1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this
to the Minister of Trade
Does he still consider that the United States will benefit from being part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership; if so, how?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Acting Minister of Trade) Link to this
Yes. Clearly, all nine parties see the benefits of such an agreement, which is why they are in Auckland this week for a fourth round of negotiations.
Has the Minister been briefed on the submission by tobacco maker Philip Morris on the Trans-Pacific Partnership calling for the US Government to enshrine the right to challenge anti-smoking laws in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement; if so, does he support such an approach?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY Link to this
I have not been briefed on that submission, but I am aware of its existence. I point out to the member that this is the fourth round currently under way in Auckland at this moment. It is projected that there will be another five rounds of negotiations next year, with an ambition of getting to some sort of resolution in roughly a year’s time. I do not think it would be helpful for us to speculate on all of the submissions and all of the matters that might be proposed by parties associated with these negotiations during that period. Clearly, we will find out when we get to an agreed resolution, should we do so. We will have an opportunity to comment at that time.
Will the Minister assure New Zealanders that his Government will not weaken our overseas investment laws as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, given that the United States has identified our overseas investment laws as a barrier to trade that it aims to eliminate as part of the negotiations?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY Link to this
New Zealand has a framework for ensuring that foreign investment is for the benefit of New Zealand. The Government has recently reviewed the overseas investment regime, to ensure that foreign investment is in our interests. I assure the member that that is the approach that the New Zealand officials will be taking to these negotiations.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was specifically in relation to whether the Government would weaken our overseas investment laws. The Minister said he likes our overseas investment laws—which is great—but I asked whether he would weaken them, and to give us an assurance that he will not weaken them.
Mr SPEAKERI do not think the member can insist on the Minister giving an assurance. The Minister certainly gave an answer on the Government’s attitude towards our overseas investment laws. In these circumstances I think it was a reasonable answer. The honourable member has further supplementary questions.
Will he assure New Zealanders that his Government will not weaken our GE food - labelling laws as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, given that the United States has identified our GE food - labelling laws as a barrier to trade that it would like to eliminate as part of the negotiations?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY Link to this
I repeat to the member that this is the fourth round of these negotiations. It is expected there will be five more such rounds next year. I am sure that from not just the United States but also the other parties to the negotiations we will see many matters floated that they would wish to see progressed in the context of negotiations. It is not helpful for us to speculate about all of them from this distance. All I can say is that the Government’s position on most of these matters is well known, and that is the approach that our officials will take into the negotiations.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take note of your earlier ruling that the Minister had addressed the question, and that was fair enough. On this occasion he did not even mention the specific issue, which is GE food - labelling rules, at all.
If the member had listened to the Minister’s answer, he would have heard the Minister clearly tell the House that in his view it was not in the public interest to try to conclude a trade negotiation by way of question and answer in this Parliament. The Minister was making it very clear that he did not believe it was in the public interest to give a more specific answer, and that is perfectly within order.
Will he assure New Zealanders that his Government will not weaken Pharmac as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, given that the United States has identified Pharmac as a barrier to trade that it wants to eliminate as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY Link to this
The Government’s support for the Pharmac model is well known. Pharmac is perceived to deliver significant benefits to New Zealand taxpayers. Again I remind him that there will be a number of further rounds to these negotiations. Many matters will be floated by other parties, and I do not intend to speculate upon them. I simply say that with regard to Pharmac, the instructions to the New Zealand officials are very clear.
Can the Minister confirm that the New Zealand Government has provided a number of position papers to other Governments as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, and will he publicly release these position papers to the New Zealand public?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY Link to this
I have two responses. Firstly, clearly some position papers have been lodged by New Zealand officials. Some people who would be quite well known to him leaked one of them a few days ago, for which the Government is entirely grateful, because it served to demonstrate that the New Zealand Government and officials are standing up for the interest of New Zealanders in these negotiations. Secondly, in relation to the process itself, I say it is not a closed process. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has called for submissions from New Zealand interests in relation to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. All parties are welcome to make such submissions. The discussions under way in Auckland at the moment are open, in the sense that over 100 national and international observers from interest groups are there, making their views known. That will continue to be the approach that is taken as we progress this Trans-Pacific Partnership discussion.
Why will he reveal the New Zealand negotiating position to foreign Governments in the form of these position papers, but not reveal New Zealand’s Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiating position to the people of New Zealand?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY Link to this
I have just indicated to the member that the approach that New Zealand is taking to these discussions is well known and open. To the extent that he and his colleagues want to engage with officials they are entirely welcome to do so, including in Auckland this week. I say to him that as far as the various papers are concerned, clearly our negotiators are taking a view about how they can ensure that they serve New Zealand’s interests in the best way, in the course of a lengthy negotiation. I am not going to second-guess their tactics. It is entirely a matter for them as to how they sequence the release of information. I simply ask that they achieve the best result for New Zealanders.
I believe that the member has had six supplementary questions. My advice is—I apologise to the honourable member, but I am afraid that is the case.
I seek leave to table the submission of Philip Morris International on the Trans-Pacific Partnership to the United States Government.
I seek leave to table the submission by the biotech industry on New Zealand’s GE labelling laws, which it would like to eliminate.
I seek leave to table one of the position papers by the New Zealand Government that were released recently—leaked, in fact—and that the Minister referred to.
I seek leave to table the US Trade Representative document 2010 Report on Technical Barriers to Trade, which identifies GE labelling as one of the things that the United States wants to eliminate.