King AnnetteHon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): I am surprised that the Government members who are so proud of this agreement have got their bottoms stuck in their seats. I wonder whether they are going to at some stage get on their hind legs and contribute to the debate. I am looking forward to hearing from them because I have listened to a lot of blatherskite—my favourite word—from this Government over the last few years on trade policy. One of things it has tried to do is paint the Labour Party as anti-trade. Well I think we could probably give it a few lessons on how you go about negotiating a trade deal. The Government likes to come into this House on a regular occasion and trumpet the wonderful things that have come out of the China free-trade agreement negotiated and passed under a Labour Government—the only thing I think that is probably holding up our economy in fact. When we were in Government we negotiated a free-trade deal that got wide acceptance. But what happened when we got to the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Many of us started off thinking: This could be a really good idea. This could be an extension of the China agreement into other countries. This could be good for New Zealand." But what we managed to get from this Government and from the negotiation was to allow a number of other things to be included in an agreement that has nothing to do with trade—it has nothing to do with trade. So it is not a free-trade agreement; it is a free-for-all agreement. It has got everything in it. The fundamental error the Government made was to rely on Mr Groser to be the advocate and the negotiator for this agreement. I have to agree with my colleague Grant Robertson that Mr Groser came across to me as a person who was far above the rest of us who knew more than anybody else in this entire Parliament—in fact he created the world in 6 days. I found his attitude appalling. I was at the meeting where we met for the confidential briefing after it was all signed and sealed and we were told that we could speak about what we were given at that meeting. When we did go out and speak about it we were attacked for speaking about it. The words that he used when it came to patents—Grant Robertson: Constructive ambiguity.Hon ANNETTE KING: Constructive ambiguity. What is constructive ambiguity? It sounds like an oxymoron to me. What is constructive about the ambiguity that he wanted to put into this agreement? I think we could be wasting our time because tomorrow the 45th President of the United States will be elected. If you have been watching what is happening both Trump and Clinton have said this deal will not be passed in their Government. So what we are relying on when we are ratifying this is the slim hope that Obama somehow is going to in the lame duck period pass the legislation. Well I put this to the Minister Todd McClay: why would the Republicans give him a thing? They have denied him every move he has tried to make in Government. They have blocked practically every move he has ever made. Why at the last moment would they capitulate and give a win to Obama? So I would say that we are probably wasting New Zealanders' taxpayer money holding this debate now. Would it not have been more sensible for us to have waited to see what the next President of the United States would do? My understanding is that you have to have 80 percent agreement to this deal and if you do not have the Americans in then you have not got 80 percent. We were also told by others—in fact I think Hillary Clinton said: "We'll renegotiate it." Well we were told by Mr Groser and others—I think even by the Minister in the chair Todd McClay—that you cannot renegotiate it. So who is telling the truth here? Can we renegotiate this or can we not? Todd McClay said we cannot. Of course Mr Groser—who knew everything—said we cannot. Mr McClay said we cannot. Hillary Clinton said we can. I hope we can believe our Minister that what we have got we are stuck with. So in fact the things that are wrong in here are now set in concrete. What is set in concrete and is wrong as far as I am concerned is the way it has been negotiated.One of the things that really appals me—and the Minister might like to explain—is that we capitulated and rolled over like pussycats to have our tummies tickled on the whole issue of foreign non-resident buyers in our housing market. Why did we not have the guts to stand up like Australia like Singapore like other countries that said: "We have sovereign rights over what happens to our land and property in our country."? Why did we roll over and allow that to be carved out so that we cannot have the same deal made by Australia and Singapore and other countries that showed considerable stamina and courage and ensured they looked after the sovereignty in their countries? I do not understand that Minister. This Minister probably is not to blame but why were we so keen? We did not need to give that away. There were other countries that did not give it away. But you know if there is one thing that has got up the nose of New Zealanders it is the fact that we were prepared to say: "Anyone can come here and buy what they like. Doesn't matter if you don't live here you can buy up the houses—none for New Zealanders; doesn't matter." So that I think has offended many many New Zealanders and it certainly offends me. But the one thing that I think needs explaining is the whole issue of patents. I think it is interesting if you go back and read the regulatory impact statement from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and what it said about the whole area of patents. It set out what had been negotiated. It said that it was to enable a reasonable delay in terms of a patent being applied and if there was a reasonable delay then there could be a response from that. But what was more interesting to me was what the ministry thought about this whole issue. It said this: "13. An obligation to provide patent term extensions could result in costs to the New Zealand economy. 14. New Zealand is a net importer of patented technology. Most (85 – 90%) of the patents granted in New Zealand are granted to offshore applicants. If the terms of any of these patents are extended this could impose a cost on the New Zealand economy as local businesses and consumers would have to pay higher prices for longer on products using patented technology. The cost could be particularly high if a patent related to a pharmaceutical were to be extended. When the patent on a pharmaceutical expires the price may drop as much as 80 – 90% as generic versions of the patented pharmaceutical enter the market." A large number of the pharmaceuticals that Pharmac can afford in this country are generics. The reason why we have a large supply of pharmaceuticals is that they are generics. I have concern over this issue and the concerns are not just mine. Our top health professionals around this country have raised their concern over this issue. I have to say that it is still not clear to me what would constitute an unreasonable delay. They say it could be the delay between when it is lodged and when a decision is made. What if something happens in between that is not of the making of those making the decision? I can see this being used by those companies that wanted to take away the 5-year patent on data exclusivity—to use this to in fact attack New Zealand and to ensure that they get a longer patent on their products. That will cost us in money. It will cost us in the health of New Zealanders. I do not think this has been properly explained by the Government. I do not know how much notice it took of the ministry when it wrote this regulatory impact statement but what I do know is that with these new biologic drugs if we cannot get access to the data of that so that other companies can use the data and start creating generic drugs we will see more of the problems we had with Keytruda because we will not be able to afford the drugs that are still on patent. I think that this Government is going to cost us a lot in terms of the health of New Zealanders and the taxpayer."