Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 11 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:15755. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) to thePrime Minister: Did he ask Prime Minister Tony Abbott to take any action against the supermarket ban on New Zealand products and unfair treatment of New Zealanders living in Australia; if so what did he ask for?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. I took the opportunity to raise with Prime Minister Abbott the issue of Australia’s two biggest supermarkets procuring products for their home brands from Australian sources only. I told Prime Minister Abbott that although this practice might be legally consistent with CER I did not think it was consistent with the spirit of the agreement. We agreed that New Zealand firms that have specific concerns should make submissions to Australia’s competition watchdog the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and those with wider concerns should engage with the Australian competition policy review. I also raised with Prime Minister Abbott the issue of New Zealanders living in Australia. We want to see New Zealanders treated fairly in Australia. We also recognise that it is up to the Australian Government as to how it sets its policies. I will virtually guarantee for the House that that is consistent with what Phil Goff thinks and when I have an opportunity in a few moments I will read out the very paper he penned on the topic in 2001. I cannot wait. Please fire away with the supplementary questions.Hon Phil Goff: Hold your breath Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister—[Interruption] When you are ready. When the Prime Minister has just said that the ban imposed by Australian supermarket monopolies on New Zealand goods is consistent with the letter of CER how does he reconcile that statement with article 1(c) of the CER agreement which sets the objective “to eliminate barriers to trade between Australia and New Zealand” and article 1(d) which says that the objective of CER is “to develop trade between New Zealand and Australia under conditions of fair competition” and did he actually ask Tony Abbott to honour that agreement?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: For a start-off they are actually not in Australia banning New Zealand products. What they are choosing to do is buy from Australian suppliers for their home brands which is exactly what they are doing in New Zealand. I really wish the member was right. If he was right then of course the Government would be able to resolve that issue.Hon Phil Goff: When the Prime Minister denies that the action by the supermarket monopolies was to ban New Zealand goods how does he reconcile that statement with the fact that the supermarkets have stated that they will not even accept bids from New Zealand producers because they are New Zealand producers?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What the Australian supermarkets are doing in relation to their home brands is buying from Australian suppliers. That is also consistent with what ishappening in New Zealand. I happen to agree with the member that the Australian supermarkets should not do that. As I said yesterday they should buy from Australasia. I am pretty sure that if the member wants to come and get a briefing he might find that it is unfortunately—and I say “unfortunately”—unlikely to be a breach of CER.Hon Phil Goff: In order to promote a resolution of this dispute rather than saying that he cannot do anything will the Prime Minister use article 22(2) of the Closer Economic Relations agreement which is designed to deal with the situation where “the achievement of any objective of this Agreement is being or may be frustrated”; if he will not use article 22(2) why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government has actually made it clear that it has looked at the matter taken advice on the matter and would progress whatever we could in relation to the matter. I wish the member was right. Unfortunately the advice is that the member is wrong.Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As you recall my question was very specific: will he use article 22(2)? If he does not know what it is fine he can say that—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister has addressed the question that was asked by the member.Louise Upston: What reports if any has he seen regarding the previous Labour Government’s support of the 2001 bilateral agreement?Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not know what responsibility the Prime Minister has for the actions of the former Labour Government.Mr SPEAKER: Yes but the question was not that; the question was “What reports has the Prime Minister received?”. I will listen to the question again.Louise Upston: What reports if any has he seen regarding support for the 2001 bilateral agreement?Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The offence with that question is that it has nothing to do with the question Mr Goff asked—question No. 9—or any of his supplementary questions. It is a totally different matter.Mr SPEAKER: No I do not agree with the Rt Hon Winston Peters. The question is certainly relevant to the primary question and I see no reason why it cannot be answered by the Prime Minister.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes I have seen a paper written by the Hon Phil Goff when he was the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Clearly the leader of the Labour Party—the current leader because it changes—has not seen it. He said the following things—and let us just go through a few. He acknowledged that Australia had the right to determine for itself what additional benefits it would make available to migrant New Zealanders. He said: “The new arrangements remove a significant and long standing irritant from our most important bilateral relationship. The new arrangement preserves New Zealanders and Australians’ ability to enter live and work in each other’s country under the Trans Tasman … relationship.” He said that “It was clear to this government that we needed some sort of circuit breaker. … We looked for a fresh approach that would contain the New Zealand taxpayers’ fiscal obligation”—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! That answer is long enough but for the benefit of Mr Robertson I will determine that. I appreciate the member’s assistance.Rt Hon John Key: I seek leave to tableThe Trans-Tasman Relationship: A New Zealand Perspective 2001 from Phil Goff so that Mr Cunliffe can read it.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That has been satisfactorily explained. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.