Robertson Grant: Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: 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.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call on this Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill. I want to start by picking up a point that the Minister of Trade Tim Groser made when he was in the chair earlier on in the debate. He was I guess raising the concern that Phil Goff raised in his earlier contribution as well which is that although this is an agreement that the Labour Party supports and it is an agreement that undoubtedly has benefits for New Zealand it does not in the language Phil Goff used meet the test for a high-quality and comprehensive trade agreement. The Minister was—although supporting the agreement—also reflecting that in his contribution when he bemoaned the fact that when we look at the agreements like the one that New Zealand has with China and also the one with Taiwan we see agreements that although not perfect are closer to that ideal of a high-quality and comprehensive agreement.The Minister posed the question as to why it was that an agreement such as this one with the Republic of Korea had not reached those heights. He was suggesting that it was because we were following on from larger countries in our negotiations with the Republic of Korea. He did not name them—he was actually quite careful not to name them—but it is in the national interest analysis so I am not going to be creating a diplomatic incident by noting that it was Australia and the United States and others we were following on from. Mr Groser said it was a paradox of trade negotiations. I would suggest that this is a major issue for us as we look ahead to what happens for New Zealand in the negotiation of trade agreements. We were certainly fortunate at getting in first as it were with China. It meant that we were able to put the imprint of New Zealand trade negotiations on that agreement. I see in the agreement that we are dealing with today that we see elements of that New Zealand style. So the fact that there are side agreements on labour and the environment—very good side agreements on labour and the environment which are part of this deal—is a sign of the New Zealand way of saying that it is about market access and it is about access for our providers of services but it is also about the issues that sit around the outside of that: how we treat workers in our workplace what role we give to environmental standards in the way that we go about the businesses and industries that become the exporters that sell into these markets.So I think New Zealand has a way of doing those sorts of negotiations that I think helps create good quality agreements but it is a major issue for us—and I know the Chair will not want me to talk at any length about the Trans-Pacific Partnership—as we enter into these larger multilateral or plurilateral agreements that we ensure that their quality remains high. I think from a New Zealand point of view—particularly for instance if we look at an agreement with the European Union which is certainly one that we want to see happen—that we take into those negotiations the spirit of the way New Zealand does these agreements rather than allowing ourselves to follow on from where there are different kinds of interests at play. Ultimately let us be honest when the United States enters into a free-trade agreement discussion there are all kinds of interests at play in the background which is different from the I guess “New Zealand Inc.” approach that New Zealand takes to these things. So I do not have an answer for the paradox that Mr Groser has posed but what I know is that for New Zealand if we behave in a New Zealand way take a “New Zealand Inc.” approach and have that broader set of issues built around our agreements that helps to build higher-quality agreements.Ultimately we know that for New Zealand a large-scale global multilateral agreement is what would be the best thing but we are miles away from that. So then we go looking for regional agreements because that is the next step down. We are seeing with the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement how difficult that is. So bilateral agreements—high-quality comprehensive ones—are going to be significant and important for New Zealand and we should continue to support those. Mr Chair I want to pick up two or three things and if you are gracious enough to give me another call after this one I will get through them all. But one of the things I want to do is pick up the question of land sales and note the Labour Party’s concern which was driven by advice that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee got about whether or not new categories of land could be added to the existing restrictions on the sale of farms and other sensitive land. This is not just about the fact that the Labour Party happens to believe that we should be as my colleague Jenny Salesa just talked about—