Norman Russel William: General Debate 
Norman Russel William: General Debate 
[Volume:669;Page:15929] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Today I will talk very briefly about the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations—talks that have been under way in Auckland. Most people think that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is about trade; in fact very little of it is about trade. Most of it is about trying to restrict the ability of Governments to make regulations. 
When we look at some of the issues that are on the table in the negotiations around the Trans-Pacific Partnership we see that they are issues like restricting the ability to control foreign investment. When Australia negotiated its trade deal with the United States it gave away the right to have any restrictions on incoming investment from the United States into Australia up to a level of A$800 million which effectively gutted Australia’s entire foreign investment review process for US investment. That is one of the issues that the United States has put on the table. 
A second issue it has put on the table is our GE food labelling laws. Biotech companies in the United States do not like our GE food labelling laws or the Australian ones and they are trying to get them removed as part of the trade negotiations. 
Another part of the negotiations that I think is critically important is the investor-State disputes mechanism. As part of these free-trade deals a disputes mechanism is established whereby corporations can sue Governments in international tribunals. These tribunals are generally set up at the World Bank. They are three-person tribunals that make binding decisions on Governments. These tribunals have in the past required Canada to allow a toxic additive into its petrol. Canada tried to remove a toxic additive from its petrol but was sued by Ethyl Corporation which was the producer. Ethyl Corporation argued that Canada had expropriated Ethyl Corporation by banning the toxic additive and it was able to win its case. 
Recently Argentina lost a case when it tried to intervene to protect water supply. Argentina argued that it had to intervene because water is a basic human necessity. The tribunal established at the World Bank said that just because something was a human right did not mean that it overrode trade rules. Trade rules actually trump the human right to water. 
Labour and National are very keen for us to sign up to these agreements. Investor-State disputes resolution provisions were in the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement that the former Labour Government negotiated. These kinds of issues are on the table. 
How does the New Zealand public find out what is part of these negotiations? We know that the New Zealand Government has produced a series of position papers outlining the position of the New Zealand Government and they have been given to all the other negotiating countries. For example the Sultan of Brunei knows what the New Zealand Government’s position is on let us say intellectual property. But the New Zealand people do not know what the New Zealand Government’s position is on intellectual property because the New Zealand Government has not released the position papers that it has given to the other negotiating parties. 
When we asked the Government about this it said it could not release the position papers because it would undermine our negotiating position. That is not a rational argument. The other countries already know New Zealand’s negotiating position because we have given them the position papers outlining our negotiating position. The only people who do not know New Zealand’s negotiating position are the people of New Zealand. The other countries are entirely aware of our negotiating position because we have given them our position papers. It is a matter of public record that our Government has presented these position papers to the other Governments in the negotiations but has not publicly released them. 
The Government cannot argue that it would undermine the negotiating strategy when New Zealand’s position is already known to the other negotiating parties. How can it be right that the New Zealand public is not told what New Zealand is telling the other Governments in these negotiations? There needs to be greater transparency so that we the public—and even members of this Parliament—have a right to see what New Zealand is telling the other parties to the negotiations. 
I argue that the reason the New Zealand public is not being told is that what the New Zealand Government is offering would be very unpopular. If the New Zealand Government was offering to establish investor-State disputes mechanisms whereby other corporations can sue our Government in international tribunals that would be very unpopular amongst the New Zealand public. If the New Zealand Government was offering to get rid of our GE food labelling laws that would be very unpopular. If the New Zealand Government was offering to get rid of our investment rules that would be very unpopular. That is why the Government is not releasing the position papers to the New Zealand public. It should. These negotiations need transparency.