[asia-apec 1110] What Price Debate? GATT Watchdog on NZ Official Info. Act

[Gatt Watchdog]

GATT Watchdog
PO Box 1905
Christchurch
Aotearoa (New Zealand)


MEDIA RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE USE
6 May 1999

What Price Debate? Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade Official Information
Act Response on APEC/WTO slammed

GATT Watchdog is unimpressed with an MFAT response to an Official Information
Act request relating to APEC and the World Trade Organisation liberalisation
of trade in the forest products sector.

Yesterday, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade faxed a request for a ten-day
extension and $3164 for providing the information.  This follows an April 30th
decision by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to charge the group $3500
(plus photocopying expenses likely to run to several hundred dollars) for
working on a similar Official Information Act request.

"What price does the government put on debate about the pros and cons of free
trade and investment?" asked Aziz Choudry of GATT Watchdog.

"For us, this has the same effect as a flat refusal to provide the
information.  Do MFAT and MAF officials regard their work to be above public
scrutiny?" 

"We have little sympathy with government ministries' requests for outrageous
amounts of money in return for official information on APEC. The government
has the money to spend on glossy leaflets and brochures which merely trot out
the same old hype about APEC - regardless of the poverty of evidence that
there appears to be to back up its claims. If it can spend hundreds of
thousands of dollars in a facile feelgood public relations campaign to promote
the message that "APEC is good" while deliberately avoiding focussing on "the
complex substance of the APEC process such as trade liberalisation or
facilitation" it can afford to pay the wages of officials and photocopying
costs of making official information freely available so that there can be an
informed debate on the issues.  It can find around $50 million to host APEC
for a pre-election photo-op, but wants to charge the earth for releasing
important information to a non-profit organisation."

"MFAT has suggested that we revise our original request to narrow its scope.
This is not possible. In order for any in-depth policy analysis, and without
the knowledge of the precise dates and nature of the documents in existence,
such an OIA request cannot be more specific."

GATT Watchdog has lodged letters calling for an investigation and review of
both the MAF and MFAT decisions with the Ombudsmen's Office.  Today it sent
an Official Information Act request to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of
Foreign Affairs and Trade.  It requests "all and any official documentation,
memos and correspondence (including electronic correspondence) in relation to
guidelines and strategies for government ministers and ministries in
responding to Official Information Act requests on APEC and the upcoming WTO
negotiating round". It has also informed MAF and MFAT that it will not pay for
the information.

"Perhaps the government has a problem justifying the positions it is taking in
relation to its participation within fora like APEC and the WTO beyond the
rhetorical public statements which it tends to make about such matters."

"Perhaps it is scared of a repeat of the vigorous debate and opposition around
the stalled Multilateral Agreement on Investment - the provisions of which
have strong parallels with APEC's non-binding investment principles - and
which was only made possible because a leaked draft of the MAI was distributed
internationally by concerned critics of unrestricted trade and investment in
North America," said Mr Choudry.

For further comment, contact Aziz Choudry ph (03) 3662803