Goff Phil: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 30 October 2014. Volume:701;Page:424. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill)to the Minister of Trade: What are his bottom lines for New Zealand becoming a party to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement?Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade):I can assure the member that there is a very clear bottom line and that is that when this negotiation which has many moving parts settles down if it ever does—and we can see exactly what we are expected to do and exactly what we will get in return—unless it clearly is in our view in the net national interest and we are confident we can carry that debate we will not be a party to the agreement.Hon Phil Goff: When successive New Zealand Governments have committed themselves strongly to the principle that the Trans-Pacific Partnership must be high quality and comprehensive will he sign up to a deal that does not meet that standard by continuing to allow damaging market access restrictions on major New Zealand exports such as dairy and beef; if so why?Hon TIM GROSER: The only deal that I would recommend to our Cabinet and through it to this House is that we accept and pass the enabling legislation. It would be a deal that addresses all of our issues on a comprehensive basis without any exceptions for our important export industries.Hon Phil Goff: In the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement will he compromise on New Zealand’s sovereign right to legislate for legitimate public policy goals in areas like health and the environment; if not how will he guarantee New Zealand’s right to constrain actions by foreign corporates that are detrimental to our public policy goals?Hon TIM GROSER: Well the answer in principle is very clear. We will not sign agreements that do not allow legitimate public policy regulation in the public interest in the future. The devil will be in the detail in describing that and it is an extremely complicated issue.Hon Phil Goff: Will he protect New Zealand’s absolute right to prevent the promotion of a harmful product like tobacco by pushing to exclude tobacco from access to investor State disputes procedures and what support within the negotiations would there be for a stance of that nature?Hon TIM GROSER: Well this is one of the most sensitive issues in these negotiations as the member well knows. With the strong support the New Zealand Government has given to Australia on a case that although not arising from these negotiations arises from a previous negotiation we will ensure that we maintain a position whereby any future Government can maintain very strong anti-tobacco legislation.Hon Phil Goff: Why are groups in New Zealand with the public interest at heart such as medical professionals not given confidential access to draft texts when the United States reports indicate that multinational corporations have access to such texts in areas where they have vested financial interests?Hon TIM GROSER: Well I cannot comment on how other Governments seek to invite their stakeholders into their consultation process. All I can say is that we have in respect of this negotiation the most effective and fullest form of stakeholder consultation and if other groups feel they wish to engage in a more serious consultation they know where to come.Hon Phil Goff: When the Minister has the right under Trans-Pacific Partnership rules to provide negotiating texts in confidence to relevant groups outside the Government why has he not taken advantage of that right to ensure that core groups like medical professionals are properly informed about the issues under negotiation?Hon TIM GROSER: We are trying to make this negotiation a success and the member is well aware that there is some quite heavy politics here and that full disclosure to certain parties is likely to lead this to go immediately into the public debate on an ill-informed basis before the deal has been done. We are very conscious of the interests of New Zealanders in protecting themselves from such legislation and we will continue to take a very responsible approach in this negotiation.Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The critical part of my question was to provide draft negotiating texts—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I listened very carefully to the question because it was quite a substantial question. The Minister has adequately to my satisfaction addressed the question that was asked.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When will the Government abandon its policy of evasion obfuscation and secrecy and tell the New Zealand public exactly what concessions and sacrifices the New Zealand Government has already agreed to in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations?Hon TIM GROSER: Well happily we do not have a policy of evasion and obfuscation to abandon.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he claim to be part of an open and transparent Government when there has been zero public scrutiny and zero input publicly into the terms that New Zealand is agreeing to in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations as evidenced in his answers today?Hon TIM GROSER: Well I would invite the member to reflect on his own extensive experience in Government and he will be well aware that in the process of forming positions they are held under strict confidentiality until the decision is taken. Then there is a process of full accountability and this will be no different.