8. Trade China—Retaliatory Export RestrictionsDr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of TradeTrade China—Retaliatory Export Restrictions8. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Trade: On what date was he or his office first informed of the possible trade retaliation" that triggered engagement at "various levels of Government" with China and when were the Prime Minister his office and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet first informed?Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Trade): As I have already said publicly I first learnt of concerns and allegations in late May. The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) was copied in to some reports subsequently that related to this issue. On 15 July the Prime Minister's office was made aware of issues to be raised in a media story that weekend and the Prime Minister was briefed on a possible specific company concern or threat on 18 July in Jakarta. The Prime Minister was further informed on 25 July that there had been earlier discussions and limited correspondence.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate the detail of the answer that the Minister gave. I did just wonder whether you can reflect on a question on notice—several hours' notice—that the Minister gave us only in "late May". He did not give us a date. He was able to give dates for all of the other parts of the question for which we are grateful but he did not answer the first part on the date that he was first informed.Mr SPEAKER: That is reasonable. If the Minister has the actual date that he was first aware of the issue that would be helpful. He certainly gave dates for the DPMC the Prime Minister's office and the Prime Minister quite specifically. If we could have that it would be helpful.Hon TODD McCLAY: On or around 25 May.Dr David Clark: Is he saying the Prime Minister is wrong when he said he first knew about possible reprisals on 21 July?Hon TODD McCLAY: No. As I have already said publicly I should have provided the Prime Minister with a fuller account of the issues and I have offered an apology to him for that. In terms of any potential threat to our trade let me assure the House that this issue has been taken very seriously. Every time there was a suggestion of a rumour or a threat to our trade I have sought and received assurances from the Chinese Government that any concerns around retaliatory action were unfounded. Dr David Clark: What prompted the discussions at various levels of Government in May?Hon TODD McCLAY: In broad terms the engagement relates to both Governments explaining their positions clarifying legislation and other requirements around trade remedy issues or New Zealand's officials seeking assurances in the event of suggestions or rumours of possible trade retaliation being brought to our attention. However there are limits in what detail I can provide given the legislative constraints around the reporting of competition complaints that are not yet under investigation.Dr David Clark: Why did he say that the contact from Zespri to the New Zealand Embassy in China on 8 July was the first time a concern was raised about possible trade retaliation when in fact discussions had been taking place since May?Hon TODD McCLAY: In relation to a company-specific concern my statement was as understood and was correct. However I repeat again that as a result of legislation there are things that we are not able to speak about when it comes to competition issues.Dr David Clark: Why did he say on the weekend of 17 July that he knew nothing about possible trade retaliation concerns when he was briefed on concerns when in China in the previous week for a meeting with Minister Gao?Hon TODD McCLAY: In respect of that I accept I should have sought a fuller briefing and provided additional information to the Prime Minister and I have apologised to him for that."