Norman Russel: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNorman Russel: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 13 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5789. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Green) to the Minister of Trade: Does he stand by his statement that the $6.2 billion investor-state dispute settlement action initiated by the Swedish power company Vattenfall “is not in fact an attempt by the company to stop a democratically elected German Government from shifting its policy on nuclear power; it is about the financial implications of that decision”; if so why?Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade): Yes because I have no new information that changes my understanding of the case.Dr Russel Norman: Does he believe that John Key would agree to implement any policy that would cost New Zealand taxpayers $6.2 billion as a result of the Minister of Trade giving multinational companies the right to sue the New Zealand Government as is happening in Germany?Hon TIM GROSER: No.Dr Russel Norman: Therefore does it not follow from his answer that the $6.2 billion case by Vattenfall in this case would put pressure on a democratically elected Government not to make a decision such as phasing out nuclear power?Hon TIM GROSER: This is stretching the limits of hypothetical questions to ludicrous extremes. We do not have a policy of wishing to encourage nuclear power and the provisions that we would agree to would be quite different from the provisions in this agreement.Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree that these investor-State dispute settlement clauses can have a chilling effect on the willingness of a Government to regulate and make decisions by hanging over them a billion-dollar threat that if the Government makes this decision it will have to make a massive payout to the multinational company negatively affected?Hon TIM GROSER: It may assist members if I explain that I have received advice from our international trade lawyers who given their track record are as good as anybody’s in the world that the agreements that are pursuant to the energy charter under which this case is proceeding are in their view old-fashioned very poorly drafted and not the types of provisions that they would recommend to any New Zealand Government to adopt.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would ask the Minister if he is reading from an official document that in that case he table that document.Mr SPEAKER: Well that is very easily resolved. Was the Minister quoting from an official document?Hon TIM GROSER: No.Dr Russel Norman: Has the Government done any analysis on the financial implications to the Government from investor-State dispute settlement provisions in light of the statements from the Australian Productivity Commission just in June when it said investor-State dispute settlement provisions create “potentially large unfunded contingent liabilities which are dependent on decisions by international arbitration panels.”?Hon TIM GROSER: The Government will be producing a national interest analysis in conformity with existing practice at the end of the negotiation when we know exactly what type of an agreement we are looking at. A number of factors will go into that equation but we will do that at the right time.Dr Russel Norman: Is it not the case that the purpose of investor-State dispute settlement clauses or corporate sovereignty clauses is to restrict the space in which democratically elected Governments can regulate and that is why the United States is forcing them into every single one of the agreements that it is currently negotiating: the Trans-Pacific Partnership the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the General Agreement on Trade in Services?Hon TIM GROSER: Well that is certainly not my interpretation of the purpose of the agreement. The purpose of the agreement is to protect legitimate foreign investors from actions that might undermine entirely their property rights and at the same time to ensure that we preserve adequate space for democratically elected Governments—well any Government actually—to regulate in the public interest.