Ross Jami-Lee: Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoss Jami-Lee: Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4421. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): As the House continues to debate this bill which will help to implement many of the aspects of this free-trade agreement I would just like to acknowledge the ladies and gentlemen in the gallery who were part of the team leading the negotiations on this free-trade agreement. Martin with his able assistant—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!JAMI-LEE ROSS: Mr Assistant Speaker it is worthwhile acknowledging the hard work—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The officials rather than their presence because that is inviting problems.JAMI-LEE ROSS: OK the officials. I am trying to do something good. [Interruption] You would have made a good hall monitor Mr Assistant Speaker. I will start again. I wish to acknowledge the excellent work of the officials who have helped to ensure that this free-trade agreement has been through the many stages of negotiations that have led to us now in this House debating a bill that will lead to the removal of many of the tariffs associated with goods and services to do with trade with Korea. Minister Tim Groser has also been a passionate advocate for free trade throughout his whole career and now it must be one of the highlights of his career to be able to stand as a Minister in this Government announcing the removal of tariffs and putting free-trade agreements through this Parliament. He is done an excellent job too and it is worthwhile acknowledging that.Korea is our sixth-largest export destination. There is about $4 billion worth of two-way trade between our countries. Free-trade agreements like the free-trade agreement between Korea and New Zealand lead to better trade conditions for New Zealanders. They lead to better trade conditions for companies particularly those that are exporting to countries that we have free-trade agreements with. They are able to lift the number of products they are exporting and that is a good thing for this country. We have heard some debate so far in this House from different parties. We had quite a bit of debate in the select committee when the committee considered the free-trade agreement. I have to say it is good to have the Labour Party and the National Party agreeing on something for once in this House. Quite often we are at loggerheads on issues. But I have to say that sitting on a select committee with the likes of Phil Goff and David Shearer who have a huge amount of understanding knowledge and wisdom when it comes to trade matters—as a younger member of Parliament it is always good to learn from older gentlemen and the experienced ones on the committee.I think it is worth acknowledging that this trade agreement follows on from a number of trade agreements that have been hugely beneficial for New Zealand—most notably the China free-trade agreement that Phil Goff was very much involved with. When we have seen the exports under that agreement going from about $2 billion in 2008 to about $11 billion now we can see the huge growth potential that is there for New Zealand and for the people who wish to export. The reduction in tariffs that is covered under this bill predominantly is around the New Zealand side but we must understand of course that there is about $229 million worth of tariffs that New Zealanders are paying when they are exporting to Korea. The reduction in tariffs is absolutely a good thing for New Zealand.I just want to address a couple of things that we have heard so far in this House. Firstly Julie Anne Genter said it is unfortunate that New Zealanders have not been able to look at this properly or that Parliament has not been able to look at this properly. I have to say that this agreement is going through exactly the same process that every trade agreement goes through. It goes to the select committee for consideration. Submissions were called for from the public. The select committee led by Mark Mitchell conducted thorough hearings on those submissions. It actually helped to form in a significant way our understanding of trade agreements and the Korean free-trade agreement. We were ably assisted by officials whom I am not allowed to name but they also provided good input into this process. It is also worth remembering that since 2008 the ministry has been conducting consultation with those who are interested in trade agreements like this. It is not as if it was secret that there were negotiations under way. The fact that we have been negotiating as a country with Korea has been very open. So let us just knock on the head this rubbish that it is all done in secrecy no one knows about it and that we have not had thorough consideration. The fact we are debating this bill right now is part of that thorough consideration. New Zealanders do get that opportunity.I also want to talk about the investor-State dispute settlement processes because they were a part of the submissions that dominated much of the discussion at the select committee. It is interesting to note that many people have fears around the investor-State dispute settlement provisions. I think those fears are unfounded and they have been hyped up a lot by those who are seeking to try to stop New Zealand being involved in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. But it is worthwhile noting a few facts and figures around that. It is not a new thing for investor-State dispute settlement provisions to be included in our free-trade agreements. We have the China free-trade agreement that has this provision in place. The free-trade agreement between New Zealand and the ASEAN nations and the New Zealand and Malaysia free-trade agreement are all trade agreements where investor-State dispute settlement processes are already in place. Have we ever been challenged as a Government under those provisions? The answer is no. We have a good track record under these provisions.So the next question one might ask themselves is: what is the state of investor-State dispute settlement processes around the world? How many have been challenged? How many nations have been challenged under these provisions? Well the overall number of concluded cases around the world according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development has reached 356. That sounds like a lot of challenges if you just look at that number—356. But then how many actual agreements are in existence that have these provisions in them? The answer to that is 3268 according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Around about 10 percent of trade agreements that have these provisions have led to challenges to the Governments where investors have challenged those Governments. It is actually a relatively small number considering the many many decades that these types of provisions have been in place. New Zealand has not been challenged at all under that. In fact New Zealand has used provisions like this to try to protect our own investments because it is not just a one-way street. It is not a case of these big foreign corporations that are out to get New Zealand coming to this country and challenging us. In fact it actually ensures that our investors are protected as well.The most important point I think that the whole Parliament needs to realise around these provisions is that if we did not include investor-State dispute settlement provisions in our trade agreements we would not have these trade agreements because they are demanded by many nations around the world. If we want to be a global player and if we want to help to reduce the barriers to trade for New Zealand companies wishing to export overseas we have to give positive consideration to these provisions. When we hear the New Zealand First Party and when we hear the Green Party say they are opposed to investor-State dispute settlement provisions and they will not sign up to any free-trade agreement that has investor-State dispute settlement provisions in it they are effectively saying they are opposed to free trade. And when they say they are opposed to free trade they are saying that they are opposed to the reduction in tariffs for New Zealand companies. When they say they are opposed to the reduction in tariffs for New Zealand companies they are saying they are opposed to greater growth. They are also saying they are opposed to more jobs for New Zealanders and they are saying they are opposed to higher wages for New Zealanders.At the end of the day that is what it comes down to. At the end of the day we do not enter into these trade agreements for any other reason than because we want to grow our exports which leads to more jobs which leads to greater growth and higher wages for our citizens. So let us have the Green Party and the New Zealand First Party being honest with the public. Do not go up there and try to whip up anti-sentiment towards the investor-State dispute settlement provisions without actually telling them what you really mean. What they really mean is that they are opposed to our exporters having a better opportunity to export to these countries. They should be out there talking to the dairy industry talking to the kiwifruit industry talking to the meat industry talking to the forestry industry and talking to those industries about how they are opposed to the reduction in tariffs for those industries. The half a billion dollars’ worth of exports in the forestry sector would be impacted. The $220 million worth of dairy products exported to Korea would be impacted. These are the real situations that free-trade agreements like this deal with. Our negotiators our Minister and our Government supported by the other side of the House have come up with a good free-trade agreement here. It is worthwhile the House supporting it.