Govt accused of 'sellout' on trade pact negotiations
UPDATED / 8.30am:
The government has been accused of selling out to corporates and misleading the public over the Trans-Pacific trade negotiations – a charge Trade Minister Tim Groser denies.
He says there will be adequate protection of the government’s right to legislate on social or environmental issues under the deasl.
But the Greens and New Zealand First are adamant this is not the case.
Green Party co-leader Russel Norman says the proposed protections included in a leaked document are undemocratic.
And New Zealand First leader Winston Peters wants the trade talks halted and a select committee inquiry into the TTP.
Unusally, Labour trade spokesman Clayton Cosgrove has backed Mr Groser’s stance.
Yesterday 6pm:
BUSINESSDESK: Leaked drafts of the Trans-Pacific Partnership has reignited the debate over loss of national sovereignty in free-trade pacts, with opponents claiming the TPP as a sellout to global corporate interests and advocates dismissing the concerns as "overblown".
The issue gained legs again after the release of what Auckland University law professor and anti-TPP campaigner Jane Kelsey says is a leaked and recent draft of the TPP, which includes provisions allowing foreign investors to sue governments in the event that policy decisions erode their profits.
However, the head of the NZ-US Council, former trade negotiator and diplomat Stephen Jacobi, said such clauses exist in other free-trade pacts and are aimed at allowing foreign investors redress in the event of government actions such nationalisation.
“Opponents of the TPP should take heed of the provisions stating very clearly that signatories will continue to be able to adopt, maintain and enforce legislation protecting the environment, health and labour safety,” Mr Jacobi said.
Trade Negotiations Minister Tim Groser came under pressure in Parliament from Green Party co-leader Russel Norman, who questioned why the New Zealand government was not following the lead of the Australian federal government, which has said it will not sign a TPP agreement with such a clause.
"The New Zealand government will make up its own mind on what's in New Zealand's interests when all the facts are on the table, and we are far from that point," he said, gaining unexpected support from Labour trade spokesman Clayton Cosgrove, who pointed out New Zealand's free trade agreement with China preserves the right to regulate for health, environmental and labour market protections.
However, Mr Groser refused to release any of New Zealand's negotiating position publicly,
Ms Kelsey challenged Mr Jacobi on claims that FTA's can be scrutinised by Parliament, saying "the TPP is like all such treaties. They are done by the Cabinet".
"Cabinet alone sets the negotiating mandate, reviews the texts, decides and makes the political trade-offs, signs and ratifies the final text.
"The select committee does not get to see the text until the deal is signed and it has no power to require changes. Nor does the Parliament have any authority over the agreement, except where the treaty requires positive changes to legislation."
Mr Jacobi said "part of being an international citizen inevitably means we must accept limitations on government actions".
"New Zealand has done this in signing up to the World Trade Organisation, the World Health organisation, the Kyoto Protocol and a raft of other international agreements", and gained international legal protections in return.
“New Zealand desperately needs the access to the markets, investment, jobs and other economic growth opportunities that the TPP will deliver,” Mr Jacobi said.






















Comments and questions24
The last sentence in this article is a textbook example of how not to negotiate a good deal.
No, New Zealand is not desperate and must always be prepared to walk away from a bad deal.
So will overseas investors be able to sue Mighty River Power for putting the Turitea and Puketoi wind farms on earthquake fault lines and thereby putting their investment at risk? Its all here.
http://turiteadocuments.wordpress.com/
Havent these fools learnt anything from Christchurch? Sounds like fraud to me
Perhaps you should take this further. This is the role of the FMA and it is very relevant now that Mighty River Power is to be sold off.
"FMA will use the full range of its enforcement powers, targeting conduct that presents the greatest likelihood of harm to the function of open, transparent and efficient capital markets."
Investors rightly should be told that their investment could be bowled in an earthquake. Those wind farms are uninsurable.
A shocking state of affairs.
Groser is a fool.
First of all the ETS nonsense and now this.
What is Groser's motive for turning NZ into a prostitute? Groser is the king of junkets and globe trotting emperor with no clothes
People who want NZ's produce will but it regardless of greaser's pathetic posturing.
Care to tell us all exactly what YOUR contribution is, towards improving our GDP, raising the average wage and living standards (includes funding for Education, Health and the Conservation Estate - after all, SOMEONE has to pay for keeping the natural resources locked-down)....? Or are we all actually contributing to YOUR upkeep?
Sack the groser. He ain't got the goods.
Just follow Australia's lead. They have got it right.
OH!
Could someone please tell me why a Government should not be able to be sued if it passes legislation that detrimentally affects the viability of a legitimate business??
I could understand it if we lived under a communist dictator like in Cuba. But that's not where we want to be, is it??
I think Mr whatshisname in the greens should tell us EXACTLY what he is getting at?
Our Government, elected by us, should have the right to pass legislation that is in NZ's best interest without fear of overseas corporations (who have no vote) suing them. The Governments sole responsibility should be to the electorate and our national interest. If someone/some business wants to sue then they can become a citizen of this country and use their vote to deliver change - that's democracy.
And what about NZ shareholders of your "overseas corporation".
It is NOT democracy to legislate against the interests of legitimate business. That is communism..
All you gullible people slagging off the Government and Grosser, I think you need to look at the credibility and quality off the people making the accusations. Norman is against progress and would have us living in caves again to save the planet, Winston the washed up old hack who has been found to be as dishonest as most of the corrupt Labour party, and the extreme left wing activist Jane Kelsey - a disgrace to this country and not to be believed and trusted for her one eyed opinions.
Isn't that what I'm saying? DOH!
Can't you read English??
Hello John - I think he/she agrees with you ... and so do I. The point about looking at who is making these allegations is a very good one.
The fact that there are so many of these luddites, flat-earthers and dim greenies is profoundly depressing.
No wonder people with get up and go are getting up and going.
John Morrison, you should look up the definition of communism. You might also say that if Key signs this, which he will, it is corporate dictatorship.. the same corporate dictatorship that runs the US. Also, what if the capital gains tax goes through? The US companies will have the right to sue or be non compliant with the tax law. If they sue, then the tribunal will be off in some far far away land which no one will never know the results. This is a conspiracy to take full control of our sovereignty by the US.. This you don't want because the states will have their hand in all our pockets. Groser won't disclose the deal, this alone makes it prohibitive because he is HIDING SOMETHING!!
"This is a conspiracy to take full control of our sovereignty by the US.."
Please? What are you smoking and where can I get some??
Must be very comforting to be able to blame all our woes on a "US conspiracy".
I believe the Greens envy Mugabe, and wish to some day, rule NZ with the same, "get stuffed, too bad, no compensation" law.
the lines between corporate and political are so smeered, what's the difference in such arrangements involving dominance, power and control? it all ends in tears anyway. i.e. check out the roots of why WW1 and WW2 started. Same sh*t, different day.
And if the existing legislation is adequate to deal with any breaches, why would the government afford the investor the opportunity to weaken the existing legislation?
There is a clue in the final statement (as A. Wilkinson notes). Consider then government legislation that seeks to ensure preservation of health, and when investors' products "detrimentally affects the viability of a legitimate.." functioning upon which an economy relies.
Then again, how can an industry run by complete bastards be 'legitimate' anyway?
I think the Government needs to be concerned about how many "leaked" documents are appearing around the place. There are some / too many serious security breaches going on.
I'm having my doubts about Groser as well -- what has he achieved with all his various negotiations ??
Even New Zealand investors won't have the right to sue the government if nationalisation occurs.
On the other hand, we already have investor-state dispute mechanisms in our FTAs with China, Singapore and Malaysia. No-one made a fuss about that. People may be worried about litigious Americans, but NAFTA (came into force 1994), includes these provisions and the leading respondent Canada had only paid $24million in damages after 15 years. NZ has paid $0 since it first adopted investor state dispute settlement in 2001 with Singapore. Also, if the TPP reflects language in the other treaties, it has exceptions to the rule for environmental, health and Maori issues, and the first step will be consultation between the government and the government of the complaining party. So a diplomatic solution is more likely to be reached than a litigious one.
The final nail in the coffin is that, if TPP is similar to the other agreements, the investment provisions will be subject to annexed limitations which in the case of NZ will be the Overseas Investment Act and the Regulations which allow for regulation of business investment over a certain threshold.
The only issue here is that New Zealanders do not have had similar constitutional protection from government actions.
If someone has a right to lawfully do something and a government takes it away without a sound public policy reason there should be compensation. It is a pretty basic human right. Only then would the true cost of regulation be recognised by politicians.
Maori will understand the issue here. Greens are Stalinists and never will.
By the way Truth Time and stroppy - I hardly think that the remote prospect of a few wind farm turbines (that have not yet been built and, if they were, would be insured) falling over in a paddock because of an earthquake will worry anyone other than cows. If you are really concerned runs as list candidates for the Green party and ban wind turbines (and cows). No foreign investment in those industries so you would not even need to pay compensation.