Tabuteau Fletcher: Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTabuteau Fletcher: Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 10 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6578. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I would first like to address a comment from Dr Reti whom I respect as a fellow member on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. He talked about this bill as a relationship builder and it is the first time that that argument has been raised in relation to this bill.What I would like to point out is that Dr Reti and I actually had dinner with the South Korean Government contingent when they came to New Zealand. I told them very openly that New Zealand First could not support the trade deal and I told them it was because of the investor-State dispute settlement. I said actually that it was a bad trade deal and that they had got the better of the bargain. They nodded and they acknowledged and they agreed—the point I am making is that you can disagree with friends and you can carry on and build relationships. This opposition does not compromise our relationship with the rest of the world.But what I really want to point out to this House especially after the attack from Mr Bennett and some of the rhetoric from the National Party is that New Zealand First is a party that in its founding document in its policies and in its manifesto—our principles have not changed for 22 years—we absolutely endorse trade. We say that the export of New Zealand products and goods overseas is an absolutely essential necessity to our small regional economy—it is absolutely essential.But New Zealand First opposes this trade agreement and the alteration to the legislation in support of it for two main reasons. The first one is the investor-State dispute settlement that I have mentioned. The second is that it is actually a bad trade deal. New Zealand First agreed completely with the Minister when he spoke about New Zealanders being fine exporters and about how important the work of our primary industry is in the main in terms of the growth of this country. What he did not acknowledge and what he should have acknowledged is that most of that comes from our regions.New Zealand First adamantly debates and contests that this Government has a policy that results in essentially absolute apathy with regard to—well actually the whole economy but specifically to our regions. The Northland by-election result and the resulting uproar from other regions around New Zealand saying “You’re not taking notice you’re not taking us seriously and you have no policy.” created a real uproar and the Government took notice. As I have said already today what we are seeing from this Government is a beautifully written song sheet with wonderful lyrics but its actions belie its true intent and in this case there is no substance. We are not seeing anything meaningful from this Government.We are told by our trade negotiators that the investor-State dispute settlement provision was actually the only part of the Koreans’ counterargument to the trade agreement. We have such an open economy already—we already have pretty much open borders for the rest of the world—so what could the Koreans ask of us? The only thing that they asked of us was for the investor-State dispute settlement tribunal process to be included in this trade agreement and this is perhaps the main reason that New Zealand First cannot support this legislation.It is imperative that I remind the House why. I say to the Government: what price sovereignty? We are told about the tangible benefits of the trade of tangible goods but I say it again: what price sovereignty? There are no calculations done on that. There are no estimates done on the compromise that we give away—the undermining of this nation’s right to rule our own nation.New Zealand First abhors the investor-State dispute settlement provision because it enables an international foreign corporate to sue a Government not in a court but in a—deliberately named—tribunal. It is not a court; it is a tribunal. That tribunal is closed usually at the request of the international corporate so we do not know what has gone on in the proceedings. It costs millions of dollars whether we win or lose in those proceedings. It is run by three corporate lawyers—no judge but three corporate lawyers—and because its results are in secret we do not know how it came to the decision that it has made.What is really important here for the other side of the House to note is that because it is a tribunal and not a court there is no right of appeal. If New Zealand were to be sued under the investor-State dispute settlement by a foreign corporate it could not look at the text of the proceedings and it could not go back and contest it and ask: “By what right did you make this decision? Under what terms did you consider the actual provisions in our trade agreement?”.I will point out for the members opposite that there are far too many examples now of trade agreements with investor-State dispute settlement provisions in them where it has been proven that the investor-State dispute settlement tribunal has ignored the very provisions of the trade agreement and has decided in favour of a corporate despite robust and comprehensive clauses in these agreements.Debate interrupted.