Norman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Norman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 14 June 2012. Volume:680;Page:2991. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
9. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: Will New Zealand follow Australia and refuse to sign up to the investor-state dispute provisions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement; if not why not? 
Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 The New Zealand Government will obviously make up its own mind about what it signs and what it does not sign at the end of this negotiation when all the facts are on the table when and if the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiation reaches a successful conclusion.  
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was not whether New Zealand would make up its own mind; I am sure it will. My question was “Will New Zealand refuse to sign up to the”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I accept that my eyesight is not great without my glasses but if I see the question it says “Will New Zealand follow Australia and refuse to sign …” and the Minister answered that.  
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why is his Government willing and open to signing investor-State dispute provisions in this trade agreement when Australia refuses to do so because as it says these provisions “constrain the ability of Australian governments to make laws on social environmental and economic matters ...”? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: I can assure the House that the Government will sign an agreement that makes sense and that agreement will be following very carefully the very sensible provisions of the previous Government aided by the same advisers who are advising me as the Minister for clauses that will protect New Zealand from illegitimate use of such a clause.  
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Can I take it from that answer for clarity that he will assure the House that any concluded Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement will include safeguard provisions that will protect New Zealand’s sovereignty similar to those Labour negotiated as part of the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement which ensures New Zealand can legislate and regulate for the public good?  
Hon TIM GROSER 
: Absolutely.  
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why is the New Zealand Government and why was the previous Government so confident that they can negotiate clauses that will protect their ability to make laws on social environmental and economic matters when the Australian Federal Government has made a very clear statement that it believes that is not possible with investor-State dispute mechanisms and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Australian Federal Government has made exactly the same statement?  
Hon TIM GROSER 
: Because I have great confidence in the professional ability of our negotiators and because our negotiators on the question underlying the issue did not make the same tragic error as Australian negotiators made many years ago in the Hong Kong - Australia investment treaty.  
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why is it that the Australian Federal Government has stated publicly in April 2011 that it will not sign up to investor-State disputes provisions because these provisions “would confer greater legal rights on foreign businesses than those available to domestic businesses.” while the New Zealand Government continues to go down this track?  
Hon TIM GROSER 
: Well I cannot speculate on what the member’s ultimate political ambitions are but my ambitions do not include speaking for the Australian Government.  
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just do not believe the Minister addressed the question.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: The dilemma is that if I recollect the member’s question correctly it asked the Minister why he thought the Australian Government took a certain approach to investor protection clauses and agreements. The Minister said in answer that he did not pretend to be able to explain why the Australian Government chose to do things and that is an absolutely reasonable answer to the question. If the member thinks about it—and I am very happy to check the transcript to make sure that I am not in error—I think that is what the member will find.  
Dr Russel Norman 
: What position if any does the New Zealand Government have on the Australian Federal Government’s refusal to accept investor-State dispute settlement provisions within the Trans-Pacific Partnership? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: Well I have already answered that question in the previous supplementary answer but let me just say for the House that this Government as I am sure many other members of this House do stands solidly behind the Australian people and the Australian Government in protecting themselves against what we think is an unwarranted claim.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! This was a rather different question. This question asked how the New Zealand Government would approach the Trans-Pacific Partnership if the Australians refused to have an investment protection clause in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. That is something that does affect the New Zealand Government. That is not an unreasonable question to be asked. I invite the Minister to answer it.  
Hon TIM GROSER 
: The New Zealand Government will make up its own mind about what is in the balance of New Zealand’s interests when all the facts are on the table and we are far from that point. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Will the Government release the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership or release New Zealand’s negotiating papers that it circulated to the other Governments in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations prior to signing up to the Trans-Pacific Partnership so that the New Zealand public can see what is in the agreement and can see the positions that the New Zealand Government has taken in the negotiations? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: No and certainly not without the consent of our negotiating partners.