Genter Julie Anne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGenter Julie Anne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15354. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]8.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to theMinister of Trade: Will he release the final text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement before it is approved by the Cabinet; if not why not?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Trade): It is important to note firstly that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is still under negotiation at this time. Should the negotiations be successful the Government would release the text after New Zealand’sinitial signature of the proposed agreement which requires approval by Cabinet. The Government will not be releasing the text before that point because the negotiations will not be formally concluded until the member countries have in fact signed the text. Once that negotiation phase is complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership as with all trade agreements will then go through the full parliamentary treaty examination process where of course the text will be available.Julie Anne Genter: Given that the Government will not be releasing the text before signing us up to the deal will he release the national interest analysis which spells out the advantages and disadvantages for New Zealand of this agreement before Cabinet approves it; if not why not?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the member misunderstands the process that these things go through. She suggested that Cabinet will ratify the agreement; Cabinet will not. In fact Parliament ratifies the agreement. Of course the national interest analysis is laid in front of Parliament and Parliament debates a treaty such as this before it is ratified.Julie Anne Genter: Was Gerry Brownlee correct when he said that the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement would give New Zealand a “$5 billion year-on-year boost to our export economy”—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry; I am going to ask the member to repeat that question. I am having trouble hearing it.Julie Anne Genter: Was Gerry Brownlee correct when he said that the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement would give the New Zealand economy a “$5 billion year-on-year boost” given that the Australian Productivity Commission’s report found that trade agreements were usually oversold and failed to deliver the claimed benefits?Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You asked for the question to be put again. The member put it again and this time about five Ministers talked all the way through it. We could not hear what on earth she was trying to ask the second time round either.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Every member has a right to hear the supplementary question. If the member is telling me he did not hear it the second time I ask the members to please be quiet while we hear it for a third time without interjection.Julie Anne Genter: Was Gerry Brownlee correct when he said that the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement would give New Zealand a “$5 billion year-on-year boost to our export economy” given the Australian Productivity Commission’s report finding that trade agreements were often oversold and failed to deliver their claimed benefits?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well I find Gerry Brownlee to be a very wise man and I would disagree with the Australian Productivity Commission on this basis: it is quite clear that the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement for example has been of huge benefit to this country; greater than was actually expected at the time. There has been a lot of talk in this House this afternoon about lifting people’s incomes and free-trade agreements are definitely one way in which that can be done and done very successfully.Julie Anne Genter: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question did quite specifically ask—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question was addressed—the question was addressed. If the member wants further supplementary questions she has them.Julie Anne Genter: Why is the Government continuing to rely on the figures sourced from the East-WestCenter a US Congress - funded thinktank to justify to New Zealanders the alleged benefits of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That horrible US Congress a subversive organisation—why would we ever rely on anything it ever said! The important point is that actuallythe negotiations have not been concluded so anybody’s estimate at this point is an estimate. Should those negotiations be completed—and for the sake of lifting wages and growth in this country we should all hope that they are—then there will be a national interest analysis that will be laid upon the Table in this Parliament and the Parliament will get to assess the value as calculated by the New Zealand Government bureaucracy. That is the way in which it should be done. In the meantime we are all talking about estimates because the agreement has yet to be finally negotiated.Julie Anne Genter: How can New Zealanders have confidence that the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement will be a good deal for us when he will not release the national interest analysis until after we are already signed up to the deal? He is relying on figures from a thinktank funded by the United States Government and the major beneficiary of trade deals with the United States has always been multinational corporations based in the United States.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think we have all learnt something in that last supplementary question. The reality is this—I will say it again a little bit more slowly for the member—the agreement has not been negotiated yet. The agreement is being negotiated at the moment.Dr Russel Norman: What’s in it?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Mr Norman nobody knows until the negotiations are completed. We have estimates from different groups which the member has. At the point where the negotiation is completed just like in every other Government that has been in this Parliament it will be laid upon the Table and actually it will be debated by this Parliament. There are not many days to go until we know whether this thing will be proceeding or not. At that point Parliament will get the opportunity to go ahead.Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table for the benefit of the Minister the Australian Productivity Commission analysis showing there is little—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just clarify the source of the document? Is it available on the net to all?Julie Anne Genter: The Australian Productivity Commission report.Mr SPEAKER: I did not ask what the report was; I asked where the member sourced it. Is it available on the net to all?Julie Anne Genter: I do not think that the Minister—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is it available on the net for members?Julie Anne Genter: Yes it is available.Mr SPEAKER: Yes it is.Hon Phil Goff: In the absence of greater openness and transparency around the negotiations—[Interruption]—when you have finished Nick Smith—what guarantee can the Minister provide—Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Well my understanding is that the supposition at the start of that member’s question is probably creating disorder in the House—Mr SPEAKER: Order! And the best way forward—the member is right in raising the point that he does. I will invite the Hon Phil Goff to ask his question again and then the Minister will have the opportunity to respond to that question in the way he sees fit.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Were you ruling that that was a fair point of order? I do not see how you could.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I was saying to the member that the best way forward is for the Hon Phil Goff to be able to complete his question. I have no doubt that the Minister will have the ability to then address the question.Hon Phil Goff: In the absence of greater openness and transparency around the negotiation itself what guarantee can this Minister provide the House that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will not prevent New Zealand being able to legislate for the public good in areas like health and the environment and will not prevent Pharmac from negotiating to buy lower-priced and generic drugs?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I completely reject the assertion at the start of that member’s sentence. The reality is that this Government has adopted an identical process—an identical process—to the one that was operated by the Labour Government. The member raises on regular occasions in public the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions as the one difference. The reality is that it walked out on being advised. It walked out and it has been invited by the Minister of Trade to come back any time it likes. The process has been identical to Mr Goff’s process. He is the pot calling the kettle black.Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question asked the Minister what guarantee he could provide about two areas. He did not even attempt—Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member had asked just that question I might be able to help him. But he talked at the start of his question about the absence of openness and transparency. The Minister then responded to that part of the question.Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was not part of the question. That was setting out the—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I invite the member to reread hisHansard. I heard it as part of the question.