Bennett David: Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBennett David: Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 12 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:11077. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement is a trade agreement and today we are hearing a number of excuses from the left around why they will not support the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill through the House. We have heard from the Labour Party members that they do not believe that they will support this agreement because they want a ban on the ability of foreign buyers to buy land and property in New Zealand. The Labour Party members never went into the negotiations with this agreement when they talked to the Government and to the Minister seeking a ban. All they wanted was a restriction on the ability of foreign buyers to buy land and property and that is what the agreement provides.The Labour Party members have conveniently come to this stage of debate in the House and asked for a different requirement now to enable them to have the ability to not support this bill through the House. That is pure politics being played by the Labour Party members. They have changed the wording to enable them to have the ability to pull out of supporting this agreement. It goes against the history of this Parliament; it goes against the history of that party. Labour signed the Chinese free-trade agreement. Did it put “ban” in there? No and if it is saying that banning was its policy for ever and a day why did it not put that in the agreement? Why did it not require that in the Korean agreement?No that is not what the requirement of Labour is. It is a convenient excuse used by the Labour Party members to try to weasel their way out of supporting something that they think is against the public opinion. I can tell you why the Labour Party members are doing that. It is because the party is captured by the union movement—it always has been and it always will be—and they are representing the far left of that party. It is a shame that the members of that party who have got an interest in trade—members of that party like Phil Goff David Shearer and Stuart Nash who is sitting here today—do not have speaking rights in this debate on this bill when they have sat through hours of submissions on this bill. The reason is that the Labour Party has told David Shearer and Phil Goff not to come into the House today. They have been told not to be here—Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The current speaker is reflecting upon the absence from the House of various Labour members and he should not be doing so.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): That is a very good point. I will ask the member to confine his comments to the first reading speech. You cannot refer to members who are not present in the House.DAVID BENNETT: OK. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker.We look at the New Zealand First Party. Well we know that the New Zealand First Party is just against trade. It is just against any links with the real world. The New Zealand First Party wants to take us back to the 1950s. It is the “Don Trump Party” of New Zealand politics. It does not believe in having any connection with the world and especially the Asia-Pacific region which we live in. The New Zealand First Party is totally against that and that is why it is against this bill. It knows that is good for trade but it is against it. I bet you that during the next election campaign the New Zealand First Party will roll through every region in New Zealand saying: “We are there to support farmers. We are there to support farmers.” Well I say to every farmer who is listening to this over the next year: remember who voted against giving you farmers access in trade. The New Zealand First Party voted against New Zealand farmers having access to trade.Then we have the Green Party. The Green Party is actually a principled party when it comes to trade—it just does not believe in it. That is fine. That is what the Green Party has always stood by. That is OK. It will never vote for a trade agreement like this. That is fine and its arguments are those that the Green Party members always support. But the Labour Party members have no excuse apart from playing politics today and the New Zealand First Party—it would be very rich of you to go out into the public and try to explain—Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member referred to the Speaker just then in a most disparaging way—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Look I am the judge of relevancy and reflection on the Speaker.DAVID BENNETT: It is a common practice for Opposition members to try—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No—DAVID BENNETT: —to do points of order.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No. There is to be no comment on a ruling that I have made and we shall continue on with the first reading speech.DAVID BENNETT: OK if we look at trade—and the argument basically that the Opposition is putting out there is that trade does not work and that New Zealanders will not benefit from trade. Well let us have a look at some of the benefits New Zealanders have got from previous trade agreements. Australia: 735 percent absolute export growth since the trade agreement. China: 341 percent export growth since the agreement. That is what trade does for New Zealanders. It is what it has done for all New Zealanders over time and it is what it has done for other countries.Sue Moroney: How does it compare with the merits of this one?DAVID BENNETT: How does it compare with America? Well you have got open access to a lot of American markets and if we look at it—Sue Moroney: No with the merits of this one—debate this bill.DAVID BENNETT: OK kiwifruit—open access for kiwifruit. Look at other products that have got open access. Sue Moroney should be supporting the Waikato producers who will actually benefit from this agreement. Thank you.