Robertson Grant: Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 12 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:11066. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Mr Deputy Speaker can I have the 2 minutes that Mark Mitchell didn’t take?Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just get into it.GRANT ROBERTSON: Earlier in my working life I had the honour of being an adviser in the office of Helen Clark. During that period of time one of the jobs that I had was to work on the China free-trade agreement and in particular one of the jobs that I had was to work with stakeholders across the community on their views on the China free-trade agreement. There were people with very very strong views coming to the table—people from industry from primary industries from manufacturing from the union movement from the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union and from environmental groups. The Labour Government took seriously the job that we had on behalf of the people of New Zealand to have a discussion with them about trade about what New Zealand could benefit from in the China free-trade agreement and about the challenges and the risks within that free-trade agreement. That was an important job—a leadership role that the Government could show. So as we worked our way through the China free-trade agreement public support for it grew. By the time it was signed yes there were still people with concerns about it but fundamentally it enjoyed public support and a big part of that was because we took New Zealanders with us. We were not so arrogant as to think: “We know everything and we don’t need to bring the public with us.” That is the approach of this National Government to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).Tim Groser is a bit of a figure of fun sometimes in this House or he has been. I am always reminded of the quote from Mike Moore that the problem with Tim Groser is that he did not get enough credit for splitting the atom. That is the kind of thing people have said about Tim Groser. But today for me the humour that was sometimes generated by Tim Groser goes into the background because of how he has let down New Zealand with the way this process was undertaken: in secret without conversation with New Zealanders and without bringing New Zealanders along with him.One of the main concerns about the TPP that members of Parliament—right across this House I would judge—have heard from people is the feeling that somehow or other the interests of corporations are more important than the interests of citizens. That is what people have been saying. [Interruption] I do not expect Mr Muller to agree with me on that but I am saying to him that that is what he will have heard because that is how New Zealanders feel when there is this inside route this inside access that gets you influence over the Government be it Ken Whitney on trusts or be it people on the inside of these negotiations. Most New Zealanders—ordinary citizens of New Zealand—have not been brought along with this agreement and that is the responsibility of the Government and that is the responsibility of Mr Groser.As my colleague David Clark said the Labour Party is proud of the trade agreements that we have been a part of right back to the first Labour Government—right back to Walter Nash and Peter Fraser who said: “We know that we need to support our exporters.” We agree and we have fought for that. But the fundamental point about the TPP that the Government does not want to acknowledge is that it is not a trade agreement. It is not a trade agreement; it is an agreement about investment and regulation and ultimately it is an agreement that on this side of the House the Labour Party regretfully cannot support. We would have wanted to support an agreement that opens up market access and that gives our exporters a greater chance on the world stage. But then when we contrast that with the agreement that sits in front of us today we cannot support it.My colleague David Clark has gone into the fact that actually it is a poor agreement in many ways particularly in the case of dairy the very sector about which Tim Groser stood up and said: “If there’s not a good deal for dairy we’re walking away.” That is what he said—“If there’s not a good deal for dairy I’ll be happy to walk away.” And he ends up with a deal on dairy that is worth the output of three farms—there you go. He is prepared to trade away all sorts of things for the output of three farms. He told New Zealanders that. He told New Zealanders that if it was a bad deal for dairy he would walk away. It is a terrible deal for dairy.Hon Member: It’s not a terrible deal for dairy.GRANT ROBERTSON: It is a terrible deal for dairy. But all that is dwarfed by a fundamental concept for us in the Labour Party—that is the ability of a future Government to make a decision in New Zealand’s national interest to limit offshore buyers from buying existing residential property. This is Labour Party policy. It has been Labour Party policy for several years. That is the policy that we have taken out to New Zealanders because they are rightly worried about having an out-of-control housing market in which buyers from offshore exert a disproportionate influence on the housing market. They come with deeper pockets and they push up the prices. People are worried. Labour has got a clear direct policy to deal with that: a ban on offshore buyers buying existing residential property. The Australians do it. The Australians are in agreement. They have protected their right to do it. Viet Nam has not actually implemented the policy yet but it has protected its right to do it. But the New Zealand Government went into these negotiations and failed to do that.This is the issue that upset us but you can take this issue more widely. Why have we all come to this House as MPs? We have come here on the basis of saying that we want to do things to improve the well-being of New Zealanders. Our job as parliamentarians is to come here and make laws pass policies and pass Budgets that will do things for New Zealanders. Today the Government expects us to vote for a piece of legislation that effectively enables it to stop us from doing that—to stop us from putting in place a policy that we believe to be fundamentally important. That is why the Labour Party cannot support this bill because fundamentally it should be the right of this Parliament to make the decision to put a ban on offshore buyers buying property. This Government has failed to do that for us.The Government seems to think that its big exciting ploy here—Mark Mitchell’s entire speech was to go through and read out all about what different Labour Party members might think about this or that. And then you know his clever little tactics which he is putting up here—stop playing games Mr Mitchell. Stop playing games and give an honest speech about why you think New Zealanders should support this agreement because that is what people want to hear—that is what people want to hear. They do not want to hear your speculation about the Labour Party. Stop playing political games with this bill—stop playing political games. Stand up and explain to New Zealanders why it is that you have taken away the right of a future Government to legislate in New Zealand’s interest in respect of the offshore buyers of existing residential property.That is what this comes down to for those of us on the Labour Party side. We have a fundamental belief in the importance of the democratic process. We have a fundamental belief in the right of New Zealanders to make laws for themselves and in their interests. That is what we should do.We support exporters and we support good quality free-trade agreements. What we do not support are poor agreements signed off in secret by a Government not interested in taking the New Zealand people with them. This Government knows today—its members think they are being clever; they think they can play little political games about this—that it is more important than that. This Government should be bringing to this House an agreement that New Zealanders have been brought along with that New Zealanders have an understanding of and in which New Zealanders know that their rights and interests are being protected. Instead most New Zealanders find themselves asking whose side this Government is on. Is it on the side of ordinary New Zealanders—hard-working New Zealanders—or is it on the side of the very fortunate few who got the inside access and who get the inside running with this Government?We need good-quality trade agreements ones that create jobs ones that support New Zealanders’ rights and ones that fundamentally uphold democracy. Sadly—tragically for New Zealand—this Government has failed that test.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just want to bring a couple of items to the notice of the House. The first is Speaker’s ruling 68/5 and the second is Speaker’s ruling 69/2 which is about interjections. The debate on this bill is going to be wide. You are going to be given a lot of latitude to be able to draw attention to the issues that members wish to do so. But there is not going to be a whole lot of latitude for people constantly interjecting repeating phrases and asking questions of the person who is on their feet. I remind the House of the findings of previous Speakers particularly—my personal favourite—Speaker Hunt who said that interjections should be rare and reasonable and hopefully witty. So a barrage that comes from either side depending on who is on their feet at the time is not in order.Grant Robertson: “Courtesy is contagious.”Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Courtesy is contagious and so are a number of other afflictions.