Mitchell Mark: Fighting Foreign Corporate Control Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMitchell Mark: Fighting Foreign Corporate Control Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 22 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5254. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I would just like to acknowledge the previous speaker. Fletcher is a very good member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and I have to acknowledge him.How did he sneak this bill past Winston Peters? I do not believe that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has actually seen this bill. I think that in the turmoil of the deputy leadership battle he somehow managed to sneak this bill through. The Fighting Foreign Corporate Control Bill—if Winston saw this I am sure he would say something—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!MARK MITCHELL: This is demonstrably outrageous. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. You are right. Let me get back to the bill. I have to say that I am surprised that the deputy leader—congratulations to the deputy leader—with the international background that he has would be supporting a bill like this.This is a bill that if it were to be implemented would make it very difficult for New Zealand to continue to enter into free-trade agreements. In fact this bill would stop 3000 free-trade agreements from even existing. When you think about that if you remove 3000 free-trade agreements from around the world things would grind to a halt pretty quickly. The bill is poorly drafted—there is no doubt about that—which is a real achievement when it has only two pages. It is a real achievement when it has two pages and it is poorly drafted.The bill would prohibit New Zealand entering into international agreements that include provisions for investor-State dispute settlements. This includes the Korean free-trade agreement. I want to very quickly go over the Korean free-trade agreement because the member sat on the committee when the agreement recently came before it.I want to quickly run through some of the numbers and the implications of what they mean for New Zealand for our businesses and for our economy as a whole. There is $65 million worth of duty saved for New Zealand exporters in the first year alone. So we will hit that first tariff reduction this year and I have to acknowledge the whole committee for making sure that we could get the bill through the committee and meet that threshold. I want to acknowledge all the other committee members who have worked hard together on that.Currently $229 million a year is paid in duty by our exporters. There are 50 million people in Korea who want to buy quality New Zealand products and $78.3 million worth of New Zealand cheese was exported to Korea in the year ended June 2014. We are currently facing a 36 percent tariff and that is about to start reducing. The current tariff on whole milk powder and skim milk powder is 176 percent and 89 percent is the current tariff that exporters face on butter which is to be progressively phased out.These are just a few of the numbers that highlight how important these free-trade agreements are for New Zealand. The reality of it is that we are a small country down the bottom of the world and unfortunately we are exposed to the risks associated with trading globally. There are some things that we cannot control. That has become obvious—there are some things that we cannot control.But what we can control is our own ability to be able to generate very good free-trade agreements. New Zealand has a history of doing that. We have got some outstanding free-trade agreements which already have the investor-State dispute settlement provisions in them. It would be interesting to know actually why this bill is not retrospective. The reason for it is that we would lose deals like the Korean free-trade agreement or the Chinese free-trade agreement. We have seen how significant and how important they are to New Zealand.The Agreement between New Zealand and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan Penghu Kinmen and Matsu on Economic Cooperation is another example of a trade agreement that would not be allowed under New Zealand First’s bill.Fletcher Tabuteau: What is he talking about?MARK MITCHELL: What do you mean what am I talking about? You just spent 10 minutes highlighting why New Zealand cannot enter into a free-trade agreement that has an investor-State dispute settlement provision.The other thing that I want to address is the lack of consultation. There has been a concerted effort by the Opposition benches to put misinformation out there about the lack of consultation. I can tell you now—and I see that Mr Parker is in the debating chamber and I have to acknowledge him as being someone who has a lot of knowledge around these free-trade agreements and a big history of having worked on them when he was in Government—that the fact of the matter is that there has been significant consultation around the Trans-Pacific Partnership.We had the Council of Trade Unions appear in front of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee—and there are other committee members here who are quite welcome to stand up and try to rebut what I am saying—to make a submission. At the beginning of its submission we were led to believe that there had been very little consultation. By the end of it we were able to draw enough information out to find out that there had actually been three individual meetings and consultations with the negotiators working on the agreement. And that is not the only one. There has been wide consultation through the sectors service groups and people who are concerned and want to know the implications of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.Tracey Martin: Have you seen it?MARK MITCHELL: Seen what?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!MARK MITCHELL: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. The New Zealand Government is aware of the potential risks that investor-State dispute settlement provisions can pose if not negotiated carefully. It is possible to design mechanisms that carefully balance the objectives of protecting New Zealand investors abroad while safeguarding the Government’s right to regulate for legitimate public policy purposes. This balanced and cautious approach was taken in concluding the Korean free-trade agreement and it has been taken to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership.I would like to say that I would like to support Mr Fletcher Tabuteau because like I said he is a very good member of the committee but I cannot support this bill and it is highly unlikely that we will receive it on the committee.