At conference our members voted to” urge the Prime Minister to ensure that the public and Parliament have the opportunity to fully and democratically debate the provisions of the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement before any decisions are made.”
One of the most important aspects is the provisions in this Agreement that could lead to loss of sovereignty of countries to make their own decisions without fear of huge lawsuits from outside entities.
This is not fearmongering. International corporations do try to sue countries under terms of trade agreements. Examples are Australia & two Central American countries currently subject to lawsuits from foreign corporations:
Phillip Morris vs Australia:
Philip Morris Asia (PMA) has challenged Australia’s plain packaging legislation under the 1993 Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Hong Kong for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (Treaty). PMA has made a number of arguments, including that the plain packaging legislation expropriates its intellectual property, and that PMA has not been afforded fair and equitable treatment. PMA is seeking an order that the Australian Government suspend enforcement of the legislation and compensate PMA for loss suffered through compliance with the legislation; or compensate PMA for loss suffered as a result of the enactment and continued application of the legislation. The Australian Government is defending the proceedings. The Australian Government argues that the case should be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds without requiring a hearing on the merits of the claim. On 16 May 2014, the Tribunal set down a timetable for the next phase of the proceedings. It ordered that the Hearing on Preliminary Objections be held in Singapore starting on 16 February 2015 for three business days (and two additional days in reserve) or until the Tribunal determines it should conclude. More info at: http://www.mccabecentre.org/focus-areas/tobacco/philip-morris-asia-challenge
Pacific Rim (a subsidiary of OceanaGold that owns the mine at Macraes Flat open pit mine and Reefton Goldfields) is demanding $301 million in compensation from El Salvador unless the government reconsiders its ban on mining. Pacific Rim sued El Salvador after a 2009 announcement by the Salvadoran government that it would not issue metal mining permits due to the risk it poses to the safety of water supplies. According to the World Bank, 90 percent of the surface water is heavily contaminated and 20 percent of its rural population lacks safe drinking water. Pacific Rim is using the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Disputes (ICSID) to challenge the moratorium on mining. El Salvador is one of the poorest countries on the planet
September 10, 2014 Nearly 150,000 people have already signed an online petition directed at the Australian-Canadian firm OceanaGold urging it to drop its suit against El Salvador. Secret hearings will begin on the case at a little known investment dispute tribunal housed at the World Bank in Washington, on Monday, September 15th.”
“More than 14,000 people in Canada, Costa Rica, and around the world are sending a message to Infinito Gold CEO John Morgan during the Canadian mining company’s annual shareholders’ meeting today in Calgary. They are asking that Infinito drop its $1-billion investment lawsuit against Costa Rica under the 1999 Canada-Costa Rica Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA). Calgary-based Infinito is suing the Costa Rican government for over $1 billion because it rejected the company’s plan to build an open-pit gold mine in a tropical forest. MiningWatch Canada spokesperson Jamie Kneen says, “This case is another example of the damage corporations can do using investment protections in free trade and investment agreements to try and override the will of small, eco-conscious nations like Costa Rica. Yet the Canadian government continues to promote the entrenchment of corporate ‘rights’ in new trade and investment treaties like the new agreements with Honduras, China, the EU, and the countries in the Trans-Pacific Partnership.”
El Salvador & Costa Rica information from website: http://www.miningwatch.ca/
What will Investor-State Dispute Settlement mean for New Zealand under the TPPA?
One of many causes for concern around the TPPA is that it would give overseas companies special guarantees and the power to sue the New Zealand government offshore for over new policies and laws in what is called Investor-State Dispute Settlement (“ISDS”). View as pdf “What will Investor
A leaked negotiating text from June 2012 shows that if the TPPA negotiations are successful an investor from any of the TPPA countries (Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam) will be able to sue the New Zealand government for millions in damages in secretive offshore tribunals. Under ISDS foreign investors could claim that new laws and regulations introduced by the New Zealand government have breached their special rights under the TPPA and seriously undermined the value of their investments. Under the leaked text, “investment” is defined extremely widely, to include almost anything a foreign company has spent money on in New Zealand — including shares, businesses, contracts, land, intellectual property rights, and even government bonds putting corporate rights above New Zealand’s democracy.
If the TPPA is signed with its current ISDS provisions it would seriously fetter New Zealand’s sovereignty, and the ability of our government to look out for our interests. We elect our governments, and should be able to rely on them to pass laws and implement policies to protect and grow New Zealand. If the TPPA is signed, our government will be looking over its shoulder to make sure it’s not risking a law suit from companies with more money to spend than it does. Government decisions should be made with the people in mind, not the balance sheets of overseas companies.
Worse, if New Zealand did get sued, then millions of taxpayer dollars would be spent defending the case average cost of defending an ISDS case is US$8 million, but can easily exceed US$30 million) as well as many millions more if we lost. In the last 13 years the number of ISDS cases brought at the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes — the main ISDS forum — has increased by 460%, and over $719 million has been paid out under ISDS agreements with the United States alone. Just the threat of a long, expensive dispute is designed to get governments to back off. If New Zealand signs the TPPA we’ll face the prospect of a government scared of making a stand, massive unnecessary spending of tax payer money on law suits, or both.
Disadvantaging kiwi businesses
ISDS gives overseas companies an unfair advantage over kiwi businesses. If a New Zealander feels that they are hard done by, they can take the matter to the New Zealand courts. However, if the TPPA is signed then a foreign investor who thinks that their investment has been damaged would have the option of using the New Zealand court system, or using ISDS to take the case to an international tribunal claiming a breach of their special rights under the agreement. They could even do both — in September 2012 Philip Morris lost a case in Australia’s highest court about plain packaging of cigarettes, but is continuing to sue Australia using ISDS under an investment agreement with Hong Kong.
ISDS undermines New Zealand law
Many additional concerns about ISDS were identified by over 100 prominent lawyers and judges from most of the TPPA countries in an open letter to the negotiators:
the private, often secret nature of ISDS hearings lacks “the basic principles of transparency, consistency and due process” common to domestic legal systems; ISDS tribunals routinely put the economic interests of foreign investors ahead of the right of governments to govern their own affairs; orders of these extraterritorial tribunals can undermine the separation of powers by requiring the executive to override rulings of the judiciary; many of the judges in these ad hoc arbitration tribunals also appear as lawyers in similar cases, in a way that would be unethical for judges in domestic courts.
Unsurprisingly, the jurists concluded that ISDS “is not a fair, independent, and balanced method for the resolution of disputes between sovereign nations and private investors”.
No economic benefit from ISDS
It is unclear how anyone other than big overseas companies will benefit from ISDS. Australia’s Productivity Commission conducted an extensive study of the impacts of Australia’s free trade agreements and concluded that:
There does not appear to be an underlying economic problem that necessitates the inclusion of ISDS provisions within agreements. Available evidence does not suggest that ISDS provisions have a significant impact on investment flows. Experience in other countries demonstrates that there are considerable policy and financial risks arising from ISDS provisions.
The Australian government refused to include ISDS in its free trade deal with the US in 2005, and it has a investor-state policy not to sign up to any more ISDS obligations including in the TPPA:
The [Australian] Government does not support provisions that would confer greater legal rights on foreign businesses than those available to domestic businesses. Nor will the Government support provisions that would constrain the ability of Australian governments to make laws on social, environmental and economic matters in circumstances where those laws do not discriminate between domestic and foreign businesses.
The New Zealand government should stand up for its people, and follow Australia’s lead in saying no to ISDS.
Does the TPPA sound like something New Zealand should be a part of? Tell the government what you think by sending them an open letter. >>>TAKE ACTION