to ensure that we comply with our obligations. The bill is going to ensure that New Zealand meets the obligations we have signed up to in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA), and it will help ensure that exporters can start to reap the benefits of this comprehensive and high-quality trade agreement.

I want to speak about the select committee’s important work on this bill and the changes that the committee has recommended, but, first, let me briefly remind the House why New Zealand signed up to this agreement. The Government recognises that trade is critical to our continued growth and prosperity. For this reason, successive Governments have sought to negotiate free-trade agreements to help level the playing field for New Zealand firms selling abroad and thereby boost exports. We know that this both directly and indirectly benefits all New Zealanders. This is our biggest trade deal to date, and it is going to lift exports by removing barriers to trade for many exporters of New Zealand goods and services to customers in TPP countries.

The 12 countries currently in TPP account for 36 percent of the global economy. In fact, our TPP partner countries buy 40 percent of New Zealand’s exports, worth around $28 billion per year to our economy. Given the scope of the region, the agreement presents a huge opportunity for our economy, adding an estimated $2.7 billion a year to New Zealand’s GDP once it is fully phased in. The TPPA will see total tariff cuts of around $274 million a year on current goods exports. Over 50 percent of this removal of tariffs will take effect as soon as the TPP agreement comes into force. With the exception of some dairy products into some markets, and a significantly reduced tariff on beef in Japan, all originating New Zealand exports to TPP countries will, ultimately, be duty-free. It is clear that not being in the TPP would put New Zealand exporters at a competitive disadvantage—

💬 Dr David Clark: Output of three dairy farms.

—especially those from Dunedin, I say to Mr Clark. Our exports would become more expensive by comparison, as tariffs and other barriers are eliminated on the exports of our competitors but not on New Zealand - made products.

The reasons for signing up to the TPPA—

💬 Grant Robertson: You should have been trade Minister.

—are strategic, I say to Mr Robertson, as well as economic. It is important to note that, as a founding member of the TPP, New Zealand gains the opportunity to exercise influence on the development of the rules that the agreement will set up for the region. This is both in respect of its present form and, more significantly, in the future, as the membership increases.

Crucially, the TPPA will not prevent New Zealand Governments from taking measures that are in the interests of all New Zealanders. The main obligations in the TPPA have been designed to allow Governments to make legitimate public policy. This includes policy in the areas of health, education, and protecting the environment. Special provision has been made in respect of New Zealand’s obligations to Māori, and, like all our free-trade agreements since 2001—

💬 Dr David Clark: What about speculation in housing?

—the TPPA recognises the pre-eminence of the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand. Article 29.6 I need not outline for the benefit of Mr Clark, because if he is as good as he says he is—

💬 Hon Members: Dr Clark.

—Dr Clark—then he will know all about that clause. This means future Governments are not limited in measures to support Māori. Further to this, these measures are not subject to the dispute settlement provisions in the TPPA, as stated in article 29.6, that “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.”

We said all along that we would not negotiate away the New Zealand health system in a trade agreement, and we did not. The TPPA will not change the fundamentals of the Pharmac model. Pharmac’s ability to prioritise its spending and negotiate with suppliers goes unchanged, and the TPPA allows the Government to rule out investor-State dispute settlement challenges over tobacco control measures.

No changes will be made to the way New Zealand approves investments relating to sensitive land or fisheries quota, and New Zealand still has the ability to impose some types of new discriminatory taxes on foreign purchasers of residential property.

Let me say something about the engagement process. The Government has undertaken a comprehensive series of engagements to help the public to understand—

💬 Dr David Clark: The Minister should read that EY report. I’ve given him the heads-up.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member should mind his mouth.

—what this agreement means for New Zealanders. These events followed the extensive consultations carried out during the TPP negotiations. Oh, let him yell, Mr Deputy Speaker. It does not worry me.

This year the Government ran a nationwide series of roadshows and hui. I attended some, actually. The roadshows aimed at—

💬 Grant Robertson: They were the good ones.

Whangarei was good. The roadshows were aimed at ensuring businesses are prepared to take advantage of the new opportunities presented by the TPPA and to provide information of interest to the wider public and other stakeholders. The dedicated hui briefed a mainly Māori audience on the outcomes of the TPP negotiations and provided an opportunity for attendees to share their views and ask questions. As a result of this engagement, some Māori have asked for further information from the Government about accessing support to achieve positive outcomes through the TPPA. This part of the economy has long been export-focused, with trade pre-dating the 1830s, as Māori provided food, water, and firewood to the whaling ships in exchange for goods such as iron tools and muskets. Today the Māori economy comprises around 5.6 percent of New Zealand’s total GDP and has an asset base worth over $42 billion, contributed to greatly by many of the outstanding settlements that have been achieved in recent years.

The public has also had an opportunity to engage with and influence the contents of the bill during the select committee’s work. The committee received 85 submissions from the public, and there are a number of recommended amendments, which I will take Mr Clark, or Dr Clark—we must be accurate—through. After considering public submissions and the advice of officials, the select committee has recommended a number of changes. First, the bill makes it clear that the changes to New Zealand law introduced by the bill will commence only on the date that the TPPA enters into force in New Zealand. Some submitters have raised the concern that the commencement clause in the bill did not make this clear. Well, now it is clear.

The intellectual property provisions of the bill attracted particular attention from some submitters, especially in respect of the change of the copyright term from 50 years to 70 years. Some submitters supported the extension; others opposed it. The extension of the copyright term is the main cost of the TPP agreement for New Zealand, estimated at $55 million per year once it is phased in. However, I say to Mr Robertson, this cost has to be considered alongside the many, many, many positives for the economy as a whole from the TPP.

There are so many good things I could talk about, but I am short on time, so let me say this. The Government needs to make certain regulations and changes to policy and practice in order to ratify the TPPA. These changes will take effect only from the date that the TPPA enters into force for New Zealand, and these changes were laid out in the national interest analysis on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s website, which is available for all to see. The Government wants to see the bill enacted as soon as possible so that New Zealand can be in the first tranche of countries to bring the TPPA into force. I commend the amended bill to the House, and I say that it is not too late for Labour to come to its senses and support the bill.

Labour opposes the ratification of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and we do this with good reason. The first Labour Government in 1938 pushed for increased market access in the UK, and Labour Governments throughout New Zealand history have pushed for increased access. It was not easy or simple for us to get to a position where we would oppose a trade agreement—it had to be bad. We had to have a principled discussion, and when we did we realised that the TPP is not something that this Labour Party could sign up to.

I think that that makes our opposition to this bill all the more significant. This Government is trying to push through a bill that is inadequate. It is not serving New Zealand’s long-term interests as it should. The opportunity was there to negotiate a trade agreement that really would be in New Zealand’s long-term interests, and it has sailed by. Chris Finlayson, the Minister who just spoke, was not prepared to address the issue of non-resident foreign speculators in any depth. In fact, I asked him a question in the House just before, during question time, which related to the Ernst & Young advice on the tax at the border on foreign speculators, which this Government has touted as the solution to the problems in our housing market. The Minister admitted he had not even read that advice. This is the Government’s answer to the housing crisis and the speculation from non-resident foreign buyers. It has been ripped to pieces and the Minister has not even done us the courtesy of reading that advice.

The reason that the Labour Party in Government will reject non-resident foreign buyers in our market, those speculators—the reason we will place a ban on them—is that they are creating a distortion. It is a huge distortion to our economy—that investment in the non-productive speculative housing sector. The Government said: “Oh well, it’s fine. Minister Groser didn’t ask for that like Vietnam did, Minister Groser didn’t ask for that like Australia did, Minister Groser didn’t ask for that like other countries did, because New Zealand doesn’t need to ban non-resident foreign speculators. Nothing to see here. Mr Groser knows better than everyone else.” He said: “I’ll ask for a tax instead.” Well, the tax experts say that you cannot impose at the border a discriminatory tax on foreign speculators. This is the Government’s answer and it has been ripped to shreds by the experts, who said that if a tax was imposed it would have to be imposed on New Zealand citizens just like it is on everyone else.

The Government has failed to stand up for New Zealanders’ long-term interests, and it seems not to care. The housing market continues to grow as a bubble, and that is hurtful to New Zealand’s long-term interests, and Government members know it. That is why their heads are down, opposite. That is why they are not proud of this deal that they are doing.

I think it is also important to point out that this is a Government that has pushed through a process without respecting New Zealanders’ objections to it. At every point it has rushed the process. We had set up an opportunity for people to submit on the treaty process that preceded this bill—this bill enacts that treaty; it is necessary for the enacting of the Trans-Pacific Partnership—and we curtailed the process so that the Government could rush this through before Christmas because it did not want this legislation to rush into an election year. The Government knows that the agreement is not popular with the public. It knows that it should have consulted fully. It knows that it should have given the public a decent opportunity to consider fully the 6,000 pages of this agreement, which were negotiated in secret over 5 years, so that they could make full representations before the committee. It also knows that it should have given members of the committee longer to come to a view on all of those submissions and also the departmental officials who advise us.

We know that this agreement could have been so much better. It could have been negotiated in New Zealand’s long-term interests in a way that did not break the bipartisan consensus that has existed for so long.

Labour continues to be a party that supports free trade. That is in our DNA. We believe in the value of trade. We are a small trading nation. I do not want to give up coffee, and I do not want to give up bananas, but I do not want to sign up to a deal that harms New Zealand’s long-term interests. We have to say that the economic analysis on this deal has been incredibly poor. We know that in the end the equivalent access gained for dairy is about three large dairy farms for New Zealanders—by 2030. That is about nine jobs that that dairy deal creates. And at what price—at what price for New Zealand? This is not the deal that it should be. New Zealanders’ interests should be at the fore, not the interests of appeasing the American negotiators, nor the interests of anyone in the corporate sector above ordinary middle New Zealand.

But this lot, they are out of touch. They are now so arrogant that they think they can push this through and nobody will notice. Well, I have to say that the public of New Zealand is noticing that this is going through without full consultation processes. The public of New Zealand is noticing this increasing trend from the Government to try to do quick deals. We saw it just yesterday with this Saudi sheep scandal report coming back from the Auditor-General—this payment that was made that was declared not to be a facilitation payment, because facilitation payments are only small payments. We have seen a Government that is willing to do deals that do not appear to be in New Zealand’s long-term interests.

Labour has adopted a principled position. We have examined in detail the treaty before we took our position. It has not always been easy publicly to say we are going to actually read it before we take a view, but that is what we have done. And where we have examined the detail, we have seen that this deal could have been so much better for New Zealand.

I want to thank those New Zealanders who have raised the profile of this issue, who have made sure that there has been a public debate on it. We saw some of them marching to Parliament today, walking all the way from Christchurch, and I take my hat off to them for their service to democracy in raising this issue into the public sphere.

I think the members opposite will try to argue that this is a defensive piece of legislation now. They will try to say it is about preserving access, or something else. They have given up on arguing that it is actually in our long-term interests, and that is because the economic modelling that the Government put forward said that it creates less than 1 percent benefit by 2030. That is actually quite a bold estimate, given that most of those dairy things that they were counting on in their economic analysis are no longer in the deal. Business as usual would generate a 47 percent increase in GDP if we did not sign the agreement. So we are talking about the margin of error here. Everything that New Zealand is giving up when it signs this deal is to get a less than 1 percent increase in GDP in decades’ time. That cannot be a good deal in New Zealand’s long-term interests.

The Tufts University analysis, the only decent analysis available about employment prospects, says that this may well cost New Zealand 6,000 jobs by 2025 as a direct consequence. Well, if that is the case, you want to have a big boost to your economy. You want to have had some money that you can spread around to retrain people, and so on. But with this infinitesimal boost, which is in the margin of error, we cannot be confident that there will be anything at all, and we are talking about 6,000 jobs potentially lost.

We are also talking about harm to the Pharmac model. We are talking about the public health impacts that could result from the TPP deal. We heard from submitters on that, and submitters called for an independent analysis of these things—employment impacts, public health impacts, and so on. These are very reasonable requests. That was in the prior process. There has been plenty of opportunity for the Government to analyse those things ahead of this legislation going through, and it has not lifted a finger. It is so confident about ramming this through before Christmas, before election year, that it has not looked at the detail of this agreement, and it has refused to be transparent with the public. Well, it is consistent at least. We are still seeing the Government hiding so much about that Saudi sheep deal. Government members say that it is not in the public interest for them to see the legal advice. Well, we have pretty much seen that there is nothing. The Auditor-General has seen what there is and she says that she can really make nothing of it.

It is consistent at least from the Government. It is so out of touch, so arrogant, that it thinks it can push this through and New Zealanders will not care. Well, there is a rising tide calling for change. There is a rising tide that says: “We need a Government that’s going to be transparent and that’s going to look to everyone’s interests.” Previous trade agreements have been negotiated, with input from the business community, from unions, and from academics. Mr Groser said: “I don’t need any of that. I know the answers. Don’t tell me. Don’t tell me. I don’t even need to know the questions; I know the answers.” And I bet no one will get up and say that that was the optimal approach. No one from the opposite side will get up and say that the approach taken to negotiate this deal was optimal, and I think the outcome has been that New Zealand has got a poorer deal than it should have.

We cannot support this deal. We do not see that it is in the long-term interests of New Zealand. It is not the deal it should be, and so Labour will not support this bill going through the House.

It is interesting that Dr Clark raised sheep in his speech, because I enjoyed working with him on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in this process but I cannot help but feel that he has been put up as a sacrificial lamb. He is the fall guy who has been put up to front this.

The only reason I say that is because over the weekend I watched Q+A and I saw an interview with the Rt Hon Mike Moore, who is highly respected—an ex-leader of the Labour Party, an ex - New Zealand Prime Minister; highly respected within international trade circles—and he came out and he actually made a valiant effort to stay loyal to the leader Andrew Little. He did a pretty good job. The one area that he departed on was the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. He was very clear in his statement when he said that Andrew Little and the Labour Party of today have made a poor decision around not supporting the TPP.

I think another very telling sign of the split within the Labour Party in relation to this free-trade agreement is the position that the Hon Phil Goff took. He was very, very clear in his support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and he even had to go to the leader to seek a dispensation for him to be able to take an alternate view. So it would be safe to say that, unlike Upper Hutt, Auckland City will not be becoming a Trans-Pacific Partnership - free zone.

I want to just address a comment that was made earlier in the House today by Mr Barry Coates—and, of course, we welcome him to the House. I had a fair bit of contact with Barry, before he came in as a parliamentarian, around the TPP and we had some good, positive engagement on it. But he made a statement in relation to it that it was a given that most of New Zealand was actually against this free-trade agreement.

My observation is that when the select committee received the original text we went through a process of seeking submissions from the public. During the first round of seeking submissions, although the bulk of them were pro forma, the committee received about 10,000—or a bit over 10,000—submissions. Of those submissions we heard a bit over 300. We went to Auckland. We heard submissions in Auckland. We heard submissions here in Wellington, and we also travelled to the South Island and heard submissions in Christchurch. The interesting thing about that—and this is where I want to acknowledge the Minister of Trade, Todd McClay, and our chief negotiator, David Walker, and, actually, also the Hon Chris Finlayson, as we have heard from him today that he was also involved in a series of roadshows that were taken throughout the country—sorry, and the Hon Paul Goldsmith was involved in those as well.

So they embarked on a series of roadshows around the country. This was for members of the public to be able to attend and put questions directly to the Minister and the chief negotiator, and raise any concerns or issues that they had around the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I believe that as a result of that, on the second go round when we received the legislation on to the committee, we went back out and we sought public submissions again, we received—I do not have the exact number, but going off what Minister Finlayson was saying—about 68 submissions. Of those submissions about 30 wanted to be heard in front of the committee. We heard all of those submissions in Wellington. We did not need to travel to Auckland. There was no requirement to take the committee to Christchurch, because we went through a 6-month process where we went from receiving 10,000 submissions and hearing 300, to receiving 60 submissions and hearing only 30. I think that is actually a very clear indication of how much information was put out into the public, and how the public of New Zealand actually started to understand and realise that this was a very good agreement for us.

In relation to free-trade agreements, what do they really mean for New Zealand? Obviously, they create favourable terms for us to be able to trade with the rest of the world. We are a trading nation. That is what we have relied on till now for our growth and for our opportunities, and that is what we will rely on into the future. I mentioned earlier the Hon Phil Goff. He probably copped a fair bit of criticism going through the process of developing a free-trade agreement with China. But if we were actually to fast-forward now to today, that free-trade agreement has been significant for us in terms of job opportunities, economic growth, new opportunities emerging, and without that free trade agreement we would not be—and I acknowledge him and I acknowledge the previous Labour Government for the work that they did on that.

This is why, to me, it is a big surprise that Labour has taken such a massive apparent swing to the left in terms of its failure to support these types of free-trade agreements that, essentially, are so important to us. So coming back to what do free-trade agreements mean to us, if you have a look at the history of our trade over the last 5 years, you will find that, with the countries that we have free-trade agreements with, our growth in trade is growing at about 10 percent, or a bit over 10 percent. If you go back and you have a look at the countries that we do not have a free-trade agreement with—although, I can assure you, our private sector will be trying as hard as it can to continue to develop business—in fact, trade with those countries is in decline. So there is a clear correlation between the fact that good free-trade agreements allow opportunities for growth inside our economy; countries that we do not have free-trade agreements with, the trend is in the negative. During the select committee process—and I do want to acknowledge the members on the select committee—

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: Amp it up. You sound sad.

Ha, ha! I do want to acknowledge the members on the select committee, including Fletcher Tabuteau, who I am sure is going to get up and make a contribution in support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership today. I am absolutely confident of that. It is a good process. It is where people do get to come and make their submissions and we get to test those. I want to acknowledge the advisers who also supported the committee with their advice. We were able to test many of the issues that were actually raised with us through that process.

Through the process, of course, we have recommended that some amendments be made. I guess the one big issue that was really raised with us, a significant one, was around TPMs, or technological protection measures. In relation to those we are going to make some amendments to the Copyright Act 1994. We are going to amend section 198 to include a new offence related to specific recordings. The committee recommends this amendment set the same sentences of imprisonment and monetary fines already prescribed under section 131(5) of the Copyright Act.

We also recommend amending clauses 39 to 42 of the bill, relating to TPMs, technological protection measures, to clarify the definition used of “issuer of the TPM work” to include a person who communicated the TPM work or issued a copy to the public. We recommend inserting new section 226(2) to define a TPM work to clarify that it must have been communicated, or a copy of it issued, to the public. We recommended amending new subsection (2)(c) of section 234, relating to regulation-making powers for TPM exceptions, in clause 44, to require the Minister to consider the proposed effect on the dissemination of works and the use of non-infringing works when the Minister recommends regulations. This was really important. This was one that we had a lot of discussion about on the committee, and I feel that the committee has made some really good recommendations around this.

I would just like to finish by saying that this is a significant free-trade agreement for us. It does take in 40 percent of the global economy. It has become clear through the committee process that there is strong support for this agreement, and I am very happy to recommend it to the House. Thank you.

In the years following my time at university, I used to have what I guess would be called an anxiety dream. I would dream that I had not studied for a really important exam that was about to take place and I did not know what the date was, and I would get very stressed about this. I think others in the House may at times in their lives have had similar kinds of anxiety dreams. Of course, then I would wake up and realise that in actual fact there was no exam for me to study for and it was all unnecessary anxiety.

I have a feeling like that today, as I stand in the House as we debate the passing of a piece of legislation to ensure that New Zealand can ratify an agreement that does not actually look like it is going to happen, or certainly not any time soon. So I give a shout-out today to all of those university students who at this time of the year are studying for their exams that actually are going to happen, as opposed, I hope, to them studying for exams that are not going to happen, because if they were, they would be wasting their time, which is a little bit like what this House is doing today.

Everybody—not only in New Zealand, I would say, but, in fact, in most of the world—is currently focused on an event that will take place in the United States next Tuesday. It is a very important event. Both of the leading protagonists in it do not support the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in its current form. The TPP is going to be renegotiated. But on the National Government benches, these events in the United States, which most people would assume would be quite hard to ignore, are being completely ignored. Those members are ploughing on—“We must pass the ratification. We must be at the front of the queue.”

This is a continuation of National’s approach to trade that goes back many decades. In the 1990s, when the National Government was in charge of New Zealand’s trade agenda, it was a little bit like playing the card game five hundred, and every time the National Government went to the negotiating table it bid misère—it bid to lose the tricks. In fact, it actually went lay-down misère. It put all the cards down on the table and invited other trading partners to play our cards for us, so that at the end of the 1990s, we basically had nothing left to do in terms of trade negotiations because we had given away all the tariffs. We had given away anything that we could actually usefully trade on in trade negotiations, and it was only with the election of the Helen Clark - led Labour Government, with Phil Goff as trade Minister, that we were able to get back to creating good, high-quality, bilateral trade agreements that delivered on access to markets for our exporters and, indeed, our service providers. That is what good quality trade agreements are about—access to markets for our hard-working exporters—and as the years have gone on, many of those have been service providers.

The problem with this agreement is it is not a trade agreement. That is the fundamental issue with this agreement. If it were only a trade agreement like those ones that had been signed by the fifth Labour Government, then this party would be supporting it. But New Zealand’s participation, which is ratified in this agreement by this legislation, goes well beyond that trade agreement. It becomes what is called in the parlance a behind-the-border agreement. But what New Zealanders have been saying consistently over the last couple of years is that they are concerned about that kind of agreement, and I just disagree with members opposite when they challenge the notion of whether New Zealanders support the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA) or not.

Poll after poll has shown that New Zealanders have been concerned about it. I was interested—just as recently as last week that the MYOB Business Monitor, which the National Government has been very keen to promote for other reasons, actually said that only 39 percent of small businesses supported the TPPA. So a—

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: How many?

39 percent. So in a sector that you would expect to be supporting the TPPA, less than half of it is, and that is because those small businesses know that although there may be some gains in market access—and there are some small gains in market access. In dairy, as my colleague David Clark has said, it is the equivalent of the value of three farms, but there are some gains there, and some gains in some other export industries. Those small businesses know that that pales into insignificance compared with what we are giving up as a country by signing up to an agreement that goes well beyond what most of us would regard as a trade agreement.

For the Labour Party, we have been clear that the litmus test for us has been the fact that this National Government went into that agreement and failed to protect the right of a future Government to say that people who have no intention of living in New Zealand and who have no right to live in New Zealand could not be banned from buying existing residential property. Other countries went into that negotiation and said: “We are going to protect the right to legislate to do that.”—because that is a sovereign right of this Parliament. A future Government might want to actually rebuild the dream of homeownership for New Zealanders. We have the lowest homeownership rates in 60 years in this country, so a future Government might want to do that. Labour wants to do that, but the National Government refused to protect the right of a future Government to do that—Australia did and Vietnam did, but not the National Government—and by doing that, what it showed was that this agreement goes beyond what is normal in a trade agreement.

This agreement affects the sovereign rights of the Parliament in a way that would make many New Zealanders, and has made many New Zealanders, very, very uncomfortable indeed. That is the issue here, because the people in New Zealand who have gone out on marches about the TPP agreement and who have written us letters—not just the most vocal but a range of people who are concerned about the TPP—feel that it is a symptom of a Government and a society where the corporation is more important than the citizen. They feel that, somehow or other, our rights as individual citizens are subjugated to the rights of corporations. Whether that is true or not, that is the impression that New Zealanders have gained, and the complete and utter failure of this Government to actually go and talk to New Zealanders and listen to New Zealanders on the subject of trade has been one of the reasons why this agreement has been so unpopular.

I will actually say that Todd McClay has done a better job of that. Tim Groser—Tim Groser was so arrogant and so out of touch with the interests of New Zealanders that he put this agreement into a position where even those who might have had some sympathy with it were unable to support it. Actually, when Tim Groser briefed the Labour Party caucus members when he came back from the negotiations, he said at that briefing: “Anything I say here, you can use as public.” When he was asked and was challenged about what was going to happen with Pharmac—was there a risk that New Zealanders would be paying more for their medicines—he said: “Well, no.” And when we pushed him on it, he said: “Look, the text has got constructive ambiguity.” That is what he said—the text has got constructive ambiguity.

Well, I think we all know that the pharmaceutical industry will be pretty good at using that constructive ambiguity to make sure that New Zealanders pay more for their medicines. It hates the Pharmac model, and what it hates the most is the idea that the Pharmac model might see other countries pick up a similar model. It does not want that, and it will push hard to use that constructive ambiguity. So, on this side of the House, we continue to have concerns about whether or not this agreement will lead to New Zealanders paying more for our medicines.

In Vietnam the decision has been made to delay ratification of the agreement while it watches what is going on. Joe Biden, the Vice-President of the United States, has been saying there is a less than even chance of the TPP being passed any time soon. Japan has delayed its ratification process, as well.

All around the world, people are realising that there needs to be a renegotiation, and what the National Government should be doing is standing up and saying: “We got a rubbish deal on dairy in here—we got a rubbish deal on dairy in here. We didn’t protect the right of this Parliament to make laws about ensuring that we can manage who buys and sells houses inside New Zealand. We didn’t do enough to ensure that the rights of the citizens of New Zealand and the sovereign right of this Parliament were respected, and we’re going to go to that renegotiation table.” And that is exactly what Tim Groser told us he would do. If the deal on dairy was not good enough, he would walk away.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: Gold standard.

Yes, Fletcher Tabuteau is right. A gold standard agreement on dairy was the bottom line for Tim Groser, and we got a rubbish agreement on dairy.

This is a weak agreement. It is not a trade agreement. It does not offer New Zealanders the kinds of benefits we would expect from a trade agreement and, in turn, it pushes back on our sovereignty. This Government needs to wake up, realise that the ground has shifted on the TPP agreement, get on the side of New Zealanders, and get in there and start beginning a renegotiation process.

On this side of the House, we support good quality trade agreements that will grow the economy for New Zealand and that will deliver good jobs. What we do not support are poor-quality agreements that compromise our sovereignty, and we cannot support this legislation as a result.

It is a pleasure to speak to this, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill in its second reading. We had 85 submissions over the month of July, and when those were analysed, there were four themes for the submitters collectively. The first was around patents, the second was around copyright, the third was intellectual property, and the fourth was not-intellectual property. This bill itself makes changes to 11 Acts, and I am going to briefly mention them because I want to come back and pivot and focus on one particularly, which will address some of the concerns we heard just a moment ago.

The Tariff Act 1988 is what I want to actually focus on but, just so we can see the breadth of this bill, I want to mention the others, as well. There is the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001—these all deal with the goods parts of the bill: the Customs and Excise Act 1996; the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, again, 1996; and the Wine Regulations 2006. Under the investment umbrella: the Overseas Investment Act 2005 is amended by this bill. For intellectual property: the Patents Act—we received a lot of submissions around patents; the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act—we did not receive so many on that; the Copyright Act, again, maybe 30 or 40 percent of our time was around copyright; and the Trade Marks Act 2002. Transparency: this bill also deals to the Legislation Act 2012.

I want to come back and focus particularly on the amendments this bill makes to the Tariff Act, and I want to do that for several things, because I think this part of the bill does a lot of the heavy lifting in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). First of all, it sets the tariff rates, which, I think, are clearly very important. I think what is also important for the Tariff Act is that it attends to some of the protection concerns that we have just heard from across the House.

More specifically, it talks to the safeguard measures. There are two safeguard measures that the TPP amendment bill looks to enact. The first is called the transitional safeguard measure. This is a measure that applies in the transitional period, which is the period from when the agreement comes into force for those goods that do not have an elimination schedule. It lasts for 3 years from when the goods come into effect. For those that do have an elimination schedule, the transitional period lasts for the whole period of that transition. Over that time, if there is a threat of serious injury to the domestic market, then there is the ability for the transitional safeguard measure to kick in.

If I can just talk to that measure a bit further, here. The transitional safeguard measure is for when, individually, goods are imported into a party’s territory in such increased quantities in absolute terms or relative to domestic production, and under such conditions as to cause, or threaten to cause, serious injury to the domestic industry that produces a like or directly competitive good. So there is a safeguard measure right there that we can bring in during this transitional period. What is the nature of that measure? What it lets us do, for a period of 2 years, with an extension of 1 year, is it lets us penalise those importers who may be bringing goods in that, as we can see under this clause here, may unfairly compromise the domestic market. What we can do is we can increase the customs rate, as a penalty for those importers who may be harming our domestic market.

It also talks to whether it is a threat to the domestic market, and that threat is detailed as a serious injury that, on the basis of facts—not merely on allegation, conjecture, or remote possibility—is clearly imminent. So the amendments to the Tariff Act give us the ability to talk to the transitional safeguard measures. If our domestic market is being compromised by goods, we can bring in this measure, which is a 2-year compromise, plus one.

The second safeguard measure that the amendment bill applies to the Tariff Act is the emergency safeguard measure. The emergency safeguard measure has similar wording to what the transitional safeguard measure has—it only applies to textiles, I would add. It applies if a good is imported in increased quantities in absolute terms or relative to domestic production, and under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the domestic industry. The emergency safeguard measure also has other clauses that fine-tune the eligibility for the safeguard measure to apply. It is these measures here that are new. This is what the transitional safeguard measure does not have. What must be taken into account are changes in such relevant economic variables as output, productivity, utilisation of capacity, inventories, market share, export, wages, employment, domestic prices, profits, and investment.

So when I am hearing about protections from across the other side of the House, here we are specifically talking to that. Here are some of the protections that this amendment bill will bring into play. The emergency safeguard measure has a different time frame from the transitional safeguard measure. Again, I would mention that it applies to textiles and apparel. The transitional period is from entry into force until 5 years after the elimination of tariffs. So that is quite a long period where we can bring in this emergency safeguard measure. The nature of the measure? Well, what we can do here is we can raise the tariff level to disincentivise people who may be harming our domestic industry. What level can we raise it to? Well, we can actually raise it to the tariff levels that we have with most favoured nations.

There are very clear protection measures here, and these are what this bill actually brings into play; it enacts them through the Tariff Act. That is why I think this part of the 12 parts is the one that is actually doing the heavy lifting. I think this is the one that gives us a lot of protections. If we were to apply the emergency safeguard measure, it is a measure that lasts for 2 years. There are very strict protocols as to how we approach the importer that we think is harming our domestic market: they have got 60 days to respond; the nature in which they respond, the allegations that are being made, and the nature of the harm to the domestic industry are all discussed, all laid out; then the local market can bring these safeguard measures into effect.

I think this bill is very important, even though we are not certain as to when the TPP will be enacted. I take that on board from our colleagues. It is useful, for when it is enacted, to have this ready to go. It has also been useful, as it always is at the select committee—and I want to commend the chair, Mark Mitchell, and my other colleagues for bringing this bill through and for doing such good work on it—to have the advice from those who are out in the external industries because they give us the lens that we do not see. We did not see some of these things, certainly some of the details around technology protection measures. We really needed it explained. They are really very complex. They were explained in great detail by several submitters, and we were eventually able to get our heads around what we are looking to do here.

As I mentioned, there were four large areas that submitters talked to. They talked around patents, and we had a number of people from the performing industry. We had a number of authors. We had those from either side of the fence who argued both sides, and again that is what the select committee does. They argued both sides of that, and we were able to form the view that we are bringing forward to this House today. Similarly, with the Copyright Act—we had a lot of impassioned pleas from people saying “reduce it”, “expand it”, and “we are sort of being consistent with the Americans, but we have a different view”. There were a lot of arguments around that. Again, we were able to crystallise that and bring that forward, in a view that I think is well reasoned. Joining both of those—the Patents Act and the Copyright Act—is intellectual property, and that sort of wove its way between both of those key themes.

There were a number of parts of this bill that were not discussed; in fact, everyone was quite happy with the Tariff Act, which I have just talked about. There were not any specific recommendations to that. In fact, probably two-thirds of the Acts that we are looking to amend were not actually spoken to by submitters. They were quite happy with them.

I think this amendment bill is very important. I think it does address the protections that the Opposition has raised here. The two I have particularly spoken to, under the Tariff Act today, are the transitional safeguard measure and the emergency safeguard measure. I believe they do give us the protections that we are looking for. I think this bill should proceed. Thank you.

I move, That the motion be amended by replacing “now” with “this day 3 months”. This is a deferral motion, which recognises that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement will not come into force and will not be agreed by the requisite 85 percent of TPP countries with GDP of 85 percent or more, for several years, at least. I think this deferral motion would prevent a further waste of time in providing legislation for an agreement that may never happen. If we look at the dynamics within other countries internationally, we see that the tide has turned. The tide has turned against agreements like the TPP. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, a deferral would give time for research and consultation, not to improve the TPP agreement—because in our view it is a flawed model—but to develop sufficient research and consensus around an alternative and better model.

It is with some sadness that I am talking about the TPP agreement today. It has been a long and, we would say, rather unedifying process. There has been extreme secrecy in the negotiations of this agreement over the 6 years of negotiations. The text was not made available to members of the public or even to experts, except, it should be said, it was made available to major multinational companies, which were represented on the delegations of the US and other countries.

In New Zealand we have heard that there were around 10,000 submissions from members of the public, but the question is: what was the response to those 10,000 submissions? What we see is that a draft report from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee was shown in an Official Information Act response to have been significantly changed, and the Government majority report actually ignored most of the issues raised by those submitters. So to talk about an adequate consultation process confuses the process of actually speaking with being listened to, and there is no evidence that the Government has listened to all of the people across this country who are concerned about the TPP agreement.

So why are people concerned? One of the aspects is that this is an agreement that, primarily, is not about trade as people understand it. It is not about tariffs and quotas and our external relationships with countries. This is an agreement that is primarily about domestic regulation and the workings of the New Zealand economy, and what we see is that there are very, very few economic benefits for New Zealand in the TPP agreement. An analysis that was undertaken on the economics of the TPP agreement, which was a peer-reviewed report, showed that around a 1 percent increase in gross national product by 2030 was projected by the Government compared with 47 percent that would have occurred without a TPP agreement. That was according to Government figures, and those Government figures included highly speculative assumptions that have subsequently been challenged in that research report and by a number of other reports, including the United States Government report, the International Trade Commission report, which directly criticised many of the measures that were used in the framing of the New Zealand analysis. So the economics of the TPP agreement have not been done in a convincing way at all.

The Government often quotes figures around what the economic benefit would be. There is no substantive basis for those figures. Meanwhile, the issues that many submitters care about have been completely ignored in the analysis. People are worried about the environment, they are worried about workers’ rights, they are worried about the powers of local government, they are worried about the rights of Māori under Te Tiriti, and they are worried about the state of our public services. There have been research reports on each of these issues, and those research reports have substantiated why there should be concern. At the heart of that concern are the restrictions in the TPP agreement on the Government’s right to regulate in the public interest. That is what the TPP agreement is about; it is restricting the rights of the Government to regulate not only foreign companies but New Zealand business as well.

So we have an agreement that imposes no responsibilities and no regulation on international companies, many of which are able to operate behind tax havens and by using dubious ways to avoid tax, but they gain significant rights under the TPP agreement. Those rights include the investor-State dispute settlement, which is perhaps the single most resonant issue for most New Zealanders. They understand that a foreign corporation, if it has its profitability adversely impacted by a regulation in New Zealand, does have the right to take our Government to an international tribunal. They understand that the processes currently used in international arbitration, in these arbitral tribunals, have been called some of the worst judicial processes in the world. They understand that what is happening here is that a foreign corporation is allowed to take our Government to a shoddy international tribunal over policies that are democratically decided and determined to be in the interests of the New Zealand people. Members of the public reject that.

I should say that the polls show that a majority of the New Zealand public is against it. The most credible research was done by TV3 and Reid Research in November 2015, and it found that of the people who know about the TPP agreement, 60 percent oppose the agreement. So we have a picture here where a majority of the public are being denied an opportunity to express their views on the TPP agreement. We have a series of so-called consultations that do not listen to people, and we have seen, in New Zealand, people responding to that. We have seen protests around the country, we have seen rallies, we have seen people mobilising, we have seen massive petitions, and there is a deep amount of concern over this agreement. Just this morning a hīkoi came to Parliament—Rachel Thomas and her three children, Tema, Pita, and Jai—having walked from Christchurch to make a point about their opposition to the TPP agreement.

New Zealanders care deeply about this agreement. They do not want to give up our sovereignty and democratic rights. They do not want the Government’s right to regulate in the public interest to be compromised under this agreement, particularly since there are few if any economic benefits. I would put this into an international context and say that the international tide is turning away from these agreements. The European Union will not accept these investor-State dispute settlement panels any more. What we have seen is that the parallel agreement to the TPP agreement being negotiated between the US and EU is in the process of being rejected, and 3 million European citizens have mobilised against it. We see economic history that has many times defeated similar agreements, such as the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, which was considered by New Zealand. The agreement collapsed in 1998. There were two attempts to put these sets of investor rights issues into the World Trade Organization, and this collapsed the meetings of Seattle in 1999 and Cancun in 2003.

The tide has turned. We need alternatives. The Green Party’s views and our views on the alternatives are set out in our minority view in the select committee report. We oppose this bill. We oppose ratification of the TPP agreement. But we stand to work together with other political parties and members of the public in developing far better alternatives for the good of New Zealand business, for the good of the New Zealand public, and for the good of our planet. Thank you.

In starting my contribution, I would like to acknowledge some of the previous contributors to the debate this afternoon. I would just like to thank Barry Coates for acknowledging New Zealand First and our efforts to bring forward legislation to the House, which was defeated by only one vote, that sought to remove investor-State dispute settlements from all trade agreements that New Zealand entered into. It was a frustrating moment for me personally, as members opposite voted against removing some of the most insidious trade clauses in this country’s—and the world’s—history of this movement towards so-called trade agreements.

I was going to make a comment on Minister Finlayson’s contribution, but it is like he does not know what is going on in the rest of the world. He seems to have missed the fact that the one country that will determine whether or not we move forward does not want a bar of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). I think the Minister missed the fact that both of the presidential candidates in the US do not want to touch this because they know how toxic it is to their vote. They know it is toxic to their vote, because middle-income US citizens will be the worst affected by this trade agreement. That is reflective of the situation that will arise here in New Zealand also.

We acknowledge, as a party, that there will be some who benefit from this trade agreement. We completely—completely—disagree with the data that was brought to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in terms of a supposed independent analysis of this trade agreement. A few will benefit, but the ledger will not balance out in favour of New Zealand. In fact, it will be quite the opposite. Those in the middle, those at the bottom of our economy, struggling already, will be the worst affected. This Government has overseen an increase in inequality unprecedented in our country’s history, and it is this very type of international agreement that will further exacerbate it. It will make it worse, and New Zealand First stands up to oppose such moves by this Government.

I have to say, as I move around the country and talk to people, I know that New Zealanders are tired. So the family that came to the steps of Parliament today was a bit of motivation for me personally, because I am tired of having to stand up again and again in opposition to this supposed trade deal. It is not called a “trade deal”—it is a “partnership agreement”—because they do not have the audacity to pretend it is a trade deal any more. So I congratulate the family who made that incredible effort to come up and just highlight yet again not only that this agreement is bad for New Zealanders in the present but that it will in fact be harmful to our future generations.

But I was heartened by the contributions from the other side of the House, because clearly those members are tired too. They, in their deliveries today, were quite morose and quite sad in their contributions. I think that it is simply a reluctance and a reticence to stand up and defend the indefensible. It must truly drag them down. I do want to say that I agree with them in a lot of parts, but it is more about the fact that we agree—and I quote one of the members from that side of the House—that “We are a small country positioned at the bottom of the world. We have a tiny population and our big opportunities lie when New Zealand companies get those opportunities to access middle-income consumers around the world including in the US.” I could not agree more.

The problem is that the TPP is absolutely not the vehicle to do this. This is an absolute farce and does not achieve any of the supposedly wondrous—wondrous—numbers. The numbers that the current Minister of Trade has given New Zealanders on the gains from the tariff reductions have bordered on the preposterous. There are no gains for our dairy industry—

💬 Hon Members: Yes, there are.

If we acknowledge that there are some, it has been eloquently summated that it might be the equivalent of nine dairy farms in New Zealand. It is farcical—absolutely farcical. New Zealand First does want to stand up and insist that we are advocates of trade, but we insist with more vehemence that this is not the vehicle with which to achieve it. We oppose this legislation, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill. It is legislation that simply helps this Government to run up the skirts of some of our bigger partners around the world. It is almost infantile in its blatant attempt to side with its overseas friends despite the fact that those friends are not willing to move forward with this agreement.

I commend Mr Reti on his contribution because he actually talked about the legislation. I think he may have been the only one who talked in detail on the legislation itself, so let me speak to some of the issues that arose in this legislation. There were 10 very different and very distinct pieces of legislation, and I have said before—I said it in the first reading and I said it during select committee process—that the omnibus approach to passing these pieces of legislation is flawed in its usage here with this legislation and this process. We have come from an original trade agreement—or partnership agreement, I correct myself—that was undertaken mainly in secret. It was moved ahead at a tremendous rate that curtailed much debate that would have been useful and would have informed, perhaps, more of the agreement.

So what I have suggested, and what I still suggest, is that the opportunity to actually take those individual pieces of legislation to individual select committees affected by those bits of legislation would be a great opportunity to delve deeper into the issues. I think it was Mr Reti who said that the bulk of the legislation that we looked at was not submitted on, and I think it was simply because people did not know the breadth and the depth of the legislation that we were having to address.

The US is in a position where they are not moving forward. Despite Vietnam’s population supporting the TPP—it is the only country where the population does, in the main—the Vietnamese Government has said it is not going to move forward. The Canadian Government has never actually come out with a position on the TPP, and it is not willing to move forward. The Japanese—I have just read this today, as I was waiting for my slot in the House this afternoon—were absolutely adamant in their attempts to move forward to ratify and get the legislation in place, but today, apparently, they have stopped that process and they themselves are not willing to move forward. Those two economies represent more than 85 percent of the GDP of the TPP regions. This TPP agreement will not move forward.

In conclusion, I once again wish to lodge New Zealand First’s opposition to the use of the omnibus bill process. I just want to end on a quote from a former Canadian Deputy Prime Minister: “What is involved is the biggest power, wealth and land grab in the history of the world. The benefits do not accrue exclusively to any one country but it is the wealthiest power elites of the half dozen largest industrialised countries who are the principal beneficiaries. The middle class and the poor of all of these countries are the losers.”

Well, well, well. This is a day of infamy, in my view, for the bipartisan trade policy that has underpinned this country for 30 years. To stand in here and listen this afternoon to Labour, which for 30 years has stood alongside National in fighting for New Zealand’s interests on the world stage and which has had David Shearer, Phil Goff, Mr Parker, and Clayton Cosgrove in the select committee all shaking their heads at their party’s position, all former trade Ministers or involved in trade policy—they know that what their party gives voice to today is disgraceful and is the end of bipartisan trade policy agreement.

Quite frankly, when you listen to the case that Labour members have put here today, it is abysmal. They know it, and they know that when they stand on the platform next year and argue around the vision of New Zealand—connecting it with the world, and ensuring that we have the systems in place to back our small businesses—everyone listening in the audience will know they are hollow, because it means nothing to stand here and oppose a trade agreement that supports small businesses and exporters in their efforts around the world.

To hear Grant Robertson articulate, as he did, his anxiety dream—which, perhaps, was a disclosure too far, but putting that aside—and to listen to him talking about trade and the feedback that he is getting around the country through the lens of the corporations versus the small New Zealand individual and family reflects, typically, a class welfare view and perspective that he learnt at university and has not grown up from. When is he going to realise that the companies of this country that spend all their effort negotiating and trying to sell their products around the world are full of New Zealanders? The company I worked for, Fonterra—17,000 New Zealanders work for it on behalf of 10,000 farmers. That is another example of a corporation that those members feel does not reflect their perspective of New Zealand. Well, with respect, they are so far out of touch with how this country makes money and how families in New Zealand are successful that their argument today, like I was saying, is completely hollow.

Then they talk about the future of work—well, Mr Robertson, this agreement is the future of work, not some esoteric academic exercise. It is creating an opportunity for New Zealand exporters to succeed on the world stage. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is the future of work, and the sooner that party understands the reality, the better. But with their current leadership, I have no hope. Is it not interesting that all their former trade Ministers, their former leaders—Helen Clark, Mike Moore, people whom they salute to on the 100th year of the Labour Party, people who have underpinned their success for a generation—are the ones who are saying that the TPP is something that they could not even imagine not supporting. But the hard left members of the Labour Party would rather be pure in their own mind and commit themselves to the fourth consecutive elective defeat than front the reality of what it is like to be part of a global environment and support our small businesses and exporters.

Barry Coates made a comment earlier that I simply have to rebut. He talked about Jane Kelsey getting access to our report. It was not our committee report; it was a draft that had been leaked earlier, and we certainly as a committee had not finally reviewed it or, indeed, deliberated on it. So your reference there is inaccurate and it would pay you to just circle back with those who are involved in that process and get closer to it.

Fletcher Tabuteau, who unfortunately—some of his comments I would also like to rebut. For him to stand up and say that this agreement is going to drive greater inequality in New Zealand—

💬 Denis O’Rourke: And so it will.

Yes, again—and of course you are going to echo it because that is your small, narrow-minded perspective. It is because you simply have not understood the reality here of standing beside owners of small businesses who get up every day and put their capital at risk to try to sell a product and service on the world stage.

When there is an agreement that provides New Zealand the opportunity to connect with close to 40 percent of the world economy, which 40 percent of our exports currently go to, and we have negotiated agreement with 12 parties—an agreement that successive Governments have been seeking to achieve, and we finally get that—someone who stands and says that this is going to drive greater inequality simply does not understand the economy of this country and the importance of trade to it. That is what I take issue with. He is a fine man, personally, but on this particular point of issue, he is way off the mark.

It has been an extraordinary process. We had 80-plus submissions and we have already heard some of the themes that came through those conversations and submissions. But one of the things that I found very interesting listening to them is that they were largely the same theme or view that somehow this was going to constrain New Zealand businesses, constrain New Zealand Governments able to make law as we see fit, despite, as we have heard again this afternoon, very clear confirmation from the Attorney-General—and it is explicit in the agreement—that that is not the case.

It is a view that somehow the Pharmac model is going to be impacted, when again we heard from the officials very explicitly that New Zealanders will not pay more for subsidised medicines as a result of TPP. The fact is that for each one of these submitters who raised this issue, we would point to the particular component in the bill and in the agreement, and they would say: “Oh, yeah, but that’s not what I feel. That’s not what I think.” Although I respect their opinion, the fact is that this agreement, and this bill, does not in any way impact our Pharmac model.

There is the same thing in respect of investor-State disputes. There are high hurdles that have been put in, and again we have had investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions in our previous trade deals, and, despite the fact that that in no way has challenged New Zealand’s success in implementing both those trade deals and also our Government policy, that again did not seem to hold water for those who were philosophically opposed, actually, in my view, to trade as a vehicle for lifting the quality of life and direction of this country.

In terms of some of the specifics, certainly from my perspective, there has been some talk here around the economic analysis being light. Well, actually, I agree that it is light in the context that the number that was provided I think will be well less than the actual value that will accrue to this country from being part of the TPP. I do not say that just in a carefree way. Look at the facts: for the Chinese free-trade agreement it was significantly greater—a factor of four greater—in terms of the actual economic benefit that has accrued to this country from being a part of it. The officials’ view is understandably conservative, because they take the current trade figures and they remove value and quantity and remove the tariffs that we are paying on that.

But, of course, what history suggests is that as you open up a market that provides an exponential opportunity for our exporters to succeed on the world stage. So I agree the numbers are light when it says $2.7 billion. When it is, in effect—I think it is going to be well north of that. But, more importantly and to finish, this is—and we have heard from the debate this afternoon—a defining difference in the political philosophies that are represented in this House. I, for one, am absolutely certain that the philosophy of backing our exporters with a trade deal that connects us with 40 percent, or just under, of the world’s economy, and providing them with a platform for them to succeed and grow through the reduction of tariffs over time is exactly where we should be. It reflects exactly what small and medium and large businesses across this country would expect from this Government. It is the leadership that I am very proud to support and I am very much in favour of this bill moving to the next stage. Thank you.

The next call is a split call. Dr Kennedy Graham—5 minutes.

Mr Assistant Speaker, I did not want to interrupt the previous speaker, Todd Muller, in full flight, but we do want you to know that the Green Party does not think that you have a small and narrow-minded perspective.

Moving on from the faintly simplistic tub-thumping of a left-right nature that we have just heard, and focusing on the point that we are meant to be here for, which is to look at the bill that is before us and the committee’s report back on the bill—which did not actually figure explicitly for a second in the previous presentation—we find that the purpose of the bill is to make legislative changes to align New Zealand’s laws and regulations with its obligations under the international agreement that New Zealand signed in February this year. But why? In order to enable New Zealand to ratify the agreement. Let me pick up where my colleague Barry Coates left off, which is to indicate that there is actually no need, at all, right at this moment, for New Zealand to proceed to ratify at this stage. We should defer any further consideration of this legislation until the international politics of the matter become clearer, for very obvious reasons.

Harking back to the beginning of this debate and the quite substantive contributions made by the first two Government speakers, in the form of the Hon Chris Finlayson—somewhat vaguely, perhaps, on behalf of the Minister of Trade, but none the less well meant—and the following contribution from Mark Mitchell, I identified four substantive issues that were raised, somewhat vaguely. Mr Finlayson assured an unwitting House that a free-trade agreement—which, of course, this is not—would promote trade between New Zealand and other countries. On the basis of that reassurance, he proceeded to tell us that we had no need for worries about any changes to Pharmac legislation, no need to worry about changes to copyright, and that we should glory in the impetus that the changes to these 10 bills are going to give to the Māori economy, which is 5.6 percent of GDP. That prompted him to assure the country that the series of consultations the Government had had were entirely comprehensive, and that the roadshows—the Government tried, I think, for a better word and it could have used a better word, but it could not, so it called them roadshows—and the series of hui were good for the Māori economy.

That led on to Mark Mitchell claiming, erroneously, that there is a majority of opinion in this House in favour of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA). He reasoned his way along a tortuous path of self-delusion to the view that there was majority support on the grounds that there were quite a few submitters turning up to actually support the bill. Yes, there were. That is true. There was an overwhelming greater majority opposing the bill, but there were some who did turn up to support the bill—granted. But that is not the point when it comes to civic engagement and integrity vis-à-vis the New Zealand public. The critical thing is the public generally, out there, each individual citizen—not a corporation that carries weight and influence, but the individual citizen.

As Barry Coates pointed out, there was one major poll that concentrated on the fact that of those who were familiar with the TPPA, 60 percent were opposed. Beyond that, I commissioned the Parliamentary Library to do an objective study of all the polls pertaining to the TPPA, to find that, on average, the public opinion polls of the polls showed that 39 percent opposed the TPP and 26 percent supported it, with a sizable area in the “Don’t know” category. So we conclude that, on balance, a majority of New Zealand citizens oppose the agreement. A plurality of three to two against the agreement does raise the question of whether this Government’s claimed electoral mandate for this kind of treaty is legitimate or whether it requires—

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member—his time has expired. I call Rino Tirikatene—5 minutes.

I would like to join with my Labour colleagues in our opposition to this bill. This whole Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is just one more example of the subterfuge and trickery that we are getting from this National Government—the National Government of smoke and mirrors—because what we have heard this afternoon, and what we have heard consistently, is only one side of the story. We have heard about oh how great this is going to be for trade, how we are going to reap the benefits, and how it is going to be great for our export sectors, and I certainly do wish our export sectors well—we all do. But with every deal there is always another side to the deal.

What are we giving up? Well, it has been disingenuous of this Government to just ram down the throats tariffs here, trade benefits for this export sector or that export sector, and pull out all its cheerleaders to laud the so-called benefits, because we do not know. We do not know the true numbers. All we have heard is just that one side of the story, but has anyone ever come up definitively with or allowed the proper scrutiny to take place as to what it will do to what we are giving up?

What scrutiny has there been on Pharmac, the accessibility of medicines to the New Zealand citizens, and the cost of those medicines? There is the issue about non-resident foreign speculators buying up all our whenua, our rawa—our resources. There is the issue of our sovereignty. This is what it comes down to—our sovereignty. Sure, we may be gaining some perceived benefits—we do not know for sure; we are hearing it a lot from that side—but it is at the expense of our sovereignty, and that is why Labour opposes this bill.

We do support free trade. We are the party for free trade, and all of the major agreements that we have put in place have been done on a consensus basis. They have been—they have been. We have worked together and we have drawn consensus around them. But this deal is subterfuge because it is trickery that this Government is going to be inflicting on New Zealand, and all we have heard is just that one side of the story.

But, you know, there are so many holes. We have not had the opportunity for a proper public debate, for a proper public forum, and for serious discussion, not just a rushed, truncated, $45-a-ticket roadshow, not just a few token hui where fewer than a dozen people show up, and not just an invite-only to the business audiences—to the converted. We needed a proper discussion. We needed a proper debate of the full assessment of the impacts of this agreement, and we have not had that.

This Government has just been trying to ram it through as fast as it can and to kowtow to the big international US corporates that have been driving this agreement. Sure, we might want to try to hang on to those coat-tails but we do not know what we are giving up—we do not know what we are giving up.

If anyone knows about being very careful about signing off agreements, it is Māori. Believe me; we know what it is like to sign off agreements and the consequences that flow from that. But there is an elephant in the room. There is an elephant in the room, which we are not addressing here, and I am not talking about the Republican logo elephant; it is the US presidential elections. Because like it or not, this TPP issue is not only divisive here for Aotearoa, it is dividing populations in countries around the world—those that are party to it.

I certainly hope that this is just a futile exercise. I hope that this is a redundant exercise—that we are going through the motions here but this agreement will not go ahead because it is not in the interests of New Zealand. It does undermine our sovereignty. We do support free trade but we do not support the way that this Government has been trying to pull the wool over our people’s eyes with this sham—

Sorry, the member’s time has expired.

I take a call on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill. As the comments that the previous speaker, Rino Tirikatene, has just made are fresh and hot off the press—where he talked about the sham, he talked about pulling the wool over the eyes, and he talked about all the things that could go wrong—I just want to read a comment that has been made, which may be of some concern to that member. Here is the quoted comment: “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’s unthinkable for New Zealand, an exporter and small trading nation. So of course New Zealand has to be in on the action with the TPP and go for the very best deal it can.” That is a quote from Helen Clark.

So that member may stand up there, and he may turn around; he was previously the chair of the Federation of Māori Authorities, which knows the importance of a trading nation—he knows the importance of that—and yet the quotes of the previous Prime Minister, the Labour Prime Minister, clearly indicate that this is an important process to be a part of. So I want that member to actually think about that, because that goes to the heart of his comments. He can talk about all the things that he has talked about, but when this quote actually states that, it makes it very, very hard.

I want to make some comments. I was not on the committee; I was actually over in Geneva with the Hon Annette King and also the honourable member for the Greens, David Clendon. We were there for the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), which is in actual fact the oldest parliamentary association in the world—it started in 1889—and it is where parliamentarians can come together. In that process there was correspondence from Mexico through to New Zealand and to our Speaker, which asked whether there was an opportunity for a multilateral conversation in a meeting in which members who are part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) who were at the IPU in Geneva would be willing to come together to have a conversation to be able to talk about things. Obviously, we were not in the position, as others who are members are, to do any negotiations; it was merely to be able, as part of the IPU, to have the dialogue and to, maybe, update each other on our processes of ratification.

So in that meeting, which was hosted and called for by Mexico, we also had the delegation from Singapore, the delegation from Malaysia, and the delegation also from Vietnam. We were there—and I have to say that my honourable friend and colleague over here, David Clendon, was there with us as well—and also the Canadians. Unfortunately, they went into the wrong room, but they finally, eventually, found their way to us as well. The conversation was actually about asking those different members—so five of the 12 who were present at that time—to talk about their process of ratification. That is actually at the heart of what this bill is. The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill is about the ratification of domestic legislation that is in agreement with the objectives of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA).

First, we had the delegation from Mexico, and they talked about its process. I want to say, first of all, that there have been comments across the House that there has been an international process where people are pulling out of the deals and are actually suspending their ratification process; that is not what we heard. I know that I have a witness in Mr Clendon, who was there. In fact, Mexico talked about the importance of this deal. The Mexican delegation talked about the fact that not only is TPP significant and important but they also talked about NAFTA, which is the North America Free Trade Agreement, which is between Canada and Mexico and also the United States.

They also talked about their concerns, and also about seeing the outcome of the US presidential race at the moment, because for them that is important. They talked about the rest of the world and hearing some of the comments about the fear, but the importance of that free-trade agreement for them was that, in regard to the United States, that is 5 million jobs that they provide. Mexico is the second-largest export market for United States goods—through into the Mexican market, as well. So that became important. Mexico’s process of ratification was quite critically important, and it was progressing on.

We then heard from the Singaporean delegation, which was quite interesting. They were a little bit more matter of fact. They talked about the fact that, for them, they had already gone through a process. Their consultation, I have to say, probably was not as extensive as we have had through our select committee. However, Singapore too was progressing. Again, their comments were about seeing the importance of this TPPA as well.

We then had the Malaysian delegation. They too talked about the importance of the TPP. Again, Malaysia’s process of ratification was going through its process. Its delegation saw the importance of being prepared and ready. Obviously, with the US being the larger portion of this agreement, it is quite critically important, but those delegations realised that they needed to progress their ratification process in their own domestic forms of legislation as well.

We then heard from Vietnam. I know that comments from Fletcher Tabuteau, who has talked about the fact that they have heard that even Vietnam is not going forward with the TPP. Well, unless something has changed, that is not what we heard from Vietnam. Vietnam, again, has a process different from ours, in its own jurisdiction, but what we heard from that delegation was about the importance of the TPPA and, most importantly, that they were also progressing it as well.

I can then say, having spoken to the chair, Mr Mark Mitchell, and also having sat on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and being subbed on for some of the process of the hearing of submissions, that I was able to report back our process and progress of ratification here in New Zealand. I talked about the opening up of submissions. I talked about the roadshows and going and engaging with our communities. I talked about the consultation process that had taken place, the engaging with advisers, the regulatory impact statements that we had had, and also the second round of consultation that had gone out as well. It was significant. It was important. I have to say, with some pride, in comparison with the other jurisdictions—and not to be judgmental of them at all—that we certainly had gone quite a fair way to engage, to consult, and to ensure that the wider public of New Zealand was informed about this agreement as well. I think that was significantly important.

At the end of that, we also eventually had the conversation with Canada’s delegation. We do agree that in regard to agriculture we would like to go a lot further, but they did say that they think this was an important step as well.

I also want to say that there has been some talk around the fear of the US in regard to this. The conversations that I heard and was privy to were that we know that the US sees this as an important part of its trade negotiations. It has to go to the heart of its reputation, as well as to the opportunities that it will avail to them in regard to its own economy as well. So I think that is really important. I wanted to just add those comments.

Having just recently come last week from Geneva, having heard the conversations, and having been part of those countries, the comments that were made previously by other speakers that, supposedly, other partners to this agreement were being gun shy, were being afraid, were pulling out, and were slowing down their process—that is not what we heard and that is not what we saw. In fact, what they would see as being more important is the ratification in their own domestic legislation and, hopefully, the opportunities that will be available to them to be able to continue to progress this as well. Those are just my brief comments that I wanted to make to this Trans-Pacific Partnership legislation. I believe this is important.

Finally, I just want to add that on this side of the House those who support it are united. We are united. I have to say that on the Opposition side, surely that cannot be the same story. When Opposition members get up and they talk about that from the Labour perspective, surely they have to question the credibility of their comments when they know, for instance, in their midst, in their own caucus, there are those who will not come into the House and speak and be present in here because they—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member cannot refer to the absence of members—[Interruption] Order! I am ruling. The member cannot refer to the absence of a member from the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I do apologise for that. I do want to just finish on those comments. I think it is important to say that on this side of the House, we are united. We are supportive of this agreement. We see the importance of this agreement to our economy and to our communities. We think this is important. I commend this bill, in its second reading, to the House.

It is my pleasure to take a call on this bill and to outline again why Labour is not supporting this legislation. As my colleague Dr David Clark spelt out, this is not a decision we came to lightly. When we as a Labour Party came to consider this, yes, we did consider our history. We did consider that as well as establishing the welfare State, building State houses, and putting in place the kind of New Zealand we believed in, the first Labour Government was also actively engaged in taking New Zealand to the world and establishing our trade links, and that is something that we as a party are proud of. But what we are not prepared to back is a piece of legislation that is not about trade. What we have in front of us today is not about trade. It undermines New Zealand’s sovereignty, for speculative gains. We will come to the analysis and what it means for New Zealand. What we have heard, aside from a whole lot of anger on the Government benches today, is a whole lot of mistruths about what it is that this deal means for New Zealand.

I would like to turn to Todd Muller’s speech. He angrily waved the bill about and said that this was the future of work. Well, I fear for our country that there are members on the Government benches who think that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is the future for our country. What this is about is a Government that is short-sighted and does not have any plan for the future. This is about a Government that does not have any kind of long-term view. What that Government member Todd Muller thinks is the plan for the future is a 0.05 percent increase in GDP. What he thinks is the future of work is analysis that shows that because of this agreement we are looking at 6,000 fewer jobs. What we are seeing from that member is that he thinks this is the plan for the future.

The Minister who negotiated it said: “If we can’t get a good deal out of it, we’ll walk away.” Well, there is not a good deal. There is a minuscule deal for dairy in here—there are tiny gains for it—and Government members think this is the future. What this country needs is a Government that understands what is coming, understands that the nature of work is changing, understands that our economy has to change with it, and understands that the country needs a Government that will be able to stand up for it. What we will not be able to do under this legislation is put in place the kinds of protections we want in place in our economy to make sure that we are ready for the 21st century, and that is something that this Government has absolutely no plans around.

We want to make sure that we can put restrictions on foreign non-resident buyers in the housing market. I know this is a Government that has absolutely no plan for addressing the housing crisis, and this just adds to it. The Government’s support of this and its claim that this is what it believes the future is is emblematic of a Government that is out of ideas, not facing the 21st century with any kind of plan, out of touch, and growing increasingly arrogant—it has “been there”.

So we have had the idea of the economic benefit and what that will mean for New Zealand, but let us have a look at that. I know that Mr Muller thinks that this is the future of work in New Zealand, and we have seen that by 2030 that would be a 0.05 percent increase in GDP. That is ambitious for the future—that is real ambition I can see over there on the Government benches! The magnitude of the 0.9 percent GDP change forecast by the Government as a result of the TPP implementation by 2030 contrasts sharply with the expected business-as-usual GDP increase of 47 percent over the same time period.

So what is this deal adding? We know what it is taking away, but what is the value added by this deal? What is it giving us as a country? I have already alluded to the Tufts University analysis that says that by 2025 there could be 6,000 fewer jobs in this country as a result of this agreement. How is that good for us in the future? How is that good for the future of work? That same Tufts University study also forecasts that the labour share of output—that is called wages and salaries, for those who are wondering—would see a fall of 1.45 percent over that period. If that is what the National Government thinks is the future of work, then New Zealanders should be very, very afraid. If it thinks that the future of work is falling wages, fewer jobs, and stagnant growth from the kind of deal that it is going to put in place, then New Zealanders should be incredibly worried.

Labour stands with the people who called for up-to-date, 21st century analysis—credible, sophisticated analysis—of the TPP and its likely impacts on our economy. We cannot get away with the top-line theory that we are seeing trotted out by the Government members who have been put up to speak on this bill. We have also had the constant refrain from members that this is what small business wants, but no member on the Government benches has addressed the Mind Your Own Business survey that came out, which showed that only 39 percent of small businesses were in favour of the TPP. This is a Government that thinks that it is going to be good for small business, but small business is telling it—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I want to hear what the speaker is saying, so this—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. This barracking across the cross benches is unacceptable.

Maybe the barracker will get a call at some point. But the idea that small businesses are saying that less than half, 39 percent, of them are in favour of this deal is something that shows just how out of touch this Government is. It says: “Trade good.” Yes, we agree. Trade is good, and we in the Labour Party have always stood for free trade, but what we will not stand for is this agreement, which does not protect our future. It is about more than trade, and it does not set us up for the kind of New Zealand that we on this side of the House have a vision for—one where we have security of work, one where we have a flourishing economy, and one where we can be in charge of our own destiny. That is the kind of New Zealand that we are ambitious for on this side of the House.

I think a previous speaker from New Zealand First spoke about a group of people who came to Parliament today. There was a mother and her three children who had walked from Christchurch over the last 20 days. They had walked 20 kilometres a day to get here to Wellington today. What they were worried about was the future. What drove that woman to set out on this hīkoi of the South Island—of course, they took the ferry to get here to Wellington—was fear for her children’s future. For many New Zealanders, this is what they are concerned about when they hear about the TPP. They are concerned about the kind of future we are facing.

When Government members get on their hind legs and say they believe that this agreement means a positive future for New Zealand, and when that is as ambitious as they get, New Zealanders should be worried for their children’s future. We need to have a country where we can support that future. I think Mr Robertson revealed quite a lot when he talked of his anxiety dreams about preparing for exams that did not exist. We have heard about other countries that have put this on ice—because we do not even know that this is a deal that is going to go ahead. Joe Biden has given it a less than fifty-fifty chance—a less than even chance—of getting through.

We have seen other countries—we have seen Vietnam, we have seen Japan—delay this legislation, because the agreement is not even a given. But here we are, rushing this through. It was a rushed process all the way through, and we do not even know that the agreement will come to pass. It is a real shame that we have not taken the opportunity instead to think about what the future can, and will, be for New Zealand and what it is that we can offer our children. Labour does not support this legislation.

Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. Huri noa i Te Whare nei e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. As the final speaker, I want to try to sort of bring this back, particularly after listening to the previous speaker, Megan Woods. Over there the glass pretty much seems to be always half empty.

When we look on this side of the House, this particular piece of legislation, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill, is what this is all about. I want to just concentrate on two points. The first one is the very positive effect that I believe that this bill will have on the Port Hills, where I am based as a list MP. When we look at the Port Hills and all those who actually rely on jobs, over 10 percent in the Port Hills are involved in the manufacturing industry. This is one positive benefit when we look at this Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA). We know from past experiences, as well, that our economy grows stronger and our people are better off when we sell to the world—when we sell to the world. Listening to that previous speaker, Megan Woods, she kind of forgets the fact that the endorsement of the TPPA has actually been by former leaders of that particular party. When we look at this, just coming back to very, very simplistic terms, the fact is that joining a free-trade zone with around 40 percent of the world’s economy means that we grow our economy, our jobs, and our wages a lot quicker.

That is why I find it hard to believe that this agreement—and this comes to my next point. I want to talk about Māori and how it affects them. I want to talk about the Māori economy, because we have heard some things that were really quite wrong from the other side of the House, particularly from Mr Coates, and also from Rino Tirikatene. I cannot understand—when we look at this particular agreement, the potential here for Māori. I find it hard to believe that this agreement is not celebrated by every Māori organisation in New Zealand, and also every Māori member of Parliament. Why I say that is because if there is one group in New Zealand society that needs our economy to grow faster, needs extra jobs, and needs higher wages, that is Māori. This is what this agreement can actually give us. It can be really a great contributor to the Māori economy.

I know young Māori, and where I live, in my community, they are hard workers. Some do not have qualifications though, and many, at the moment, have either part-time jobs or no jobs. If the TPPA comes into effect, that means that a local manufacturer saves money on tariffs, sells more overseas, and needs to take on new employees. These are the people who are going to be out there getting those jobs. These are our people who will benefit from this particular agreement. Growing our economy and bringing more wealth into our country does not just benefit Māori; it benefits everyone.

As the Prime Minister has often said, we cannot grow our wealth as a country, add more jobs, and add higher-paying jobs to our economy by selling only to ourselves. We know from past experience that our economy grows stronger and our people are better off when we sell to the world—when we sell to the world. From the other side of the House, they have actually accepted this principle that we do need to have trade. We need to sell to the rest of the world. Looking at this, again it comes back to the fact that if we do that then it is very, very beneficial right across the board.

I want to turn now, particularly, to Māori and the Māori economy. I want to do a quote as well, because a lot of consultation—a lot of hui, as we heard—actually took place right across the country. It was not just once but numerous times, to actually consult with Māori. One of the leading lights within the Māori economy is the Federation of Māori Authorities. It represents, as the name suggests, Māori businesses.

Here is a quote from the chairperson of the Federation of Māori Authorities. Traci Houpapa is quoted as saying: “New Zealand is a trading nation. We must optimise our exports and trade relationships for the wealth and the prosperity of all New Zealanders. … Māori have always traded across Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, so the TPP is a contemporary expression of age-old trading routes. The removal of tariffs is an immediate advantage for Māori exporters, and the agreement sets the stage for better gains in the future. New Zealand has been represented by arguably the best trade negotiators in the world in the TPP talks, and we are confident that Minister Groser and his team have landed the best possible deal for New Zealand.”—the best possible deal for New Zealand. To continue with the quote: “The TPP is about building partnerships through which we might grow our exports and trade potential. This agreement is the result of trade talks and negotiations led over time by both Labour and National, and it is important to remember that the TPP has the potential to benefit all New Zealanders.”

I have heard criticism also that apparently the TPP does not uphold the Treaty of Waitangi—and that is by Mr Coates. Nothing could be further from the truth. The TPP contains a provision that specifically preserves the pre-eminence of the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand. The pre-eminence of the Treaty is subject to New Zealand’s interpretation of it. It is not subject to the dispute settlement provisions within the TPP—it is not subject to that. When we talk about sovereignty and when we talk about the fact that Te Tiriti o Waitangi could be compromised, well, just to reiterate again, I will highlight the fact that there is a clause there where that cannot happen. Nothing in this agreement, in any way, prevents the Crown in its obligations to Māori, and that has come out very, very clearly.

The irony here is also that the members opposite have abandoned their own party’s legacy of actually supporting trade, which is unfortunate. On that note, I think that the most important part of this is that this particular piece of legislation, this agreement, is good for all New Zealanders. I want, particularly, to highlight the fact that a lot of the negative things—particularly around people saying “No consultation; too fast.”—a lot of the time when we look at this, a lot of that sort of talk that is coming from that side of the House is just pretty much untrue in a lot of ways, and particularly when it comes to Māori, and particularly with Te Tiriti o Waitangi. And also the fact of how Māori can benefit and we can continue to build the Māori economy, which is around $40 billion at the moment. Mr Assistant Speaker, e mihi atu ki a koe. I actually want to finally say I commend this bill to the House, and I wish it well. Tēnā koe.

The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee by majority be agreed to.

The question now is that the amendment to the motion, in the name of Barry Coates, be agreed to.