Norman Russel: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNorman Russel: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 12 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5705. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]10.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Green) to the Minister of Trade: Does he have any concerns about the inclusion of investor-State dispute settlement provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement provisions which allow multinational companies to sue governments in secretive offshore tribunals; if so what are those concerns?Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade): I would have a number of concerns about signing up to an investor-State dispute settlement provision in any trade agreement that did not protect the right of future Governments to regulate in the public interest that allowed non-transparent and unfair procedures to apply or that would encourage frivolous claims by foreign corporations that would have no merit in the legal sense. Happily I can inform the House that this Government will not be signing an agreement that does not meet any of those basic political and judicial tests.Dr Russel Norman: How can he be confident that investor-State dispute settlement provisions do not put New Zealand at risk when the German Government is currently being sued under investor-State dispute settlement provisions for $7 billion for trying to phase out nuclear power plants by a company called Vattenfall a company that has already used investor-State dispute settlement threats to stop the German Government from putting environmental regulations on a new coal-fired power plant?Hon TIM GROSER: I will not go into the entrails of that particular dispute which 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. The reality is that we will not be signing up to an agreement that does not cover the basic interests of New Zealand.Dr Russel Norman: Has the Minister seen the June report from the Australian Productivity Commission a commission established by the Conservative Prime Minister John Howard in which the Australian Productivity Commission has opposed the inclusion of investor-State dispute settlement provisions in trade agreements including the Trans-Pacific Partnershipexplicitly because of concerns about investor-State dispute settlement on the ability of the Australian Government to regulate?Hon TIM GROSER: No I have not seen that particular reportpersonally but what I am aware of is that the Australian Government—and of course I am in closest consultation with my counterpart Australian Minister—is arguing for exactly the same balanced approach to investor-State dispute settlement provisions as is the New Zealand Government.Fletcher Tabuteau: What assurances can the Minister give that decisions made in secret in a secret tribunal under investor-State dispute settlement will be fair given that the tribunal consists of only three highly paid corporate lawyers with no actual presiding judge?Hon TIM GROSER: As is always the case in these Trans-Pacific Partnership - related questions when the full detail is put out into the public domain the people of New Zealand will be able to see for themselves that the defences that I the Prime Minister and other Ministers have made are in fact entirely credible and that this will protect New Zealand from exactly those sorts of frivolous claims.Fletcher Tabuteau: Can the Minister explain how he can be comfortable that once corporate lawyers make a ruling against New Zealand within the secret investor-State dispute settlement tribunal there is no right of appeal for the New Zealand Government?Hon TIM GROSER: We are just going around in circles here. When the full provisions are out in the public domain people will be able to see for themselves that there are very carefully thought through safeguards that will protect the interests of New Zealand. I would also like to point out that on the latest international net investment liability statement of New Zealand we have about $170 billion of foreign investment in other countries. We have a very strong material interest in ensuring that our investors are treated properly by Governments whose procedures may not always be up to the same high standard.Hon David Parker: Will the Minister undertake that the Trans-Pacific Partnership and its investor-State dispute settlement clauses will not prevent a future New Zealand Government from banning the sale of New Zealand homes to foreign buyers from Trans-Pacific Partnership countries?Hon TIM GROSER: It is not the Government’s policy to engage in such a ban. We are negotiating on the basis of this Government’s policy.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That clearly was not my question.Mr SPEAKER: Can I—[Interruption] Order! On this occasion I am going to allow the member to repeat that question for the benefit of the Minister.Hon David Parker: Will he undertake that the Trans-Pacific Partnership and its investor-State dispute settlement clauses will not prevent a future New Zealand Government from banning the sale of New Zealand homes to foreign buyers from Trans-Pacific Partnership countries?Hon TIM GROSER: No I am not going to give that assurance but what the agreement will say on that is still under negotiation. It may interest the member at the time when I am in a position to answer that more fully.Dr Russel Norman: What did the Australian Productivity Commission get wrong in its report from June this year when it said with regard to investor-State dispute settlement provisions that they give foreigners substantive appeal rights that are not available to domestic firms that they risk impeding domestic regulatory reform that they lack transparency and that they have inadequate parliamentary scrutiny?Hon TIM GROSER: Well the last time I looked at it the New Zealand Government does not control the Australian Productivity Commission. The basic position of the Australian Government is to ensure that investor-State dispute settlement provisions will be properly balanced and will absolutely protect the Australian public interest. It may well be that some types of investor-State dispute settlement provisions do in fact have those consequences but I do not believe that the Australian Government will be signing up to provisions that have those effects.Dr Russel Norman: Why is it that the European Union Trade Commissioner is now refusing to agree to exactly the same kinds of investor-State dispute settlement provisions that are proposed to be in the Trans-Pacific Partnership because the European Trade Commissioner said “We want the rule of law not the rule of lawyers.” and that these investor-State dispute settlement provisions are not fit for purpose in the 21st century?Hon TIM GROSER: Well I have had the benefit of talking to the commissioner about this issue and what I can say to the House is that this is a process that is under evaluation internally in Europe. They have not put forward any specific proposals; they have put forward some concepts which I think are extremely interesting and we will see how that transpires in a negotiation between the European Union and the United States.