Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
WAI 2522
WAI 2523
IN THE MATTER OF
AND
IN THE MATTER OF
CROWN LAW
TE TAW TURE O TE KARAUNA
PO Box 2858
WELLINGTON 6140
Tel: 04 472 1719
Fax: 04 473 3482
Contact Person:
Mike Heron QC/Virginia Hardy
Email: Michael.Heron ~.DcroNvnlaw.govt.nz /Virginia.Hardy@crownlaw.govt.nz
Contents
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
10
12
12
14
16
16
NX71THDRANXIAL OR DENUNCIATION
19
20
BACKGROUND
20
ENGAGEI\IENT/CONSULTATION
22
27
INTRODUCTION
1.
2.
I joined the Ministry- in 1984 and have worked extensively in the area of trade
police, including Closer Economic Relations ("CER") with Australia, the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ("GATT") Uruguay Round of trade
negotiations, the World Trade Organisation ("WTO"), European Union
("EU") trade relations and most recently free trade agreement ("FTA")
negotiations with the Association of South-East Asian Nations ("ASEAN"),
Malaysia and the Gulf Cooperation Council ("GCC"). From 2012 to 2014, 1
led the concluding stages of the Korea-New Zealand FTA negotiations.
3.
I have had several spells outside MFAT: a one year secondment to the
Australian Department of Foreign Affairs in 1985; a one year secondment in
1986 to Victoria University's Institute of Policy Studies working -ith Sir Frank
Holmes on a study on the future development of CER; and in 2001-02, a
secondment to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to
coordinate officials' work on climate change issues, including New Zealand's
ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. I then worked as senior manager for pricebased measures in the New Zealand Climate Change Office of the Ministry- for
the Environment from 2003 to 2004. I was most recently posted as High
Commissioner to Singapore from 2008 to 2010. Earlier postings were to
Canberra from 1987 to 1990 and to Geneva from 1995 to 1998, where I was
Deputy- Permanent Representative to the WTO.
4.
3
ensuring that negotiation efforts are coordinated within the Ministry, including
with our various regional divisions, with Ministers and wid-i our partner
agencies, including die Ministry for Primate Industries, die Ministry of
Business, Innovation and Employment, New Zealand Customs SenTice,
Department of Health, Treasury, Minist y for the Environment and Te Puni
Kokiri. Within the 1\tinistry, the Trade Negotiations Division works with the
Economic Division and regional divisions on a programme of outreach with
stakeholders with an interest in negotiations and other trade and economic
issues important to New Zealand.
5.
Save where otherwise stated, the content of this affidavit is within my own
knowledge or has come to my attention during die course of my work.
SUMMARY OF MY EVIDENCE
6.
SO.
7.
BACKGROUND
General Role of MFAT
8.
9.
`~5
//
10.
11.
While the Ministry='s agenda is driven by the external environment and the
Government's foreign and trade priorities, it must also take domestic concerns
into account, including obligations under the principles of the Treaty= of
Waitangi ("the Treaty").
12.
Economic growth relies on New Zealand firms exporting and developing their
ability= to grow their business. A positive international regulatory= environment
is key= to supporting this growth. Therefore a fundamental objective of New
Zealand's trade policy= is to expand the opportunities available to New Zealand
exporters in overseas markets by removing barriers to trade, and to establish
sound frameworks under which trade and investment linkages can flourish.
14.
The Ministry actively looks for ways to protect and advance New Zealand's
trading interests. This includes pursuing high-quality and comprehensive
FTAs in line with New Zealand's current and future trade needs aimed at
strengthening economic links and obtaining improved access to overseas
markets. Moreover, the preferential nature of such agreements means New
Zealand exporters are likely to be disadvantaged in markets where other
countries have negotiated lower or zero tariffs and other commitments.
15.
New Zealand seeks comprehensive FTAs that are consistent with WTO rules,
open to others to join, and cover trade in goods, services and investment, as
well as a number of supporting areas. provisions for further consultation and
cooperation are typically included in FTAs to ensure that the agreement
strengthens and deepens the existing economic relationship.
15.1 For goods, New Zealand aims to bring trade as close as possible to
duty-free. Elimination of tariffs may be phased in over a period of
time. An FTA should also address applicable non-tariff measures on
goods trade.
15.2 For services, the objective is to ensure New Zealand service exporters
have greater access to the markets of other partner countries, and
greater certainty around the conditions for doing business in those
markets.
15.4 An FTA will also address other issues such as rules of origin, trade
remedies, technical barriers to trade, sanitary and phytosanitaiy
measures, intellectual property, government procurement, competition,
consultation and dispute settlement cooperation and legal and
institutional issues.
15.5 New Zealand also seeks appropriate general exceptions that allow the
parties to adopt measures to protect interests that are of such
significance that the), outweigh normal trade commitments. All of New
Zealand's FTAs since 2001 include an exception in relation to the
Treaty of Waitangi.
15.6 In this contest, one of New Zealand's negotiating objectives is to
ensure that the Crown is able to meet its obligations under the
principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, including through the Treaty of
Waitangi exception clause, which I describe in detail below.
16.1 Market access for goods exporters. FTAs allow a greater proportion of
New Zealand products to enter the relevant market duty-free. This has
direct financial benefit for New Zealand exporters. In addition, as
tariffs are removed and New Zealand goods become more competitive,
companies will have the opportunity to increase existing exports and
develop new trade to partner countries in areas where high tariffs had
previously inhibited exports. Market access obligations for goods also
help to establish a level playing field for New Zealand exporters
competing with exporters from other countries which have FTAs with
the relevant country.
16.2 Improved market access for services exporters and conditions for
investors. FTAs ensure that New Zealand service exporters and
investors have greater access to the markets of other partner countries,
and greater certainty around the conditions that exist for doing
business in that market. This can be by, for example, improving the
ability to supply services to consumers in other countries online, being
able to invest in partner countries on the same basis as nationals or
investors from other countries, and providing additional protections
against arbitrarjT treatment of New Zealand investments.
16.3 Robust rules of origin to guard against goods from countries other
than the FTA partner obtaining unintended benefits in the New
Zealand market.
18.
The IVP process has followed this approach. Cabinet noted the expansion of
the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement in March
2009. Negotiations towards the TPP, taking over from the P4 negotiations,
started later that month. A formal Cabinet mandate was confirmed in
September 2010.
The Ministry updated this guide in 2014, which will be published on its website in due course.
the House of Representatives also set out the procedure for Parliament's
examination of international agreements. True copies are attached as Exhibits
B and C. The necessary steps for concluding an FTA are:
19.1
19.2
20.
19.3
Signature.
19.4
19.5
21.
The Executive then decides whether to sign the agreement. As with all Treaty
decisions, diis decision is taken by Cabinet. In making that decision, the
Executive will assess whether die agreement meets New Zealand's national
interests. It is important to emphasise that the signing of an FTA by the
Executive of itself is not legally binding; rather it signals an intention to be
bound at a later stage.
22.
An FTA will only become legally binding upon the culmination of domestic
approval processes, die passage of any necessary domestic legislative changes,
and by an action bringing it into force or ratification; i.e. the formal process by
which the parties signal their consent to be bound by the agreement.
Although the power to ratify an FTA rests with die Executive, Parliament has
a critical role to play as the Executive will not ratify the agreement without
Parliamentary consideration and passage of any necessary legislation. Again
this role is set out in the Cabinet Office Manual and the Standing Orders of the
House of Representatives.
23.
The Executive will only ratify an FTA after completion of the following two
Parliamentary steps:
23.1
23.2
As noted, the Executive will not take any action in relation to the
agreement until the Select Committee has reported or until 15 Sitting
Days have passed whichever is sooner (see Cabinet Manual: 7.119). If
the Select Committee report contains recommendations to the
Executive, the Executive must present its response to Parliament
within 60 days. The Executive is not bound, however, to follow
Select Committee recommendations.
23.3
10
24.
Only once Parliament has completed the treaty examination process and
passed the domestic legislation required to implement the FTA, will the
Executive take "binding treaty action", ordinarily ratification, so that the FTA
can enter into force for New Zealand (i.e. the Executive will only implement
an international agreement once it is sure that New Zealand is compliant with
its international obligations under the agreement). Ratification occurs when
New Zealand notifies the other parties to the agreement that we have
completed our domestic legal procedures necessary to enable the agreement to
enter into force, as well as any other steps that may have been agreed by the
parties to the agreement. With regard to a multilateral agreement, ratification is
usually done by depositing the appropriate formal instrument with the treaty's
depository. In the case of a bilateral FTA, ratification may be by way of an
exchange of notes between the parties. Only after this point will an FTA enter
into force for New Zealand and have legal effect.
25.
26.
27.
Given its importance to the outcome, the Ministry takes a proactive approach
to consultation and seeks feedback on the negotiating process from a wide
11
27.1
28.
12
The Waitangi Tribunal ("the Tribunal") Wai 262 Inquii-y considered the
Crown's obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi and its policy and practice in
relation to developing international agreements. MFAT has considered the
Tribunal's findings and recommendations and found them helpful in our trade
negotiation practice.
29.1
29.2
The Tribunal accepted that the right to govern, which the Crown
acquired via Article 1 of the Treaty, included the right to represent
New Zealand abroad and to make foreign policy, subject to its
obligations to protect Maori interests to the extent that is reasonable
and practicable in the international circumstances.
29.3
The Ministry has taken steps to ensure that Maori interests are considered
when international agreements, including FTAs, are negotiated. Guidance is
~S
13
provided in the "Strategy for Engagement with Maori on International
Treaties" 2001 (attached as Exhibit D). The purpose of this strategy is to help
with the identification of areas of developing international law of relevance to
Maori interests and the early identification of issues of relevance to Maori in
international agreements. The Ministry considers an agreement on a case by
case basis and undertakes engagement with Maori in proportion to the Maori
interest in the particular agreement under negotiation. The overall context in
which the particular agreement occurs, and the likely impact on Maori
interests, is among the factors taken into account in the implementation of the
strategy for engagement.
31.
32.
~S
14
33.
As well as regular meetings with specific Maori businesses, the Ministry has
also attempted to adopt a more strategic approach to engagement with Maori
business interests. For example, it initiated a meeting with senior Maori leaders
in 2009 in order to stimulate a dialogue on trade policy and economic issues
with Maori. The Ministry also has regular discussions with Te Puni Kokiri's
Maori Business Facilitation Unit and has had a series of meetings during 2015
aimed at improving the way in which the two agencies jointly engage with and
support Maori business. Both agencies agree on the need for a deliberate,
systematic and forward looking engagement process between the Ministry and
Maori business interests. As part of this work, Te Puni Kokiri encourages
those who represent Maori business interests to attend the Ministry's FTA
seminars, including those on the TPP, and to promote the benefits of New
Zealand's FTAs to Maori business interests.
The claimants and parties seeking to be joined have raised concerns about the
confidentiality of the IVP negotiations. In this section of my evidence, I
respond to those concerns and explain why confidentiality is necessary.
15
35.
36.
At the start of the IVP process, the negotiating parties agreed that papers
would be treated in confidence in order to facilitate candid and productive
negotiations in line with normal negotiating practice. All 1'PP participants
have agreed to hold documents in confidence for four years after the
agreement enters into force, or if no agreement enters into force, for four years
after the last round of negotiations. TPP parties are currently negotiating with
other parties (such as the US and EU; New Zealand and India) and the
confidentiality undertakings ensure that the release of negotiating positions
does not compromise those negotiations.
37.
In this context, I observe that much of the claimants' assertions about the
alleged substantive effects of the TPP are based on leaked text that those
negotiating the ITP consider to be unreliable or out of date. Even if the
documents are reliable, accurate and/or current (which is not confirmed), any
16
text represents a view, and often only a partial view, of the positions of
negotiating parties at a particular point in time. It does not necessarily= capture
the negotiating dynamics, complex positioning of parties and expectations of
parties' final positions which might lie behind the words on the paper. No-one
should therefore jump to conclusions.
The following kinds of legal obligations for New Zealand generally= result from
FTAs:
38.1
38.2 Establishing rules and obligations regarding trade in sen ices and
investment, which may vary between the different FTAs due to vary=ing
interests of the other party=.
38.3 Working with the relevant country= to facilitate trade within existing
regulatory systems and under relevant WTO rules.
FTAs typically include a number of general exceptions that allow the parties to
adopt measures to protect interests that are of such significance that they
outweigh normal trade commitments. All of New Zealand's FTAs provide for
exceptions in relation to measures to protect a Government's right to regulate
for public health and welfare. All of our FTAs (except the 1982 CER with
Australia) contain the Treat), of Waitangi exception, including multiparty=
~S
17
41.
42.
The Treaty of Waitangi exception has been criticised on the basis that it does
not sufficiently protect Maori interests because of the proviso in the chapeau
,vhich states "such measures are not used as a means of arbitrary or unjustified
discrimination against persons of the other Parties or as a disguised restriction
on trade in goods and services". The Ministry wishes to make the following
comments in response:
42.1
18
42.2
42.3
42.4
43.
New Zealand has not to date had to rely on the Treaty of Waitangi exception
in its FTAs. It has been able to meet its obligations to Mdori within the terms
of the various FTAs.
44.
We are confident that an arbitral panel established under the dispute settlement
provisions of an FTA and which may be called upon to consider measures
taken by New Zealand to accord more favourable treatment to Mdori pursuant
to its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi, would uphold the right of
New Zealand to take such measures. Any concerns about the impartiality of
the members of an arbitral panel, if ever required to consider the Treaty of
Waitangi exception in one of New Zealand's FTAs, are in our view unfounded.
It is important to note that our FTAs contain procedural safeguards
concerning the composition of arbitral panels. For example, each party
appoints one arbitrator, with the third selected by common agreement. By way
of example a true copy of the dispute resolution chapter of the New Zealand
Republic of Korea FTA is attached as Exhibit F.
45.
Concerns have also been raised with respect to arbitral tribunals established to
hear claiins made by investors against a party to an FTA (Investor-State
Dispute Settlement - ISDS). ISDS claims may only be brought by an investor
in respect of an investment dispute under the provisions of the investment
Appellate Body Report, EC Seal Products [para 5.306.] A true copy of this report is attached as Exhibit E.
/5
19
chapter of an FTA. In any case, our FTAs contain safeguards concerning the
composition of arbitral tribunals where each parts= to the dispute appoints one
arbitrator, with the third selected by agreement, or an independent appointing
authority if agreement cannot be reached. Other safeguards are included
within the respective rules of the forum in which the arbitration is brought.
For example the ICSID Convention under which an ISDS claim may be
submitted sets out rules in respect of persons qualified to serge on ICSID
conciliation and arbitral panels (Section 4 of the ICSID Convention) and
provides procedures for the replacement and disqualification of conciliators
and arbitrators (ICSID Arbitration Rules). Where disputing parties appoint
arbitrators, Article 40(2) of the ICSID Convention requires that arbitrators
possess the qualities stated in Article 14(1, namely that they must be persons of
high moral character and recognised competence, particularly in the field of
law, who ma )T b-, relied u on to e excise independent judgment. True copies
46.
While there has been international analysis on the role of arbitrators, recent
empirical research indicates that arbitrators are motivated to be impartial by the
need to preserve their professional reputations, and may choose to increase
accuracy and to counter any real or perceived bias rather than to cater to any
particular interests.3 I refer also to the FADTC's 2015 report into the KoreaNew Zealand FTA, which commented in some detail on ISDS issues and the
appointment of arbitrators.'
Withdrawal or denunciation
47.
All New Zealand's FTAs provide for a parts= to withdraw from the agreement
following written notice. The notice period varies between 6 and 12 months.
This is an important protection for successive governments who may have
opposed the position taken by an earlier government in ratifying an
international agreement. Article 54 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties 1961, which is regarded as customary international law, makes it clear
Daphne Kapeliuk "The Repeat Appointment Factor: Exploring Decision Patterns of Elite Investment
Arbitrators" (2010) 96 Cornell Law Review 47. A true copy of this article is attached as Exhibit I
20
49.
The TPP aims to create a regional FTA with 12 Asia Pacific countries:
Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru,
Singapore, the United States, and Viet Nam as well as New Zealand. The AsiaPacific region is a key driver of global economic growth. Roughly half of
international trade, and more than 70 per cent of New Zealand's trade and
investment, flows through the region. The Asia Pacific region is our home, and
our economic future depends on strong trading relationships with Asia-Pacific
countries. Collectively the 12 TPP economies represent more than US$27
trillion in GDP. Five of New Zealand's top 10 trading partners are included
in the TPP negotiations (Australia, US, Japan, Singapore, and Malaysia). The
1PP negotiating parties account for 45 per cent of New Zealand's total trade.
50.
The Government strongly believes that the 1'PP will be in the overall interests
of New Zealand. The agreement would deepen economic ties between its
diverse members by opening up trade in goods and services, boosting
investment flows, and promoting closer links across a range of economic
policy and regulatory issues. By negotiating the TPP, New Zealand ensures a
level playing field for our exporters in the region. As well as tangible benefits
for our exporters and consumers, the TPP would safeguard New Zealand's
longer term trading interests. The TPP is potentially a platform for wider,
regional economic integration. The negotiation gives New Zealand an
21
51.
The 12 countries negotiating the ITP are all doing so because they see benefits
in a regional FTA. If we are not involved in FTAs involving key trading
partners, our exporters get left behind, and experience real economic
disadvantages operating in offshore markets.
52.
52.1
52.2
53.
Specific benefits for New Zealand businesses from TPP are likely to include:
53.1
53.2
53.3
54.
Peter A. Petri, Michael G. Plummer, and Fan Zhai "The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Asia-Pacific Integration: A
Quantitative Assessment. Adding Japan and Korea to the TPP" (TPP11, TPP12, TPP13, TPP16) in March
2013. Macroeconomic results base simulations at http://asiapacifictrade.org/page id=106. A true cop), of this
report is attached as Exhibit J.
~s
22
coherence in the regulations that govern global supply= chains would streamline
international trade, with benefits for businesses and consumers. Over time it
would remove unnecessary= duplication, reduce costs, and unleash greater
opportunities for small to medium sized businesses in particular.
Engagement/Consultation
55.
T1--Lis
56.
The Ministry= provided a full list of stakeholders who have been consulted on
the TPP negotiations to FADTC earlier this year. A true copy= of this list is
attached as Exhibit K.
57.
It is also important to note that the Ministry= does not begin negotiating an
FTA without being informed about the variety= of concerns to stakeholders.
FADTC only published the 2014 list in its report. The full list was provided to Als Ertel under the 01A.
23
58.
59.
A second invitation for public comment was made in 2011 following the
expressions of interest from other countries to join the TPP negotiations
(Canada, Japan Mexico). The Ministry received 15 responses to this invitation,
though no submissions specifically representing Maori interests were
submitted. True copies of the invitation and the responses received are
attached as Exhibit N and O.
60.
Hundreds of meetings have taken place, including with business groups, local
councils, health sector representatives, unions, NGOs and individuals to seek
input on the YPP and to help ensure a high quality outcome to negotiations
that advances the national interest. Invitations to various meetings have been
/5
24
Other government agencies undertook engagement in the areas for which they
have the policy lead:
61.1
61.2
61.3
A meeting was also planned for Aucldand at this time, but it was cancelled due to low numbers of registration.
25
61.4
62.
In a new initiative that reflected the level of public interest in 'IPP, the Ministry
also made provision for stakeholder engagement with regard to the two TPP
negotiating rounds held in New Zealand. With regard to the round of
negotiations held in Auckland in December 2012, the Ministry organised a
stakeholder programme attended by 72 New Zealand participants as well as
other stakeholders from overseas. The programme included a briefing from
New Zealand's Chief Negotiator and other Chief Negotiators, and
presentations from other stakeholders on specific topics, including intellectual
property, labour, environment, market access, and investment. Those
stakeholder presentations were attended by both members of the negotiating
parries' delegations and other stakeholders. Again, the invitation to register for
this event was publicised on the Ministry's website, disseminated by email to a
Est of registered stakeholders and via business groups. Representatives from
Te Kupenga Hauora Maori, University of Auckland, and Te Wakaminenga
onga Hapu o NgaPuhi were registered for stakeholder engagement programme
as was Professor Jane Kelsey. Auckland also hosted a round of negotiations in
2010 and the Ministry ran a similar stakeholder outreach programme.
63.
26
countries particularly via its website. A true copy= of that invitation is attached
as Exhibit S.
64.
65.
In addition to providing information to the public via its website, the Ministry
has also established an internet column, "ITP Talk", to encourage feedback on
1PP from the public. In seeking views on TPP, the Ministry has sought to
introduce a balanced perspective, for example, by including links to opposing
views on its website, including to Professor Jane Kelsey's website, in order to
encourage debate on the issues. Ministry= officials, including the Chief
Negotiator, have regularly= met with public opponents of the TPP including
Professor Kelsey= and have encouraged a dialogue to take into account their
concerns.
66.
66.1
FOMA August 2010, November 2012, March 2014 and June 2014.
66.2
27
66.3
66.4
67.
68.
69.
While the Ministry actively seeks engagement with Maori over business
interests generally and FTAs specifically, notwithstanding the Ministry's clear
notification of the progress of negotiations and opportunities to engage, Maori
have in general not taken up these opportunities for direct engagement. Aside
from Official Information Act requests leading to the claimants' submissions
and the other instances mentioned above, there have been few attempts to
engage directly with Ministry negotiators over the TPP.
70.
I would also note that the Ministry's engagement with individuals and
organisations representing Maori interests has highlighted a diverse range of
views with regard to the TPP within Maoridom as there is across all of New
Zealand. For example, FOMA has publicly supported the TPP. A true copy
of an open letter to the Prime Minister is attached as Exhibit V.
As noted above, New Zealand is one of 12 negotiating parties to the TPP. The
timetable for the negotiations is set, not by New Zealand, but the negotiating
parties. United States domestic political processes have an impact. In recent
developments the United States Congress and President have agreed to Trade
28
Promotion Authority: this means that the US Executive can now finalise the
negotiation of TPP without Congressional review of the text of any concluded
agreement. There is an impetus on the part of the United States and other
negotiating parties to conclude the negotiations prior to the US summer recess
in August 2015, after which US Presidential elections are likely to prevent
conclusion of an agreement for at least another 18 months.
72.
The 1'PP negotiations are therefore likely to conclude within the next month
or so i.e. by early August. It is possible, but unlikely, that they could continue
until early September. If the negotiations do not result in an agreement in this
timeframe, they are likely to be delayed for another 18 months. Between now
and reaching agreement, the negotiating parties are working towards resolution
of a number of discrete but important issues (including dairy which has already
been the subject of extensive negotiation but is not yet finalised). New
Zealand is not in a position to seek to delay negotiations at this point.
73.
The likely timing of the conclusion of negotiations and more recently the giant
of Trade Promotion Authority in the United States has been widely publicised;
for example, in articles published on the "Scoop" website entitled "111P talks
could be wrapped up in first-half 2015, Key says" on 27 January 2015 and
"1'PP negotiations set to accelerate after Obama gains fast-track powers,
Groser says" on 30 June 2015. True copies of those articles are attached as
Exhibits W and X.
74.
At this point, I wish to respond to the aspect of the relief that the claimants
seek, namely to postpone the negotiations. Officials consider that the other
negotiating parties have a strong desire to negotiate now to maximise the
opportunity to achieve agreement within the next month. Given the external
factors described above, we do not consider it likely that they would agree to
delay negotiations to allow the claim to be heard urgently. Not can
New Zealand require the parties to postpone negotiations. Ministers have
instructed officials to continue negotiating. If New Zealand suspended its
involvement in the negotiations at this point, New Zealand would lose the
opportunity to secure an agreement that best met Cabinet's mandate. Further,
suspension would be unlikely to constrain the other parties from reaching an
29
agreement. The chance of New Zealand being able to negotiate text after the
other parties have agreed is very low.
75.
As set out above, if negotiations conclude, the New Zealand Executive will
need to make a decision whether to sign the agreement. Following this, further
decisions will be required as a result of the Parliamentary treaty examination
process, and the legislative process. Only after these processes, which will
involve wide consultation, including with Maori, will the Executive be in a
position to ratify the agreement. Based on previous experience, these
processes will take between 18 and 24 months. The Ministry considers that
this timeframe, and the significant constitutional steps I have described,
provide adequate opportunity for the issues raised by these claims to be
considered. I also note that, as is the case with all international treaties which
New Zealand ratifies, that the TPP would permit New Zealand to withdraw.
76.
I think it is also important to note that New Zealand's TPP negotiating team,
which is not large, is already heavily involved in this process. Intensive
negotiations are likely to occur overseas in the next month. Those officials,
including senior officials, are the people with the most and best knowledge of
the substantive and process concerns raised by the claimants Within the
dmeframe which the claimants appear to be seeking resolution of their claims,
it will become very difficult to undertake those obligations as lawfully directed
by Ministers and at the same time instruct the If2inistry's internal and external
counsel, review documents, and prepare evidence as possible witnesses. My
30
SWORN
at Wellington this
7th
day of
July 2015
before me: