Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 21 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12669. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)to thePrime Minister: Is he confident that his Minister of Trade’s actions in regards to the Trans-Pacific Partnership are in the interests of New Zealand?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he believe that investor-State dispute settlements are beneficial to countries and their Governments; if so why?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes they can be. New Zealand has negotiated investor-State dispute settlement provisions in a number of free-trade agreements that have been supported by this Parliament including the ones with China and with ASEAN and Australia and the primary reason for that of course is that they also support and protect New Zealand investors when they invest offshore with other countries that have similar provisions.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How will New Zealanders benefit from their Governments being able to be sued by foreign big businesses when nearly $1 billion has been paid out by foreign Governments to overseas investors in these disputes brought under Trans-Pacific Partnership - like agreements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly I cannot comment on whether the Government can or would be sued. It would depend under the Trans-Pacific Partnership on whether investor-State dispute settlement provisions are provided for in the final agreement. But what I can say is that the New Zealand Government will not sign anything unless it is in the best interests of New Zealand. Secondly as we have done so historically in the past there have always been caveats within those dispute settlement provisions that allow us to carve out certain areas to protect New Zealand’s best interests.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If in OECD States the average legal cost for Governments involved in these disputes is NZ$10 million but frequently rising to more than NZ$40 million would he abandon the Trans-Pacific Partnership if it provided foreign companies with unfettered power to—[Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the Hon Steven Joyce please stop the continual barrage while the member is asking his question and would the Rt Hon Winston Peters commence that question again.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If in OECD States the average legal cost for Governments involved in these disputes is $10 million per dispute but frequently rises to as much as nearly $40 million would he abandon the Trans-Pacific Partnership if it provided foreign companies unfettered powers to sue the New Zealand Government; if not why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Let me reaffirm what I said earlier. Firstly New Zealand is not going to sign up to any free-trade agreement and that includes the Trans-PacificPartnership unless it is in New Zealand’s interest to do that. Secondly the major provisions within the Trans-Pacific Partnership are currently being worked through. The third thing I would say is that the Trans-Pacific Partnership as the member may or may not be aware is a negotiated agreement between 12 different economies. In one of the pieces of research I saw recently it is estimated that it could be worth between $2 billion to $4 billion a year for the New Zealand economy. So I would say that that is fairly strong evidence that it well may be in New Zealand’s interest to do the deal.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question having given the facts was whether he would abandon the Trans-Pacific Partnership if it provided foreign companies unfettered powers.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I listened very carefully to the question. I listened very carefully to the answer. The only part I think the Prime Minister could be asked to address is whether he will abandon the negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to question your ruling but I think I have answered that question. I said New Zealand will not sign something unless it is in its best interests to do so.Mr SPEAKER: I do not actually think that does answer specifically the question. I think it is a relatively easy question to answer but I am not responsible for the quality of the answers that are given by any Minister. If the Prime Minister wishes to add any more he is welcome to; if he does not so be it.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well try this one: if it is good enough for the US Government to provide the up-to-date text to members of Congress why will he not make the up-to-date text available to New Zealand’s Parliament and MPs?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well try this one: that is not the way we do it here.Rt Hon Winston Peters: What reason has he got for shutting out MPs and the New Zealand public from all knowledge of this secret deal if he has not got something significant to hide?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There is nothing to hide. We are in the process of negotiation. To the best of my knowledge that is the way things have always happened. In the fullness of time assuming a deal was concluded—Hon Damien O’Connor: What are you hiding?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: My underwear.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Interjections bringing the Speaker into the debate on two occasions are unacceptable. Does the Prime Minister wish to complete—[Interruption ] Order! Does the Prime Minister wish to add anything further to the answer? I do not think so.