Woods MeganDr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my joy to take this slot just before the dinner break.Grant Robertson: Drive time.Dr MEGAN WOODS: Drive time as you say Mr Robertson. It is nice to see that the Government benches have realised what we have long known about the Hon Annette King. She is a force of nature. We have these staunch proponents of trade who are all firmly glued to their seats unwilling to take a call in this Committee stage to debate this very important piece of legislation that we are told over and over again by Government members is so critical and so good. But obviously the powers of the Hon Annette King have persuaded them all there.As has been said by the previous speakers Labour cannot support the ratification of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA) through this bill that we are here debating today because the bill's passage through this Parliament facilitates the final ratification of the agreement. As my colleagues Grant Robertson and the Hon Annette King have talked about what we have in this is an omnibus bill that puts together a lot of small changes—some of them not so small—but in and of itself there is a broader issue that does need to be discussed. I do want to look at some of those broader issues but also in the course of this contribution I want to have a look specifically at clauses 66 to 70 in Part 7 of this legislation: Amendments to Overseas Investment Act 2005". I more specifically want to have a look at what this is not covering what these clauses from 66 to 70 do not cover because I think by and large that is of a great interest to this Committee as well. What we have said time and time again is that Labour is a party that supports free trade when it is about trade.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Dr MEGAN WOODS: It is always a pleasure to take a call split by the dinner break. When we last tuned in I was outlining how Labour had always been a party that supported free trade but what we have in front of us today is not about trade. What we have in front of us is some enabling legislation for something that goes much broader than that. My colleagues before the dinner break have touched on several of Labour's concerns and objections to this legislation. Before the dinner break Hon Annette King was talking about our concerns in regard to Pharmac as well as other areas and the ability of New Zealand to have the kind of health system that we want to have with the kinds of expansions put around patents under this and in particular our ability to be able to afford the next generation biologic drugs that we will need. We have already seen that we are starting to need these in our country. One of the things that has also stood at the centre of Labour's inability to support this agreement and the subsequent legislation that we are here debating today is that when you looked at it the case just did not stack up. We were sold by Minister Groser when he was going off to negotiate this on what a huge benefit to New Zealand this was going to be. But when the national interest analysis that accompanied this treaty came back we saw in stark reality what it did mean. Was it going to be the huge win for dairy that the Minister said it always had to be or he was going to walk away from this? No it was not that huge win for dairy. Instead we saw very minor gains for dairy. We saw that the increased access not the profit would be the equivalent to the output of only three large dairy farms begs the question why he did not walk away. The gains that were promised simply were not there. But more than there just not being the gains there was an alarming analysis that was undertaken by Tufts University that talked about how it could be that 6000 jobs within New Zealand could actually be lost because of this legislation. So not only would New Zealand be not making the gains that were originally sold to them when people first came to look at the idea of the TPPA but actually some people would be worse off. It is as the Hon Annette King said. When this idea of the TPP first came up there were lots of people who thought "This could be good let's have a look at what it has to offer for New Zealand." But the simple and stark reality is that it just did not pan out. I know that everyone will be remembering before the dinner break that I said that I was specifically going to talk to Part 7 of this legislation and particularly clauses 66 to 70. These are the clauses that amend the Overseas Investment Act 2005. What the bill commentary says is: "Clause 69 would insert new section 61A and provide a regulation-making power to implement alternative investment screening thresholds for overseas investments in significant business assets. Under the Agreement and under the most-favoured nation obligations in certain international agreements listed in new section 61A the threshold above which an overseas person must get approval to invest in significant business assets in New Zealand must increase from $100 million to $200 million for non-government investors from parties to those agreements." I could go on but I will not in terms of reading from the description. What is contained in these clauses 66 to 70 is that the Government did not stand up for New Zealand and Tim Groser did not stand up for New Zealand when he was off doing the hard negotiations around this. When he came back he said that we simply could not put in the protections so that we would not lose the ability to restrict the sale to foreign investors of our homes our farms and our businesses. He said that it could not be done—simply could not be done. The reality that New Zealanders have to face is that our Government did not fight for us in the way that other Governments fought for their countries. So when Tim Groser said that one could not do it well other countries did. Other countries did exactly that. Australia did that and Singapore did that. Other countries got agreement that there would be the ability to put those kinds of restrictions in place. But where in clauses 66 to 70 is there the evidence that our Government stood up for us as New Zealanders when they were negotiating this agreement? It is nowhere. That is the answer to that. It simply is not in that because that is not something that this Government was interested in doing. It should have stood up for New Zealanders and they simply did not. Minister Groser said that it simply could not be renegotiated but we have people around the world now saying it could be. So there are a number of issues that have been brought up around this and Grant Robertson brought up a point of order at the beginning of this debate around the clause that is actually dependent on something that we do not know that it is going to happen. We wait with bated breath to find out whether or not that is indeed in order because we are all going to be glued to our sets tomorrow to find out what the outcome in the States is. But the reality is that both candidates in the US presidential election have said they are not in favour of this agreement. So why is it that New Zealand is steamrolling ahead putting in place this enabling legislation for a treaty that we do not even know is going to pass the threshold? If the United States is not going to come to the party on it then it is a dead duck itself. It will not get over the line. So I would like to hear from the Minister in the chair exactly why it is that we are pushing ahead at the pace we are when we do not know the context that we are going to be dealing with and whether it is even going to be required. When we look at this Trans-Pacific Partnership we can see the Government has promised so much from it but what we are seeing here today is a Government that now just wants to be quiet at every turn around it. Government members tell us that it is going to be the boon for business. They have small businesses telling them that they are not in favour of it. Just over a third of small businesses actually want to see the Trans-Pacific Partnership enacted. The rhetoric simply has not stacked up with the reality and with the analyses. This is why Labour a party that does back genuine free trade where it can be shown to have a benefit to New Zealanders is unable to support this legislation which would be the enabling legislation for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. That is something that we will stand by and stand up for New Zealanders on."