Tabuteau Fletcher: Fighting Foreign Corporate Control Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTabuteau Fletcher: Fighting Foreign Corporate Control Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 22 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5265. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): We have never been sued through the tribunal process; this is true. But what this Government has not acknowledged is something called the chilling effect. This Government has itself been stymied by the chilling effect refusing to implement plain packaging legislation because of the fear of investor-State dispute settlement retaliation by large foreign corporates. Governments around the world are being stymied through fear of billion-dollar claims afraid to act in the best interests of their citizens and afraid to introduce meaningful and good laws. This is called the chilling effect and it is already immeasurably changing sovereign nations’ approaches to supposed self-rule. Let us be a proud nation and make a stand. Let us punch above our weight and make it clear to our international friends that we insist that democratically elected representatives of the people should be the ones who determine our future and our laws.We do not care to act in fear of financial retaliation from foreign corporates dictating our futures.Real solutions are actually available. This is not a unique problem to New Zealand. Firstly and most obviously corporates worried about dodgy Governments can already purchase political risk insurance. New Zealand firms do it now when they venture into those overseas markets. Australia refused to have an investor-State dispute settlement in its treaty with the US. And what do you know? The US signed it. Canada is considering not signing the Trans-Pacific Partnership as its Parliament debates many issues including the investor-State dispute settlement. South Africa has said it will be withdrawing investor-State dispute settlement provisions from its treaties going forward. France and Germany have been particularly strong in voicing their concerns about investor-State dispute settlement provisions.The European Union is now divided against its equivalent trade agreements with the US because of the investor-State dispute settlement provisions and is now considering a new system for resolving disputes between investors and States. That echoes a Franco-German proposal for a permanent European court to settle disputes in international trade agreements. The European Commission which handles trade issues for 28 European Union States has suggested a multilateral court. Investor-State dispute settlements are dead. They must be replaced by a new public and transparent system of investment protection in which private interests cannot undermine public policy that is subject to public law. The German economic Minister has called for establishing an international court and has rejected the old investor-State dispute settlement provisions.For New Zealand First a new system means publicly appointed judges not private arbitrators; saying yes to full transparency during the court cases and yes to an appellate mechanism; and changes in law by New Zealand’s sovereign Government so that affecting a company’s profits would not be a sufficient reason to take legal action against a State. If these conditions are not met it is not good enough for us and it should not be good enough for this Government which presumes to represent all of New Zealand. It was sent a message in a by-election not so long ago. It does not have the mandate it claims. Listen to all New Zealanders and look past just the numbers Mr Seymour and look to understand how this is actually affecting the people of New Zealand—our sick our needy our Kiwi-owned small businesses the regions and I say it again the people of this country.We have not given New Zealanders the opportunity to be heard on investor-State dispute settlements and especially on the Trans-Pacific Partnership for example. Do not stifle democratic principles for the profits of foreign corporates or even simply for the profits of our own companies. The profits of New Zealand firms should be our first priority yes but you were elected to represent all the interests of all New Zealanders. I challenge you to go forth Minister Groser and actually secure a free-trade agreement in this Trans-Pacific Partnership. Do that without giving away our sovereignty and without compromising individual New Zealanders and then we will all profit from these negotiations. Thank you.