Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1613] 
Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 I move  
That the Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 I intend to move that the bill will be considered by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee with an instruction to the committee to present its report to the House on or before 13 March 2006. I also intend to move that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House on Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington region on a day the House is sitting despite Standing Orders 192 194(a) and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
The Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement is a four-way agreement to liberalise trade between Brunei Chile New Zealand and Singapore. In fact it is the first trade agreement that spans four countries across Asia and the Pacific and it offers strategic and economic opportunities for New Zealand. Together the four countries which are all member economies of the APEC organisation have a combined GDP of some NZ$400 billion and trade flows amongst the four countries are worth over NZ$2.5 billion per year. The agreement not only reinforces the desire of New Zealand and Chile to deliver trade and economic relations with Asia but also serves as a building block to wider trade liberalisation within the APEC region as a whole. 
The bill amends New Zealand’s domestic legislation in order to bring it in line with the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement. This bill in fact allows the agreement to come into force. That entails an amendment to the Tariff Act 1988 to enable the preferential tariffs conferred by the agreement to be applied to the parties to the agreement. The tariffs conferred by the agreement are included in the preferential tariff column of the New Zealand tariff. The actual rates of duty as spelled out in the agreement will be added to the tariff by a subsequent Order in Council. 
The tariff reductions under the agreement will make New Zealand’s exports more competitive and will bring small but useful immediate benefits to our exporters. On entry into force of the agreement tariffs on 89 percent of New Zealand’s current exports to Chile will be immediately eliminated. All remaining tariffs will be phased out by 2017. That will bring savings to New Zealand exporters of around $2.2 million in import duties—the amount incurred in the year ended June 2004. In that way the agreement will immediately deliver benefits to New Zealand exporters including exporters of products such as coal and a wide range of agricultural technology products where New Zealand’s exports are currently growing such as seeds animal genetic material and veterinary vaccines. New Zealand exported only a small quantity of goods worth $3.55 million to Brunei Darussalam in 2004 incurring duties estimated at $52000. Brunei will bind at zero tariffs covering 92 percent of New Zealand’s exports to Brunei. It will eliminate all remaining tariffs by 2015. Tariffs between New Zealand and Singapore are already zero under the existing New Zealand - Singapore closer economic partnership agreement. 
This agreement however is about much more than just tariffs. It has a clear strategic focus beyond the direct tariff benefits that will accrue to the parties. The agreement will provide more opportunities and greater certainty and transparency for New Zealand businesses that wish to operate in Chile Singapore and eventually Brunei Darussalam across a whole new range of services and sectors. New Zealand companies will be able to bid for Government procurement on the same footing as domestic suppliers. The partnership provides a framework for resolving issues concerning technical barriers to trade and concerning sanitary and phytosanitary measures. Some barriers identified by New Zealand exporters have been included in the immediate work programme of the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade which has been set up. 
The agreement also establishes a framework for closer economic scientific technological educational cultural and primary industry cooperation. The objective is to build on existing cooperative relationships with a focus on innovation research and development creating new opportunities for all parties. Cooperation programmes to support sustainable development will also be established under the Environment Cooperation Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding on Labour Cooperation which were concluded as part of the overall package of the agreement. 
This is New Zealand’s first trade agreement with a Latin American country. It will put New Zealand’s relationship with Chile—one of our closest Latin American partners—on a new level. As relatively small agricultural traders with comparable productive structures the agreement provides the basis to foster a closer sense of partnership between Chile and New Zealand opening the way to working collaboratively in third markets. Chile has established itself as a business platform for South America in a similar way to the way in which Singapore acts as a hub in South-east Asia. The partnership will raise New Zealand’s profile in Latin America and will make it easier for businesses to use Chile as a launch pad. Since the signing of the agreement there has already been increased interest among businesses and Crown research institutes in the opportunities that Chile presents. The membership of Singapore and Brunei as ASEAN countries is also an important part of the strategic rationale of the agreement and adds significantly to the combined GDP of the member countries. 
The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee has considered this agreement under the international treaty examination process. Its report to the House notes that the agreement serves New Zealand’s objective of broadening relations with Latin America and Asia as well as promoting New Zealand’s wider trade policy interests in APEC and multilaterally. 
To conclude the agreement represents a significant economic and strategic opportunity for New Zealand. It enjoys strong support from the business community and others including educational institutions with an interest in strengthening relations between New Zealand and the Latin American and Asian regions. The Government would wish to see the bill enacted by 23 March in order to allow adoption by Order in Council of relevant regulations within the time frame in which the parties hope to ratify the agreement. 
I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I will not detain the House for long in relation to this matter. The Minister has drawn our attention to the significance of the bill and I want to say a few words about that. Also I want to comment on the rather unusual process by which the House will be invited to support the motion that the Minister has given notice he intends to move. 
I will speak briefly on the bill because my two most learned colleagues—former Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials Mr Groser and Mr Hayes—will no doubt speak at great length and with great eloquence in relation to the trade policy issues that sit behind the legislation. As the Minister pointed out the measure is an important one. It cements some important trade relationships in place and provides the opportunity for us to see reduced tariffs between New Zealand and some important trading partners—and that as I think the Minister indicated to the House will see substantial reductions in tariffs in respect of some of those relationships and quite quickly. So for that reason and because of some of the other facilitation measures that will flow—as the Minister has also pointed out—the National Party is unambiguously in support of this bill. 
However I want to make it clear that the process by which it is to be passed is a somewhat unusual one and I want to reflect on the timetable that now lies ahead of the House in relation to the measure. According to the note I have here I understand that this measure needs to be passed into law by the end of March and come into effect by 1 May 2006. It is not every day that the Government comes to the House and asks the other parties to facilitate a measure in quite such a short time frame. Indeed as the Minister has already told us the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee will be asked to meet virtually any hour that is available and the time that it will be given in which to report back is about as tight as one could possibly have while still having a select committee process. 
I want to explain to the House why the National Party is being so soft and accommodating as to agree to those conditions. First and foremost I say to the Minister that the National Party is very keen to cooperate with the Government on matters of trade. We want to send a clear and unambiguous signal to the other countries with which we do business. Also we want to send a clear and unambiguous signal to the business community that it can look to the major political parties in New Zealand to cooperate on such matters and that any element of petty politics is removed from the proceedings. Just in that context I say to the Minister that we would like a slightly more generous time frame generally in relation to legislation he brings to the House. I acknowledge that because of the election in the latter part of last year and some no doubt difficult machinery matters that the officials have to deal with regrettably we have a somewhat less generous amount of time available to us than would normally be the case. However I am satisfied that no one’s interests will be compromised by that process. As the Minister has already told the House this treaty has already been before the select committee and it has hardly been kept a secret from those in the business community or from those who otherwise might be affected by it. I am therefore quite satisfied that the highly truncated select committee process this bill will go through will not prejudice the interests of any party in the way that would normally be the case with a timetable of the sort being recommended to the House today. 
Having said that we want to send a clear and unambiguous signal that the National Party will cooperate on these matters and therefore will do its best to cooperate with the select committee. I say to the chair of the committee Dianne Yates who is in the Chamber at the moment that I trust that the Government will reciprocate the generous spirit that is being demonstrated from this side of the House by ensuring that the very lax resolution we are to agree to is not taken advantage of in any shape or form. We genuinely want to cooperate and we ask that the provisions that are being granted here will be reciprocated. 
The Minister knows that in matters relating to trade New Zealand is too small a country is in too remote a part of the globe and has too great a dependence upon international trade as its lifeblood for us to play petty politics in any shape or form. So we will send this measure to the select committee we will support it through that process and we will make sure that all of those who do business with New Zealand feel that at least the major players are doing their bit. I am pleased to hear that the New Zealand First Party intends to support the bill to the select committee. I know that the bill will perhaps present some issues for its members but I encourage them to approach the process with an open mind. The more that political parties in this country can send a signal that we stand together on these issues the better it is for all of us particularly in relation to the position of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I hope that those members do not make his life unduly difficult or complicate the nature of the relationships or future discussions that need to be held by putting him in a position where his own party is seen to be taking an unduly negative—an unhelpful—view in relation to a bill of this sort. 
I join the Minister in welcoming the bill into the House and pledge the cooperation of the National Party during the select committee process and the bill’s subsequent stages. I say to those who stand to benefit from this measure that I trust they will take full advantage of the negotiations that have been held in bringing this treaty together and in the expeditious progress of the bill through the House as I am sure we will see. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I thank the Hon Murray McCully for his comments on this bill. I might point out that it is a very small bill comprising only two pages so it will not take the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee a great deal of time to process. 
The general policy statement in the explanatory note states: “The Bill amends the Tariff Act 1988 to enable the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPA) to be brought into force. The TPA has been signed by Brunei Darussalam Chile New Zealand and Singapore. The agreement obliges each party to phase out duties on goods imported from the other parties. As goods imported into New Zealand from Singapore are already exempt under the New Zealand/Singapore Closer Economic Partnership Act 2000 the preferential tariffs provided for by the Bill will apply to goods originating from Brunei Darussalam and Chile.” 
So this bill is actually a small technical bill to allow the treaty to continue and to become part of our law. This measure is not being hurried. The negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement started in 2002 with the New Zealand Government the Prime Minister of Singapore and the President of Chile. The agreement was originally known as the “P3” agreement because it involved three countries: New Zealand Singapore and Chile. It was then extended to include Brunei Darussalam. So the bill will not take a great deal of time. 
Also the bill has gone through the treaty procedure which means that the select committee has already looked at the national interest analysis and reported back on it to the House. During that stage we had public consultation and brought people in to the committee to give us their opinion so we are now really only going through another step in the process. 
The national interest analysis lists about five pages of people who were consulted in the process. Individual businesses were written to and meetings took place with the Council of Trade Unions Local Government New Zealand the Federation of Maori Authorities at least 51 companies the New Zealand universities and non-governmental organisations. Chambers of commerce have held workshops on the whole issue. So I do not think it is quite right to say that the matter is being rushed through. A great deal of consultation has taken place in relation to the bill. 
I want to point out a couple of matters. One is about cultural effect and there was some discussion when we looked at the national interest analysis. We have been assured that the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement contains safeguards to ensure that there are no adverse effects on New Zealand cultural values including Maori interests. One part of the analysis states: “Provided such measures are not used for trade protectionist purposes the Trans-Pacific SEP also gives successive New Zealand governments the right to adopt measures they deem necessary in relation to Maori including in fulfilment of Treaty of Waitangi obligations. Furthermore interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi is not subject to any dispute settlement provisions under the Trans-Pacific SEP.” 
The analysis also has information on the full communication programme. For those people who are interested and listening to the radio if they can access the national interest analysis then that would give them far more detail on the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement the “P4 treaty”. I refer members also to the initial booklet that came out about that and to the statement Jim Sutton made at the time. This is the first trade agreement to involve several Pacific Rim countries and the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement—also known as the “P4”—has a strong strategic dimension and will serve to deepen the economic relationships between New Zealand Brunei Darussalam Chile and Singapore. 
The Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement is a high-quality trade agreement. It establishes a free-trade area and liberalises trade between New Zealand Brunei Darussalam Chile and Singapore in both goods and services. The Hon Jim Sutton went on to state: “It achieves a benchmark reached by few bilateral trade agreements in having a commitment by the four countries to eliminate tariffs on all traded goods and at the same time adopts a high-quality approach to trade in services. The shared vision is to stimulate more open trade within the Asia-Pacific region and New Zealand is keen to see the membership of the Trans-Pacific SEP expand as other Asia-Pacific nations look to take part. For New Zealand the economic benefits of the Trans-Pacific SEP will be seen from the day it enters into force.” 
From that day as the Minister of Trade Phil Goff has told us 90 percent of New Zealand’s exports to Chile will enter duty-free as will 92 percent of New Zealand’s exports to Brunei Darussalam. Tariffs between New Zealand and Singapore are already zero as we have said under the existing New Zealand - Singapore closer economic partnership. These tariff reductions will open up new market opportunities and restore level playing fields for our exporters with competitors from those countries like the United States that already have trade agreements with Chile and Singapore. 
The Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement is a model of free-trade agreements which further establishes New Zealand’s credentials as a progressive trading partner. With the potential for more countries to join the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement now is the time—and we are keen that this legislation will progress—for Government and business to work together to maximise the benefits and opportunities it offers to enhance trade and economic links. 
I am pleased that we have the support of the other side of the House. I thank those members opposite who were previously involved in some of those negotiations who are now members of the House. In fact they will probably find it very interesting after their having worked on the original negotiations to be able to follow the bill’s process through the House and to see this agreement signed. I certainly know that the Prime Minister is looking forward to the signing of this agreement. Once again along with the Minister I commend this legislation to the House and look forward to its speedy process. 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 When the chief whip asked me to fill the speaking slot—and I see now that it is only 7 minutes to 6—Mr McCully a man I hold in enormous respect expressed some doubt as to whether given my background and the nature of the subject I could express my views in anything under 3 hours. The second surprise was that I know he is expecting me to launch into a deep geopolitical analysis of this agreement in the 7 minutes before we go to get something to eat. However Mr McCully was so cooperative so diplomatic and so reasonable in his approach that I am afraid Mr Hayes and I have just had a quick consultation and we feel the need to slightly rebalance the equation. So before I get into the geopolitics of this subject—which I will address probably in 15 seconds because basically Mr Goff the Minister has analysed it in correct and orthodox terms—I just want to make a few reflections on the issue of trade and foreign policy. 
It is quite interesting to ask ourselves why we are in the situation that Mr McCully summed up in the way in which he approached this. Why is it that we are in this bipartisan space? When I first became involved in trade policy in the 1970s when working in the New Zealand Treasury I can assure members and I am sure members can recall that it was anything but a bipartisan policy. In fact we faced a bitterly divided country on those issues for two reasons. Firstly it was because we had the developed world’s highest form of import protection around our border for fear of being swamped by competition and secondly because on the other side of the equation the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade the premier institution of the international trading system was seen as completely unfair and biased against us. It had its rules on industrial products an area where we feared we lacked all chance of ever becoming competitive yet when it came to agriculture there was no sign of balance whatsoever. So this is not a policy that has been all sweetness and light historically as this debate indicates. We have moved strategically into this situation. 
Like many New Zealanders I have a view on MMP that I do not think is in any way original and it would be summed up as follows. I think that when New Zealanders voted for it they were voting not just for a change in the electoral system. I think what they wanted was a change in style as well. I think they wanted a more cooperative approach of which this trade policy is a very good example. I know that the Prime Minister finds it difficult to issue two sentences in a row without the word “inclusive” in them but I do not see apart from a few exceptions such as this agreement a great deal of evidence of a new approach. I see instead that a largely partisan “take no prisoners” approach to politics is still prevailing. 
But there is another model and if the Government had had the decency to listen to what Dr Brash was saying at the beginning of this session it would know that we are prepared as a party to look case by case at other issues—exactly as we have done successfully in this country. We put forward the issue of climate change but the Government would not even listen. But there is that other model and as we sit down here in the comfort of that nice cooperative approach it is worth reflecting on the fact that it has served this country well. It is a model to use if the Government can escape from the partisan model it is following in just about all other areas. 
Now let us have a little think about trade policy in the context of what it is. The Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr Peters gave a very nice speech a week or two ago followed by Mr McCully. It was a standard Ministry of Foreign Affairs speech given to a new Minister. It is the seamless-web theory of foreign policy. Let me explain what that theory is really all about. It is a correct view in my strong personal opinion about how foreign policy actually works. It is not a matter of just putting foreign policy in one box and domestic policy in another—and that applies even more strongly to trade policy; they are closely interlinked 
But of course we have a problem and I shall not comment at large on it. We all know what the problem is and we saw it demonstrated today when the Green Party asked the Minister a series of questions. All he could do was act as a postbox and in fact he was absolutely correct in my opinion in taking that approach. But when he is overseas there is no postbox beside him and he will have to defend the Government’s position. I do hope that when my former colleagues in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs gave him their standard seamless-web theory of foreign policy they did not use those words “seamless web” because my goodness gracious me that would be an unfortunate metaphor with regard to Mr Peters. What it brings to mind of course is the ancient child’s fable  
The Spider and the Fly 
. Many of those children’s fables contain great wisdom that one should absorb by the age of 6. 
Whether Mr Peters absorbed the wisdom of that fable is a question that we might examine in the moments we have left. Members will recall the original parable: 
Will you walk into my coalition? said the spider to the fly.  
’Tis the prettiest little coalition that you ever did espy.  
The way into my coalition is up a winding stair  
And I have many curious baubles to show you when you’re there. 
The problem is that Mr Peters clearly thinks he still has his exit strategy. However the member for Tauranga—and I would refer to him by his name “Bob the Builder” if it were not a technical breach of the Standing Orders—has rather closed that option off. So we will find in due course what happens to the spider and the fly. We know who the fly is. I do not want to be too crude and suggest who the spider is in this case except we know that she likes fast cars provided she is not driving personally of course. We will find out I think that this ends rather stickily for the fly—in this case New Zealand First. 
Nevertheless the point about the seamless web theory is essentially correct. In terms of trade policy it is really important to understand that the real agenda for New Zealand in terms of its domestic agenda has moved on. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
TIM GROSER 
: The dinner break was a very disturbing development for a new parliamentarian—I mean I went to the wall and then there was a break. The whole country and the future of the Government were hanging on my words and then we stopped for an hour and a half. But I will try to get over it and I will be very brief—well I have only 2 minutes anyway so I do not have much of a choice. 
I want to make three fundamental points. First of all to be more serious the agreement is a good agreement. National has a small difference over the way in which our cultural industries might be treated. We went through that in the select committee; it is not a life and death issue at all. I think Government negotiators can look to a lighter touch in the future which is really related to a view that our cultural industries—and I have my hat on here as much as Opposition spokesperson on arts culture and heritage as on the trade side of the equation—are clearly moving from a situation of being secondary industries in New Zealand over the last 30 years and very much a defensive concern to being very efficient and very export-oriented. There will always need to be a degree of subsidisation underneath the industry—but it is neither the right time nor place to go into the reasons for that—and there are different ways of offering that other than by the broad exception used in this particular case. But I think my first point has been made—that the agreement stands as a very good agreement and that National is fully behind it. 
The second point I make is a fundamental point about all trade agreements of this nature. At the end of the day they are only opportunities. What New Zealanders make of those opportunities—or Zimbabweans or Australians or Chileans or people of any country; they all have those opportunities—is very much dependent upon the initiative of the people concerned and the policy frameworks that are there to support them. We know that New Zealanders have a high degree of initiative. So it comes back once again to the linkages back into domestic policy structures and that is why I introduced albeit with a certain light touch the theory of the seamless web of foreign policy. When negotiators are out there developing new opportunities it is very very important that at the same time they are backed up by the right type of domestic policy frameworks. 
My third point is that the long-term significance of this agreement is a little difficult to tell at this stage as is often the case. When I was a senior official working in the area I often said to Ministers that trade policy is not an area for those who require instantaneous gratification; the seed time is very long. So if this agreement works well and if international progress in the Doha round works well the agreement may not turn out to be of major importance. But if things turn sour then the opportunities that New Zealand has like this agreement will become strategically very important. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill. I advise the last speaker Tim Groser that the fly has landed in a positive place for all New Zealanders which is far preferable to being Little Bo Peep who is valiantly trying to keep all of her sheep in order as the National Party is doing at present. We know too that the dags of those sheep were in such a bad condition that the flies were not tempted at all. 
This legislation basically amends the Tariff Act to allow the Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Agreement to come into force. With that comes the obligation on each partner—New Zealand Chile Singapore and Brunei—to phase out duties. Singapore of course is already the subject of an agreement so in reality we are talking about Chile and Brunei. New Zealand First will support the bill going to a select committee to enable members’ scrutiny and public submissions and to acknowledge the strategic potential of an agreement that involves both Asia and South America—two areas of great importance to our future. 
The agreement comes out of negotiations that began at APEC in 2002 and the national interest analysis was tabled in the House last year. It is New Zealand’s first agreement with a Latin American country. Tariff reduction will be phased in with the longest protection—relating to textiles clothing footwear and carpet—lasting until 2015. New Zealand First has long advocated that policy makers should give priority to New Zealand industries and communities when setting any programmes on tariff. In this instance the value of the agreement is clearly strategic rather than financial. New Zealand goods going to Chile have been incurring a little over $2 million in import duties and only $50000 to $60000 for our exports to Brunei. Those are not earth-shattering figures but for a party that has succeeded in gaining an agreement that 2007 will be an export year and for a party that has long advocated that we need to win the export and employment stakes not some artificial tariff-removal race the opportunity to open doors in South America and Asia is not lost on us. Around 99 percent of imports from Brunei and around two-thirds of those from Chile already enter New Zealand duty-free. 
Although New Zealand First is absolutely not committed to a global liberalisation agenda it is not inclined to oppose the measure on ideological grounds when it has such strategic potential for our exporters with little real threat to local producers. Let us consider the costs and benefits of the agreement both in light of our trade and foreign relations objectives and against the background of a global liberalisation programme that clearly requires serious review. The place to do that and to allow the public to have its say is at the select committee. So New Zealand First supports the bill going to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be opposing the legislation because we oppose the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement which this legislation is implementing. It is not that we are against trade agreements but we are against this particular agreement. On an ideological basis it is an agreement that just reduces tariffs everywhere without demonstrating practical positive effects for New Zealand. 
If one looks at the tariff reductions in the bill one must ask how they will overcome the huge trade deficit that we currently face which was at the record level to the year ended January of about $7 billion. There has not been any working through of that issue. In one respect the removal of the tariffs in the other three countries in the agreement and the lowering of barriers there will allow some of our exporters to export more into those economies. But that does not necessarily mean that there will be a net benefit and it does not necessarily mean that we will get more for our existing exports. Phil Goff talked about companies saving $2.2 million in Chile in the duties they currently pay. Well it is not necessarily a saving because if those duties are built into the price that exporters get in Chile when those duties are removed the retail price drops down proportionately. It may not result in any savings for the New Zealand exporting companies. It is true that when we have knocked off duties in New Zealand the prices have often gone down and it has not necessarily meant an increase for the overseas companies exporting into New Zealand. 
 It is true that as the previous speaker said this is not a major agreement in the sense that it does not change an existing situation dramatically but it could lead in the direction of losing export capacity if the removal of tariffs in New Zealand made it more difficult for New Zealand manufacturers who might then have gone on to export. It could reduce our exporting capacity because we are competing with a lower-wage economy in the case of Chile and with an economy that is not a level playing field in the case of Singapore. The Singapore Government plays a big role in many of its industries and can undercut New Zealand in its exports and bids for services—as it has already done. It is true that the existing free-trade agreement with Singapore has not demonstrably benefited New Zealand in terms of the balance of trade. It has tended to go more in Singapore’s favour although there are arguments about what the current situation is. Some argue there has been a bit of an upturn in our favour if we consider the last few months but over the last 4 years a benefit cannot really be demonstrated for New Zealand. 
As Phil Goff Murray McCully and Tim Groser have all indicated this agreement is not to be viewed on its own but as part of a larger strategic plan for free-trade agreements in Asia and in our whole region. It is a stalking horse for free-trade agreements with China—a much bigger economy—and with Malaysia etc. If we look at these issues more broadly towards a free-trade agreement with China we are looking at the serious problem of losing more of our manufacturing industry particularly in the textile clothing and footwear areas that are already hard hit and finding it difficult to compete. We want to retain some infrastructure in that area and these agreements and moves in this direction are making that more difficult. 
They take us in the opposite direction to what the Government in cooperation with the Greens is rightly doing—that is promoting a Buy New Zealand Made campaign—whereas this agreement says there shall be absolutely no preference for New Zealand products over those from Chile Singapore or Brunei and equal treatment has to be given to all exporters from those countries. That applies for example to the area of Government procurement but if we are to have a successful Buy New Zealand Made campaign the Government will have to take the lead and encourage local bodies to procure locally too. 
However this agreement says that we cannot give any preference to New Zealand products over products from those other countries or services from them in terms of procurement. If we were worried about unfair competition about bad labour standards in Singapore Chile or Brunei or about bad environmental practices there all of which were undercutting our ability to trade and which were not leading to good situations in those countries then there is a provision in this agreement—not in the bill itself but in the agreement—to have discussions about those problems. But there is no implementation enforcement procedure in the agreement. So I think that if we look at that we will see that this agreement will have a detrimental effect as a whole. 
We should not look just at the balance of trade; we should look more broadly than that to the whole balance of payments which is pretty dire in New Zealand at the present time and going very much against New Zealand with billions of dollars worth of dividends going out of the country each year because so much of our economy has been taken over by foreign investors. There is roughly about $80 billion of foreign investment in New Zealand and about only $20 billion of outgoing investment. There is a huge imbalance there and it is getting worse all the time. 
Unfortunately this agreement helps to lock in an approach that will lead to even more foreign control of our economy. The Green Party believes that the existing excessively high threshold of $100 million under which approvals are not needed for foreign investors coming into the country is locked into this agreement with Singapore Brunei and Chile and a future Government will not be able to change it because there is a ratchet provision there saying that once we have agreed we cannot then push the threshold down in the case of the investment side of the agreement. Even though this is not an investment agreement as such New Zealand has committed itself under that agreement to locking in that $100 million threshold in a way that cannot be changed by a future Government. That undermines the sovereign power of any future Government that wants to change things and of this Parliament itself. 
The Minister of Trade indicated in his speech that services are also covered in this agreement and the Greens have a particular concern there. The Minister said that educational institutions are quite keen on this agreement; unfortunately it is the private educational institutions that are the most interested. The New Zealand Government is very involved in promoting those private educational institutions abroad particularly through the World Trade Organization’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) round. It is true that some New Zealand providers might get a certain advantage out of those practices but it works the other way too with private providers from overseas coming in and potentially gaining a big foothold in control in our own education system. Under those arrangements and under this one foreign providers have to be given equal treatment and equal Government subsidies—if Government subsidies are to be provided to private education services. 
There is a new approach in this agreement to service commitments which is different from the normal GATS approach whereby the four countries are to provide what is called a negative list of services—that is things they want kept out of the agreement in terms of provision of services but with a free rein on everything else. So if this Government forgets to put certain things in that negative list then for all time the other things—and they may be the result of further technological development—stay outside of the commitment and it is a free-for-all between those four countries in terms of the provision of those services. There is also ambiguity in the list of services that are excluded from free competition which is provided in the treaty as to exactly how they apply and the determination of how they apply is not made by New Zealand—not the sovereign Government or Parliament of New Zealand—but by international arbitration. When we talk about the agreement protecting public education and a lot of education services are in reality mixed public/private who is to determine what is protected? 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 The Maori Party’s contribution to this debate tonight is based on a Maori history of negotiation and alliances in which our people have always looked at the potential for strategic and economic opportunities for Aotearoa. It is a history we know well and it guides our decision making in all international trade agreements. As this nation entered the second half of the 19th century the Maori partner to Te Tiriti o Waitangi was the dominant force in a vibrant growing and prosperous economy. For examples of that we need just to look up State Highway 1 to Ngati Toa and the rohe of Ngati Toa Rangatira. 
Two years ago in the closing submissions of counsel for Ngati Toa Rangatira to the Waitangi Tribunal Matiu Rei Te Waari Carkeek and Professor Richard Boast among others gave evidence of the trading empire developed by Ngati Toa with Pakeha/Europeans. They described the harvesting of flax the use of European vessels and technology and the full-scale involvement in the whale trade. Evidence was given by Professor Alan Ward and Dr Ann Parsonson of the reputation Ngati Toa had as a maritime trading empire controlling trade the use of the coast and access across both sides of Cook Strait. The significance of the coast and trade routes for Ngati Toa and its history of relation-building—of alliances marriages negotiations and resource sharing—provided a solid base for an agreement to develop trade and benefit from multilateral cooperation. The concept of nation-to-nation strategic economic partnership agreements is therefore very familiar to tangata whenua. 
Yet despite the glowing reputation of Ngati Toa as an aggressive and energetic entrepreneurial group its fortunes just as rapidly deteriorated. Submissions to the tribunal included the following: “… Ngati Toa one of the most powerful tribes in Te Tau Ihu as at 1840 ideally situated equipped with outstanding resources and exceptional leadership a signatory to the Treaty and keen to benefit from the ‘benefits’ of European settlement found itself by the turn of the century marginalized. Impoverished and reduced to virtually no land base with its leadership scattered and decimated its traditional tribal relationships and customary land tenure in a state of disarray …”. 
So something happened and I suppose that is where the Maori Party comes in. Our party is here to declare that we want to defend the rights and uphold the aspirations of the indigenous peoples of the world. In considering this legislation I must think about the indigenous communities in Brunei—communities like the Malay the Tutong people the Bisaya people the Dusun people and many others. What happens when local and regional sovereignty interacts with multinational and international identity? It usually involves the loss of local identity and local and ethnic practices which become subsumed under flows of global trade colonialism and assumptions of universalism. How will the indigenous communities of Brunei benefit from the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement? 
The bill proposes that Singapore will act as a hub in South-east Asia and that Chile will become a similar launch pad for South America. But still some questions concern us. How will the indigenous communities fare in this four-way trade agreement that opens the door to wider trade liberalisation within the APEC region? Have those communities experienced the same reversal of fortune that saw Ngati Toa—or for that matter any hapu or iwi—decline? Have similar steps been taken to destroy the mana and rangatiratanga—the power base—of indigenous communities implicated in this trans-Pacific agreement? Our knowledge of indigenous communities is that across the globe traditional ways of life and homelands are being destroyed by overpopulation growth and industrial development all in the name of progress—but to whose advantage? It is generally not to the advantage of tangata whenua. 
Since the Spanish conquest indigenous peoples have been used as labourers—poorly paid and lacking political representation. Although those conditions of semi-servitude are changing slowly just 4 months ago the indigenous people of Chile gathered in Santiago for the First Forum of Indigenous Peoples on Poverty Eradication. They gave some indication of their plight. Their letter to the Presidents of Latin America and the Caribbean makes for interesting reading as we consider the place of this bill today. It states: “In spite of the call by the international community with regards to decisively improving the human rights situation of Indigenous Peoples the State of Chile persistently refuses to acknowledge Indigenous Peoples and their rights in the constitution … This legal lack of protection in terms of collective rights places Indigenous Peoples at a disadvantage before the rest of the Chilean society … In Particular for Indigenous Peoples like the Aymara Quechuas and Likanantay a real commitment to overcome poverty implies the acknowledgment and enjoyment of our rights to superficial and subterranean water sources the acknowledgment of our rights over mining fields existing in our ancestral land and the right to have a share in profits resulting from their exploitation.” 
I ask this House to seriously consider this whole bill and how we can sign up to a four-way trade agreement linking Latin America the Pacific and Asia when we have such gaps at home with regard to indigenous people—Maori. One would hope that this nation understanding the strategic and constitutional significance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi would ensure that Treaty responsiveness in any international trade and tariff agreement is given considered thought by any Government entering into such an agreement. The Maori Party therefore looks for a guaranteed involvement of Maori as Treaty partners in the negotiation of or enforcement of process under such agreements. The national interest analysis however is guarded in its application of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It states that the trans-Pacific agreement contains: “safeguards which will ensure that there are no adverse effects on New Zealand cultural values including Maori interests” which earlier speakers talked about. It is hardly a full endorsement of pride in tangata whenua achievements is it? 
This could have been an excellent opportunity for the New Zealand Government to recognise the unique contribution that Maori offer to the domestic New Zealand economy. Instead the strongest position put forward is that there is nothing in the agreement that will prevent the Government from fulfilling any obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It is no wonder that there is general scepticism on the part of tangata whenua that those acknowledgments amount to any more than a paper promise. Commitments are avoided and any real benefits are geared to the Crown not to Maori or any other indigenous parties implicated in this relationship. 
The relationships envisaged for tangata whenua communities as Treaty signatories should entitle us to enjoy the rights as a Treaty partner that attach to these international agreements. The commitments articulated in Te Tiriti o Waitangi should translate into international trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement. Promises made should be promises upheld. There is certainly space for greater collaboration between Maori and other indigenous communities about how international agreements like the Treaty could work in practice at international and domestic levels in contemporary times but our treaties should be used as affirmations of or a source of political rights and status. They should be used to provide power as a vehicle for revitalisation. 
The Maori Party will not stand by and allow or turn a blind eye to the situation that tangata whenua in other places—our brothers and sisters overseas—find themselves facing and to the gross injustices and inequalities outlined by the indigenous communities implicated by this treaty. Our decision to oppose this bill is influenced finally by an ancient Incan prophecy from the Mapuche people of Chile and Argentina: “One day the great sacred birds of the North and the South will fly together. When the eagle of the North and the Condor of the South fly together the Earth will awaken. The eagles of the North cannot be free without the condors of the South. Now it is happening. Now is the time.” Indeed now is the time for the Maori Party to defend the rights and uphold the aspirations of indigenous communities across the globe. In doing so we honour the inherent entrepreneurial capacity of tangata whenua and will do our very best to protect it for future generations. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 In a roundabout way the previous speaker when he talked at the commencement of his speech about the people of Ngati Toa—not far from here—and their history as traders encapsulated New Zealand’s history and the rationale behind this bill. He went on to move some distance from that point. But the starting point has to be that New Zealand is a small country at the end of most of the world’s major trading routes that historically has lived by its capacity to trade. We have significant natural advantages but proximity to markets is not one of them. We have capacity in terms of attractive products that we produce but we need willing markets into which to sell those products. 
In today’s global environment where—notwithstanding delays in completing the Doha round or other international agreements—more and more multilateral agreements are being entered into between countries that believe they share a common interest it is only rational that New Zealand looks to maximise its opportunity in this regard. That is why United Future supports the Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill. 
I was momentarily encouraged when the Green speaker said that the Green Party was not opposed to trade. Then I reflected on all the trade agreements that we have discussed in this House over the last few years and I could not think of one that the Green Party had actually supported. I also recalled his leader making a comment at one stage in 1999 that New Zealand’s biggest export was soil—windblown by erosion—and that if we stopped international trade we could cut international air travel in half because all those trade negotiators would not be flying back and forth and therefore the polluting effects of aviation fuel in the upper atmosphere would be minimised. So I thought for a moment that we might have been seeing a change of heart but it was not to be. 
I listened to both the previous speakers and one of the points that came through—which is one that is always raised when these types of agreements are being debated—was the question of what essentially is in it for the various partners. When we look at this agreement we might ask: “New Zealand Chile Singapore Brunei Darussalam—what is in it for New Zealand?”. There is the opportunity for us to have access into markets that we might not have access into in the same way at the moment but the downside risk is argued to be that we have to accept products services and all sorts of things coming the other way. 
About 18 months ago in the Legislative Council Chamber next door I hosted a three-way discussion between the ambassadors for the United States and Mexico and the High Commissioner for Canada to commemorate 10 years of the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement. One of the key messages relevant to this bill that came forward at that meeting was the mutuality of benefits to all three countries over that 10-year period. Each country had benefited from the agreement perhaps in different ways but no country could report that it was worse off as a result of having concluded that agreement. 
I think that is the lesson here. We know the advantages we have achieved from some of our bilateral trade agreements going right back to the Closer Economic Relations agreement with Australia which is the obvious one. But this is the first multilateral agreement of its type that we are seeking to conclude and it recognises the common interests we have already with Singapore the various ties we have with Brunei and the fact—as the previous Chilean ambassador to New Zealand Mr Appelgren was so fond of reminding us of—that Chile is our nearest neighbour to the east. This is about bringing together a large regional agreement between countries that already have some interests in common and countries that have a willingness to expand those trade and political partnerships. 
The format of the bill is exactly the same as with other trade agreements. The amendments it makes are to the Tariff Act and that is entirely as it should be. They have come after the consideration by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee of a national interest analysis and in some cases the draft treaty. The bill will go back to the committee for some period for the consideration of submissions and I wager that in this particular situation we will hear many of the arguments from the same sorts of groups that have been rehearsed in respect of every previous trade agreement and not a great deal of light will be shed on events as a consequence. 
I also make the point that in the last Parliament the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee carried out an inquiry into New Zealand’s relationship with the countries of Latin America. The Government response to that report which was tabled in the House just recently acknowledged the importance of New Zealand’s developing trade relations with all of those countries and with Chile in particular because of the opportunities that are there for us in terms of countries of similar latitude and geography and countries where the markets that we might be seeking to promote are likely to be favourably viewed. This agreement bringing Chile into the fold as it were as far as New Zealand is concerned is in my view extremely welcome. 
The way of the future will be these types of agreement. New Zealand is already negotiating with China we have agreements with Thailand Singapore and Australia and there is talk of more and more regional cooperation. We cannot pretend particularly as a country of our type and size that we can somehow stay outside that set of new environments. We live by trade. We will perish if we are unable to trade effectively in the future. I say to those people who criticise this legislation as implying a loss of sovereignty or a surrender to the evil power of the multinationals to look at what is happening elsewhere. Last night a group of us had dinner with the delegation from the European Parliament. 
One of the issues I raised in discussion with a number of people—from new Europeans such as the Poles through to some of the more traditional members of the European Union—was how in this new European environment is national identity preserved? How can people who have spent the best part of the last couple of hundred years fighting each other come together in a political and economic union that is sustainable and viable? And the answer I received from those people from Britain Poland Austria and other countries who were at our table was that culture and language is the distinctive thing. The Germans are no less German because they are in the European Union. The British despite people like Margaret Thatcher are no less British because of the European Union. The national culture preserves that identity. I say to those therefore who worry that somehow we are surrendering culture and identity through these agreements that if anything we are providing the opportunity to strengthen those links. 
So we welcome this bill. We will certainly be supporting it. We are confident in the advantages it will bring to the New Zealand economy and we look forward to the bill being passed and the relevant agreements coming into effect as soon as possible. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I was interested in the platitudes of the previous speaker who clearly has not done very much homework. He would know for example if he had done some that we do not have an agreement with China and if he reads today’s copy of the  
Independent 
 he might find the reasons why we might not get one. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Poorly informed. 
JOHN HAYES 
: He is absolutely poorly informed—that is dead right. I would also like to comment on my Green colleague that well-known supporter of Pol Pot. He talked about ideology. He was born into it; his parents were great supporters of Stalin. He was talking as members will recall about bilateral trade balances. 
Sue Bradford 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you may be aware but this member may not be that it has been ruled out of order for those kinds of references to be made about my colleague Keith Locke. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is quite right. We will desist from that. I thank the member for raising it. 
JOHN HAYES 
: I want to come back to the point about bilateral trade balances and the nonsense he was talking about how these things had to be in balance. I used to get this a lot when I was the ambassador in Iran. I would get hauled across by the Iranian Treasury people who would say that our trade balance was out of order and that we had to buy more products from Iran—until I pointed out to them that every New Zealander spent about 50c per capita on Iranian products and every Iranian spent about 7c per capita on New Zealand products and that just drove a bus through their arguments. 
This is an agreement involving Brunei Chile Singapore and New Zealand—four countries with tiny populations tiny economies and in some cases very few resources. Its gestation for those of us who can remember began as a P5 agreement. Originally it was proposed that this agreement would include Australia and America. Well this Government has not done much about delivering that. This Government has brought in a trade agreement that has actually cost more to negotiate than it will ever deliver to the people of New Zealand. What else I wonder would Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials have been doing if they had not been spending their time negotiating this agreement? They would probably be spending more time at the United Nations helping the Government with its social engineering agenda. 
I support this agreement and National supports it for reasons of philosophy but it will not make the slightest bit of difference to anybody—and it will make no practical difference whatsoever to people in my electorate. But it is a good idea. I would like to draw on the words of the late Robert Kennedy to illustrate why we support it. He said: “Each time a man stands up for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others or strikes out against injustice he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.” I commend people to think about this agreement in those terms because this is a tiny step and the people of our country will need to change this Government if we are to take bigger steps in the trade area. 
I congratulate Phil Goff who is not in the House tonight. Interestingly enough we do not have the Minister of Foreign Affairs here we do not have the Minister of Trade here and we do not have the chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee here. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. First of all Mr Deputy Speaker I am on my feet and the member is standing. I appreciate that he is a new member but he has now made reference to two individual MPs whom he says are not in the House. The member under the Standing Orders must not refer to members who are absent. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I was just about to raise that point. Thank you Mr Carter for raising that. The member must not comment on the absence or otherwise of any members of this House. 
JOHN HAYES 
: The people of the Wairarapa will certainly be furious with me for this mistake because like me they want to see an open economy and particularly in a small country like ours we want to be open to international trade in goods and services. It is a primary requirement that we have this for economic success. The dismantling of “fortress New Zealand” over the past 25 years has been a key element in the reform programme that has produced today’s more efficient economy. Tariffs and other barriers to trade are now low and New Zealand is likely to reach free trade zero tariffs within a decade. 
I also want to draw attention to the comments of our New Zealand First colleague who was it seemed to me despite the lead-up to the election saying: “We will not support free-trade agreements.” and was actually positioning her party and her leader to do just that. The people in my electorate are looking for returns from the activities of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and it is not happening. I wonder why. It seems to me that there are people in this House who believe that Helen Clark and her Labour Government will retain power for the next millennium. Certainly Winston Peters appears to be in this camp. He was desperate to align himself with Helen Clark even though he is now in the unusual position of being our most important Minister but outside Cabinet. 
The governing party must have self-confidence. It must want power and it must believe that its exercising of that power can send our country in the right direction. This agreement will not do that. But the Government also needs to keep in mind that on any projection of its political past its power will come to an end. Winston Peters should keep that long in mind as I think should Ron Mark. Mr Mark has a huge wealth of experience to contribute and really deserves a Cabinet post but he has spent 10 years in this House and has not got to Cabinet yet. That has been at least 7 years too long and the way things are going he is not going to get there. 
The test of Winston Peters’ statesmanship in the context of our history will not be how many trees he pulls out by the roots but how he fits our foreign policy into a continual process of adaptation in which he combines leadership of our foreign policy with our national mood. This is not necessarily a recipe for inaction or the avoidance of controversy. Some of the most bitterly contentious measures—for example the Civil Union Bill or issues around immigration—will I think for New Zealand First become inviolate. They will not be undone because of the cost of too much damage to the Labour – New Zealand First relationship. 
I would never ever say that the Labour Government is the most rapacious doctrinaire and unpatriotic Government this side of the equator—quite the reverse—but I would like to point out from today’s copy of the  
Independent 
 the words of Chris Trotter. He talks about the recent speeches made by Murray McCully and by our Minister of Foreign Affairs. He points out that we are a weak and relatively vulnerable nation and that we should be making every effort to deal with trouble before it arrives. He talks about what is going to happen and what is very likely to happen in Iran which is a confrontation between Iran and the United States. As a consequence of that he says there is a need for the five fingers of the Anglo-Saxon fist—the USA the UK Canada Australia and New Zealand—to act in concert. He argues that Helen Clark will come under intense diplomatic pressure to stand shoulder to shoulder with her very very good friends. 
If there is to be a strike against Iran that will cause a lot of difficulty for us. If we abandon our current multilateral stance and support the United States’ plan to as Chris Trotter says detach the Iranian energy nozzle from China’s petrol tank then we should abandon all hope of the possibility of a mutually rewarding free-trade agreement with the People’s Republic of China. On the other hand if we decide to stand aloof and condemn the actions of our Anglo-Saxon allies New Zealand exporters may well find themselves shut out of their hard-won markets. Having grasped that very unpalatable situation I think people should refer to the speech made by my colleague Murray McCully because he provides some answers. 
I warn the people in my electorate and the people of New Zealand that we are on a difficult and dangerous path. We do not have the trade relationships in place with our major partners to generate the sort of income we need as a country. Why do we need that income? Let me tell members. We need income to train and provide doctors general practitioners in Dannevirke for example. I warn that we do not have the trade agreements in place to generate income to pay for the cost of kids’ operations in my electorate. For example children are waiting for 4 years to get a glue ear operation. 
I warn the people of this country that we do not have enough decent trade agreements in place to generate income to stave off poverty in the Pacific region for which we are responsible. Let me tell members on the other side of the House that they have squandered $12 million of taxpayers’ money in the Solomon Islands by giving school books that have never left the wharf. Twelve million dollars of taxpayers’ money—which includes money from the people in my electorate—has been totally squandered. I warn members that as long as we tax petrol and do not spend that tax on the roads we will not have enough money because we do not have the trade agreements in place to pay for decent roading systems. We do not have enough money coming from our trade agreements to get enough police to man the police station in Carterton despite the Mayor of Carterton Gary McPhee having been to Parliament this week to talk to the Minister of Police to try to sort it out. 
I support this bill but we are a small vulnerable country. We need to work out where our future lies and we need to stop wasting our taxes on agreements such as this that are of no consequence. We need to focus our resources on agreements that matter. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During that speech John Hayes made accusations against me and previously in this Parliament members have been forced to withdraw and apologise for saying that I supported Pol Pot. I never supported Pol Pot in his crimes and that member should be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: You are quite right Mr Locke. But the issue was raised and— 
KEITH LOCKE 
: But the member did not withdraw and apologise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That matter Mr Hayes should not have been raised in the way it was. I ask you to withdraw the reference to Mr Locke being a supporter of Pol Pot. 
John Hayes 
: I withdraw. [ 
Interruption 
] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member over there said: “But not to Stalin.” He is implying I supported Stalin. I never supported Stalin. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I didn’t say that at all. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: What is wrong with saying “Stalin”? Who— 
KEITH LOCKE 
: It was Maurice Williamson. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No that is a debatable point. But thank you for raising it. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I distinctly recall John Hayes including in his accusation reference to Mr Locke supporting not only Pol Pot but Stalin as well. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: No. He didn’t accuse Keith Locke of being a supporter of Stalin. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: He has withdrawn the main one so I think we will leave it at that. But I thank you for raising that Mr Locke. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Trade: 
 I move  
That the Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee 
referred to Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee 
 with an instruction that the committee present its report to the House on or before 13 March 2006 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington region on a day the House is sitting despite Standing Orders 192 194(a) and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.