edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Brownlee Gerry: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 6 August 
Brownlee Gerry: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 6 August 
[Volume:649;Page:17836] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Might it not also be appropriate for the Minister to withdraw and apologise for the comments he made about the Opposition spokesperson on health at the time the question was asked. He relied on the statistics he had which are now proved to be incorrect to give some validity to his insult.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
[Volume:649;Page:17835] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the time by which the Primary Production Committee must report the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill to be extended from Monday 25 August 2008 to Monday 8 September 2008. I understand that this is at the request of the select committee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
[Volume:649;Page:17835] 
Business of Select Committees 
Reporting Dates 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the time by which the Primary Production Committee must report the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill to be extended from Monday 25 August 2008 to Monday 8 September 2008. I understand that this is at the request of the select committee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Absence of Members—Chamber 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Absence of Members—Chamber 
[Volume:649;Page:17835] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. Please be seated. The member who raised the point said himself it was not appropriate to do so and it was not.
Points of Order — Absence of Members—Chamber 
Points of Order — Absence of Members—Chamber 
[Volume:649;Page:17835] 
Points of Order 
Absence of Members—Chamber 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is not appropriate to talk about the absence of members but it is obvious that the Chamber is somewhat cavernous and empty today particularly on the Government side. I wonder whether it might be appropriate to ring the bells again for an 8-minute period to see whether some Labour members can be roused from their slumber in order to come down to the House to do the job they are required to do. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 That was hardly an appropriate point of order to come from a party that lacks 17 members in the House today. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. Please be seated. The member who raised the point said himself it was not appropriate to do so and it was not.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Volume:649;Page:17835] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 26 August priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Policing Bill and the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill and to the first readings on the Order Paper. Wednesday is a members’ day. On Thursday priority is likely to be given depending on select committee progress to the second readings of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill and the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Absence of Members—Chamber 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Absence of Members—Chamber 
[Volume:649;Page:17835] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 That was hardly an appropriate point of order to come from a party that lacks 17 members in the House today.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Absence of Members—Chamber 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Absence of Members—Chamber 
[Volume:649;Page:17835] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is not appropriate to talk about the absence of members but it is obvious that the Chamber is somewhat cavernous and empty today particularly on the Government side. I wonder whether it might be appropriate to ring the bells again for an 8-minute period to see whether some Labour members can be roused from their slumber in order to come down to the House to do the job they are required to do.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Offensive Language in Quotations 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Offensive Language in Quotations 
[Volume:649;Page:17835] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yesterday during question time I indicated that I would look at the use of a quotation cited by Sue Bradford that included an unparliamentary expression. There is no actual list of unparliamentary words. The Speaker must judge the context in which the expression is used and will intervene if the remark is offensive to the dignity of the House as a whole. Reflecting on this matter I say that the remark was entirely unparliamentary and even though it was used in the context of a quotation it was offensive to the House. Members cannot use the device of quoting to overcome the rules of the use of unparliamentary expressions. Quotation should be free from unparliamentary language as the members’ own speech should be.
Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Offensive Language in Quotations 
Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Offensive Language in Quotations 
[Volume:649;Page:17835] 
Thursday 7 August 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Offensive Language in Quotations 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yesterday during question time I indicated that I would look at the use of a quotation cited by Sue Bradford that included an unparliamentary expression. There is no actual list of unparliamentary words. The Speaker must judge the context in which the expression is used and will intervene if the remark is offensive to the dignity of the House as a whole. Reflecting on this matter I say that the remark was entirely unparliamentary and even though it was used in the context of a quotation it was offensive to the House. Members cannot use the device of quoting to overcome the rules of the use of unparliamentary expressions. Quotation should be free from unparliamentary language as the members’ own speech should be.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:649;Page:17835] 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 26 August priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Policing Bill and the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill and to the first readings on the Order Paper. Wednesday is a members’ day. On Thursday priority is likely to be given depending on select committee progress to the second readings of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill and the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill.
Vote: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17381] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 102 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 15 
New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Tariff Amendment Bill the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 4) the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 5) the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Electricity Amendment Bill (No 3) pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper214. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17380] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 102 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 15 
New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17380] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 102 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 15 
New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 215 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to clause 2 be agreed to.
Gallagher Martin: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Gallagher Martin: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17377] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I will take a very brief call but it is appropriate for me as chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and as one who sat through the select committee process on the New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill—and I know that the Leader of the House would want me to do this—to fulsomely praise and thank the officials at this stage because the committee received some very comprehensive advice. I point out that we have had a very good working select committee and I acknowledge particularly Mr Tim Groser for his excellent assistance. I also respect absolutely and acknowledge the diversity of views that was represented both in the submissions and by members of the committee. I acknowledge the very fine contribution of Keith Locke albeit we agree to differ on this issue. However his contribution was important. I also acknowledge Peter Brown and I do that in this democratic Parliament tonight. 
The challenge on those of us who are supporting this agreement which is the will of the overwhelming majority of the House is to do everything we can and to work to make sure that some of the concerns and fears that have been expressed do not come to pass. In terms of the glass being half full or the glass being half empty the point of view that the glass is half full offers huge potential for this agreement. 
I will close with a quote from our Prime Minister who stated: “The agreement sets a high standard. It is a model for how two trading partners disparate in size but complementary in the products and services they offer can take a trading relationship to a new level.” Hopefully it will be a win-win situation for both countries. That is our intent. 
Having said that let me acknowledge all members of the select committee for the excellent contribution they made in terms of the report back. We look forward to the third reading of the bill.
Hobbs Marian: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17373] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before we begin the debate on these clauses I will read members Speaker’s ruling 106/2. “When debating the preliminary clauses at the end members should have some latitude to summarise and make concluding remarks about the issues they have raised during the committee’s consideration of the bill.”
Vote: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17373] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedule be agreed to. 
Ayes 102 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 15 
New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2. 
Schedule agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17371] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Of course I will follow the rules of debate. Madam Chair you will appreciate that one of the rules of debate is that one gets to rebut at the start of one’s comments. So I will take a moment with your indulgence to rebut some of the extraordinary things said by Peter Brown. 
First off Mr Brown confirmed the xenophobic nature of New Zealand First. He then announced to the entire Parliament that New Zealand’s Minister of Foreign Affairs—New Zealand First’s party leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters—is also a xenophobe. He is hanging around Singapore at the present time and trying to impress various foreign dignitaries presumably touting his own CV so that he has something to do later in the year. But the extraordinary thing that came through from Mr Brown’s speech was the suggestion that the Chinese are being cunning here and that they will swamp us with refrigerators and all sorts of electrical goods. So here is the deal: China with 1 billion people is looking to expand its market by doing a deal with a country with 4 million people in it. We are not even the size of a small suburb of Beijing but apparently we will do wonders for the Chinese economy! 
Well I have some news for Mr Brown. Despite Winston Peters’ best efforts New Zealand is still primarily an agrarian economy—we are great producers of agricultural products. One of the things that will surprise Mr Brown and New Zealand First is that a lot of the 1 billion people in China are hungry. They actually want to buy the proteins that we produce they want to buy the milk solids that we produce and they are very interested in the myriad of other products that we produce. They cannot get enough of them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Mr Brownlee you are two-fifths of the way through your speech and you are not yet talking about the part. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Am I really three-quarters of the way through 5 minutes? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Two-fifths of the way through. That is not a beginning. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well Madam Chair I am rebutting a whole 5-minute speech for goodness’ sake! 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Please come to the part. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I will not keep you a lot longer. I just want to say to Mr Brown that he should wake up and smell the roses. He should stop believing all the nonsense that his leader tells him. Most people know that most of what he says is a load of rubbish anyway. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 215 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to clause 28 be agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17372] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5 as amended be agreed to 
Ayes 102 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 15 
New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17372] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 102 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 15 
New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17366] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 102 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 15 
New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2. 
Part 4 agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17365] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 102 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 15 
New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17365] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 102 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 15 
New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2. 
Amendments agreed to.
Hobbs Marian: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17364] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Just before John Hayes takes the floor I wonder whether we could really concentrate on what Part 3 actually says. I ask the speakers to read the part. It is actually about New Zealand conformance not Chinese conformance.
Hobbs Marian: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17362] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: This debate includes the Minister Hon Phil Goff’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 215.
Vote: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17362] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to.  
Ayes 102 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 16 
New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Hobbs Marian: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17361] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: We are debating Part 2 of the New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill. By agreement of the Committee we are considering this bill part by part which has necessitated a narrow debate on each part. The option was offered to the Committee of having a wide-ranging debate; that leave was refused so we are applying the rules of debate quite strictly. There have been six speakers on Part 2 and the final speaker was the Hon Georgina te Heuheu who has 43 seconds remaining. She is not here so are there any other speakers to Part 2? There are not.
te Heuheu Georgina: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17361] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I follow my colleagues in speaking on Part 2 which makes amendments to the Customs and Excise Act 1996. Under clause 13 the part provides “for a system of issuing New Zealand certificates of origin in relation to goods being exported to China under the Free Trade Agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the … People’s Republic of China”. 
This is a very important part and I take issue with the Green member who said it was just all about what bureaucrats did. I do not think I am misrepresenting him—at least I hope not—but I took that to be what he was saying and then he said that these provisions were really of no importance. But we have Minister Mahuta in the chair and she as much as anybody knows the importance of the mark of a product the essence of a product. Of course Maori have something similar in terms of our cultural products with the Toi Iho mark which gives a guarantee of quality of high craftsmanship and also of some of the wairua that has gone into those products carrying that mark. 
Immediately it is easy to see why this part is so important. I would be interested in the Minister taking a call just to confirm and reaffirm how important this part is and that it is certainly not just about bureaucrats and what they have to do; it is about a guarantee of quality. In that sense it is a protection for the product it is a huge protection for the consumer—the buyer—and it is a protection for those whose transactions send goods by way of export between the countries involved. As I say it is somewhat like Toi Iho. 
Yes this is about free trade. It is about boosting our ability to trade with other countries around the globe and to remove barriers that inhibit free trade. But it is not about open slather either and we owe it to New Zealanders in the first place and to all those who will be buyers and consumers in China that there is a brand attached to our products that gives all those people an assurance of the quality and of the essence of those products. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Vote: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17356] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 102 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 17 
New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17355] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to omit subpart 1 heading and substitute the following heading: “Implementation of preferential tariffs under New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement”; 
to omit from clause 4 the words “This subpart” and substitute the words “Section 5”; 
to omit subpart 2 heading and substitute the following heading: “Application of transitional safeguard measures and provisional transitional safeguard measures”; and 
to omit from clause 6 the words “this subpart amends” and substitute the words “Sections 7 to 11 amend”. 
Amendments agreed to.
Gallagher Martin: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Gallagher Martin: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17355] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hayes John: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Hayes John: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17355] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I hope the member is not going to challenge the point of order. 
JOHN HAYES 
: I draw your attention to Standing Order 109 the gist of which is that the House is not to anticipate discussion. With the greatest of respect Madam Chairperson I point out that you were not at the select committee and a party to the debates and neither was the Minister in the chair the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. There is quite a number of elements to the Tariff Act that are yet to be discussed. I am ready to discuss them and I wish to have the opportunity to do so. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I am sorry but the member had the opportunity to discuss both Subpart 1 and Subpart 2.
Gallagher Martin: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Gallagher Martin: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17355] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 It seems to me with due respect that the Committee did have the choice of having a very wide-ranging comprehensive debate in which multiple calls could have been taken. Leave was sought for that and leave was denied. Consequently I understand you then had to go back to the Standing Orders and that you were bound by the Standing Orders leave having been denied. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: This is a question of debate. At the moment we have had with all due respect a series of very good lectures but it has not been a debate. The debate has not been joined in the Committee. There was time to go on to Subpart 2 but speakers chose to stay on Subpart 1 and to mention only casually Subpart 2. Very many important laws have gone through this Parliament almost without there having been a Committee stage on them. I therefore will not give members further calls on this part.
Mapp Wayne: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17354] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I have sought this point of order because you indicated earlier that there would be only one more substantive call. I am aware of the rule that states that once you accept a closure motion that is it and it cannot be contested so it is important that I raise the point of order now. 
I raise it in two parts. The first part relates to the general significance of this legislation. It is widely acknowledged and recognised including by the Government that this is the most significant economic legislation to be passed certainly this year and realistically in this term by this Government. I believe therefore that a proper level of debate is required. Part 1 as we all concede is the core of this agreement. To have a debate that is not even an hour long is frankly not appropriate. The second point is that all of the discussions so far by all of the speakers have actually been on Subpart 1 “Implementation of preferential tariffs under New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement”. There has been no discussion as yet on Subpart 2 which actually covers six clauses in relation to safeguard measures—virtually no discussion on it whatsoever. The reason for that of course is your strict ruling earlier and we understand why you made that ruling in terms of the Standing Orders. We felt that we should therefore deal explicitly with tariffs in Subpart 1 and then we would move on to deal explicitly with the issues addressed in Subpart 2. To accept a closure motion now would effectively deny members the ability to have any debate whatsoever on Subpart 2 of this very very important legislation.
Moroney Sue: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Moroney Sue: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17353] 
SUE MORONEY (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I think I will grant one more call and that is to Tim Groser. I take notes as we go through. I have listened to the arguments and they have become fairly repetitive and rather wide on the question of tariffs.
Locke Keith: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17349] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I think Wayne Mapp is using parallels that are not particularly appropriate here when he talks about the European Union because the example of the European Union is of economies that are at a relatively similar stage of development. 
Hon Member 
: What about Poland? 
KEITH LOCKE 
: In fact the other principle of the European Union—and there is a call about Poland—is that countries that were seen to be lagging behind a bit at its foundation such as southern European countries or Ireland in some respects were given great assistance by the European Union to level up the whole situation. In that sense whether we are talking about the European Union or about CER where we have two comparable economies the opening of trade and the removal of restrictions—and I am not saying each is perfect—we have a much more positive argument when we are talking about comparable economies. That is so particularly when they are neighbouring economies—in our case separated from Australia just by the Tasman Sea and in the case of the European Union adjacent geographically. 
But it is quite different in the case of New Zealand and China because the wages in China are hugely lower than the wages in New Zealand. Wayne Mapp mentioned business organisations here. I can mention one that submitted to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee—namely Earth Sea Sky a clothing manufacturer—which was very strongly against the free-trade agreement for that very reason. It is being driven out of business by the low wages in China and it specifically talked about losing its skills base. The skills base is important for a country like New Zealand. The company said that things like the existing accumulated experience in cutting patterns which is a very skilled trade could disappear. The woman in Earth Sea Sky had her own experience of that. Her group is continuing more or less on the basis of her own experience but with related experience as well. 
That sort of hollowing out of New Zealand manufacturing is not in the long-term interests of the New Zealand economy. We want to have a more rounded economy. Wayne Mapp talked about agricultural exports. It may be that we will get some increase in agricultural exports as a result of this agreement but at what cost to the rest of the economy? I think that is the point. It is just wrong to have this ideology of free trade where somehow everyone benefits regardless of the state of each economy the relative wage structures the specialisations etc. This is particularly the case with an economy as dominant as China’s. China not only has low wages but has heavy Government involvement to make sure it can smash any competition including competition from New Zealand manufacturers and force them either to go out of business or to move their manufacturing offshore. So the comparison Wayne Mapp has made is I think completely inappropriate.
Gallagher Martin: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Gallagher Martin: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17348] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I will take a very brief call because I know that Dr Mapp notwithstanding his very comprehensive delivery to the Committee really wants to get this bill through. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Rubbish! It wasn’t comprehensive at all. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Well that’s because I only had 5 minutes. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: Well I am sure that Dr Mapp does not need much longer than 5 minutes but that is another issue. 
I want to state the obvious in terms of the fact that we are now confined by your ruling Madam Chairperson to being very focused on each part part by part; that is certainly respected. I join other members in acknowledging the excellent help of the officials and certainly the help they gave to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. I note particularly with regard to clause 10 in which new section 15G is substituted that “The Minister may extend a transitional safeguard measure … if the extension is—(a) consistent with the provisions of the relevant free trade agreement;”—either the China free-trade agreement or the Thai free-trade agreement—“and (b) not inconsistent with New Zealand’s other international obligations.” This seems to me to be crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s and I look forward in view of your ruling Madam Chairperson to our now having a very narrowly focused finite debate. That is the point of the Committee of the whole House and I always adhere to it. The broader sweeping debate will now obviously be confined to the third reading. Thank you.
Mapp Wayne: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17347] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I have given a ruling. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: May I draw to your attention Madam Chairperson that we have had a general contribution that was intended to presage more detailed comments and subsequent contributions. That was not objected to by the Government and it seems only appropriate that the Green Party member is also able to address this. I certainly understand the need to stick to the individual parts as you quite rightly say but our denying leave to the Minister’s request was not to suggest that we therefore discuss only individual clauses. This is very important legislation and it is appropriate that we deal with the detail. But before we get to the detail I think that members want to be able to have a general discussion and in particular the Green Party— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The member will be seated please. You are challenging my ruling. I will say it very clearly again: the Committee voted to consider the bill part by part. Members know as experienced members of the House that this is not a general debate. The general debate occurs either in the second reading the third reading or in the debate on clauses 1 and 2. Members chose to do this by voting against considering the bill as one question. I was lenient when I listened to the first speaker. I gave the Committee the choice and the Committee made its choice. We will now go ahead sticking to a part by part consideration of the bill.
King Annette: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
King Annette: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17346] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Acting Minister of Trade) 
: 
 It appears to me that members would like to roam widely in this debate— 
Tim Groser 
: Initially. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Well I do not know but I suspect that members would like to be able to raise all sorts of things rather than keep the debate very constrained as it is by the part by part consideration. I seek leave for the Committee to take the bill as one question so members can range across the entire debate. [ 
Interruption 
] It can be as long as members want but it means that members can talk about everything. If the Committee does not want to do that that is fine. I noticed from Mr Groser’s very good speech that he wished to roam widely and I suspect that Mr Hayes would also like to as well as my colleague Keith Locke. I seek leave for this bill to be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Leave is sought to address the bill’s five parts as one question. Is there any objection? There is objection. Before I call the next speaker I say that since leave has been declined that means that the Committee will stick very closely to each part for the rest of the debate. I want members to talk about amendments to the Tariff Act in this part followed by amendments to the Customs and Excise Act.
Groser Tim: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Groser Tim: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17347] 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 I support my colleague Mr Locke on this matter. I think it is entirely appropriate given the importance of this matter for us to start with some general comments. I am well aware of Mr Locke’s views. I have put forward my contrary view I would like to hear his response and then I think we can proceed with a more technical and detailed examination. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I want to give some considered thought to this matter. It is a problem because of the way that the member actually introduced the matter into the debate. I would really like to confine the debate to Part 1 and members may go to general debate when they come to clauses 1 and 2 at the end. I am sorry but I am now ruling that the Committee sticks as was voted on by members of the Opposition party to amendments to the Tariff Act.
Locke Keith: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17347] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Mr Groser gave quite a talk on human rights. Given that he was not stopped and that many of his comments were directed partly at the views that the Green Party holds in fairness I think it would be in order for some response to be able to be made.
Robertson H V Ross: General Debate 
Robertson H V Ross: General Debate 
[Volume:648;Page:17337] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Williamson I would have thought you have been here long enough to understand that it is Maori Language Week. Normally what would happen is that the member’s speech would be interpreted by the interpreter and the time taken off. In this case Mr Mita Ririnui decided to do the interpretation himself and he is entitled to do so.
Williamson Maurice: General Debate 
Williamson Maurice: General Debate 
[Volume:648;Page:17337] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to clarify with you about speaking times in this debate. I have been using a stopwatch on the speakers and with my colleague Judith Collins you cut her at exactly the 5 minutes. But I timed the previous Labour speaker Mita Ririnui and he went for over 6 minutes before you stopped him. I want to know why members of the Labour Party get such a long period of time.
Swain Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Swain Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:17328] 
12.  
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: Has she received any reports on the response to the announcement of the Capital Markets Development Taskforce; if so what do they say? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Yes I have. From those who genuinely want to see progress on adding depth and breadth to our capital markets there has been an enormously positive response especially in respect of the quality of the members of the task force and the level of expertise they will bring to the table. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Has she seen any reports as to why a former Minister of Commerce did not initiate such a brilliant proposal; and what response has there been to the Minister’s statement that Labour’s opposition to any sale of State-owned enterprises would never change regardless of what the task force recommended? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I was actually very interested in the comment of the person who said Labour had shown its attitude to promoting investment in the capital markets by blocking the sale of Auckland airport this year but then went on to say that he would not support the sale of State-owned assets which seems somewhat contradictory. Of course that is explained by the fact that both comments were made by the National Party’s finance spokesperson Bill English. 
Simon Power 
: Who has been appointed to the task force to specifically represent the interests of investors? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The members of the task force have not been appointed to be representative. That was made very clear at the time although I would highlight the fact that one of the members of the task force is the chief executive of our Superannuation Fund which is a major investor in New Zealand.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:17323] 
8.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Has she received any conflicting reports regarding accident compensation? 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes I have seen a report from John Key stating that National’s stocktake of accident compensation would include all accounts and that as well as the work account the earners account and the motor vehicle account could also be privatised. I have also seen a completely contradictory report from Murray McCully stating that “there would be big challenges privatising the earners and motor vehicle accounts which is why the National Party policy does not go there.” 
Darien Fenton 
: Has the Minister seen any other contradictory reports about accident compensation? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Yes John Key said that “levy rates are rising rapidly and going through the roof.” but Murray McCully said that “levies peaked in 2002 and they are now nudging downwards.” John Key said that under privatisation “premiums will go down.” but Murray McCully said that the ability of private insurers to offer lower premiums is now “severely constrained”. Who can the public believe on privatisation when two National MPs are telling two different stories?
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:17321] 
6.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What reports has he received on employment relations? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I have seen a report that shows that under a Labour-led Government and with some very good predecessors income for New Zealand’s lowest paid has gone up by 71 percent—four times more than National achieved in 9 years—notwithstanding National Party opposition to increasing the minimum wage. Since 2002 130000 parents have taken advantage of paid parental leave notwithstanding National’s opposition to the introduction of this scheme to its extension and to the increases in rates. Working families now have at least 4 weeks a year to spend as families as a result of the Holidays Act changes—something that was opposed by National. National is recommending that that provision becomes negotiable and in fact goes back to what it was and is taken away from workers. Real incomes in New Zealand have improved by 25 percent since 2000. Many hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders have done well with these changes and they know that their rights are safe only with Labour. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What other reports has he seen about employment relations? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have seen recent reports that show that under a National Government—a receding possibility—employer contributions to KiwiSaver would be gone according to Kate Wilkinson; would be back according to John Key; and then they would be gone again according to Shane Ardern. The ability to fire people at will would be introduced. Workers would face the risk of being fired for nothing or for complaining about being sexually harassed and they would have no right of appeal. I am proud that millions of New Zealanders have a Labour-led Government to ensure their rights are protected.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:17318] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister of Police. Which of the policies—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member just continue his question please. 
RON MARK 
: I will start again. Which of the policies released— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The obvious choice! 
RON MARK 
: Bigger is not better Gerry is it. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Right that is it. The question will be read in silence.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:17316] 
2.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What reports has he received on the importance of ACC to farmers and other agriculture and forestry workers? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) provides not just weekly compensation but also ambulance and emergency services ongoing medical care and home help physical rehabilitation lump-sum payments and modification to homes and cars. In the case of a major industry ACC provides those benefits to rural families sometimes for life. This is important to rural people who work in the most dangerous areas of our country and to their families. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry reports to me that up to 25 agricultural work fatalities and up to 16 forestry deaths occur each year. The loss of ACC would mean much higher insurance costs for rural families and much reduced cover and security. 
Sue Moroney 
: What reports has the Minister seen about possible alternative schemes; and what would the specific effects be for rural families and other agricultural workers? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I have seen a report that the National Party has a policy of ripping ACC protection from rural families and replacing it with a privatised scheme. When a similar scheme was introduced in Australia a report by the previous Australian Liberal-National Government found levies in Australia’s competitive market were twice as expensive as those for New Zealand’s primary sector. This research was backed up by an independent PricewaterhouseCoopers report last year. One can see what is in National’s policy for Australian-owned insurance companies that donate to National but one cannot see what is in it for farmers or anyone in our primary rural communities. 
Sue Moroney 
: What flexibility does ACC give to primary sector employers? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: ACC offers an initiative for self-employed people and employers of fewer than 20 staff with good safety performances so that safe workplaces can be recognised with levy discounts. It offers programmes to improve safety in the rural sector such as farm bike safety equipment and the FarmSafe programme. The alternative scheme promoted by the National Party offers premiums up to 250 percent higher reduced coverage and less security for rural New Zealanders. 
Sue Moroney 
: Would ACC offer more protections to farming families if it were a State-owned enterprise? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: This is an interesting question. If it were a State-owned enterprise it would be on the list of assets National says it will not privatise in its first term but because it is not a State-owned enterprise National is not ruling out selling it. ACC would be privatised by National. For the same reason we can expect that anything else owned by the people of New Zealand and not a State-owned enterprise would be sold including Air New Zealand Television New Zealand the Superannuation Fund the roads the hospitals and even the schools.
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8516] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 12 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee.