Clark David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClark David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 18 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:9153. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Trade: Did his predecessor Hon Tim Groser ask MFAT officials negotiating the TPP agreement to preserve the right for a future New Zealand Government to ban the purchase of residential land by non-resident foreign speculators?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs)on behalf of theMinister of Trade: No. He asked them to preserve the right for a future New Zealand Government to restrict the purchase of residential land by non-resident foreigners which I might add was one of Labour’s bottom lines.Dr David Clark: Why did Australia reserve the right to ban non-resident foreign speculators from its housing market and why did he not do the same?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Other countries have negotiated based on their own domestic policy positions which I have no responsibility for. The Government has no policy to outright ban foreigners investing in New Zealand but the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) maintains our current approval requirements for foreign investments in sensitive land and as I said in my primary response the Government has preserved the right for future Governments to restrict the purchase of residential land by non-resident foreigners.Dr David Clark: Why did New Zealand agree to Singapore reserving the right to impose a ban on the purchase of housing by foreign speculators when Singapore did not already have a ban?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I do not have those details to hand but what I can say is that this Government has in the interests of all New Zealanders preserved the right of the Government to restrict the purchase of residential land and that is a good deal for all New Zealanders.Dr David Clark: To assist the order of the House I seek leave to table a document stating that Singapore reserves the—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need the source of the—[Interruption] Order! I need the source of the document and the date.Dr David Clark: It is the relevant annexe in the many thousands of pages of the agreement on the Table—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now trifling with the Chair. If it has been tabled in the House it is available to all members. [Interruption] Order! It creates disorder when members then seek for political purposes to table something that is already freely available to all members of the House. That information was tabled at the beginning of last week. It is available and to seek to table it again only creates disorder. I will not put up with it.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Dr—ah—Chris Hipkins.Chris Hipkins: Not yet—maybe one day. The point of order that I want to raise with you is that I think the document in question is the document there on the Table all of the many thousands of pages of it. I think that the question becomes: where such a large volume of information is available and where there is contested debate about a particular part of it that is not necessarily going to be available—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I do not need any assistance at all. I can see the document from here. To suggest that it is unavailable to members once it has been tabled in this House is not fact. It is available. The question the member might legitimately ask is whether members have an interest to go and look at it. That becomes the members’ business but the information that is already tabled in the House is already available and to seek to re-table it is simply using the point of tabling documents for a political purpose. That is not what they are designed for. Does the member have a further supplementary question?Dr David Clark: Does he accept that Singapore could “adopt any measure affecting real estate”?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Again I do not have those details to hand but I am focused on New Zealand’s focus which is to make sure that we have the ability to restrict the purchase of residential land by non-resident foreigners. And I might add that that was one of the bottom lines of the Labour Party.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think we have just had an illustration of the difficulty of having very large documents tabled in the House. If a Minister can say they do not have the information available and you have said that the information is available how can it be an acceptable answer but not acceptable to table the material?Hon Gerry Brownlee: The question was asking the Minister whether he could confirm something about the particular ability of Singapore to do something. That answer will not be contained in that document at all. The statement about what Singapore has reserved is in the document—quite a different matter.Mr SPEAKER: I do not think that the point raised by Chris Hipkins adds to the discussion in any way whatsoever. The Minister was asked for some information about another country entirely. I would prefer him to stand and say he does not have that information rather than attempt to answer and end up giving an answer that he has to come back and correct. The fact is that the information has been available. The further tabling of it would not assist in that answer in any way whatsoever. Does the member have a further supplementary question?Dr David Clark: Can I speak to the point of order?Mr SPEAKER: No. I have dealt with it. I have ruled on it.Dr David Clark: Does the Minister believe that a competent Minister of Trade would know whether the Singaporeans have reserved for themselves the right to ban New Zealanders from purchasing residential land?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: What I believe is that a competent spokesman on trade would believe in trade.Dr David Clark: What does it say about his Government when it uses the opportunity for this Parliament to question it about a trade deal to demean opponents refuse to answer straight questions with straight answers and chuckle in glee at honest discussions about this serious issue?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: This Government welcomes wide-ranging discussion on the TPP and that is what we will be doing over the rest of this year. We believe that this is a great deal for this country and that is why we are supporting it.Joanne Hayes: Can the Minister confirm whether the TPP meets essential bottom-line requirements to protect New Zealand’s interests?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I can confirm that the TPP meets all five bottom lines set out publicly by at least one organisation. They include that Pharmac must be protected and we can tick that one; that corporations cannot successfully sue the Government for regulating in the public interest tick; that New Zealand maintains the right to restrict sales of farmland and housing to non-resident buyers tick; that the Treaty of Waitangi must be upheld tick; and that meaningful gains are made for our farmers in tariff reductions and market access. We can tick that one too. So the TPP meets every one of the bottom lines set out by the Labour Party.Dr David Clark: Has the Minister seen reports from 2013 when Labour announced its policy on banning non-resident foreign buyers and subsequent reports when it introduced its bottom lines that clearly indicate that the intention was to ban non-resident foreign speculators with that policy?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I am not responsible for Labour policy but what I can say is that Labour policy was to restrict and that is what this Government has set out to do.