Curran Clare: Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCurran Clare: 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.]CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Speaking in the Committee stage of this bill I certainly agree with my colleague David Shearer that we need to keep this discussion in perspective. The three main comments that I would like to frame my first contribution around in the Committee stage on this bill are first of all to acknowledge that there were concerns—and they were the concerns of the submitters—and that there were genuinely held concerns. I also acknowledge the concerns being expressed by other Opposition parties in the Committee tonight. Concerns from submitters included those of the New Zealand Medical Association the Council of Trade Unions and academics. Those concerns did focus on the loss of sovereignty especially in relation to investment rules and the investor-State dispute settlement clause in this agreement.The one point that I would make on that although there are other issues that I want to canvass tonight is that this is a bilateral agreement but the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is a multilateral agreement with a lot of other players where those issues become much much more important. That is an important point to make. I think that during my previous contribution on this bill I made the point that Labour will not blindly support free-trade agreements as this Government seems to do but we also will not blindly oppose them. What this party has previously done in Government is negotiate good free-trade agreements and point out the flaws if necessary where we oppose them.I want to reference an article in the Australian Financial Review of last Thursday which was the day after the new Australian Prime Minister appeared on the scene. Our Prime Minister John Key was interviewed by the Australian Financial Review. It was in reference to the Chinese free-trade agreement that has been negotiated over there. Mr Key waxed lyrical on this and said that although he thought that Australia should sign an agreement it would be in New Zealand’s competitive interests if it faltered. He said that the benefits of the New Zealand trade deal with China were greatly understated before it was signed in 2008. He said: “I am a massive proponent of free trade and the benefits of our free-trade agreement have been 11 times greater than the most optimistic estimates.” He went on and on. I would just like to point out that that agreement was negotiated by Labour and by Labour’s then Minister of Trade Phil Goff. That is an important to point to make—that it was a Labour Government that negotiated the Chinese free-trade agreement and that Labour is sensible about free-trade agreements and in its approach to free-trade agreements.There are problems with this bill. We do believe that there has been a botch-up around future Governments being able to introduce for example legislation relating to stamp duty on the purchase of land by foreign buyers. We however do say to the Greens that they are not right in saying in their argument that this free-trade agreement prevents us from banning in the future the sale of land through the Chinese free-trade agreement.One of the other points I want to make is around the lack of engagement with civil society. Something that this Government needs to learn is that if you do not engage with civil society effectively and properly during these processes then you are buying a fight and you are buying into a set of circumstances that is unnecessary. It creates consternation throughout the land. It can be dealt with in a much more trustworthy way that involves transparency and honesty and bringing along with you groups that can understand what it is that is being negotiated and why rather than having them feeling as if they are being cut out of the process.That is why Labour has clearly set down those five bottom lines which we consider to be the most important when negotiating free-trade agreements and that our support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreementis contingent on. Those are that Pharmac must be protected corporations cannot successfully sue the Government for regulating in the public interest New Zealand maintains the right to restrict sales of farmland and housing to non-resident foreign buyers the Treaty of Waitangi must be upheld and meaningful gains are made for our farmers in tariff reductions and market access.I also want to turn to a provision in the Korean free-trade agreement that is before us tonight. It is around audiovisual co-productions. That seems like a sensible and interesting and good thing for New Zealand around the ability for there to be more uniformity internationally among film and television co-production agreements. New Zealand already has a number of co-production agreements or arrangements with other countries. We have got them with Australia Canada Denmark France the United Kingdom Germany Singapore Italy Spain Ireland India South Africa and China—for feature films only—and Chinese Taipei. Since 1988 there have been 60 official co-production projects under these agreements. So there is potential for there to be greater arrangements with Korea around co-productions for audiovisual productions.What I want to say is that we have got to be able to look after our own export industries and we have to be encouraging them in order for there to be trade happening. One of the concerns that I have got is around the lack of care and knowledge and investment in parts of our information and communications technology industry and particularly around the video-gaming industry. This is one of the fastest-growing parts of our economy with $78.7 million in revenue. Last year 83 percent of that was digital exports which is incredibly high. There are high-value jobs but there is very little investment inside New Zealand into that industry.My question to the Minister in the chair during the Committee stage is whether with this audiovisual co-production part of the bill before us tonight the video-gaming industry is considered to be part of that. If so should it then be eligible for the 20 percent rebate on visual effects productions completed in New Zealand under the Postproduction Digital and Visual Effects scheme which is the scheme that our movie industry is entitled to seek rebates on? The creative industries of which video gaming is one are one of the fastest-growing parts of our economy. Are they considered to be part of this part of the free-trade agreement? Are we considering that as being an important part of our economy that we should be encouraging co-productions on? If not why are we not encouraging more growth behind our own borders? Why are we not giving that part of our economy access to a rebate? I would like to hear from the Minister on that.