10. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he stand by his comment, in relation to claims that investors are able to sue Governments for breaches of free-trade agreements, that such claims are “far-fetched”?
Hon TIM GROSERDoes the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement have provisions that allow investors to sue the New Zealand Government?
The provisions negotiated—and I congratulate the previous Government on negotiating these safeguards—allow investors to raise issues of concern, but there are very careful safeguards in that agreement, and the agreement has worked extremely satisfactorily.
Given that the Minister has just agreed that the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement has provisions that allow investors to sue the New Zealand Government, how can it possibly be true that claims that such provisions exist are “far-fetched”?
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I could not hear the end of the Minister’s answer. I wonder whether the Minister could repeat the end of his answer; I could not hear it.
Mr SPEAKERIf a Chinese corporation were to sue New Zealand under the investor-State disputes mechanism of the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement, would the case be heard in New Zealand?
Before I call the Minister, I ask members on the front benches to please cease their interjections. I am struggling to hear.
Detailed provisions in the relevant articles—I think they are articles 152 and 153—set out our procedures. At the very end of the day there is provision for a neutral observer to come in and make a judgment, but we have never encountered that and I do not expect to.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question asked whether this case would be heard in New Zealand; I do not believe the Minister addressed that.
The member can repeat his question so there can be no uncertainty. The noise level meant that I was struggling to hear. I invite the member to repeat his question.
If a Chinese corporation were to sue New Zealand under the investor-State disputes mechanism of the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement, would the case be heard in New Zealand?
Is it not the case that under article 153 of the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement the dispute would be heard under the auspices of the World Bank or the United Nations, and there is absolutely no guarantee at all that it would be heard in New Zealand?
There are detailed provisions in the agreement. There are adequate safeguards to protect the sovereignty of the New Zealand Government, and we are very happy with the way the agreement is proceeding.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very specific, non-political question about a specific provision of the free-trade agreement: where the dispute would be heard. I asked whether the Minister agreed that article 153 states that it would be heard under the auspices of the World Bank or the United Nations. It is a simple question.
But the member went on to ask, if I remember correctly, whether that meant that it would not necessarily be heard in New Zealand. The Minister already answered that question; he had already indicated that it could be held offshore. The answer to the previous question covered that, and that is why I believe the Minister had answered the question. He has already acknowledged that it could be held offshore.
Does the Prime Minister stand by his comment that he would rule out signing the Trans-Pacific Partnership if it includes investor-State disputes mechanisms that allow investors to sue Governments?
The Prime Minister has regarded this as far-fetched. I do not recall the statement that the member uses being used by the Prime Minister.
I invite the member, on this occasion, to repeat his question. As I understood it, that question was not referring to the Prime Minister’s statement; it was actually asking specifically with regard to the Trans-Pacific Partnership provisions. I invite Dr Russel Norman to repeat his question.
Will he rule out signing the Trans-Pacific Partnership if it includes investor-State disputes mechanisms that allow investors to sue Governments?
We will look carefully at these provisions—they are not yet negotiated—and we will give an unqualified assurance to the New Zealand public that we will carefully safeguard the sovereignty of New Zealand to entertain good public policy in accordance with the principles of open government.
Will the Prime Minister rule out signing the Trans-Pacific Partnership if the agreement includes investor-State disputes mechanisms that allow investors to sue Governments—yes or no?
I have already answered that question. We are dealing with a hypothetical situation. The Prime Minister has made the Government’s position quite clear. This is a far-fetched, hypothetical hunt, and I will not go beyond the statements the Prime Minister has issued.
I seek leave to table chapter 11, section 2, of the New Zealand China free-trade agreement, called “Investor-State Dispute Settlement”.
I seek leave to table all the cases that have been lost under the North America Free Trade Agreement, in which corporations have sued Governments and won many hundreds of millions of dollars—
I seek leave to table the transcript of the Prime Minister’s comments about investor-State dispute resolution mechanisms. They are not publicly available otherwise; we transcribed them from the videotape.