Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): What a pleasure to follow that experienced member Winston Peters in this House and the view that he's presented with which I greatly concur. He has clearly delivered a lecture to the members on that side of the House reminding them of what their party once stood for but appeared to have sold out on on so many fronts—on so many fronts—over the years.Sadly one of the key things we know about the prior agreement the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as it was was that it was proposed that non-resident foreign buyers could buy out New Zealand's houses for ever—for ever. That was becoming a major problem in New Zealand. That was evident to New Zealanders up and down the country as they saw and met those people at housing auctions who were from overseas who could outbid them every time. That was clear across New Zealand but that prior Government was so out of touch—was so out of touch—with where ordinary New Zealanders were with those New Zealanders who were struggling to afford a home; those New Zealanders who one generation ago would have been able to buy their own home but a generation on were now locked out of the housing market.What we discovered subsequently of course is that the previous trade Minister had not even asked for an exemption in the trade agreement—not even asked. He hadn't even said Could we please have a protection so that in future if it becomes a bigger problem for New Zealand we could place a ban on non-resident foreign speculators operating in this country." No. It had not occurred to him to even ask for it. And what is more even under the old agreement several countries had secured precisely that provision. So other countries had asked for an exemption so that they in future could ban non-resident foreign buyers and they had secured it. But our former trade Minister and that party sitting opposite had decided that was not within their ken; they would not even ask; they were not concerned about the bipartisan nature of the agreement or the future benefits that might be taken away from New Zealanders by those with deeper pockets from overseas buying up all the houses in New Zealand and locking New Zealanders out of the market so that they would become tenants in their own land—that is clear. Fortunately though—fortunately—the Government changed. The Government changed and the Minister David Parker and the foreign Minister Winston Peters were able to negotiate 22 suspensions to the text of the original TPP.Hon Nanaia Mahuta: How many?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Twenty-two suspensions on issues of concern to New Zealanders. From a very difficult starting point they were able to negotiate a far better agreement for New Zealanders—an agreement that will see New Zealanders' protections being retained that would otherwise have been sold down the river by the previous Government. So the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) is a much better agreement for New Zealand than the earlier Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiated by the previous Government.I want to cover a couple of those things in more detail because I was briefly the trade spokesperson when Labour was in Opposition. What we saw was that the Pharmac model was under threat. The Pharmac model was under threat. There were a number of little provisions in there that would have given those drug companies wanting to negotiate more information so they could have leveraged more profit out and put that Pharmac model under pressure. And they know that across the House. They know that to be true and yet they will try to defend the previous model as though it somehow was the perfect protection for the Pharmac model. Well on this side of the House we're proud that we've protected the Pharmac model.We're also proud that we have preserved the Government's inherent right to regulate in the public interest including for the Treaty of Waitangi. As with all of New Zealand's contemporary trade agreements there is a provision in the comprehensive trade agreement that preserves the pre-eminence of the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand. Importantly—very importantly—that right to ban non-resident foreign buyers speculators from the New Zealand housing market and using the Overseas Investment Act is compliant with the new CPTPP. The previous Government of course said banning foreign buyers was impossible even though Australia and Singapore before them had achieved that and signed the CPTPP. National was wrong and we've proven that with this agreement.So that is one of the key things that I think New Zealanders will see. As we are getting reports now that nearly 20 percent of the buyers in the Auckland market are non-resident foreign buyers currently in central Auckland and as we've seen one in 10 of the buyers in the Wakatipu Basin—the two most expensive areas in New Zealand—are non-resident foreign buyers we can see that this problem is becoming a bigger one. It's one that's affecting New Zealanders. I'm told that New Zealanders aged 25 to 40 a generation ago—roughly half of them owned their own home.Hon Ruth Dyson: Well what is it now?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Just one generation ago—and now that number has halved. That number has halved. So in one generation the homeownership rate amongst that age group—where people are having children are trying to set up their lives are needing that stability—has halved in just one generation. The inequality that would have continued to eventuate if those settings were allowed to continue will be stopped by this Government. This Government is determined—absolutely determined—to protect the interests of New Zealanders because we do not want to sell the country out. We want to make sure that we benefit from trade as a country as a whole not just an elite few not just the 1 percent. We don't want to see those people benefit at the expense of ordinary New Zealanders and at the expense of middle New Zealand and those who are harder up. This Government is determined that we share the benefits of trade across our society.Under the last Government interestingly exports as a proportion of the economy dropped from 30 percent down to 27 percent. Exports as a proportion of the economy actually dropped under the previous Government. This Government is determined that we should grow exports because we believe in a productive economy.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This isn't a general debate. Could you come to the topic. Thank you.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Madam Deputy Speaker yes. To come back to the point the impact—the impact—of this particular agreement will see a whole lot more jobs created because we know that exports are the mainstay of so many regions across New Zealand. We know even in the towns and cities that exports are incredibly important but particularly in provincial New Zealand. The export sector sustains more than half a million New Zealand jobs or to put it another way one in four New Zealanders today depends on exports for their livelihoods. That is something that we on this side of the House value and want to grow. We want to grow exports. We want to see regions grow. We want to see our economy grow and that's what we believe. That's why the Labour Party has always supported trade agreements. The TPP was the first one that we actually raised resistance to because we could see it was going down the wrong track.But we've been able to bring it right and when Mr Brownlee rises to his feet he'll acknowledge that this is a different agreement to the previous agreement. He'll acknowledge that those 22 suspensions in the text in the original TPP do address the concerns of New Zealanders because he's a man of courage and intellectual confidence. He will explain to New Zealanders that that is in fact true that the areas of investment intellectual property and health—which would have otherwise faced restrictions—because of the interventions of the current Government will lead to a better outcome for New Zealanders.The investor-State dispute settlement provisions have been wound back where it suits the partner countries to do that. The Pharmac purchasing model remains protected where it would have been sold away under the previous Government's agreement. And we are preserving the Government's inherent right to regulate in the public interest. This is a Government that is concerned to preserve New Zealanders' sovereignty and to make sure that we don't bring distortionary effects into our housing market. We can't get rich by selling houses to one another. That is not a road to prosperity. It's not a road to prosperity to get to the point where we can't even afford to buy the houses from one another—where the overseas foreign speculators with deeper pockets come in to buy out their housing stock and make us tenants in our own land.So this Government is putting a stop to that. We are going to ban foreign buyers. We are going to do what other countries have done around the world. We're going to see more than $1.2 billion worth of GDP increase—$1.2 billion worth of GDP increase—perhaps up to $4 billion in some of the modelling. We are progressive we believe in trade but we believe in sharing the benefits of trade across the whole population not just the 1 percent. We don't just represent the 1 percent the really elite well-off ones who benefit from trade agreements that don't protect the interests of ordinary New Zealanders. On this side of the House we believe in making sure that prosperity is shared that we have social prosperity economic prosperity where every New Zealander has an opportunity to gain from trade agreements not where they're locked out of the housing market by non-resident foreign buyers.Their track record is terrible. Regarding GDP and growth exports as a proportion of GDP dropped under their watch from 30 percent down to 27 percent. That's actually a 10 percent drop under their watch. We intend to grow GDP. We intend to share the results of that prosperity and protect New Zealanders' interests."