Tabuteau Fletcher: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTabuteau Fletcher: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 14 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7205. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First) to the Minister for Economic Development: How would the Trans-Pacific Partnership help regional New Zealand?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): I thank the member for his question. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is exciting news for businesses across New Zealand but particularly for those in regional New Zealand. The Trans-Pacific Partnership allows access for New Zealand exporters to up to 800 million potential customers and covers 40 percent of existing global trade. In the US the world’s largest economy and Japan the world’s third-largest economy and across the rapidly developing Asia-Pacific region the Trans-Pacific Partnership will benefit all our exporters by opening up fairer access to more markets whether they are farmers in Hawke’s Bay or Manawatū wine growers in Central Otago or manufacturers in Waikato. As a Government we back our farmers our horticulturalists our wine growers and our manufacturers. We are confident that they are equal to the best in the world and with this agreement they get access to big consumer markets to compete on a more equal footing with local suppliers. And this is exactly the same answer to the same question yesterday.Fletcher Tabuteau: What happens to the New Zealand regional economy if Trans-Pacific Partnership signatories fail to complete necessary domestic procedures within 2 years after the initial signing?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: If individual countries do not accede to the agreement then obviously they will not be participating in it which would be the effect of the status quo as it is now. But I strongly believe that those countries will accede to the agreement because of the obvious benefits that that agreement brings.Fletcher Tabuteau: I seek leave to table an article dated 13 October—Mr SPEAKER: The source of the article please?Fletcher Tabuteau: —a subscription-only trade journal so it is not widely accessible—outlining this process which is completely contrary.Mr SPEAKER: I will accept the member’s word. Leave is sought to table this particular article. Is there any objection? There is objection.Fletcher Tabuteau: What happens to the deal given Mr Groser told Q+A that everyone should wait until the officials from 12 countries can do this Herculean task of getting the text—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need a supplementary question. It is not a chance to make a speech. Can the member rephrase the question in line with the Standing Orders and ask it.Fletcher Tabuteau: If he agrees with this statement what would be the conclusion if the Spanish or French versions of this agreement contest the English version?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well—Hon Paula Bennett: Bonjour.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There is quite a tradition of translation actually that occurs between languages as a general rule. So for example when I say “Bonjour” to you now I mean “Hello”—Hon Tim Groser: Hola.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —and “Hola” would be Spanish. You know there are legions of people whose job it is to translate—Fletcher Tabuteau: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is the member going to attempt to raise a point of order?Fletcher Tabuteau: Yes that was my point—Mr SPEAKER: Then I will hear the point of order but I expect to hear it in silence.Fletcher Tabuteau: I just wanted an answer to the question.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The difficulty is that I did not understand the question because it was such a long-winded question. If the member could take some time out to practise asking supplementary questions—[Interruption] Order! I do not want comment from the back half of the House on my right-hand side. I go back through the questions—yesterday particularly. They are too long winded. The member would do himself a favour if he could sharpen up his supplementary questions so I can assist him to then get an answer that is satisfactory.Ron Mark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Any member has a right to raise a point of order but I just want to be fair to the member that if he is in any way attempting to relitigate where I have just been with a ruling I will be most upset.Ron Mark: Trying to assist my colleague and asking for your indulgence his question started with the word “what”. He went on to quote word for word what a Minister had said—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now—[Interruption] Order! The member is relitigating just where we have been. If the member wants to have a look at the Standing Orders they describe quite clearly that questions are meant to be concise. It does not require the length of quote the member was putting into his question. I can assist the member to get answers to his question when it is simple and concise but the way it was worded is unsatisfactory and is not in line with the Standing Orders. The fact that it started with the word “what” does not suddenly make it correct. If the member has further supplementary questions then we can move on. I hope they are going to be in line with the Standing Orders.Fletcher Tabuteau: Supplementary question—[Interruption]—when these guys are ready. Regional New Zealand needs to know what the Japanese tariff on beef under the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement will be if beef imports into Japan from Trans-Pacific Partnership countries exceed 550000 tonnes during the first year of implementation.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Those details will all come through in the finalised text. But I can tell the member that over time the beef tariffs for New Zealand into Japan drop from 38.5 percent to I think around 9.5 percent which by anybody’s measure is a great step forward for beef farmers importing into Japan.Fletcher Tabuteau: How will regional New Zealand benefit from the Trans-Pacific Partnership if the current account deficit deteriorates even further due to imports far exceeding exports—four to one for example—as with the ASEAN free-trade agreement?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Aside from the fact that actually New Zealand consumers benefit from cheaper imports as well—but let us leave that aside—the important point for the member perhaps and the salutary example would be the China free-trade agreement which has had one of the bigger impacts on the tradable economy in recent years. Actually since 2008 I think the current account deficit from memory is about 8.5 percent of GDP. Currently it is around 3.5 percent of GDP despite the fact that we set up a big China free-trade agreement. So although individual countries will not necessarily have trade balances—either positively or negatively in terms of the exports and imports—on the whole New Zealand greatly benefits from being connected to the world and having the opportunity to sell its products on the world stage. I appreciate that the member does not necessarily agree with that but that actually is the history and the prospect for regional New Zealand.Clayton Mitchell: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could I hear your reading on what length of question is actually a reasonable one for the future? We have had questions in the past that have been 70-odd words long when this one that we have just had was only 40 words long. It would just be good to have some—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members should carefully look at the Standing Orders particularly Standing Order 380. There is no particular word count as to what length a question or answer will be. I will judge that on each occasion. But I am trying to be of assistance to the member who was asking the supplementary questions. If he tightens them up I can then assist him in getting answers. When it is a very long-winded question it gives Ministers a very wide ambit in answering the question and often a point of order is raised then that the question has not been addressed to the satisfaction of the members. I am trying to assist the members.Ron Mark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Fresh point of order?Ron Mark: Thank you—it is fresh yes. Standing Order 386—[Interruption] In silence David Bennett—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. Now I will hear what I expect to be the point of order—I know exactly what it will be but will still listen to it very very briefly.Ron Mark: Standing Order 386 again as you know Mr Speaker refers to the answers being concise. What we had was a perfect example of how an answer can be—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No the member will resume his seat. [Interruption] Order! The member needs to listen when I try to assist particularly New Zealand First members. When you get a long-winded question it then gives the Minister a far wider ambit in answering it. A question as wide as the member asked—talking about the current account deficit in relation to the Trans-Pacific Partnership—gave the Minister a very wide ambit. As I have mentioned to Mr Mark on more than one occasion I am the adjudicator. I will decide when the answer has gone on for too long not Mr Mark. [Interruption] No I have heard quite enough from the member. [Interruption] Order! Question No. 12 Joanne Hayes.