Cunliffe David: Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCunliffe David: Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6839. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): It is a pleasure to take a further call or if you will permit me Mr Chairman two calls to try to round off some of the arguments on this very important piece of legislation. I wish to touch on the arguments that have been raised by the Green Party and several arguments that have been raised by the New Zealand First Party and to revisit a couple of points that I made in my earlier intervention in respect of investment and investor-State dispute settlement issues.Firstly the argument from Steffan Browning the member who has just resumed his seat seems to be that a deal that is not perfect is by definition neither fair nor free. It is I guess axiomatic or inevitable that in any trade negotiation neither side can get 100 percent of what it wants. There must always be some concession to the other side because both sides have got things they want from the other so there must be some process of trading.I was privileged some years ago to visit Korea three times and I have always enjoyed the sense of enterprise in that country. It has been very clear that the Korean Government made a decision that Korea was going to become a technology power and it was going to move its economy upmarket with higher levels of knowledge and technology. So we have Hyundai Samsung Kia and many other leading global brands that are either sophisticated industrials or technology leaders. Having made that decision it became clear I believe to the Korean Government that it was to its advantage to lower the costs of some of its input materials including soft commodities from New Zealand and our government—with a small “g”—across successive parties in power has encouraged the Republic of Korea in that direction. From that understanding this trade negotiation was born.Did we get 100 percent? No but we went into this negotiation with fewer tariffs up there to start with and so given that Korea is reducing its tariffs by more it is not unexpected that it may take a little longer. So I disagree with our Green colleagues. I do not necessarily think that that means it is a bad deal. It is a deal worth having and I said earlier the national interest analysis is specific enough to make that clear on the facts and on the numbers.I would further like to say that it is easy for us politicians to call into question a negotiation of which we have not personally been part. Whoever is in power I think there is a degree to which we have to rely on our professional negotiators to do the job that they are expert in. Several colleagues in this Chamber—Kennedy Graham Grant Robertson and myself—have all had direct experience in those roles. I do want to acknowledge officials who are here. It is probably not appropriate to mention them by name but I am severely tempted. I will I think note the presence of Mr Martin Harvey who I think played a key role in these negotiations and in my experience is a very able official indeed.I am not prepared to say that this agreement was not a good deal. I think it was a very reasonable deal to have struck. However—and it is a big “however”—it does raise two important issues of principle and precedent that as I mentioned earlier are germane to us as we conclude a broader and more complex negotiation around the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.Let me turn firstly to the investment issue. It is common ground that the Australian Government probably has a more robust position in respect of preventing or restricting non-resident foreign purchases from Korea of domestic real estate. Australia has both a stamp duty and restrictions as to quantum and process. We do not have that and there is—I think it is common ground—at best ambiguity around how this agreement deals with that problem.I would like to acknowledge Minister Groser who spoke earlier for turning his mind and his comments to that matter. It is possible based on his take on it that having reached the position that we are in the Government believes that it is in a position to impose restrictions at least in theory and a more mechanical solution would not be in our interests in respect of other trade agreements. We hear that argument but we do believe and I think my colleague Jenny Salesa has expressed it very eloquently that there are substantial—