Martin Tracey: Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: 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.]TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Chair. I want to just take a short call. I happened to sit in on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee when the negotiators came to brief the select committee on the workings of the Korean free-trade agreement which the Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill will enact—will enable. I want to stand and support Fletcher Tabuteau’s contribution with regard to New Zealand First’s position. I acknowledge the contribution by Mr Shearer. It is a trade agreement and it comes down to what you are prepared to trade off to gain access to a market.What was most interesting to me when the negotiators were there giving us a briefing at that select committee—I asked them a very direct question. I asked them what Korea had asked for because as Mr Shearer just pointed out there are an awful lot of bits and pieces that New Zealand will see go into the South Korean markets but as Mr Shearer—he put a figure of $4.-something million as compared with $200-something million for New Zealand. I asked the negotiators what it was that Korea had asked for seeing as they got virtually nothing out of it. They got nothing compared with what New Zealand had been able to gain. The single thing they asked for was an investor-State dispute settlement clause. You have to ask yourself why would a nation when we are 41st in their list of trading partners—we are not important to them necessarily no matter how important they might be to us—ask for one single thing? They asked for an investor-State dispute settlement clause and then they gave us all these other little bits and pieces.How can other members of this Parliament stand up and say that this bill which enacts that agreement has no effect—that trade agreement would have no effect—when Korea obviously sees the investor-State dispute settlement clause as vitally important? It is the single thing they asked for. I understand completely why Labour members stand up to support this agreement because they could not argue not to. They placed an investor-State dispute settlement clause inside the China free-trade agreement and that agreement will be updated upon the application of this one. Upon the passing of the bill and the application of the Korean free-trade agreement the China free-trade agreement will then be updated. Although we have had no problems at this stage with the investor-State dispute settlement clause inside the China free-trade agreement now this one updates it. It updates the China agreement under the most favoured nation status.So those things are important. Those are the reasons why this is what New Zealand First is standing for. Dr Reti may say that 356 cases have been taken to international courts under the investor-State dispute settlement clause and only—we are not sure where they get their numbers from—25 percent were won by the people taking those cases but how much money was spent defending them? How much money was spent by nations defending themselves and their own laws and their ability to make their own laws in their own nations let alone whether they win or not? How much did it cost? Because that is the point—that is the point. That is why New Zealand First will not support this bill. We will not support a bill that enacts a trade agreement that has an investor-State dispute settlement clause.The fact that Labour members stand and support such a bill while at the same time carrying placards up and down streets against the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement boggles the mind. How is that possible? How can the Labour Party stand and say that they are against one thing because of an investor-State dispute settlement provision and at the same time support this bill which will enact the Korean free-trade agreement and will update the China free-trade agreement? So I hope that in this contribution I have made it very clear why New Zealand First—Jami-Lee Ross: They’re not irresponsible like New Zealand First.TRACEY MARTIN: —will stand against this bill because what you trade off is just as important as what you trade for Mr Jami-Lee Ross. It is a basic premise of accounting. It is the basic premise of accounting: what are you giving away for what you gain? From our perspective this Government supported by the Labour Party is actually giving away more than New Zealand can afford in the future for a few crumbs from Korea and from China. Kia ora.