Dowie Sarah: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDowie Sarah: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 13 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7114. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister for Economic Development: How would the Trans-Pacific Partnership help regional New Zealand?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): 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 New Zealand exporters access to up to 800 million potential customers and covers 40 percent of existing global trade. In the US the world’s largest economy in 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 the Manawatū winegrowers in Central Otago or manufacturers in the Waikato. As a Government we back our farmers our horticulturalists our wine growers and our manufacturers. We are confident they are equal to the best in the world. With this agreement they will get access to the big consumer markets to compete on a more equal footing with local suppliers.Sarah Dowie: What does the Trans-Pacific Partnership—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! To Mr Prosser that is the last warning he will be getting during this question time. Would the member Sarah Dowie please repeat that question.Sarah Dowie: Thank you Mr Speaker. What does the Trans-Pacific Partnership do for our farmers and other exporters in regional New Zealand?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The impact will be significant. In 2014 our trade with Trans-Pacific Partnership countries was worth more than $28 billion or 45 percent of our total trade including $2.7 billion in meat $4 billion in dairy $1.4 billion in forestry nearly a billion in wine and $1.2 billion in food and vegetable exports. Tariffs on beef exports to Trans-Pacific Partnership countries will be eliminated with the exception only of Japan where tariffs will reduce from 38.5 percent to 9 percent. Tariffs on all other primary sector exports except some dairy products will be eliminated completely including fruit and vegetables sheepmeat forestry products seafood and wine. By 2030 the overall benefit of Trans-Pacific Partnership to New Zealand is conservatively estimated to be at least $2.7 billion a year and it is likely to be much better than that given our track record of exceeding the predictions of the China free-trade agreement.Fletcher Tabuteau: What will individual Kiwi dairy farmers in the regions expect to receive between 2038 and 2048 from the US when—if—it finally possibly axes tariffs on milk powder and a line of cheese?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government is being quite open that we did not get all we wanted from dairy but dairy benefits are $102 million in terms of $260 million of tariff reductions which is the largest single beneficiary. As we have seen it is not even so much the tariff reductions even though that is good; what is really the benefit is the increase in trade that occurs as those tariffs drop. That is what we have seen in China that is what we will see in the Trans-Pacific Partnership and I invite New Zealand First to continue to argue against the benefits of the Trans-Pacific Partnership for regional New Zealand.Sarah Dowie: Why are free trade and international linkages important for regional New Zealand?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As a small country located at the bottom of the world to grow our economy it is critical that we trade with larger countries and that we sell more of our products and services on the world stage. For places like the Bay of Plenty the home of kiwifruit and Zespri which have grown their sales by 16 percent in the last year this is important. For places like Marlborough Hawke’s Bay and Central Otago part of a wine industry that has seen 8 percent annual growth in exports this agreement is important. For dairy provinces like Waikato Southland and Taranaki where tariffs are dropping by $102 million this deal is important. For all parts of regional New Zealand where beef export revenues are up by over a third from the previous year this agreement is important. This is a Government that stands unashamedly in favour of trade access for regional New Zealand as the best way to grow our regional economies for the benefit of New Zealanders.Fletcher Tabuteau: How much will regional New Zealand actually benefit from a 3.25 percent slice of Canada’s dairy industry for example given that that country’s high level of subsidies will continue to undermine our exporters’ efforts?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There will be some benefit from that. There will also be benefit in Mexico benefit in Japan benefit in the US and benefit around the Asia-Pacific region. Again I invite Mr Tabuteau to continue with this line of attack. I invite him to go out to regional New Zealand and run these arguments and see what short shrift he gets.Fletcher Tabuteau: Can the Minister confirm that Kiwi beef farmers will benefit more from the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement or actually more from a free-trade agreement with Russia given the US Department of Agriculture says that Russia could fall 40 percent short of meeting its own beef needs in complete contrast to the Trans-Pacific Partnership markets?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is free to argue for a free-trade deal with Russia ahead of one with the Trans-Pacific Partnership ahead of one with China ahead of one with I do not know the EU—wherever he likes. But actually this agreement marks a red-letter day for New Zealand. It will supply access to the beef markets for example in Mexico which we have been shut out of and in Japan. The member can decry it all he likes and suggest that we should do something else instead but most New Zealanders particularly in regional New Zealand know the benefits that this agreement will bring.Fletcher Tabuteau: Would Mr Joyce not have more credibility selling coal to Newcastle—Mr SPEAKER: Order! A question worded in that way is quite out of order. Question No. 8 Fletcher Tabuteau.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is it beyond the Standing Orders to question the credibility of a Minister at question time now because that is the effect of your warning?Mr SPEAKER: The member has been here a long time and it is certainly out of order to in any way accuse a member of not telling the truth. [Interruption] Order! Iain Lees-Galloway if he carries on like that will be leaving the Chamber. That is the way I took that question. [Interruption] Order! I felt that question was out of order. I have ruled it out of order. I will look at it again later on today. If I have made a mistake I apologise but a question like that is not in line with the Standing Orders. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Question—[Interruption] No. Order! All members will resume their seats—all members resume their seats. I have made a ruling and that is the end of that matter. If any member wishes to raise a fresh point of order I am only too happy to hear from them but—[Interruption] Order! I have not finished. If I interpret their point of order as in any way relitigating what I have just ruled on then that member who raises the point of order will immediately be leaving the Chamber.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I simply ask that the same standard that you have just made very clear—about questioning members telling the truth or whatever in questions—is also applied to the answers as well because we have had several examples today where Ministers have questioned the truth telling of those asking the questions. It cannot be one way or the other; it has to be for both.Mr SPEAKER: I will do my best. Further points of order?Ron Mark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Do you think you could find it within yourself to allow the member to rephrase his question?Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I will allow the member to rephrase that question and I will allow it.Fletcher Tabuteau: Thank you very much. Would it be of more benefit to the country in terms of credibility for the country to sell coal to Newcastle rather than claiming the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be of benefit to New Zealand forestry especially when it comes to the dominant Canadian and US markets?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This particular agreement provides benefits to a whole range of industries and the benefits occur in different countries. What I can tell the member is that this agreement in terms of tariff reductions is roughly double the impact of the China free-trade agreement which has been hugely positive for New Zealand and will continue to be so and the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement will continue to be so—[Interruption] Again the member is welcome to argue against it but the benefits to regional New Zealand whether it is in forestry wine kiwifruit meat or dairying are clear to everybody except Mr Tabuteau.