Mitchell Mark: Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMitchell Mark: Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4406. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I am very pleased to take a call on the Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill. I just want to acknowledge the previous speaker Mr Parker who subbed on to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee during the select committee process. He drew some important issues to the attention of the committee. I thought that the committee worked very well together. We were all motivated to make sure that we could present the best possible report back to the House that we could inform the House and that we could address and allay some of the fears that were raised during the submission process and the select committee process.We are a small country of 4½ million people down at the bottom of the world actually. It is always going to be very difficult to get ahead by trading amongst 4½ million Kiwis so these free-trade agreements are critically important for the future of our country. Trading with the rest of the world has always been important and it will continue to be important. I would just like to refer back to some of the free-trade agreements and closer economic relationships that we as a country have formed over the last 30 or 40 years. If I go back to 1983 there was the formation of the Australia New ZealandCloser Economic Relations Trade Agreement. This was one of the most open economic and trade relationships of any two countries. It laid out a comprehensive set of trade and economic arrangements collectively known as the CER—or Closer Economic Relations partnership. It has been critically important for New Zealand to be able to open up the market in Australia and Australia is still important to us in terms of both imports and exports.We have the New Zealand - Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement which entered into force on 1 January 2011. We know how important this has been for New Zealand in terms of China having become a very important trading partner for New Zealand. We have the Malaysia - New Zealand Free Trade Agreement entered into force on 1 August 2010. Malaysia is actually New Zealand’s eighth-largest export destination with over a billion dollars of exports in 2013. We have the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement—again ratified in 2010. We had the New Zealand - China Free Trade Agreement in 2008 which Mr Parker referred to. He highlighted that the Labour Party is also very focused on the fact that trade is important to New Zealand and therefore it was much easier to work together through the select committee process to make sure like I said that we presented back to the House the best report that we possibly could. Obviously we have the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership which came into force in 2006. This is an agreement between Brunei Chile Singapore and New Zealand. It was the first multiparty free-trade agreement linking Asia and the Pacific to the Americas. It is also New Zealand’s first agreement with a Latin American country so it is another very significant free-trade agreement. I could go on but I just wanted to highlight the fact that we have got a proud history in this country of developing very good free-trade agreements.I want to acknowledge the Minister of Trade Tim Groser who has got a huge background in terms of having been involved in several different rolesbefore he actually became the Minister of Trade with negotiating and dealing in our free-trade agreements in New Zealand. So he brought with him all that experience and all that background.David Shearer: And all that ego.MARK MITCHELL: Oh I am not going to say that. I want to acknowledge also the officials—our negotiators—because several of the submissions that we heard in the committee highlighted the fact that this is a better free-trade agreement that has been negotiated than for example the Australian - Korean free-trade agreement. So they have done a very good job. To give you an example our deer and velvet industry is not big but it is still important and in its submission it highlighted the fact that it has got a much better deal and an easier entry into and opportunity to grow in the Korean market than for example our Australian cousins. We heard from all the major industries through their submissions.We heard from New Zealand wine producers about some of the issues that they raised. They highlighted the fact that our wine industry is an important contributor to the New Zealand economy. It is the sixth-largest export industry with an export value of $1.37 billion. Korea is currently a small but high-value market whose potential will be realised more fully with a zero tariff for wine on this agreement’s entry into force. They were very optimistic and quite excited about the reductions in tariffs that will come in incrementally with this agreement and about the fact that they are going to be able to grow their own industry and they have got a new market that they will be able to grow in Korea.We heard from Beef and Lamb New Zealand. Similarly it highlighted the fact that Korea is currently New Zealand’s fourth-largest beef export market by volume returning $125 million from 22000 tonnes of trade in 2014. As recently as 2011 Korea was New Zealand’s second-largest beef export market but volumes have been dropping in recent years. Actually the reason for this is the free-trade agreements that have been triggered with other countries which have meant that tariffs have been reduced and that we are not as competitive. That actually highlights what I feel is a very important point. Of course the select committee will be receiving this bill and I think that it would probably be fair to say—and maybe the next speaker for the Labour Party could comment on this—that we will work as hard as we can as a committee to make sure that we get this legislation back into the House and to make sure that the free-trade agreement is available and is triggered so that our exporters can actually start to take advantage of the reductions in tariffs as quickly as they can.I mentioned the deer industry. It made a very good submission. The Korea - New Zealand Business Council came and made a submission. Of course it supported this agreement and saw it as critically important not just for trade but also as another way of establishing a mechanism for developing strong relationships with a very important partner to us—Korea. Zespri sees a huge opportunity and market in Korea. It was very very pleased to see this free-trade agreement. It is a resilient industry. I was in the Bay of Plenty with the MP down there Todd Muller 3 or 4 weeks ago. He was good enough to take me around and show me one of the packing houses for us to get a briefing on how the industry has bounced back after the challenges it has faced—the new varieties that it is developing. It is actually a really exciting industry that has got huge potential. This Korean free-trade agreement is going to help it to continue. In fact I think there is $65 million that can come back into the New Zealand economy just off the back of our kiwifruit industry. We heard from Export New Zealand and of course Fonterra.We did receive some very good submissions and some concerns that we had to address around the investor-State dispute settlement provisions. There are just a couple of points. The Minister has already alluded to them but I would just like to go over them and highlight them again. The investor-State dispute settlement provisions in the agreement do not go beyond those established under New Zealand’s concluded free-trade agreements some of which I have already highlighted and spoken about and we have already the benefit of history to show us that those agreements have been very successful without ever having to incur or be too concerned about investor-State dispute settlement provisions or having to enter into any type of disagreement or arbitration. New Zealand has extended investor-State dispute settlement mechanisms to many trade partners—China the ASEAN countries and Malaysia are all examples. We have employed appropriate safeguards and exclusions which have included important public policy areas—health being one of them of course. Improved protections for investors will not interfere with the Government’s right to regulate for legitimate public policy areas. I do not think that any member in this House would ever be comfortable with the thought that there could be interference in the way that we legislate and the laws that we pass in this country specifically in relation to occupational health and safety—