Curran Clare: Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCurran Clare: Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 24 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:7090. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I certainly agree with the previous speaker Todd Barclay on one point and that is that we certainly cannot generate economic development by buying and selling to ourselves. Therefore our exports and developing our own industries become such an important part—and are such an important part—of our strategy. Unfortunately under this Government the ratio of exports to GDP has fallen to its lowest level since 1997. This Government has failed to meet its own target. It is going backwards and exports are at just 28 percent of GDP on an actual basis down from 32 percent when it came to office. This is I suppose a framing of one of the problems that we have got in this country right now. Labour is speaking in support of this bill because on balance it does meet the tests that a free-trade agreement needs to meet. It is not perfect and I will be mentioning some of the problems that we have with it.One of the problems is that the negotiating skills under this Government in respect of free-trade agreements are certainly not to the high standard of the negotiating skills for the free-trade agreement under the previous Labour Government—the China free-trade agreement being the case in point. [Interruption] Well I rest my point. There is clearly a difference and the difference is the Government. The difference is who is in Government. With regard to our exports we certainly have work to do and we have work to do if we are going to be taking advantage of these agreements and actually ensuring that we are investing in our industries and making sure that there are exports to sell. I will be talking a bit more about this in a minute.I just want to make a few points that my colleague Phil Goff made. He was responsible for the negotiation of the China free-trade agreement under the previous Labour Government on which the current Prime Minister waxes lyrical. Mr Goff made the point in his contribution to the Committee stage that the tariffs that apply to Korea are low and he used the examples of washing machines and car tyres—around 5 percent was the figure that he mentioned. He said that the removal of that tariff will not make a huge impact on industry in New Zealand and that is true. But he also described this agreement—and he would know—as not meeting the definition of being high quality and comprehensive. These words were not just his words; he was quoting Russell McVeagh an expert who has said that this agreement will not achieve a result that is similar to that of the China agreement. I can see that the Government has run out of steam and cannot raise an argument around that one—the loser being milk powder in particular where the tariffs remain particularly high.I also want to reference the comments made also in the Committee stage by my colleague Jenny Salesa who is sitting next to me. She referenced her own electorate of Manukau East and it was quite a powerful statement that she made. Manukau East in South Auckland is at the epicentre of a housing crisis of monumental proportions with thousands of young New Zealanders in low to middle income groups basically tenants in their country. This is relevant to the debate—absolutely relevant—and it is relevant to the debate because it goes to one of the problems that Labour has with this bill which is the flaw around loss of sovereignty: our concerns about the controls on the purchase of New Zealand land by overseas buyers which Labour believes is concerning; the impact that this agreement may have on future New Zealand Governments to establish controls on the purchase of New Zealand residential land by overseas buyers; and its ability to bring in a stamp duty on purchases of land by overseas buyers.This is important it is relevant and it goes to the comments made by the Minister at the beginning of the third reading about future discussions in this House on free-trade agreements and the import of those discussions. This is the only time that the Labour Party and Opposition parties get to debate the impact of free-trade agreements—when we get to have an actual piece of legislation in the House before us. Mr Groser referenced thishimself and he said that there is another agreement that is being negotiated at the moment. Of course we all know that that is the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. If there is legislation that comes to the House this will be the only opportunity that the Opposition parties will have to one have a vote and two have an opportunity to have a debate.I would say to Mr Groser that it would be useful if he could actually give an indication to Parliament and to the people of New Zealand of what kind of legislation it is going to be how many pieces of legislation there will be and when New Zealand—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!CLARE CURRAN: —might get the opportunity to learn what the topics are because there has been so much secrecy around this. Mr Assistant Speaker this does go to the bottom lines that the New Zealand Labour Party has in its consideration of free-trade agreements and what the importance of free-trade agreements—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Look we are on a third reading of a bill. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is not part of it. It can be referenced but there are a number of Speakers’ Rulings and let me refer you to Speaker’s Ruling 137/1: “On the third reading of a bill a member cannot discuss—(1) Any matter not included in the clauses of the bill”. So I would just ask the member in the time provided to actually focus on what a third reading is about.CLARE CURRAN: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Given that the Minister himself did reference the future agreements—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I do not want you to comment on the ruling that I have just given. I said that you could reference it and you have. So now just focus in the last couple of minutes on the content of the third reading.CLARE CURRAN: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Well in regard to our concerns around the controls on the purchase of New Zealand land Labour has said quite openly that we believe this part of the agreement was botched and that a side letter should be considered for the New Zealand free-trade agreement with the Republic of Korea in order to clarify the effects of those provisions in the free-trade agreement. That is very relevant to this debate.We accept that this free-trade agreement does on balance substantially reduce the tariffs faced by New Zealand exporters. We accept the genuinely held concerns of submitters—which included the New Zealand Medical Association the Council of Trade Unions and academics—about loss of sovereignty and the concerns around investment rules and investor-State dispute settlement provisions. We absolutely accept that there are concerns about that and we know that there are future trade agreements where those issues will become relevant. Our support for this trade agreement does not mean that there will be support for future agreements if they do not meet the bottom lines of the Labour Party. These are important and include the protection of Pharmac that corporations cannot successfully sue the Government for regulation in the public interest that New Zealand retains its right to restrict the sale of farmland and housing to non-resident foreign buyers that the Treaty of Waitangi must be upheld and that meaningful gains must be made for our farmers with tariff reductions and market access. So far the signs do not look that great.