Thursday, 3 November 2016

THURSDAY, 3 NOVEMBER 2016

THURSDAY, 3 NOVEMBER 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday, 8 November the Government will look to complete the first reading of the Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, the third reading of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill, and a number of other bills on the Order Paper. Wednesday will be a members’ day.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I thank the Leader of the House for that. In light of the House’s decision earlier today to adopt the excellent Supplementary Order Paper 191 by my colleague Mr Faafoi and Supplementary Order Paper 207 by Mr Seymour, can he confirm that the members’ bills in the name of Mr Korako and Mr Doocey will now be withdrawn?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I think, given the good sense shown by those two members in expediting this most important legislation, it is most likely that the course of action suggested by the Labour Party will be followed, which means that they have had a hat trick—which is more than they have had for many, many years.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Better Public Services—Results and Impact on Public Sector Spending

1. NUK KORAKO (National) to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making in its programme to get better results from public services?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Earlier this week the Government released the latest results update for its Better Public Services programme. These targets were set in 2012 by the Prime Minister and are designed to be challenging targets that may be difficult to achieve. The latest update shows we are making progress in some areas that make a real difference, and this is the last update we will issue before Cabinet refreshes the targets. Benefit dependency continues to fall, and we have saved up to $3.6 billion of long-term liability over the past 2 years. The total crime rate for the June quarter was up 1.4 percent, but, overall, it has fallen 15 percent since 2011.

Nuk Korako: What progress is being made on targets specifically designed to improve outcomes for children and young people?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We know that well-focused early intervention can reduce remedial spending later in the lives of those children who have real risks. We chose some quite difficult targets. For instance, Result 4 is about reducing the number of substantiated physical assaults on children, where the headline numbers show that abuse is far too high but has stopped increasing at the same rate that it was several years ago. When you dig in behind that result, it shows that we are starting to connect with the hardest-to-reach children and families—for instance, those children who suffer the worst consequences of poverty, such as preventable diseases like rheumatic fever. Other progress that has been made is on immunisation. Immunisation rates are up from 84 percent to 92 percent this year. The number of rheumatic fever cases has dropped from 177 cases in 2012 to 112 this year.

Nuk Korako: What progress is being made on Result 1: Reducing Long-term Welfare Dependence?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The latest figures show that around 15,000 fewer people are on a main benefit over the 2 years between 2014 and 2016. Those people coming off benefits are being supported by successful programmes to support them into work and, in particular, to make their exit from benefit sustainable. Historically, getting someone off a benefit often meant that before too long they were back on the benefit. Fortunately, in a stronger economy there are more opportunities for those who are able to work. But I must point out that as we make progress with those who are work-ready, a greater proportion of those still on welfare are not work-ready, and making further progress is going to be more challenging and will require more innovation and lateral thinking.

Nuk Korako: How does the Government’s priority of delivering Better Public Services contribute to its other priority of responsibly managing its finances?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In a couple of ways. One is that we have found that when you get the Public Service to focus on the results for which it is accountable, it is much less likely to come asking for large amounts of money without a particular purpose and much more likely to be very thoughtful about how it uses the money it already has. Secondly, as we develop the tool kit for social investment, including the use of data and analytics, we are finding that well-targeted early intervention can lead, before too long, to considerable savings, simply because we can change lives. When we change lives, particularly those of our children and young people, we can help them avoid a lifetime of misery and the taxpayer a lifetime of cost.

Al-Khalaf Group—Advice on Legal Threat from and Grievance Settlement Process

2. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Did he ask for, or receive, any advice or assessment from officials about the stated legal threat of up to $30 million from the Al-Khalaf group; if so, what was the nature of that advice?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I received advice from ministry officials prior to meeting with Mr Al Khalaf, in relation to both legal advice that Mr Al Khalaf was known to have taken regarding a compensation claim and the risks of a claim being in breach of New Zealand’s World Trade Organization obligations. These formed part of an oral briefing.

James Shaw: Does he stand by his statement to me in this House on 28 May 2015 that “The Government took advice from very senior officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, including from the legal division.”?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I would want to see the full context of any statement, but I would generally be happy to stand behind all of my statements in this regard.

James Shaw: What, then, is his response to the Auditor-General’s finding that “There was no assessment by ministry officials of the substance of that legal risk.”?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I agree with that assessment. I have always been clear, in relation to the Cabinet paper, that we made no such claim, and I repeat what is in the introduction to this piece of the Cabinet paper, where it says: “While the Saudi parties would have preferred to enter discussions on the basis of seeking compensation for commercial loss as a result of Government decisions, it indicated that they had received legal advice suggesting they pursue a claim of between $20 million and $30 million.” The Government has made it clear that we would not be a party to such negotiations. Those sentiments are reflected in the report of the Auditor-General.

James Shaw: Now that the Auditor-General’s inquiry is complete, will he now give us his response to claims made by George Assaf on The Nation on 3 July that he had “no appetite or intention” of ever suing the Government of New Zealand?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I am aware that the member and others wish to cast doubt on what has been said in that respect, and I simply draw his attention to page 8 of the Auditor-General’s report, where, as a matter of fact, the Auditor-General found: “The Al-Khalaf group indicated that it considered it should be paid compensation of $24 million.”

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was whether Mr McCully would answer a claim by George Assaf on The Nation; it was not in relation to what he was quoting from the report.

Mr SPEAKER: I think on this occasion I am going to give the member the benefit of the doubt. I think it has been addressed, but I will allow the member to ask the question again so that we are absolutely sure that it has been addressed.

James Shaw: Now that the Auditor-General’s inquiry is complete, will the Minister now give us his response to claims made by George Assaf on The Nation on 3 July that he had “no appetite or intention” of ever suing the Government of New Zealand?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I am aware of many different claims that have been made in relation to the history of this matter. The Auditor-General had the opportunity to view all of the paperwork and talk to any parties that she felt she should talk to, and she recorded her finding on page 8: “The Al-Khalaf group indicated that it considered it should be paid compensation of $24 million.”

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was in relation to a specific claim by Mr Al-Khalaf’s business partner George Assaf.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard quite enough. The essence of the question was “will the Minister now give his response to that statement”, and the Minister has certainly given his response—clearly not to the satisfaction of the member, but I think on this occasion, when I hear the answer that has been given, it was actually addressed on the first occasion.

James Shaw: Was Mr Al-Khalaf’s business partner George Assaf lying when he said that they had “no appetite or intention” of suing the New Zealand Government?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I have no responsibility for what Mr Assaf or anyone else, including various television programmes, might have said about this matter. The member and others kicked up a large fuss, used some very florid language, and made some very strong accusations to provoke an Audit Office inquiry into this matter. The Auditor-General spoke to everyone she wanted to speak to, looked at all of the paperwork that was available, and made it very clear that the Al-Khalaf group indicated it considered it should be paid compensation of $24 million—that is the direct quote from the Auditor-General’s report.

James Shaw: Does he accept the finding in the Auditor-General’s report that “settlement of a grievance was provided under the guise of a contract for services”?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I have made it clear that I accept all of the conclusions of the Auditor-General’s report, including those referred to by the member, and also, in particular, the statement made by the Auditor-General that the contract for services was a fully lawful contract for services and that all of the elements of the contract were discharged in relation to the appropriation granted by Parliament.

James Shaw: Given that response—that he does accept that the deal was a settlement of a grievance—why was it not signed off by the Crown Law Office or by a court judgment, as is required by Cabinet Office circular CO(15)4?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: The Auditor-General has made very clear her finding as to the legality of the arrangement. The report makes it very clear that the contract for services was a fully lawful contract for services and that it was undertaken in a manner that was consistent with the appropriation granted by Parliament.

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was quite specific, outlining a quote in the Auditor-General’s report, about the requirement for payments above $75,000 to be signed off by the Crown Law Office or a court judgment. Mr McCully has not responded to that question.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. Mr McCully, in my opinion, has responded and has addressed it clearly—not to your satisfaction, but he has, effectively, said that it met the requirements. So that is his answer that has been given to the House today.

Economy—Impact of Housing Market on, Imbalances in, and Productivity

3. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Is he concerned that the New Zealand economy is unbalanced towards speculation in housing given that the value of New Zealand’s housing stock is now $998 billion, eight times the total value of the New Zealand stock market, and is that valuation of the housing market a risk to financial stability?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): No, not particularly concerned. The Reserve Bank has a series of tools available to ensure financial stability, as it is obliged to by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. So it has, for instance, quite conservative capital requirements on our banks and it also uses loan-to-value ratios as a way of restricting demand for borrowing for housing. I believe that these tools are robust enough to ensure that even if the housing market stops rising and if some households come under pressure because they borrowed a lot at the peak of the market, that does not represent a threat to financial stability.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, why, then, has the Reserve Bank Governor described inflated house values as a threat to financial stability in all of his financial stability reports in recent years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would have to go and check exactly what language the Reserve Bank Governor has used. There is no doubt that a housing market rising this quickly can represent a risk. That risk is being well managed by the Reserve Bank. Also, most of these decisions are made by New Zealanders who run the risk of losing their life savings if they get it wrong. So, yes, it is a source of risk, but I do not believe there is currently a threat to financial stability from the housing market.

Grant Robertson: What does it say about the balance of the economy under his watch when the number of renting, hiring, and real estate companies increased by 11.6 percent at the same time as a number of businesses in productive parts of the economy such as IT and manufacturing were dropping?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of itself, it probably does not tell us much. I mean, you only have to be a single person to set up a real estate agency—and there has been a fair bit of that on the back of an increase in the housing market. You have to be a larger entity to survive in manufacturing or IT. The fact is that we have record low interest rates, strong population growth, and, therefore, strong demand for housing. This is a challenge of growth and, fortunately, the New Zealand economy is reacting to it with resilience. In time, the housing market will run through and capital will through flow to other parts of the economy.

Grant Robertson: How does he think imbalances in the economy will improve when, according to Statistics New Zealand’s latest business demography release, there were fewer new businesses created in New Zealand this year than last year and the number of new businesses created in the last year is 6 percent lower than in 2008?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course, you would have to have a look at that to see what you think that might mean. But if the member is looking for indications of balance in the economy, then he might note that what is often regarded as a measure of imbalance—and that is the current account deficit—is now running at around the rate of GDP growth, which, after 30 or 40 years of fairly significant imbalance, actually shows that this economy is becoming a bit more balanced, gradually, over time, as measured by the current account deficit.

Grant Robertson: Is it correct that since the beginning of 2012, real GDP per hour figures show that we have had no productivity growth at all and that it has, in fact, started to decline in 2016?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have discussed at some length in the House here measures around per capita GDP, or per capita productivity. The fact is that New Zealand is going through a pretty substantial population growth. At the same time it has got rapid growth in tourism, which tends to have lower pay and is a lower-productivity sector. So it is not surprising that in this phase we have got relatively low per capita growth compared with some parts of history. But recent figures show it picking up, and in an economy growing at over 3.5 percent—one of the fastest in the developed world—I think the outlook is pretty positive.

Grant Robertson: Is it not actually the case that after 8 years, what economic growth there is in New Zealand is not from the productive economy but, rather, from a grossly overvalued housing stock, record immigration, and record household debt?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, actually. The member is not correct. I know he does not like the fact that we have had very high levels of new job creation, a consistent and moderate increase in real incomes for housing, unemployment under 5 percent, inflation still 0.5 percent, households—

Grant Robertson: And yet no growth, Bill.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Household interest rates are half what they were when Labour left office. The member might not like that, but that is a positive outlook for the New Zealand economy.

Broadband, Rural—New Technologies and Mobile Black Spot Coverage

4. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister for Communications: What recent announcements has she made regarding improving rural broadband and mobile black spot coverage?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Communications): Last week the Government announced a request for proposals for the $150 million Rural Broadband Initiative (RBI) extension and Mobile Black Spot Fund. Under the RBI extension, improved broadband will be delivered to communities unable to access broadband speeds of at least 20 megabits per second. The Mobile Black Spot Fund will improve the availability of mobile services to areas that do not have coverage from any mobile operator. A long list of State highway and tourism locations has been identified that the Government is interested in seeking proposals for, and other sites may be added by bidders. This is a unique opportunity for national and regional providers to partner with the Government to deliver increased connectivity and improved services to rural communities.

Brett Hudson: What kinds of technologies will be used to deliver the rural broadband extension?

Hon AMY ADAMS: We have intentionally not specified a technology, but instead have set out a list of user outcomes that need to be provided by the service—for example, being able to stream high-definition video without significant rebuffering; carrying out general web browsing, including accessing online banking, cloud-based applications, and education services; and being able to maintain voice and video calls without interruption, including during peak usage times. This technology-neutral approach gives the chance for both large and small telecommunications providers to show what sort of innovative solutions they may be able to offer to deliver enhanced connectivity in rural areas.

Limited Service Volunteer Programme—Funding for Places

5. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by all her statements?

Mr SPEAKER: Is the Minister going to answer this?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): My apologies. Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Darroch Ball: Does she stand by her statement—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Sorry to interrupt; I just want to be able to hear the question.

Darroch Ball: Does she stand by her statement “There are no specific plans to increase the number of participants on the Limited Service Volunteer programme.”; if so, why?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes, I do stand by that statement. We have 800 places funded, and as I have said before to the member, we do need to make sure that the right young people go into that course, who are going to benefit from that course, and that is how we intend to continue it.

Darroch Ball: How can she say that there are no plans to increase the number of participants when the Minister of Defence has stated to me, in answer to a written question, that he will be assisting the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to “increase the number of programme participants”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well, I have funding for 800 places. We want to make sure that the young people who go on to that course are going to take full advantage of that course, but if the Minister of Defence—I have no responsibility for Defence funding. If it is going to fund more places, we would work with it to do that.

Darroch Ball: How is it possible that two senior Ministers who sit across from each other in Cabinet cannot get together and have a coherent plan that both of them are aware of?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I say, MSD funds this programme for 800 places and works with Defence to provide that opportunity. We think that 800 is currently the right number of young people who are able to take advantage of that course and do well out of it. So that is where we are funded currently by the Minister of Finance.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can she confirm that she and the Minister of Defence are lock step in this issue and totally determined to continue offering this opportunity to young people who might otherwise have less advantage in their life; what is more—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] No, Mr Brownlee—[Interruption] Mr Brownlee, your microphone was off from the moment I stood up. The first part of the question is in order. There is only one leg to a supplementary question.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Absolutely yes.

Darroch Ball: I seek leave to table the two answers to written questions that show they are demonstrably not in lock step with this programme.

Mr SPEAKER: Just to confirm—are they very recent answers and therefore not published in the last 3 days?

Darroch Ball: One of them is.

Mr SPEAKER: I am certainly not prepared to put leave for the tabling of written questions. They are available to all members. If the member wants to make a case for one under special circumstances where he has received the answer and they have not yet been published, I may consider it.

Darroch Ball: I seek leave to table the answer to a written question that was received from the Hon Anne Tolley.

Mr SPEAKER: When?

Darroch Ball: The second of the 11th.

Mr SPEAKER: On 2 November? On that basis, I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular answer, which has not yet been published. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be published.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a remedial comprehension course that may be of use to that member—

Mr SPEAKER: No. Order! [Interruption] Order! It goes to the point that the point of order from Mr Brownlee was not helpful to the order of the House, and I am certainly not prepared to put the leave.

Public Transport, Auckland—Government Initiatives to Address Capacity Constraints and Auckland Regional Fuel Tax

6. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Transport: Does he agree with the Auckland Transport Alignment Project that bus improvements can only address capacity constraints in central Auckland for up to 10 years and a higher capacity mode like light rail will be required?

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Associate Minister of Transport) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: The Auckland Transport Alignment Project concluded that the constraints on key corridors in the central isthmus can be best managed through bus efficiency improvements over the next 10 years. A higher capacity mass transit solution, whether it be bus or light rail, will be required in Auckland between 2028 and 2038. As the Minister of Transport said yesterday, officials have not yet determined what the best mass transit solution may be, with light rail being but one of the options amongst others, including a high-tech rapid bus option. It is important that officials do this work before politicians leap in, as Labour already has, because as we have seen overseas recently, light rail projects are highly susceptible to multibillion-dollar cost blowouts.

Phil Twyford: Will he rule out bringing forward light rail on Dominion Road into the 2018 to 2028 decade?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I will rule in letting the agreed process follow its course, and not having Opposition MPs and Ministers who are running campaigns in various electorates interfere and disrupt good process. This National Government can look taxpayers and rate payers in the eye, given that it takes great care in spending their hard-earned money.

Phil Twyford: Given that his Auckland Transport Alignment Project says that rapid transit is needed on Dominion Road, it has agreed a higher capacity mode like light rail will be needed over buses and that demand would justify it happening in the first decade; why will he not just agree with Labour and Auckland Council that light rail is needed now?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: Well, in fact, I do agree with the Labour member. In fact, the Auckland Council member Michael Wood was exactly right last year when he said that light rail was not a fully formed proposal and he was protesting that we do not yet have any clear information about funding. I also agree with the Auckland Council and the press release that said Auckland and Government must align on transport. I also agree with former Auckland Mayor Len Brown, who said: “Auckland’s growth means government and council need to put aside politics, agree the facts, design the responses and jointly deliver transport investment across Auckland.”

Phil Twyford: Can he confirm that the Auckland regional fuel tax abolished by his Government would have raised more than $900 million by now and if his Government had not spent the last 5 years rejecting Auckland Council’s proposals for revenue generation there would be enough money in the fund to build light rail now?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: On the contrary, the funds raised from the excise duties across Auckland have been poured into the roading infrastructure across Auckland—a multibillion-dollar investment. I am quite sure that the around 77 percent of those in the area board of Mt Roskill who use private transport every day are probably enjoying the investment in the roading from this National Government.

Phil Twyford: Can he name one new significant piece of public transport infrastructure that his Government has initiated in the last 8 years that was not planned and signed off by the former Labour Government?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: Off the top of my head, no, but there is a difference between talking and saying, and actually raising the funds, paying for and building billions of dollars of investment in rail and billions of dollars of investment in Auckland roading infrastructure, accounted for, announced, and paid for—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister answered the question initially; it did not need much more substantiation.

Phil Twyford: Is this not just the City Rail Link all over again—National holding back Auckland’s growth and prosperity out of bloody-minded opposition to Labour’s policies?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: Labour’s policies actually helped lead New Zealand, and Auckland in particular, into recession, albeit 6 or 7 years ago. National’s policies have allowed surplus investment in infrastructure such as rail and such as road across Auckland. If Labour were to be able to implement its policies in Government we would see exactly what we saw from 2006 to 2008: an absolute economic shambles.

Trans-Pacific Partnership—Ratification and Support

7. BARRY COATES (Green) to the Minister of Trade: Why is he advancing the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, when it is widely reported that the agreement will not get through the US Congress this year and countries like Canada, Australia, and Vietnam have delayed their ratification processes?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Trade): Because ratification is actually in New Zealand’s best interests. I note the question talked about things being “widely reported”. It is not the case that other countries are not committed to ratifying the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Most countries have the process of ratifying the TPP under way.

Barry Coates: Does the Minister agree with Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics Sciences winner Joseph Stiglitz, who called the TPP agreement (TPPA) the “worst trade deal ever”; the founder of Research in Motion, Jim Balsillie, who said it will inhibit innovation; and Professor Dani Rodrik from Harvard, who says the TPPA risks a protectionist backlash?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No. I much prefer the sentiments expressed by people like Gordon Coates, who said New Zealand never got rich by trading with itself.

Barry Coates: Given that most New Zealanders oppose the TPPA, will the Government now change direction and develop a 21st century trade agreement that supports market access and trade for New Zealand businesses without restricting our right to regulate in the public interest and without opening us up to be sued by foreign corporations?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It will come as no surprise to the honourable member that I dispute the phrase that began with “given that New Zealanders oppose the agreement …”. He is simply wrong.

Barry Coates: Given that most New Zealanders also opposed the way his Government negotiated the TPPA in secret, will he follow the leader of the European Union and release New Zealand’s proposals to the controversial Trade in Services Agreement currently being negotiated today; if not, why not?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I dispute the underlying supposition of that question.

Dr David Clark: Did his Government seek a ban on non-resident foreign homebuyers during the TPP negotiations; and, if not, is it aware of advice from accounting firm EY that says any tax imposed on the purchase of homes by non-resident foreign speculators will breach New Zealand’s existing double tax agreements with most TPP partners, unless the tax is also imposed on New Zealand citizens?

Mr SPEAKER: There are two supplementary questions there. The Minister can address either.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I will respond to the second one and say, no, I have not read that report. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That interjection will not help the order of the House.

Saudi Agri-hub—Legal Advice for Cabinet Paper and Negotiations

8. DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Was the Auditor-General mistaken when she said in her report on the Saudi Arabia Food Security Partnership that “We were told that Ministry legal advisers were not asked for input or made aware of this Cabinet paper or earlier related Cabinet papers”; if not, why did he claim on 27 June 2015 that Ministry legal advisers did provide legal advice for the Cabinet paper?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs): No. The member is misrepresenting my comments of 27 June.

David Shearer: If there is legal advice, will he now make that advice available to the Auditor-General and to the general public?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: The Auditor-General has had access to all of the information that her office has sought. In relation to a public release of the legal advice, as the member, as a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, is aware, I think that committee requested the advice. Certainly there have been requests under the Official Information Act. I have made it clear that the legal advice on these matters is the property of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It has chosen not to waive legal privilege. It would therefore not be consistent with the public interest for me to undermine the ministry’s position.

David Shearer: Why was the Auditor-General so incompetent that she did not ask for, seek, or see the legal advice that Mr McCully says exists?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I have made it clear that I, for one, respect the work that has been done by the Auditor-General, and I would not associate myself with the remarks made by the member in that question.

David Shearer: Why have he and the Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson, both repeatedly claimed, including in the House yesterday, that the Government was exposed to a legal claim by Al-Khalaf Group—or a risk—when the Auditor-General found no evidence of such a claim?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: In relation to a question earlier today, I referred both to the words used in the Cabinet paper and to the words used by the Auditor-General, and that provides, I believe, absolute clarity that the claims made in the Cabinet paper were absolutely accurate in the eyes of the Auditor-General.

David Shearer: Does he still maintain that the Cabinet paper “wasn’t drafted by me. It was drafted by officials across a number of agencies”, given that the Auditor-General stated, contrary to that, that “Officials emphasised to us that the February 2013 Cabinet paper was … drafted and revised in Mr McCully’s office, with involvement from Mr Groser.”?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I have answered this question to members in writing on a number of occasions, and I stand by the response provided previously, which states that the drafting process includes consultations amongst the offices of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Minister of Trade, the Ministry for Primary Industries, and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet was aware of the Cabinet paper, and provided advice on it. That response is completely consistent with the information provided by the Auditor-General.

David Shearer: Given that he still believes that paying millions of dollars to a Saudi millionaire is legitimate, will this form of payment of prominent individuals by himself or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade now become accepted practice in negotiations?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: The primary finding of the Auditor-General, in the report released yesterday, was that some of the outrageous claims made by the member and his colleagues were simply untrue, and that the contract for services entered into was a lawful contract for services, and that the arrangements were fully compliant with the appropriation.

David Shearer: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was not an answer to my question. My question—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I accept that there is confusion in the answer given to the question. I invite the member to ask the question again.

David Shearer: Given that he still believes that paying millions of dollars to a Saudi millionaire is legitimate, will this form of payment to prominent individuals by himself or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade now become accepted practice in negotiations?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I am simply going to repeat that some quite outrageous claims, some quite defamatory claims, were made by the member and others in relation to this matter. The Auditor-General completed a report, which was delivered to the Parliament yesterday, after talking to all of the relevant parties, and has made it clear that the very strong accusations made by the member and others are simply ill-founded.

David Shearer: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was further from my question than my first attempt. I am not disputing what the Auditor-General said. I am asking whether the Minister considers this to be an accepted practice in future negotiations by his ministry.

Mr SPEAKER: I have listened very carefully to the question on two occasions, and I have listened very carefully to the answer on two occasions. The member may not be satisfied with the answer, but, certainly, in the elaboration of the second answer given by the Minister, he has addressed the question. You can interpret it yourself whichever way you want. But on this occasion that question has been addressed—I accept that it was clearly not to the satisfaction of Mr Shearer.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you to tell the House in what way the Minister addressed Mr Shearer’s question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. That is a direct attempt to criticise the ruling I have given. That is a serious matter. The members might not be happy with my ruling. I am asked to make an instant decision as to whether the question has been addressed or it has not. I have done that. I would be grateful if the member would accept that and we can move on.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I take the point of order I just want to be absolutely clear. I have made a decision. I have stated it very clearly to the member. If he wishes to relitigate it, I will take a very serious course of action. If he wants to raise a fresh point of order, I am only too delighted to hear it.

Grant Robertson: The Opposition parties are granted a number of supplementary questions on the basis of the proportionality of Parliament. We do not have an unlimited set of questions. It is very difficult for members on this side of the House to undertake the job of the Opposition in question time if Ministers are answering questions in a way that simply does not even attempt to address what we are doing here. Mr McCully has done that consistently throughout question time today.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now trifling with the Chair. I have given a decision as to the manner in which the Minister addressed the question. The member, in asking his question, may be expecting a yes or no answer. Speakers’ Rulings are quite clear—I think it is on page 187—that you cannot expect that. I have interpreted that answer as addressing the question, and if the member wants to go back and relook at the answer given, particularly on the second occasion, I think he has got the ability himself to decipher that it is not going to become accepted practice.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I will take the point of order from the Hon Peter Dunne first, but again, this matter has been—

Hon Peter Dunne: This is a completely different issue.

Mr SPEAKER: Then I am only too happy to hear it.

Hon Peter Dunne: I just want to draw your attention to Speakers’ rulings 190/1 and 190/2 regarding the form of supplementary questions. Speaker’s ruling 190/1 says: “Supplementary questions must not be prefaced with a statement.” Speaker’s ruling 190/2 is more specific in terms of the reference to phrases such as “given” or “in the light”. In both the last two oral questions the supplementary questions have been prefaced on more than one occasion with “given”. I am just seeking clarification as to whether those two Speakers’ rulings still hold or whether they have been supplanted by other rulings that permit that type of conduct.

Mr SPEAKER: They certainly have not been surpassed at this stage. They were clearly written. But if I consider the number of questions, and, particularly, there were two supplementary questions—in fact, I think, three supplementary questions—earlier by the Greens member Mr Coates, and on every occasion, he started his question with “Given that”. I have been relatively lenient. If members want me to get far tougher and get down to more specific supplementary questions, as I have said on many occasions, I will do so if that be the wish of this House. But I can assure you that I think it would affect the ability of the Opposition and the tone of the Opposition questions more substantially than it would affect the supplementary questions that come from the Government side.

Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: A fresh point of order, I hope. [Interruption] Is it—no, I just need clarification.

Dr David Clark: Yes, it is.

Mr SPEAKER: Great.

Dr David Clark: It is related—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. I just need to clear, because I am going to take a very severe course of action. So I just want the member to understand. We have discussed the issue about whether Mr Shearer’s question was addressed. I have dealt with the matter. If the member raises a completely fresh point of order, I am only too happy to hear it, but if we are going to continue to relitigate, that leads to disorder, and my only alternative then is to be asking a member to leave the Chamber. Does the member wish to raise a point of order?

Primary Sector Development—Government Initiatives Targeting Young People

9. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports has he received on Government initiatives to help attract more young people into careers in the primary industries?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): At this year’s Mystery Creek Fieldays the Government launched Growing our future, which is a programme that celebrates and promotes the broad range of careers in the primary sector. We have developed a series of videos with well-known and everyday New Zealanders working in the primary sector, including Richie McCaw and Sir David Fagan. These videos have already been viewed over 27,000 times online. We have also engaged 135 primary industry ambassadors, with more being trained as we speak. These ambassadors go into classrooms up and down the country to raise awareness of the huge range of existing career paths within the primary sector, and they have already made over 500 visits to over 150 schools. It is very good news.

Barbara Kuriger: Why is this initiative so important to the future of the primary sector?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Good question. In 2014 the Ministry for Primary Industries released a report that highlighted that the primary sector will need to attract around 50,000 more people into employment by 2025 if we are to meet our export double-the-value growth target. Over half of these workers will require a tertiary or level 4 qualification. There is good capacity in our education system to meet this need, and over the last three Budgets the Government has increased tuition subsidies for tertiary agriculture qualifications by around 50 percent. There is a challenge for all of us to inspire more young men and women to obtain good qualifications and become the next robotic engineer, food safety scientist, or, indeed, environmental planner to work in the engine room of the primary sector.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order under Standing Order 386, “Content of Replies”—386(2): “The reply to any question must be concise …” That was not, and has not been.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order—

Hon Annette King: Oh, this will be long.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, I can make it longer, if you need that—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, I will just hear the point of order.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is somewhat of a contradiction, given the pleading that was put in front of you by Mr Robertson earlier—

Mr SPEAKER: Can I have the point of order.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: —that he now insists that answers are concise.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Mr Robertson, I ruled, actually, on this matter yesterday. Questions should be concise, answers should be concise, and that was certainly getting to the stage where I was about to rise to my feet to curtail it, but—[Interruption] Order! But at the end of the day, the Speaker is the sole judge as to the length of the answer.

Question No. 8 to Minister

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With regard to the discussion earlier and the point raised by the Hon Peter Dunne, looking at the two Speakers’ rulings from Speaker Arthur and Speaker Kidd in 1984 and 1999—

Mr SPEAKER: Can I just have the reference, please?

RICHARD PROSSER: 190/1 and 190/2. Certainly, in the time that I have been in this House, Mr Speaker, many questions are prefaced with both those words “given” or “in the light”. I wonder, perhaps, whether you might give some consideration, in order to assist the order of the House, to making a further statement clarifying where and when that may be used. Obviously, if a member begins a supplementary with a statement that introduces new information, that is one situation, but if the Minister has answered the question and a member is then changing tack, perhaps, with a line—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the point to a conclusion.

RICHARD PROSSER: —of supplementary questions, it may be relevant to that.

Mr SPEAKER: I will certainly have a look at that but my inclination, at the moment, is that the Standing Orders Committee has been called together to review Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings, and that is the opportune time to have a look at it. But, certainly, over time the content and the concept of a supplementary question—over the time that I have been here, which is a little longer than the member’s—has tended to broaden. I do not think that is a bad thing. I think it is more colloquial, if you like. It gives the Opposition, I think, more opportunity. But I will raise the matter through the Standing Orders Committee—that is the appropriate time to do it.

Young People Not in Employment, Education, or Training—Numbers

10. JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What is the total number of 15 to 24-year-olds not in employment, education, or training according to the Household Labour Force Survey released yesterday, and is this an increase or a decrease on the last quarter?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: Yesterday’s household labour force survey showed that the number of 15- to 24-year-olds not in employment, education, or training (“neets”) increased by 3,000 to 74,000, largely driven by those aged 20 to 24. As the member will see from recent quarterly figures, these numbers move around a lot. For instance, in the previous quarter—when the member did not ask a question—the number of “neets” had dropped by 11,000, which was probably a few too many, actually. In this quarter it has bounced back a bit. The Government has a large number of initiatives aimed at this group, which are increasingly successful.

Jenny Salesa: Why are 15 percent of all 20- to 24-year-olds in New Zealand not in education, employment, or training—which is 11,000 more than in 2008?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can assure the member that the Government asks the question about what each one of these people are doing, particularly if they are on welfare. As the member will know, there is a wide range of circumstances, but, increasingly, the Government’s programmes are tailored to local needs. For instance, there are parts of New Zealand where that rate is considerably above average, and we need to tailor our initiatives, for instance, through our regional growth programmes where people with local understanding of industry and job opportunities, and of this population of young people, can come up with sustainable solutions.

Jenny Salesa: Why has the number of 15- to 24-year-olds in Wellington who are not in education, employment, or training gone up by 75 percent on his Government’s watch?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not sure what starting point the member is using, but I can advise her that in Wellington the Youth Guarantee and the trades academies have been introduced, creating better and clearer pathways for young people into work. Also, we are now growing opportunities like the Ara hub in Auckland, which is taking the lessons from Christchurch, where we develop better methods of connecting young people to job opportunities and transforming those to Auckland. The Government has an increasingly fine-grained view of all these young people, and has every motivation to ensure that where possible they are connected to job opportunities, because that means that they can avoid what could be a lifetime of dependency.

Jenny Salesa: Why has the number of Pasifika youth not in education, employment, or training increased by 20 percent under this Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: This is related to the previous question. One reason would be that in 2009-10 there was a significant recession, so the numbers rose fairly dramatically through to 2011, and since then they have been declining. But I am happy to say to the member, and to anyone who is listening: the Government is always keen to hear about more and better solutions for young people who are “neets”. I am guessing that this week the Labour Party will announce some sweeping sloganeering about young people in work, all of which has been tried before and most of which would fail if it tried to implement it.

Jenny Salesa: Why did the Deputy Prime Minister label our young people as “pretty damned hopeless”, and why did the Prime Minister write off our young people as “lazy and on drugs”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is not correctly quoting what the Deputy Prime Minister said, but the member can be reassured that the Government and its agencies—in fact, many communities and parents—are making every effort. Of course, this group has a wide range of needs. One cannot generalise. A significant proportion, for instance, are caregivers within their own families, and, of course, the choices for them are different from those who, for instance, have a significant disability. Their choices are different from those who are simply taking a year off—that is, not doing anything—and they may, of course, just rejoin the workforce—

Mr SPEAKER: Bring the answer to a conclusion.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —when they feel like it and when there is an opportunity.

Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 11. [Interruption] Order! I am just trying to get the member a fair hearing.

Financial Markets Authority and Companies Office—Funding

11. ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What announcements has he made to support the ongoing regulation of the business environment in New Zealand?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Today I announced a funding increase of $9.8 million per year for the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) and $5.3 million per year for the Companies Office. The increased funding will help these organisations maintain a well-regulated business environment for New Zealand. The FMA’s primary objective is to increase New Zealand’s confidence in the conduct of financial markets. The Companies Office ensures that appropriate governance standards are upheld. Both organisations play an important role in fostering confidence and growing the economy.

Alfred Ngaro: What does this funding mean in the context of New Zealand’s strong economic growth?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: We are now one of a very small group of countries that has the governance books in surplus and a growing economy. We want to build on that success, and well-functioning financial markets that deepen the pool of capital available to New Zealand businesses are an important platform for future growth. Since 2011 the FMA has been developing its core activities alongside the expansion of regulatory responsibilities, mostly due to the recent overhaul of New Zealand securities law. Continued expansion in the capital markets, growing KiwiSaver balances, and strong growth of New Zealand’s GDP have seen the market environment in which the FMA operates change considerably since its establishment. This funding increase will help support the Government’s long-term economic plan and responsible financial management.

Alfred Ngaro: How are the extra resources being funded?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The extra resources given to the Companies Office for enforcement will be funded from existing revenue and come in the context of a reduction of overall fees. The extra resources for the FMA will come from an increase in the existing FMA levy on financial service providers. The increase in funding is needed to allow the FMA to be a proactive regulator of New Zealand’s financial markets and to fully deliver on its revised mandate under the Financial Markets Conduct Act. A well-regulated environment where the laws are properly enforced by a capable and effective regulator generates benefits for all financial market participants, including financial service providers, investors, and, most importantly of all, consumers.

Accident Compensation Corporation—Standard of Care from Providers

12. BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) to the Minister for ACC: Is he satisfied that clients are receiving a good standard of care from ACC providers?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Acting Minister for ACC): Yes.

Barbara Stewart: Is it acceptable for ACC to force clients to receive a poor standard of care from the New Zealand Artificial Limb Service, his agency’s preferred supplier?

Hon NATHAN GUY: The New Zealand Artificial Limb Service is a key supplier to ACC—it is, indeed, the sole provider. Clients can request to use other providers on a case-by-case basis.

Barbara Stewart: Is it acceptable that after 208 visits, one amputee did not receive a leg that she could walk on and subsequently suffered a permanent injury from the limbs provided by the New Zealand Artificial Limb Service?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Unfortunately, I cannot substantiate the claims that the member is making on behalf of the individual concerned. What I can say is that ACC meets with key suppliers on a monthly basis to discuss areas such as their performance, their service delivery, and their contract management. When a complaint is received about a provider’s performance, ACC engages with the identified provider to investigate the complaint and the cause and how it can be resolved.

Barbara Stewart: If clients are entitled to “a second opinion from an independent, appropriately qualified Prosthetist.” as stated on ACC’s website, why are requests for second opinions being refused?

Hon NATHAN GUY: I would have to go away and get some advice on that, because I cannot substantiate the claims that the member is making in the House.

Barbara Stewart: Has ACC issued a directive to case managers to not fund visits to Orthopro; and, if so, why is ACC still backing a provider that has been found to have defrauded it of at least $47,000?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Well, I would need to have those claims substantiated. I am unaware of them. I will be taking the member at her word and in good faith. I am very happy to have the conversation with the member. I would appreciate her giving me the information so I can follow it up.

Questions to Members

Resource Legislation Amendment Bill—Submissions and Report Back Date

1. Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) on behalf of Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee: How many submitters were heard on the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill, referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee on 3 December 2015, and when were those submissions heard?

SCOTT SIMPSON (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee): The committee has heard from 160 submitters on the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill, and they were heard in the course of 11 meetings of the committee held during April, May, and June of this year.

Dr Megan Woods: Is the bill due back in the House on Monday, 7 November 2016?

SCOTT SIMPSON: Yes.

Resource Legislation Amendment Bill—Select Committee Meeting Agenda for 3 November 2016

2. Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) on behalf of Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee: Has he, as Chair, put on the agenda the giving of complete drafting instructions to the Parliamentary Counsel Office on the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill; if not, why not?

SCOTT SIMPSON (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee): No, I have not put it on the agenda. Instructions to Parliamentary Counsel Office are not generally included in the committee’s agenda.

Dr Megan Woods: Did today’s agenda include a motion from David Parker for the select committee to report back to the House including a minority report explaining the appalling delays—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to just ask the member to think carefully about the question. I am not ruling it out of order. I am going to ask for it to be heard again, but before the member does so, I want her to take the opportunity to read Standing Order 239 regarding the confidentiality of proceedings in a select committee. So I want the member to understand the severity of that. I will listen to the question. I will either decide that it is in order or rule it out. If I decide that it is a reasonable question, then it will be for the chairman to answer.

Dr Megan Woods: Did today’s agenda include a motion from David Parker for the select committee to report back to the House including a minority report explaining the delays to date?

Mr SPEAKER: Scott Simpson can answer the question.

SCOTT SIMPSON: The select committee continues its work on the bill and has yet to complete that work. I am not at liberty under the Standing Orders to delve into the detail of our work before it reports back to the House.

Bills

Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Trade): 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.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —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.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —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?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —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.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —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.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —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.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: 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.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): 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.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): 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.

MARK MITCHELL: 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.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): 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?

GRANT ROBERTSON: 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.

GRANT ROBERTSON: 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.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): 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.

BARRY COATES (Green): 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.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): 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.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: 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.”

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): 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.

TODD MULLER: 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 ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Dr Kennedy Graham—5 minutes.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): 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—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member—his time has expired. I call Rino Tirikatene—5 minutes.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): 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—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry, the member’s time has expired.

ALFRED NGARO (National): 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.

ALFRED NGARO: 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.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): 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.

Dr MEGAN WOODS: 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.

NUK KORAKO (National): 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.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be agreed to.

Ayes 60

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 59

New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.

Question agreed to.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question now is that the amendment to the motion, in the name of Barry Coates, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be amended by replacing “now” with “this day 3 months”.

Ayes 57

New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Noes 62

New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 60

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 59

New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Broadcasting): I move, That the Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by a date that is 4 months and 1 day from the day that the bill receives its first reading.

This bill makes changes to modernise election broadcasting and funding rules in the Broadcasting Act in time for the 2017 general election. The bill removes the opening and closing addresses, so that parties can instead place this advertising in more flexible, engaging formats, using their allocation of funding under the Broadcasting Act. Instead of being limited to television and radio, parties will now also be able to use this allocated funding for advertising in online media. The changes in this bill build on a unanimous recommendation for a form of election opening and closing addresses made by the Justice and Electoral Committee in its inquiry into the 2014 general election. Television New Zealand (TVNZ) and Radio New Zealand (RNZ) also support change in this area.

The addresses are an outdated format and create an unlevel playing field amongst competing media companies. TVNZ and RNZ are currently required to provide free time for the addresses to be broadcast in prime time as blocks at the start and end of the election period. However, fewer and fewer people are tuning into the addresses, with TVNZ recording a 25 percent drop in average audience during the 2014 election opening addresses. Declining audience numbers, even in a prime-time slot, highlights that these addresses are losing relevance and are not as effective at engaging voters as they once were.

These addresses are usually much longer than the short-form ads that parties choose to place with their allocated funding. This means the costs of production are much higher. Where parties use their allocation on the production costs of the addresses, this is money that cannot then be used for more effective types of voter engagement. In light of declining voter participation, it is particularly important that political parties are enabled to communicate and engage voters effectively and efficiently.

The Government has agreed to a $750,000 increase in the budget for parties’ allocations under the Broadcasting Act to offset the broadcasting time lost with the removal of the addresses. This brings the total budget provided to $3.605 million. This is the first increase in the allocation since 2005, and the increase also recognises the loss in purchasing power since that time. By removing the cost to parties and broadcasters of having opening and closing addresses, enabling equivalent time to be placed as parties choose, and allowing the use of the allocated funding in online media, we will be creating a more relevant way of connecting with voters and ensuring a better use of resources for communicating with the public during elections.

Voters are increasingly choosing to get their information through the internet rather than through the traditional broadcast media of television and radio. However, until now parties were prevented from using their allocated broadcasting funding in any online media. This bill will give parties that flexibility so that parties have the freedom to choose the type of advertising that they see as best suited to engage voters and to effectively communicate their messages.

The bill does not make changes to existing election campaigning rules and safeguards, such as total expenditure limits. Parties will continue to be able to spend their own money on online advertising, while television and radio advertising remains limited to the funding allocated by the Electoral Commission, using the existing statutory rules. Although not changing the meaning of the law, the opportunity has also been taken in this bill to modernise the language of Part 6 of the Broadcasting Act, on the recommendation of the Parliamentary Counsel Office, to make it more accessible.

The select committee process is very important, and I encourage members of the public and other interested parties to have their say when the Justice and Electoral Committee calls for submissions. The committee is also currently considering the Electoral Amendment Bill, which is related to this bill in that both deal with related electoral issues and recommendations from the committee’s earlier inquiry.

The Business Committee has agreed that these two bills be treated as cognate bills from the second reading onward. Given that both bills respond to the select committee’s recommendations, I am hopeful that they can be progressed quickly alongside each other, so that changes can be in place and communicated to voters and parties well in advance of the 2017 general election. Having clarity and certainty as to the rules and how they apply will be beneficial for all parties in planning their campaigns. I commend the bill to the House.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this amendment to the Broadcasting Act, which, alongside the Electoral Act, shapes the rules of the game, as it were, for the election period. This debate today is hot on the tail of the first reading for the Electoral Amendment Bill, which the Minister of Broadcasting flagged and which is already before the Justice and Electoral Committee. Given that this is so close to submissions on that bill, it does make sense that we try to progress this bill to the select committee as quickly as we can, in part because it has had some cursory discussions already by our select committee.

When we reviewed the last general election, as we always do as a committee, there were a number of submissions that spoke specifically to the issue—not the broadcasting allocation—that we are debating today, which is the use of opening and closing broadcasts. So we have, to a certain extent, already had a few views on this matter, and we are now officially putting a solution to the public and to those interested parties, and seeking feedback on that. So expediting that discussion back to the select committee does make sense.

I also want to flag that there have been conversations outside the review of the general election. My colleague Clare Curran is much closer to those discussions, as our broadcasting spokesperson, but there has been specific debate about this very issue within the convergence review. It is a shame that we cannot have a quick, almost committee-style format in this House with the Minister, to ask a few questions around the overlap of those two items of business, but I will leave my colleague Clare Curran to talk about that review, because it is pertinent to what we are discussing today.

I think the really important point I want to make is that this bill—and this is what we will need to check as a select committee—is not intended to change any of the rules around electoral broadcasting, bar the fact that we have a specified opening and closing broadcast within the legislation. So we are not proposing to change any of the rules around what an election programme is, when it is able to be broadcast, or the allocation—outside the fact that we are apportioning a slightly higher amount in lieu of there being an opening and closing broadcast. But, generally speaking, we are not intending to change any of those other rules that surround electoral programming and broadcasting. Those rules are there for good, good reason.

In New Zealand there is a cap on the amount that can be spent for radio and television broadcasting, and we are still suggesting here that a cap should remain. But what this bill proposes is that opening and closing broadcasts are an antiquated way, a restrictive way, to engage with today’s voters, and that if the intention is to give registered political parties the ability to put out to the public and to voters a set of policies and ideas and that that be allocated in a fair way, why should we restrict ourselves to one lump of time on one broadcast channel at one specified period during the electoral cycle? If our principle is to engage with voters, that seems like a wholly restrictive way to communicate. That was a point that was raised by a number of submitters, including the New Zealand Labour Party, where we made the point that, actually, our engagement online reached far more people than the 2014 opening broadcast, which, if I recall, was in direct contest with an All Blacks fixture. We were doomed from the beginning.

Chris Bishop: Oh, that’s a bit harsh.

JACINDA ARDERN: Everybody, Chris Bishop, was doomed from the beginning. Do not tell me that the ratings peaked when John Key sat looking at a blank screen with the New Zealand flag behind him, giving us his opening broadcast. So opening broadcasts are an antiquated way to communicate with voters, and that is what this bill tries to acknowledge. What the bill does is take the allocation of time and turn that into a dollar amount that is then added to the overall broadcast allocation that the Electoral Commission will apportion out to registered political parties—a very simple solution. It will allow that funding to be used for broadcasting, radio, television, or online advertising. That makes sense.

It is important too, though, that caps exist for the amount that is able to be spent on television and radio, but not for print and online. There is good reason for that. That is something that, no doubt, the select committee will discuss at greater length, but it is interesting to at least note that difference. So what we, as a select committee, will need to discuss also is the way to make sure we have an even playing field, so that parties are given the same access to the same rates relative to each other and relative to the commercial sector, and the fact that we have not always had comparable rate cards is something that has been flagged. But we also need to make sure that it is relative to each other and that it is a fair and even playing field. So we will need to be mindful of what some might try to achieve through bulk discounting. The law is intended to set out that we are all treated equitably, and that is what the select committee should be striving to do.

I want to point out that TVNZ made a submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee’s inquiry into the 2014 general election. This is probably a personal perspective, but I want to put on record that I was not persuaded by an argument by a State broadcaster that it had no duty or role to play in communicating with the general public at election time and that opening and closing broadcasts should be left to Parliament TV. I do not want to leave any disparaging remarks about Parliament TV. It is a very important tool to communicate with the general public, but is it necessarily appointment viewing? Unfortunately, probably not. But, actually, if you look at a younger demographic, you see that half of that demographic is no longer tuning in for appointment viewing anyway, so we do need to get savvy. Things like My Sky do not allow you to see ads that we are using as a tool to communicate with the public, so we have got to move with the times.

I took issue with TVNZ making that its main rationale for us not dumping the opening and closing broadcasts but simply removing the responsibility that it had. So look, TVNZ, we are doing something that makes sense for the public and for political parties to communicate, but that does not mean that there will not be a responsibility to allow access—but at market rates—to you, as a broadcaster, to communicate.

So those are just a few opening points that I really wanted to make. I think the suggestions here are sensible. They are in line with where we are in a modern digital world. We will be testing at the select committee that we have indeed really only done what we intended, which is to merge opening and closing broadcasts into a bit more flexibility, and that we have kept all of those other rules in places. But otherwise I think the most robust, most important discussion is likely to be held at the select committee with submitters, making sure that we have got this right in time for the next election.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): There is a general agreement across the House, I believe, that the current regime for allocating time for opening and closing election broadcasts for registered political parties is out of date, antiquated, not necessarily riveting TV—depending on who you are supporting—and certainly in need of reform.

What this Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill intends to do—and I do note the comments of Jacinda Ardern, the previous speaker who has just resumed her seat. Yes, we will test that the effect of this bill is to merely remove the requirement under Part 6 of the Broadcasting Act for opening and closing addresses of parties during the election period, and does only that, with no other unintended consequences or provisions—we certainly will do that in the select committee—and also the requirement for Television New Zealand, willingly or not, and Radio New Zealand to provide time for them.

So instead of that regime, the provisions of this bill provide that the allocation of time is monetised, with a corresponding increase in the appropriation of funds to be allocated to political parties for advertising. What this gives effect to is it allows political parties more flexibility and the ability to spend their allocations on advertisements that are of value to them in reaching out to the general public. Across the House and the wider community there is concern with declining voter participation, so it is therefore important that resources and funding and the legislation allow for effective and efficient and more timely communication with voters. Thank you.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I am wondering whether there is a bit of a split in the Government over this bill, because it appears to me that Chris Bishop is very wedded to the party political broadcasts being shown on our State broadcaster. In fact, if he would rather watch that than an All Blacks test, then I guess you have got to ask yourself a question of how in touch he is. Perhaps that is a signal that Ginny Andersen is going to win in Hutt South.

On a more serious note, this is a fairly straightforward bill—it is a fairly straightforward amendment to the Broadcasting Act 1989. Labour is supporting it to the select committee, and I want to acknowledge the work that has clearly been done through the Justice and Electoral Committee’s inquiry into the 2014 general election, and the clear need to modernise communications to the public around election time. It appears that there is a degree of unanimity around that.

I do, however, want to introduce a note of caution in that this appears to have been a rather curious process. Although I am acknowledging the process through the Justice and Electoral Committee inquiry, there has been another process happening at the same time, along with this election inquiry. These same measures—and others—have also been canvassed in a parallel process conducted by the Ministry for Culture and Heritage under the auspices of the Minister of Broadcasting, who happens to be the same person who is the Minister of Justice. Under her auspices, this particular piece of legislation has emerged.

Why that is curious is that process seems to have been a bit left off to one side in this piece of legislation. That process has actually got a name. It was a discussion document that was called Content Regulation in a Converged World, and it did a lot more than look at party political broadcasts during the election campaign. It focused on the effects of convergence in the media sector on the regulation of content in New Zealand, looking particularly at the requirements and restrictions relating to the classification of content, broadcasting of election programmes, and advertising times, and it also considered the Government’s interventions to support the production of broadcast content, all of which is pretty important. It was intended to be a health check on the existing frameworks to ensure that they reflected the current media landscape and remained fit for purpose. It sort of reflected, to some degree, what the Minister just said in her speech around modernisation, but this parallel process does not appear to have made it into the backgrounding that has formed this bill.

This review was put out to the public last year and there were a number of submissions. The submissions—as you would expect, given it was a convergence review in the broadcasting environment—mainly came from the broadcasting sector. They included submissions from Radio New Zealand, and I am going to read you out a little bit about what Radio New Zealand had to say because it is directly impacted on by this and, presumably, will submit again in the select committee process. Radio New Zealand took the issue and looked at it a lot more broadly than the narrow scope that is being provided for in this bill, and I think it is worth just noting that Radio New Zealand said that “The law must be clarified to ensure advertising and editorial material are clearly and consistently distinguished from each other.” That includes political satire, which “should not be constrained in any way by rules that apply to advertising.” It makes the point—and I think it is a valid point—that Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand “once dominated the channels of distribution to media consumers but are now two of many participants competing for consumers’ attention both on-air and online.” It also made the point that “It is anomalous that RNZ is obligated to carry opening and closing addresses.”

Its submission also talks about a principle that was mentioned by a number of submitters on this review. This is that a principle should be adopted so that “it is political parties that need to be regulated and not broadcasters.”, and that “It is ironic that during general elections, the period of time in which the free flow of information and ideas is surely paramount, freedom of political speech in editorial coverage is restrained by the Electoral Commission.” Those issues are pertinent and important, but this bill has a very narrow scope, and this review that has just been undertaken is raising bigger issues, wider issues, that should be being canvassed—perhaps through legislation, perhaps through another process—and this bill, unfortunately, does not go there. It looks as though it is going to be pushed through quite quickly and we are not going to get the opportunity to have the conversation that perhaps we need to have.

I am also going to just quickly reference the submission by the Coalition for Better Broadcasting, which mentioned another issue that, again, is not being canvassed. This is that “it is apparent from cases such as the appearance of the prime minister talking with celebrities on an ostensibly non-election programme on Radio Live (the complaints about which were rejected by the BSA but upheld by the Electoral Commission), that there is a need to extend the definition of what constitutes an election-related programme.” This is an important issue as well, and my concern is that this parallel process, which is raising important issues, does not appear to be being considered by the very same Minister who has introduced this legislation, even though she is the one that initiated this review.

Finally, I want to talk about the context of that review, because that review looked at a whole lot of other things. In 2 years this is all that has emerged—this very narrow-scope piece of legislation—while there are huge seismic shifts happening in our media sector at the moment with two major media mergers being considered. The future of Radio New Zealand is under a cloud because its funding has been frozen for 8 years and it is having to sell its Auckland building in order to be able to keep operating. Television New Zealand is spending $60 million on refurbishing its building. There are a lot of things really out of kilter here. The future of media is really up in the air, to a large degree, in New Zealand, and here we have got a very narrow-scope piece of legislation that looks as if it is the only one that will emerge in 3 years of this Minister of Broadcasting, even though she is doing this as the Minister of Justice. This is it.

Apparently we are going to get a digital convergence bill that will address two other matters, which are the classification of content online and on television to try to harmonise that and to look at the issue of advertising on television on Sundays. Both of those things are important, but they are hardly earth-shattering, are they? The point I am making is that there is a much wider context and there are much broader issues, some of which have been touched on by submitters in this parallel process that has been undertaken, which this Minister clearly is not interested in touching. We will support this bill to select committee. I am looking forward to there being a robust discussion as a result of some of these submissions. Hopefully, submitters will raise these issues when they come before the select committee.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): The Green Party supports this legislation. It has been a long time coming that the time be, essentially, cashed up and made available to political parties to spend more wisely, especially in the new digital age. This legislation seems to be just a natural kind of progression and change in the law to meet the new challenges and the new opportunities of the 21st century.

I will not go on too long, but I would just say, in response to some of the comments made about TVNZ and its submission, that TVNZ has been wanting for a long time to get rid of the broadcasts of opening and closing addresses. It has been arguing for some elections now that it should not have to provide this service as part of its civic responsibility. I disagree. I think that the arguments have always been poor and that, in fact, as a public broadcaster, it does have a responsibility to assist with this right of citizens to access good quality information, free from interference, about the electoral system and the system of governance that they have. TVNZ might prefer to reduce access to that information. There is a part of me, actually, that is reluctant about this bill because I want to force it to have to engage with its civic responsibility as a public broadcaster. I do not really want to let it off the hook.

Chris Bishop: It’s not a public broadcaster.

METIRIA TUREI: It is TVNZ. It is publicly funded. It has a responsibility, and I think—

Chris Bishop: It’s not a public broadcaster.

METIRIA TUREI: Look, you can have your opinion and your say in time, sir.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I might, I remind the member.

METIRIA TUREI: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. There is a part of me that is a little reluctant to let TVNZ off the hook, but, none the less, it may well be hoisted by its own petard, given that the whole point of this shift is to allow parties to move away from TV to some of the more accessible and modern digital communication channels that we have available to us.

I do note, and am pleased about, the increase in funding. There is no doubt that the bulk of it will go to Labour and National because of the way the rules allocate that funding. We have long argued that the allocation system is unfair because of that, and there are ongoing issues with it that will have to be addressed at some point. It will not be addressed through this legislation, but there is an unfair allocation process.

We also accept that in making this change, those of us who are in medium-sized parties and smaller parties certainly will not get the bulk of the benefit of this change. But, none the less, it is necessary and needs to happen, and so we support the legislation. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): The broadcasting time spent on opening and closing addresses by political parties at election time is substantially wasted these days because those advertisements are not really watched by very many people. Whether there is an All Blacks test on at the same time or not, people just do not watch them any more.

So the bill enables parties instead to use public money to communicate with voters through other means—in particular, through the digital media, as well as other broadcasting means. It does that by removing the requirements for the broadcasting by Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand of opening and closing addresses, so that parties would instead then be able to use an equivalent allocation of funding for internet advertising in addition to television and radio advertising, as is currently permitted.

There is nothing wrong with that; that is fine as far as it goes. But there is a problem. The bill provides for the appropriation of public money to fund those election programmes and advertisements, and the Electoral Commission, as we know, is responsible for deciding how the money is to be allocated to parties.

The bill generally re-enacts those existing provisions relating to allocations to the parties, and the Electoral Commission must allocate to eligible parties in accordance with these statutory criteria, and they are these: (a) the number of persons who voted at the preceding general election for a party and its candidates; (b) the number of persons who voted at any by-election held since the preceding general election; (c) the number of members of Parliament a political party had immediately before the end of the last Parliament; (d) any relationships that exist between one political party and another; (e) any other indications of public support for a party, such as the results of opinion polls and the number of members of the party; and (f) the need to provide a fair opportunity for each registered political party to convey its policies to the public through broadcasting. So those are the criteria.

Because of that, New Zealand First is going to have to oppose this bill unless the Government undertakes that it will also legislate to change those criteria. This is because we think they are unfair, we think they are archaic, and not a good fit for MMP elections, we think they are uncertain and complex, and, most of all, we believe they give a massive advantage to the big parties. So the medium-sized parties like the Greens and like ourselves, we see as being disadvantaged.

I would like to just read out the amounts of money that are actually involved in those allocations for opening and closing addresses. In 2014, National was allocated $1,053,622, Labour $919,829, Greens $401,380, and New Zealand First got only $200,690. Even the tiny Māori Party got $100,345, while the one-member ACT Party still got an incredible $76,930. There is no clear proportionality involved in those figures, and goodness only knows how those specific amounts were actually calculated.

New Zealand First has written to the Minister saying that our support for this bill would not be given unless those criteria were reviewed, but we have not had a response. So that leaves us in no other position than to vote against this bill, because we see that this legislation is only doing half the job, and the job will not be fully done unless and until those criteria are altered.

This is not the first time this has been raised. I remember it being discussed at the previous election, not just by us but by other submitters, as well. So there is also a significant degree of support both among political parties and the public for changes to those criteria.

The particular provisions that we would seek to be changed are these: first of all, replaced Part 6, section 78(2)(b) must be deleted, because by-elections are poor indicators of nationwide support for a party. By-elections are fought on an array of different circumstances. That—

Chris Bishop: If you say so.

DENIS O’ROURKE: I can show that to be the case, because on the one hand National got a hiding in Northland when Winston Peters stood there, but I think that could be in contrast to other by-elections, like one that is about to be held in the relatively near future. So you can see that the circumstances in which by-elections are held are widely different from each other, and nothing much can really be drawn from them except the particular issues around that by-election. They are not a good means by which the support for a political party should be determined for the purposes of the allocation of public money for advertising.

Section 78(2)(d) should also be deleted, because relationships between parties—such as between Labour and the Greens—are actually completely irrelevant. I fail to see how a relationship between one party and another one could have any relevance whatsoever on the allocation of funds for advertising at a general election.

Section 78(2)(e), we feel, must be amended by deleting the reference to the words “any other indications of public support for that party, such as the results of public opinion polls”, because opinion polls are notoriously inaccurate—notoriously inaccurate. Time will not allow me to do it, but I could go through the last two or three elections to show how grossly inaccurate those opinion polls were as far as New Zealand First was concerned. In fact, when I was first elected to this House in 2011, the opinion polls said that New Zealand First had 3 percent. In fact, we ended up with almost 8 percent—more than double what the opinion polls said. That is just one of several good examples of that.

There are good reasons why some parties poll differently from others. New Zealand First, for example, tends to get its support more from the older cohorts of the electorate, and opinion polls do not reflect that. The way that they carry out polls means that that shows that our support is not properly measured, and there are other reasons that I could give as well. So although National could reasonably expect a considerable financial advantage from this proposal if those criteria are not changed, there would be a corresponding disadvantage for parties the size of New Zealand First and, I think, the Greens as well.

So I think the enthusiasm from National for this half-baked approach, where only some of the changes required are being made, actually shows that National sees where its particular advantage is and is not willing to fairly look at this as far as all parties in this Parliament are concerned. That is why New Zealand First will not support this bill, unless those criteria are also reviewed so that we would then get an opportunity to discuss that and to propose changes to them. Unless that is done, this particular bill is going to result in an even more unfair allocation of public money for broadcasting for political parties at the next election than we had even at the last election, and that was bad enough. As I say, this is a half-baked bill. It is one that is OK as far as it goes, but the point is it is doing only half the job, and if it does that, it is going to make the situation worse and not better.

So that leaves New Zealand First, as I have said, in the position that we have no choice but to oppose this bill, but we will certainly be taking a lot of notice of this at the select committee stage, in particular. New Zealand First will be putting forward at the Committee of the whole House stage a number of Supplementary Order Papers aimed at rectifying the situation, so that National cannot do what it intends to do just to get another advantage for itself and disadvantage for the smaller parties in the Parliament.

JONO NAYLOR (National): I just want to stand and refute those last comments that were made by the member from New Zealand First, Denis O’Rourke. This bill, as it came through the Justice and Electoral Committee—in terms of the review of the last general election, it was absolutely all of us looking around and taking a cold, hard look at the technology that is available today and looking at the fact that these opening broadcasts were outdated and outmoded.

TVNZ records that it had a 25 percent drop in its average audience numbers during the 2014 opening addresses. We have all tried to say that that is because of the changing nature of people watching television, but it may have something to do with our own content—but none of us would want to admit that. I know that my colleague Chris Bishop was an avid watcher, so he clearly was not in that 25 percent.

If we are going to remain relevant to our voting public, if we are going to ensure that—if we are actually spending taxpayers’ money on political party broadcasts at all, then we might as well be spending it in the most effective way. If money is going to be spent on a television programme that nobody is watching, we might as well do away with it altogether.

This bill is about us trying to keep up with the trends of modern society. It is about wanting to ensure that we have people engaging with the democratic process. There is no agenda here from anyone trying to get any kind of unfair advantage. It is merely that we will do a better job for the people of New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I think the contents of the bill have been well canvassed, but I just want to ask the select committee that is going to review this bill a couple of questions for clarification. The first question that I have is with regard to the amendments that will be made to the Broadcasting Act 1989—particularly, Part 6 around election programmes as it relates to the candidate election programming, as opposed to the party electorate programme.

The question I want to ask is, in determining what actually will happen with regard to the fees versus any additional costs or the costs that might be charged to that candidate—because from the Bills Digest it was not clear, from my reading of it, how that would be structured and how that might be structured. So I would be asking the select committee to spend some time to perhaps look at that particular issue and make some determinations about defining how costs versus fees might be allocated.

The other thing that I would like the select committee to perhaps spend some time on, and I hope it is within the scope that the committee will look at—and I could not find a summary of changes that the Justice and Electoral Committee review produced in the Electoral Amendment Bill—is around what will happen with social media and online content with regard to advertising. I just would like the select committee to look at advertising, look at timing, and look at all of those issues that we struggle with at the time of elections, given that there are some anomalies with how we use social media with regard to the election period.

On that note, I will commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 104

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 107, Noes 12.

Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) on behalf of the Minister of Broadcasting: I move, That the Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill be reported to the House on or before 4 March 2017.

Motion agreed to.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I seek leave to correct our vote on that previous vote. The correct vote should have been 28 votes, not 31.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. It will be so corrected. I will re-declare that. Therefore, the vote result is Ayes 104, Noes 12.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): We have made good progress today, and I seek leave for the House to rise at this point.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that? [Interruption] I cannot quite tell whether the member is saying no objection or whether she wants to be here for the next 5 minutes and is very upset. There appears to be no objection.

The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.