Sign the TPPA petition!

Written By: - Date published: 6:55 am, October 1st, 2013 - 212 comments
Categories: trade - Tags:

TPPAitsnotright

 

The celebrity video below is playing on TVNZ Breakfast and TV3 Firstline this morning:

It calls for the government to release the TPPA text, and for you to sign the petition to John Key now.

Tell our government they shouldn’t sign such far reaching international agreements without public consultation. It’s not democracy and it’s not right.

Don’t forget to get your friends and family to sign too…

For more information on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, click here.

212 comments on “Sign the TPPA petition! ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tiger Mountain 1
    1 October 2013 at 7:39 am

    David Cunliffe has shown you do not have to wear a beret and fatigues to be a lefty, bring back the beard though David!

    His statement about revealing the text of the TPPA will have rattled a lot of cages with some rather unsavoury occupants.

    • vto 1.1
      1 October 2013 at 9:07 am

      No definitely don’t bring back the beard.

      Better – get out in the sun and get some colour in your face. This would, in this modern age of television, certainly help when standing next to podgy, grey Key.

      Fire up the health and image Cunliffe, you must use everything at your disposal. Sharp suits and ties alone misses these other levers.

      • Rosie 1.1.1
        1 October 2013 at 9:26 am

        Yes, bring back the beard.

        • vto 1.1.1.1
          1 October 2013 at 9:30 am

          Really? Why? Haven’t you heard the one about never doing business with a man with a beard?

          • Rosie 1.1.1.1.1
            1 October 2013 at 10:39 am

            Lol, no I haven’t! And yes, really. Why? beards on the right person can make a dashing statement. “look at me, I’m a man of the world” “look at me, I’m a bit roguish” Wink. Some folks can really carry off a beard well, Cunliffe is one of them. (He doesn’t fit either of those statements though. His beardliness says something else).

            Some can’t and shouldn’t try.

            Mo’s? No, never. Unless it’s an extraordinary one.

            Finally, I can’t believe we are discussing beards.

          • Chooky 1.1.1.1.2
            1 October 2013 at 11:25 am

            @ vto….agree….no beard!

            ..needs to look corporate but relaxed, fit and ready for action ( eg Russell Crowe or Steve McQueen)..half shaven with a tan might be the way to go .

            …definitely not the beard imo……ie not a Green Hippie….leave that for the Green hippies)

          • BrucetheMoose 1.1.1.1.3
            2 October 2013 at 7:26 pm

            Does that mean you can’t trust Santa?

        • Rosie 1.1.1.2
          1 October 2013 at 9:30 am

          Signed and shared. Thank you Bunji. Lets hope the ad and petition can begin a mainstream discussion about it. It’s high time.

    • Rogue Trooper 1.2
      1 October 2013 at 11:12 am

      will DPM’s and a JD tee-shirt suit?

  2. anita mcgregor 2
    1 October 2013 at 8:55 am

    this ttpa goes beyond superficial politics and attacks our most basic rights. I can’t believe it has got this far. When I watched john key talking about it this morning I had to wonder “who the hell voted in this little dictator?? Are we all so apathetic that he can go and sign all our rights away and refuse to have someone in the room who can tell us the facts?? He doesn’t own this country and he does NOT have the mandate to do whatever HE wants. With every passing day this national government is in power I feel the NZ I know and love is dying at their hands.

    • Sable 2.1
      1 October 2013 at 9:09 am

      Just look at Keys disgusting spy bill. This is yet another example of the arrogance of this man. I’m not at all surprised by his behaviour based on past experience. The Benjamin Disraeli of NZ politics….

    • poem 2.2
      1 October 2013 at 5:28 pm

      The despot parasite that is john key, has the attitude and often demonstrates it too, that when he become PM, New Zealand and everything in it belonged “personally” to him to do with as he pleases. And New Zealand, in more ways than one, has borne the brunt of that attitude.

  3. Alanz 3
    1 October 2013 at 8:56 am

    It would be nice to see a more ethnically diverse range of speakers in the clip. I know a number of leading business and community people (NZ permanent residents and citizens) from the East, South, and South East Asian communities who do not support the TPPA as it is rolling ahead.

    • Sable 3.1
      1 October 2013 at 9:10 am

      Guess there’s only so many people they can include in the ad…..

    • anita 3.2
      1 October 2013 at 10:45 am

      really?? are you saying they are so racist that they will only relate if an Asian face is speaking it?? I don’t think so! that’s the same political correctness as trying to make labour dictate the sex of mps.

  4. Sable 4
    1 October 2013 at 9:02 am

    Wonder how many more nails there are to put in slimy Keys political coffin? I’d say the lid must be getting pretty tight.

    This is yet another example of the dishonesty and deviousness of this pro US sycophantic government. They will sell our rights and best interests to line the pockets of foreigners.

    A big thumbs up to the TV celebs who appeared (I see Kerre Woodham McIvor did not make an appearance-funny that).

    Anyway all signed up, lets hope lots of others follow suit.

  5. vto 5
    1 October 2013 at 9:09 am

    At risk of constant repetition……

    The TPPA limits what laws we can make.
    Therefore it affects our voting rights, a constitutional matter.
    A government does not have the authority to do this.
    The TPPA will therefore be invalid and unenforceable.

    simple

    • Sable 5.1
      1 October 2013 at 9:11 am

      I’m sure many German’s thought that too in the 1930’s. Take a look at a movie called “Crossing Hitler”. Gives you an insight as to how the law can be bent to serve the interests of the corrupt…

      • vto 5.1.1
        1 October 2013 at 9:22 am

        Will do, though perhaps the difference today is the (apparent) lack of threat of force / detention / other if one goes up against the state.

      • travellerev 5.1.2
        1 October 2013 at 9:45 am

        Bad laws can only be enforced if a population is compliant and if the enforcers are able to use force to keep a population that way.

        The Roman Empire did not collapse because of barbarian hordes sacking Rome. It collapsed because it overextended and started to dilute the currencies in order to maintain it.

        Inequality in the US is now far worse than in Roman times and there is nothing that says end of empire more than not paying the soldiers who have to maintain it.

        And while Obama’s threat to not pay soldiers is aimed at getting the average beltway bible bashing patriot to step back in line with the program while the government do their annual shutting the government down unless we can print some more fiat crap money it is something that most definitely will happen when the bonds and derivatives bubble will come crashing down around the ears of the financial bankster elite and we are left with the mess to clean up.

        By the way here is a nice presentation from Lori Wallace one of the foremost TPP specialists on the subject.

  6. Bob 6
    1 October 2013 at 9:23 am

    Seriously? It is still in negotiation, and once terms have been negotiated then it will put in the public domain for submissions prior to being ratified in parliament.
    So this petition is for people that are saying they would be better negotiators at this point? Or is it just for people that don’t understand the process and therefore get upset feeling like they are being left out in some way? Actually, it is probably option 3, play on the fear of the unknown to try to turn the voting public against the government for no apparent reason. I have been trying to find what happened to the petition against the China FTA……..can’t seem to find it. Is that because Aunty Helen was involved in that one? I seem to remember that was kept out of the public domain until it had been negotiated also!

    • Paul 6.1
      1 October 2013 at 9:33 am

      The Cabinet Manual says, in unequivocal terms: ‘7.112: In New Zealand, the power to take treaty action rests with the Executive.’
      http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1310/S00001/key-must-stop-misleading-nzers-that-parliament-has-power-ove.htm

      • Bob 6.1.1
        1 October 2013 at 9:57 am

        Even if this is correct (which I doubt after looking into Jane Kelsey and seeing that all she has done for the past 4 years is write anti-TPPA articles), it would be political suicide to sign up to this WITHOUT public scruitany!

        Even David Cunliffe won’t walk away from the deal: http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/qa-interview-with-david-cunliffe-and-david-parker/

        MICHAEL If we can just move on to our next issue of the Trans-Pacific partnership? Helen Clark and Phil Goff – they were very keen on this. Is this something you could walk away from, though?

        CUNLIFFE Look, we haven’t seen the text. We don’t know what the Government is hiding. We’ve challenged National to put the text in the public domain, at least an outline of it so New Zealanders can start the conversation that we will need to have. Of course, all things being equal, we would want to see international markets open for our exports, and we would want to be part of a strategic arrangement with our best friends. However, there is no blank cheque here. We need to protect Pharmac, we need to have intellectual property rules which suit New Zealand investors, and we sure as heck want to protect the sovereignty of the New Zealand Parliament in terms of future regulation-making without having to pay subsidies or compensation to foreign multinationals.

        I don’t remember him coming out and asking for the details of the China FTA to be made public before Labour had finished negotiating, why the change of heart now?

        • Paul 6.1.1.1
          1 October 2013 at 10:11 am

          So you disparage Jane Kelsey for her advocacy against the TPPA. Why?

          Can you explain why you are so in favour of this agreement?
          As you have clearly been on the ‘it’s our future’ website, do you not find any of the concerns mentioned there valid?
          foreign investment restriuctions being lifted
          big overseas companies being able to sue the New Zealand government
          medicines becoming more expensive
          copyright laws restricting internet freedom and access to information

          Have you read about what happened to the USA after the NAFTA deal?

          • Bob 6.1.1.1.1
            1 October 2013 at 10:29 am

            That’s the point Paul, I am not in favour of the deal, nor am I against it. Until the agreement has been drafted it is pointless to have any strong position on it at all (unless you are simply anti-FTA’s entirely, in which point I am sure you would have been campaigning against the China FTA also).
            Would you be against the TPPA if we didn’t have to make any major legal/employment concessions and it meant a massive boost to our export markets? If not, then why sign a petition that could potentially put unnecessary pressure on all politicians to stop this from going through and sway the minds of the voting public against something that could be massive for all of our exporters and our economy as a whole?

            As for the points made on the ‘it’s our future’ website, certainly, they are all extremely valid if they come to fruition, but at this point it is all rumours and innuendo, there are no firm facts at all, and to ask for firm facts mid negotiation is to weaken our position and potentially make the deal worse for us. Why not wait for the details to be nutted out and make a decision from there rather than potentially ruin a massive boost for our exporters and therefore our overall economy?

            • Rosie 6.1.1.1.1.1
              1 October 2013 at 11:24 am

              Bob, this isn’t an ordinary FTA. The scope of it goes well beyond trade, so don’t keep looking at it, as if it were a regular FTA. The frightening thing about it is that it puts the “rights” of corporates to make a profit, above the laws of a nation. Eg. NZ says no to growing G.E seed for food crops, Monsanto comes along and under the TPPA says, “you know, fuck you NZ, I’m just gonna go ahead and sell my seed to your farmers anyway” We say, “no, you can’t do that” and they say “oh yes, we can, under the Investor State Disputes Settlement process we can, so screw you”. Laws of the land over ridden. And you think thats ok?

              • Bob …
                1 October 2013 at 11:30 am

                Thanks Rosie, can you please point me to where/how in the TPPA this would occur so I can look into it more? Links to reputable sites where I can read about this would be most appreciated.
                I haven’t seen the details of the TPPA so I haven’t been able to make an informed decision either way, which is why I think a petition against it is a terrible idea. If you have details that I am unaware of I am happy to be swayed on this though.

                • Half Crown …
                  1 October 2013 at 11:59 am

                  “I haven’t seen the details of the TPPA so I haven’t been able to make an informed decision either way”

                  Surely that is what the petition is all about.

                • Rosie …
                  1 October 2013 at 12:29 pm

                  Here:

                  http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_gallery/investor-state-dispute-settlement-isds/

                  Thoughts on ISDS from Vikram Kumar, CE of Mega:

                  “The TPP gives power to corporate interests over soverign governments, backed by private international tribunals, in areas such as labour laws, environmental protection, public health, public services, professional licensing, government procurement, and consumer safety. The TPP thus moves the focus from state-state relationships in FTAs to corporate-state relationships in the new “partnership” model.”

                  More on it here:

                  http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/jagged-edges-tpp-ck-146203

                  How the TPP will potentially affect what you’re doing right now: Hint, nothing to with Free Trade

                  https://openmedia.org/news/citizens-call-leaders-say-no-extreme-internet-censorship-proposals-final-tpp-talks-indonesia

                • Macro …
                  1 October 2013 at 1:17 pm

                  “I haven’t seen the details of the TPPA so I haven’t been able to make an informed decision either way”

                  Exactly! But just look over the Tasman, we know this is how the cigarette companies behaved following Aussies FTA with the states. There has been the dirty deal with Warner over the Hobbit, Key can’t stopping popping in to chat with his business mates over the Pacific, The spy bills are all aimed at downloading and watching you and I, for corporate benefit. The pharmaceutical co’s are rubbing their hands in glee. GM seeds are just round the corner. The TPPA reeks of Corporate Welfare at the expense of the ordinary citizen. The precautionary principle applies here.

                  We Need To Know!

                  As for FTA’s in general – their legacy has been the globalisation of poverty world wide. The sooner trade barriers are erected and countries are left to get on with reestablishing their economies for the benefit of their people the better for all except the 1%ers.

    • Tiger Mountain 6.2
      1 October 2013 at 9:39 am

      Needn’t be a dick all your life Bob, change happens, no dirty filthy tory government is going to sign my rights away without some reaction.

      • Bob 6.2.1
        1 October 2013 at 9:46 am

        What have they signed though TM? Nothing! Even if they did, it wouldn’t be worth the paper it was written on without being ratified in parliament, which requires at least 30 days of public scruitany prior to be signed off.
        This petition has as much weight as a petition against Labours NZ Power proposal at this point, it is still just an idea, there isn’t even a guarantee an agreement will ever be reached!

        • Paul 6.2.1.1
          1 October 2013 at 9:49 am

          Parliament won’t ratify it.
          The Cabinet Manual says, in unequivocal terms: ‘7.112: In New Zealand, the power to take treaty action rests with the Executive.’

    • anita 6.3
      1 October 2013 at 10:54 am

      I hate people with your attitude. What you are saying is that we are ignorant easily led fools who can be swayed by a few articles. NO! We are not. I, personally have always been opposed to the TTPA. This isn’t sudden but with so many of the things Key and his cronies are doing, its like you just finish signing one petition (the selling of state assets) and then another thing comes up. I have never hated a prime minister so much as Key. Roll on the election.

      • Bob 6.3.1
        1 October 2013 at 11:35 am

        I hate people with your attitude anita, I am against this because John Key is doing it…….who gives a shit if it is potentially the best thing for the whole of NZ! What a terrible, bullshit attitude to have full stop! Pull your head in and think about what is best for the country every once in a while rather than ‘I don’t like it because John Key does’ petty immature mindset.

        • Colonial Viper 6.3.1.1
          1 October 2013 at 11:49 am

          So you are saying we should put our faith in John Key, instead of demanding that the details of the TPPA be revealed so that we can be fully informed?

          Why would you want us to put our faith in John Key?

          • Bob 6.3.1.1.1
            1 October 2013 at 12:08 pm

            Not at all CV, read through my comments above, anyone involved in negotiations knows that the less information the person you are negotiating with has, the less leverage they have off you. Putting our side of negotiations into the public domain whilst still in negotiations weakens our position and potentially ruins our involvement in the TPPA completely (as the public wouldn’t allow many concessions to go through, especially around legal and employment changes, yet these are the types of concessions we may have to make if we have if we weaken our position).
            I am saying don’t just say ‘I am against the TPPA because John Key is involved’ without looking at the potential benefits to the NZ economy (look at what the China FTA has done for our primary industries), and weighing up what concessions we may or may not have to make. The issue is with people like anita and Rosie that simply make assumptions based on nothing more than John Key is involved, so it must be bad.

            • framu 6.3.1.1.1.1
              1 October 2013 at 12:25 pm

              ive read your comments – and they show a dangerous level of faith in people who have demonstrated a less than adequate concern for the populace of NZ

              face it –

              the TPPA is about a hell of a lot more than trade – this we know

              american drug companies are hell bent on getting rid of pharmac – this we know

              the americans are pressing for the ability to allow international courts stacked with industry appointees to override our own ability to make law in our own country – this we know

              Amercian multinationals have a history of using such provisions to override other countries governemnts to force them to submit to the multinationals will – this we know

              so instead of getting a bit shouty like you are here – perhaps pull back from denigrating anyone who disagrees with you and accept that these are provable valid concerns

              Were not asking for every detail – but a general gist of whats being offered in our name would be nice. As you yourself said – you dont know whats being put on the table, nor do we

            • KJT 6.3.1.1.1.2
              1 October 2013 at 12:31 pm

              Look at what the China FTA has done to our employment, wages, borrowing and current account deficit.

              7 billion in trade receipts (A growth in commodity exports to China which Australia also had without! an FTA) has cost us double that in borrowing to buy trinkets from China, losses of local industry and welfare payments to the casualties.

              The TPPA is secret in every country because if the citizens of every country knew what it did to their democratic rights and the subjugation of their interests to multinationals it would be rejected.

              It is an attempt to set the neo-liberal paradigm in concrete and make us forever powerless pawns.

              • Wayne …
                1 October 2013 at 1:23 pm

                You must be out to lunch.

                Australia sells iron ore and coal, neither of which face a tariff barrier. But agricultral products do, which is what we sell. So the FTA reduces those tariffs for NZ exports to China. Without the gains for the dairy industry over the last five years NZ would be in a much worse position.

                Our exports to China have increased have increased fourfold in the last five years. Do you really think that does not matter, in terms of how NZ has escaped the worst of the financial crisis.

                But hey, if you are that blinkered, no amount of evidence will persuade you.

                • Bill …
                  1 October 2013 at 2:01 pm

                  sheesh – lets just keep on throwing up the big ‘blank slate’ market of China why don’t we, because that’s really representative of the markets and trade relations we’ll be tied to.

                  US agriculture enjoys subsidies. NZ agriculture doesn’t. And as soon as any trade deal is signed, NZ will be legally unable to introduce tariffs or subsidies to level the playing field with regards cheap US agricultural imports.

                  Now that might be fine from the point of view of very big agriculture. But social democratic governments are meant to be a buffer between big business interests and the better interests of citizens – not a fcking cheer leader for them!

                  Then, of course, there is pharmac which will be in the sights of big US pharma corps. Wonder what the sweetener will be there? Cheap guinea pig drug trials or such like?

                  If the text was open to the public and the public delivered bottom lines back to the government, then their hand in negotiations would be strengthened, not weakened, as they could simply point out their hands were/are tied with regards a, b or c.

                  But that takes us back to the (subverted) role of social democratic governance, dunnit?

                  • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                    2 October 2013 at 11:17 am

                    The sweeteners will be “anonymous” donations and seats on boards after leaving Parliament.

                  • Rogue Trooper …
                    2 October 2013 at 1:28 pm

                    dunnit

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    2 October 2013 at 1:32 pm

                    sheesh – lets just keep on throwing up the big ‘blank slate’ market of China why don’t we, because that’s really representative of the markets and trade relations we’ll be tied to.

                    Excellent point – the TPPA has nothing to do with China, and in fact China would far prefer us to act as an independent sovereign nation not hamstrung by a secretive US imperial economic agreement.

                • Tracey …
                  2 October 2013 at 1:59 pm

                  Can you explain how US corporates are privy to negotiation and documents even though secrecy is needed and so the public are excluded? You understand this is very different to standard FTA’s? You havent seen the drafts though Wayne, you are not advocating signing before reading are you? You are trusting someone else who says it is in NZ’s best interests, that’s what it comes down to, unless you have seen the drafts (which you have denied).

                • Tracey …
                  2 October 2013 at 2:47 pm

                  But you have no evidence about the TPPA Wayne, just going on previous agreements cos oyu havent seen the draft/s, or has someone breached their confidentiality and discusse dit with you?

                  Do you agree with the following? If no, why not, please post your sources.

                  ““Parliament does not get to see the text until after it is signed. The text is then tabled in Parliament and referred to a select committee. But the committee cannot change the text. Nor can Parliament.”

                  Even if Parliament voted against the TPPA, Cabinet could legally ratify it anyway – and would be expected to do so under international law.”

                  • srylands …
                    2 October 2013 at 4:31 pm

                    Depending on the nature if the provisions in the TPPA, they will require changes to New Zealand law. Parliament will need to pass those laws to give effect to the TPPA.

                    For example if New Zealand conceded chnages in the way Pharmac operates this would require amandments to the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000. Parliament would need to pass these chanages.

                • KJT …
                  2 October 2013 at 4:12 pm

                  Of course it did, for a short period, but do you really think China will allow that to continue. And have you really counted all the countervailing costs, to NZ, of making that money.

                  I have seen at first hand what happens to countries who gut all their other industries and production because they have, for a time, managed to make a lot on one commodity. It is not pretty.

                  Unfortunately, like most of our politicians, you have bought into a religious dogma, and cannot see what is in front of you.

                  • KJT …
                    2 October 2013 at 6:49 pm

                    My apologies Wayne. that may be a bit harsh in your case.

                    “Australia sells iron ore and coal, neither of which face a tariff barrier. But agricultral products do, which is what we sell. So the FTA reduces those tariffs for NZ exports to China”.

                    Doesn’t that statement just highlight the folly of relying on either to the exclusion of a functioning, diverse, innovative and successful production and manufacturing base.

                    I suspect you agree with me, from your statement elsewhere in this thread about supporting innovative industry.

            • Colonial Viper 6.3.1.1.1.3
              1 October 2013 at 8:20 pm

              anyone involved in negotiations knows that the less information the person you are negotiating with has, the less leverage they have off you. Putting our side of negotiations into the public domain whilst still in negotiations

              Of course, you completely ducked the point that the latest negotiating copy of the agreement text should be made public.

              Not the negotiating team’s private notes.

              But you already knew that, clever man.

              • Tracey …
                2 October 2013 at 2:00 pm

                … and that they have been negotiating for 5 years now. NO secrets left, no hidden positions.

            • Tracey 6.3.1.1.1.4
              2 October 2013 at 1:56 pm

              Can you explain how secrecy is crucial but over 400 US corporate representatives are involved and viewing the documents and the negotiations but the public aren’t? That’s a HUGE contradiction right there.

              • srylands …
                2 October 2013 at 2:30 pm

                “Can you explain how secrecy is crucial but over 400 US corporate representatives are involved and viewing the documents and the negotiations but the public aren’t? That’s a HUGE contradiction right there.”

                They sign confidentiality agreements.

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  2 October 2013 at 3:18 pm

                  But why are they even invited? Why should a certain class of stakeholders be present at the table to lobby for their interests, but not others.

                  Why should some corporates be included, but not unions, for example.

                  And the confidentiality agreements are beside the point. The reasons you gave for secrecy apply just as strongly to corporates as they do to anyone else.

                  There are no good answers to these questions, which is why they ‘annoy’ you, and cause you to respond with tautologies and non sequiturs.

                  • Tracey …
                    2 October 2013 at 3:48 pm

                    still waiting fo rhis source on the corporates signing confidentiality agreements…seems odd the corporates reps cant report to their boards dontcha think?

                • Tracey …
                  2 October 2013 at 3:26 pm

                  It is so. It is so. it is so. It is so. It is so. It is so.

        • poem 6.3.1.2
          1 October 2013 at 5:53 pm

          But John Key is not doing whats best for the country bob, and thats the point. John Key is doing what best for himself and his offshore mates in high places.

          • srylands 6.3.1.2.1
            2 October 2013 at 2:32 pm

            There are no offshore mates except in your imagination. I am sure he is doing what is best for the country.

            • thatguynz 6.3.1.2.1.1
              2 October 2013 at 2:59 pm

              And that is why you are a fool. Do you have a rose tinted view of the history of the past 5 years?

            • Tracey 6.3.1.2.1.2
              2 October 2013 at 3:28 pm

              Can you confirm that none of the 400 corporates you say have signed a confidentiality agreement have no connection to John key (source please?)

              • srylands …
                2 October 2013 at 3:55 pm

                No I can’t confirm that. There may be a vast right wing conspiracy where the 400 corporates feed information on the TPPA to National’s rich offshore mates. Then those mates sell the TPPA secrets to the Government. They get paid for the secrets by some of the proceeds from assets sales.

                • Tracey …
                  3 October 2013 at 7:30 am

                  So, you just guessed that they signed confidentiality agreements which would mean they couldn’t report to their boards? You just make stuff up as you go along.

                  The difference between you and Wayne, and me on this topic is I want to know what we are signing, before we sign it. You guys just want to sign it no matter what it says.

      • poem 6.3.2
        1 October 2013 at 5:50 pm

        Agree with you Anita +1

  7. srylands 7
    1 October 2013 at 9:38 am

    This is insane. It shows that the people that pedal this line have had zero involvement in multilateral negotiations. It would be the end for New Zealand at the table.

    Do you think that Helen Clark and Phil Goff – who presided over the negotiations of many valuable bilateral and multilateral agreements would have tolerated this? She would have had the balls of any of anyone in her Government who had suggested such a thing.

    There will be some things in the TPPA we don’t like. But overall it is a no brainer. Do you want to end up like a temperate climate Samoa? Oh yeah the Greens do.

    You can do all the petitions you like. It is not happening. Silent-T knows that too. he would do exactly the same in government. He is simply making mischief and laughing behind his hand.

    • karol 7.1
      1 October 2013 at 9:43 am

      What has happened to Silent T(rev)? And what does he have to say about the TPPA?

      It would be the end for New Zealand at the table.

      Chicken Little, look to the horizon. Things are changing.

      John Key is PM now, and his credibility is on the wane.

      • srylands 7.1.1
        1 October 2013 at 1:22 pm

        “Chicken Little, look to the horizon. Things are changing.”

        It doesn’t matter. Labour will sign the TPPA. And they will negotiate it in secret.

    • Paul 7.2
      1 October 2013 at 9:45 am

      Do you always take the side of multinational corporations, Sryland?
      Rather than taking your usual negative stance to anything expressed here, can you explain the positives for regular New Zealanders if this secret treaty is signed?
      Can you explain how the TPPA will benefit New Zealand?

    • Colonial Viper 7.3
      1 October 2013 at 11:52 am

      This is insane. It shows that the people that pedal this line have had zero involvement in multilateral negotiations. It would be the end for New Zealand at the table.

      The alternative being the country signed up to a secret document with secret terms and conditions, so secret that not even our elected Parliamentarians can penetrate (even if corporate lackeys have full access)?

    • greywarbler 7.4
      1 October 2013 at 11:59 am

      srylands You said your first true thing. The negotiation system is insane, also undemocratic and irresponsible – to us as supposed sovereign citizens of this country. And also for each other country involved. How simple it is to throw out the rules when there is something a bit different from normal occurring. How convenient to say to all of we people at home, leave it to us, this is for the big boys, you go off and play while we do all the heavy lifting. Whatever we decide though, you will have to do, but you won’t mind will you.

      That’s insane all right.

      • srylands 7.4.1
        1 October 2013 at 1:32 pm

        You cannot conduct international negotiations in an environment where working drafts are exposed with the mob baying and whinging. No government will allow this to happen. And you are naive for thinking otherwise. It is that simple. Mobe on to something you can chnage.

        • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 7.4.1.1
          1 October 2013 at 1:47 pm

          It is naïve to think that governments can carry on with ‘business as usual’ after the GFC crisis, which was clearly created by a mixture of poor policies, fraudulent behaviour in many sectors and a serious conflation of public interests with private ones.

          I am of the opinion nothing has been done of any moment that has addressed these problems.

          We have no guarantee that this ‘confusion’ of public interests with private ones is not occurring with these negotiations.

          Governments are going to have to take time out from their ‘business as usual’ attitudes in order to address these matters. Otherwise they won’t be able to do more than ‘international negotiations’ because their legitimacy will be non-existent.

        • Paul 7.4.1.2
          1 October 2013 at 2:06 pm

          I’m glad your anti democratic ideals are becoming apparent.
          To call citizens concerned about democracy a mob that bays and whinges says so much about who you really care about.

        • Draco T Bastard 7.4.1.3
          1 October 2013 at 5:25 pm

          No government will allow this to happen.

          Then that government needs to be charged with treason as by not making the drafts available to us they’re removing our ability to govern ourselves.

    • framu 7.5
      1 October 2013 at 12:28 pm

      question – is the TPPA an FTA?

      considering that only a small portion of the negotiations is about trade what do you think wonder boy?

      and you can shove your continued schoolyard insults where the sun doesnt shine – its high time you grew up

    • Draco T Bastard 7.6
      1 October 2013 at 5:23 pm

      Ah, SSLands comes out in favour of dictatorial government – again.

      As a democratic nation the people need to see the text of the agreement so that they can make an informed decision.

    • Tracey 7.7
      2 October 2013 at 2:08 pm

      you berate someone for bad manners and continue to refer to a public figure by an offensive nomenclature. A puerile one at that.

      What is insane is that you cannot name a single agreement negotiated in secret by the last Labour Government which sought to suborne NZ law to overseas Companies. So you avoid it and call something you have never seen a “no brainer”. You try to come across as a savvy guy economically and worldly but you are advocating potentially giving up our sovereignty over something you have not seen and know even less about.

      You are proof the exodus to Australia is not, in fact, a brain drain.

  8. George D 8
    1 October 2013 at 9:51 am

    I’m sorry to declare that Labour’s opposition to the TPPA lasted about a week, until Goff was appointed trade spokesperson. I can’t yet copy links on this smartphone, but Fran O’sullivan’s ‘Goff adding muscle to Pacific trade push’ is required reading. Go, take a look and then come back here and we’ll discuss this insidious document and its promoters.

    My own personal opinion is that Labour members who are skilled in areas which will be heavily affected by this legislation should arrange meetings with Goff and turn that smile into something sober.

    • Tracey 8.1
      2 October 2013 at 2:09 pm

      Have emailed Cunliffe and asked if he can confirm that the appointment of Goff does not affect his comments to date about his stance on the TPPA.

  9. Paul 9
    1 October 2013 at 10:00 am

    Goff is following in the steps of another neo-liberal convert Mike Moore…..both part of the the Labour clique of the 1980s who betrayed the country, selling out the people of New Zealand for the global elite.
    Cunliffe has to show that Labour has returned to the ideals of its origin, not the party that has hijacked by these traitors.

    • srylands 9.1
      1 October 2013 at 1:58 pm

      “Cunliffe has to show that Labour has returned to the ideals of its origin, not the party that has hijacked by these traitors.”

      Good grief! Do you want Silent-T to lead a one term Government?

      • Paul 9.1.1
        1 October 2013 at 2:08 pm

        It’s amazing how you right wing folk have to resort to name calling.
        I guess sticking to the actual issue puts you on he back foot.

    • Rogue Trooper 9.2
      2 October 2013 at 1:35 pm

      =3

  10. Wayne 10
    1 October 2013 at 10:23 am

    New Zealand cannot release negotiating drafts without the approval of the other parties. Thats because they include positions that countries want to negotiate on.

    Now I know this ad is more of the tactics of those who oppose the TPP, just as virtually all the people in the ad opposed the China FTA.

    I suspect this will be become quite divisive in Labour. Labour activists (ex Alliance) oppose TPP, but as Phil Goff’s interview with Fan O’Sullivan showed, Labour generally supports FTA’s. Trade is a portfolio that the Greens will not get, and David Cunliffe knows what he is doing by appointing Phil. I suspect David will be quite careful in his future rhetoric on this issue.

    • Paul 10.1
      1 October 2013 at 10:26 am

      You sound a fan of the TPPA.
      In your opinion Wayne, what do New Zealanders have to gain from signing this secret deal?

      • Wayne 10.1.1
        1 October 2013 at 10:45 am

        Paul,

        Yes, I am a fan. As a general proposition New Zealand gains when trade barriers (whether in goods or services) are lowered.

        The effect of the China FTA has been profound, and essentially insulated us from the worst of the global recession. It is the key reason why NZ diary exports have a competitive advantage in China over other countries. Our exports face a lower Chinese tariff.

        In this instance Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, United States are all in the TPP negotiations. We only have a FTA with Australia. We will gain substantially by having the markets of the others opened up for NZ exports.

        • thatguynz 10.1.1.1
          1 October 2013 at 12:25 pm

          Wayne,

          I assume you are familiar with the book “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” by John Perkins. I’m intrigued as to why you maintain such an idyllic view of the trading partners that our government seem to be fawning all over? Can I also assume that you have read the book that explains the issues that Australia has experienced since entering into a trade agreement with the US (apologies, the book name escapes me at the moment)?

          Ergo – even if the TPPA was a true FTA (which it isn’t) your hopes and dreams of the supposed trade benefits to grass roots NZ would very much appear to be seriously misplaced…

          • thatguynz 10.1.1.1.1
            1 October 2013 at 12:31 pm

            UPDATE: The second book referenced is called “How to Kill a Country: Australia’s Devastating Trade Deal with the United States” by Weiss, Thurbon & Mathews. Somewhat evocative title I agree however very interesting content..

            • Wayne 10.1.1.1.1.1
              1 October 2013 at 9:11 pm

              Like Australia is economically dead? The only OECD country not to have a recession. The authors must be well out of the mainstream.

              • thatguynz …
                1 October 2013 at 9:16 pm

                Nice try Wayne. Have you read either of the books mentioned?

                • Wayne …
                  1 October 2013 at 9:30 pm

                  I did see the book “How to Kill a Country” was written in 2004, and like this site was an attack on the FTA. And written by the “usual suspects”. I did read some reviews on line to get a sense of it.

                  Well, we can see what happened, just as we have done in NZ with the China FTA. In both cases the fears have been trumped by the facts of what has happened, although I think NZ has done better out of the China FTA.

                  • thatguynz …
                    1 October 2013 at 9:41 pm

                    So as soon as you made a determination that it was an attack on the FTA (“like this site”) you discount its content? Interesting although not wholly surprising.

                    What did your cursory investigation find out about John Perkins’ book then? Is he also one of the “usual suspects”?

                    • srylands …
                      1 October 2013 at 11:15 pm

                      “What did your cursory investigation find out about John Perkins’ book then? Is he also one of the “usual suspects”?”

                      Yes!

                    • thatguynz …
                      1 October 2013 at 11:23 pm

                      Srylands, you’ve demonstrated time and again that you struggle to keep up with simple concepts.. Run along now and let Wayne answer the question for himself.

        • framu 10.1.1.2
          1 October 2013 at 12:37 pm

          whats your opinion regarding multinationals being able to force govts hand regarding making laws in their own counrty?

          or trade deals where only a small part of the deal being discussed is about trade

          or multinationals having track records of using such measures to rid themselves of product (sometimes these involve highly toxic substances) that even their own country wont let them sell or to override elected govts

          thats the problem the pro camp refuses to address – theres things we know or highly suspect are on the agenda, theres companies involved that have shown they dont really give a flying shit what we might want or decide to do at a govt level and theres some very nasty politics being played – and not for our benefit

          perhaps before saying those opposed are wrong, the pro camp could address these rather huge and valid issues. “trust us, you will get your chance to say something” has been proven time and again to not being worth diddly squat

          If the pro camp is going to keep ignoring these things – why the hell should anyone accept “trust us”?

        • Tracey 10.1.1.3
          1 October 2013 at 2:27 pm

          IF that’s how the agreement pans out. BUT you dont know the terms and you have no idea how much we kow tow to other, bigger, stronger partners to achieve even the smallest gain.

        • KJT 10.1.1.4
          1 October 2013 at 5:14 pm

          We are still waiting for the “benefits” of FTA’s, and the whole neo-liberal package.

          Pay in my primary trade is 40% lower, in New Zealand, against the CPI, than it was in the 80’s, despite my much greater experience, position, and skill level gained since then, and! I am one of the highly skilled NZ cannot do without. Employers in my feild are constantly bleating they cannot get qualified staff.
          Mostly because New Zealanders with the skills have left for higher pay everywhere else in the world.

          Even worse is the spiral into third world poverty for huge numbers of New Zealanders.

          How long do we have to wait?

          Don’t even get me started on the fact we have no negotiating position, apart from embarrassingly trading on the lives of our dead soldiers, because of our unilateral abandonment of all protections for our industry, and our citizens, by ideological fuckwits, in Labour, in the 80’s.

          The advantages of FTA’s exist only in the minds of religious “free trade” zealots.

          All the countries in the world are not going to get rich by individually, out exporting everyone else. Some will lose that game. The smaller, less powerful fools, like us!

          The TPPA is even worse. Even the few things that have been leaked so far show it is a charter for corporate rights, above our democratic rights..

          • Draco T Bastard 10.1.1.4.1
            1 October 2013 at 5:28 pm

            +111

          • srylands 10.1.1.4.2
            1 October 2013 at 11:18 pm

            “We are still waiting for the “benefits” of FTA’s, and the whole neo-liberal package.”

            No we are not. The benefits are here. I see them at Mitre 10 when I go shopping. I see them in reduced poverty. The future is bright thanks to markets. We just need to accelerate the pace of change, which is woefully slow in NZ.

            New Zealand has right now a cautious, centre left government. Stop demonising it and get with the play for the sake of the nation.

            • thatguynz 10.1.1.4.2.1
              1 October 2013 at 11:20 pm

              Reduced poverty? You’re taking the piss right? I assume you live on Planet Key…

            • Draco T Bastard 10.1.1.4.2.2
              2 October 2013 at 2:08 pm

              I see them in reduced poverty.

              The FTAs and free-market religion that we’ve had dumped on us by stupid politicians and economists have increased poverty.

            • Tracey 10.1.1.4.2.3
              2 October 2013 at 2:15 pm

              “New Zealand has right now a cautious, centre left government. Stop demonising it and get with the play for the sake of the nation.”

              Thanks for my chuckle of the day. Especially the centre left bit. You are sounding more and more like Hooten every day.

            • KJT 10.1.1.4.2.4
              2 October 2013 at 2:32 pm

              “Reduced poverty” Where? Paritai Drive!

              Hawaii?

              Srylands cannot help writing satire.

              The new Jonathan Swift.

          • Tracey 10.1.1.4.3
            2 October 2013 at 2:18 pm

            “Pay in my primary trade is 40% lower, in New Zealand, against the CPI, than it was in the 80′s, despite my much greater experience, position, and skill level gained since then, and! I am one of the highly skilled NZ cannot do without. Employers in my feild are constantly bleating they cannot get qualified staff.”

            But, but, but Wayne says the economy and consumer is better off and srylands is loving going to mitre 10.

            The Warehouse has given us cheaper crap and minimum wage jobs but also assisted the complete collapse of our apparel industry.

            Saying the “economy” will benefit is vacuous. Like economics it has little practical meaning. Profits for a small number of people will rise, minimum wage will not unless legislated. Why is that srylands, Wayne? Afterall in good times employers will share the increased profits? NOT unless legislated. SME’s are more likely to raise wages than the major employers, unless you mean executive bonuses?

            • KJT 10.1.1.4.3.1
              2 October 2013 at 2:42 pm

              I used to love going to hardware stores. You know, the ones that sold New Zealand made tools I am still using 40 years later.

              I used to love going ski-ing and sailing as a teenage apprentice.

              Instead of living in a garage on baked beans, like too many present day teenagers. Even the ones with jobs!

              I used to love the fact that all the kids I went to school with had a home and decent food, and hope of making things better for themselves in future. Even the poorest ones.

              I loved the fact that we did not have teenagers committing suicide, after being shunted between disgusting employers, WINZ and the overworked mental health system. One we knew, just last week. Which is why I have had a gutsfull of our shocking fascist Government, and unthinking apologists for them, like Fairylands.

      • Tracey 10.1.2
        1 October 2013 at 2:26 pm

        actually wayne has never opposed a single FTA type agreement or similar. He has also said he supports this one but has never read the agreement. I wonder if he recommends his clients agree to something without reading it.

        • srylands 10.1.2.1
          1 October 2013 at 11:21 pm

          “actually wayne has never opposed a single FTA type agreement or similar. He has also said he supports this one but has never read the agreement. I wonder if he recommends his clients agree to something without reading it.”

          So what are we going to do? Not sign up if all other asia pacific powers do sign? It would be a fucking disaster. That is not an option. It will not be an option if Labour is in power come signing time, and NO New Zealand government will make the working drafts available to the public. You are being played.

          • Tracey 10.1.2.1.1
            2 October 2013 at 2:13 pm

            Again you miss the point. Wayne is advocating for something he knows nothing about. He hasnt read it but has decided it is in NZ’s bests interests. He has NOTHING to base that on and, has always favoured FTA’s, never opposed a single one. That is ideological faith,. Which i fine, but it is masquerading as logic and rationality (or purporting to) but it isn’t.

            The USA is doing ok not lifting subsidies on agriculture… so not everyone pulls their pants down for a good old fashioned rogering.

            next you will tell us the economy will collapse if we dont sign… and the good times will come soon if we do sign and the benefits will trickle down.

      • Tracey 10.1.3
        2 October 2013 at 2:10 pm

        Wayne has admitted he has NEVER opposed an FTA Paul, so like those on the other side he accuses of being jaundiced for always opposing, he is equally jaundiced by always favouring.

    • Tiger Mountain 10.2
      1 October 2013 at 10:32 am

      Usually easier to let a cat out of the bag than try and put one back in! DC has said it now. So all you process junkies may be disrupted if there is popular support for more openness.

    • Pascal's bookie 10.3
      1 October 2013 at 10:40 am

      “Thats because they include positions that countries want to negotiate on.”

      So? That’s their problem. The thing about democracies is, that citizens should get to discuss what is being negotiated, before the deal is signed. If these deals are win/win, then there really is no reason at all for citizens to be kept out opf the loop on what is being decided for them. The only reason to keep it from them is if politicians fear that citizens won’t like what is being negotiated. And if it is win/win, then politicians should do their job and convince their citizens of that.

      Key is also busy lying about this deal at the moment, saying that parliament gets to ratify any deal. Do you agree that he is wrong about that Wayne?

      • framu 10.3.1
        1 October 2013 at 12:42 pm

        “The only reason to keep it from them is if politicians fear that citizens won’t like what is being negotiated. And if it is win/win, then politicians should do their job and convince their citizens of that.”

        bingo

  12. Wayne 12
    1 October 2013 at 10:56 am

    Pascal,

    Parliament will effectively ratify, since it has to change NZ law to implement TPP. however the Govt (Tim Groser) does the negotiating.

    Releasing drafts would breach the agreement NZ has with the other negotiating parties. That is the equivalent of saying you don’t want to be a party to TPP, which I imagine is your position in any event.

    • Pascal's bookie 12.1
      1 October 2013 at 11:11 am

      “effectively” so Parliament gets a veto only. We can;t say we want this but do nat agree to that? “effectively’ democracy is shut out of the negotiations.

      that’s what I oppose, so I’ll thank you can keep your ‘imagination’ to yourself.

      As for it having to be secret because we agreed to it being secret, this is a tautology. I know it’s secret Wayne. that’s what I oppose. Why is it secret if everyone is so sure that it is win/win? Why can’t politicians do their damn jobs and explain why it is so win win?

      The obvious answer to that is the reason there is disquiet, as is the answer to getting people on side. Don’t be secretive about it!

      People don’t like having secret decisions made on their behalf, and if that makes politicians jobs too hard for them, perhaps they should seek easier work, or upskill or something.

      • KJT 12.1.1
        2 October 2013 at 2:58 pm

        It is not just the NZ public that object to being shut out of the negotiations.

        Thinking members of the public, in all the potential signatories, have serious doubts, and want public negotiations, as a minimum.

    • Ennui 12.2
      1 October 2013 at 11:47 am

      So Mr Kerr, you rightly say “Releasing drafts would breach the agreement NZ has with the other negotiating parties”…which is an effective way of saying all negotiations are being conducted in camera. Which in reality means that the public of NZ are being denied visibility of a trade deal about which the proponents posit we will benefit. Yet they wont tell us what is really in it. What have they got to hide (and don’t give me that “trust us” bullshit)?

      • Wayne 12.2.1
        1 October 2013 at 12:26 pm

        Ennui,

        I actually agree that a bit more transparency would be a good thing, since the lack of it leads to all sorts of conspiracy theories, like for instance, requiring NZ to accept GE, beyond the current levels, or something reasonably close to that. Probably more of a labelling issue.

        But NZ doesn’t really have a choice about releasing drafts if it wants to stay in TPP as a negotiating party, unless we convince the other parties that a bit more transparency would be a good thing.

        So as the situation stands, it is accept the rules as they are, or opt out altogether – the objective of most of the commenters here and the people in the ad.

        It is worth noting that virtually all the negotiating parties are democracies, which will have to pass laws to implement TPP through their national parliaments. So they are unlikely to do anything outlandish, since presumably all the current governments would actually like to be reelected.

        OK, I know that is a bit of “Trust me, I know what I am doing,” but a democratic vote at the next election does tend to limit craziness.

        • framu 12.2.1.1
          1 October 2013 at 12:40 pm

          “it is accept the rules as they are, or opt out altogether ”

          Thats a pathetically defeatist attitude wayne – what ever happened to having some balls?

          The australians did a bit of push back and theyre still in

          • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 12.2.1.1.1
            1 October 2013 at 1:07 pm

            +1 Framu

            It should not be difficult for NZ negotiators to establish transparency as a requirement of these deals. American negotiators, also have the same demands being called for by their citizens. Others in the negotiations, no doubt, are having similar pressure placed on them.

            “Trust us, we know what we are doing” is no longer appropriate, nor a fair and reasonable expectation, after the GFC crisis, the bailouts the job losses and ensuing unemployment and poverty that citizens of Western countries have been sustaining due to ‘trusting’ their Governments’.

            Governments should have considered the effect on public trust prior to caving into the private interests of those who were lobbying and bribing them.

            It stands to reason that if Governments stop acting in the public interest they will stop enjoying the trust of the public and start having to become more transparent, and accountable.

        • Pascal's bookie 12.2.1.2
          1 October 2013 at 12:45 pm

          Still haven’t explained why it has to be secret Wayne. Too busy second guessing the motives of those who say it shouldn’t be I guess.

          meh.

        • Tracey 12.2.1.3
          1 October 2013 at 2:30 pm

          “But NZ doesn’t really have a choice about releasing drafts if it wants to stay in TPP”

          And this is becase we are a bottom-feeder in this transaction. The logic follows, therefore, that we wont be getting many terms that suit us without having to give up shitloads to the others. BUT we don’t know cos we all have to trust Timmy.

          • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 12.2.1.3.1
            1 October 2013 at 4:40 pm

            +1 Tracy
            Exactly!

          • Wayne 12.2.1.3.2
            1 October 2013 at 4:51 pm

            Tracey,

            As you can imagine these rules apply to all.

            I suspect that Japan and South Korea would be pretty anxious on this issue. They will have enough difficulties putting an agreement through, but they will also have to have a good enough agreement, so that it can actually pass through their Parliaments.

            And maybe President Obama is operating on the same principle, since he has enough difficulties with Congress without adding another one. In the US case it probably suits the administration to give the Congress the final text only (which is not to say that specific Senators and Representatives are not consulted).

            Of course getting it through applies to all the negotiating states. If TPP was only about the US, it won’t be completed. And the balance does turn on the judgement and skill of the negotiators of each state. They will need to understand what will work for the majority of their citizens, but those implacably opposed probably are not the key voices in determining this!

            So I guess “Timmy” has a lot to weigh up.

            • Tracey 12.2.1.3.2.1
              2 October 2013 at 2:23 pm

              Again you dont address my actual point. We are not a major player and you know it. We had no choice but to keep it secret and we will not be a strong hand at the negotiating table…

              You do however make a novel point “what will work for the majority of their citizens”. However with so many corporate reps from the USA invovled it is unlikely this aspect will be fulfilled.

        • Draco T Bastard 12.2.1.4
          1 October 2013 at 5:37 pm

          but a democratic vote at the next election does tend to limit craziness.

          Didn’t stop this government selling our assets against the will of the people.

          • Wayne 12.2.1.4.1
            1 October 2013 at 5:51 pm

            Draco, Hmm, you may have forgotten, but it was an explicit campaign promise.

            • Colonial Viper 12.2.1.4.1.1
              1 October 2013 at 6:01 pm

              One that will cost National 2014.

            • Clement Pinto 12.2.1.4.1.2
              1 October 2013 at 6:02 pm

              True, but that wasn’t the ONLY issue during the election. People vote for many reasons. Not one single issue. It wasn’t a referendum on asset sales. The fact that an overwhelming number of people, including Nat supporters oppose it as per the polls tells you that.

            • Draco T Bastard 12.2.1.4.1.3
              1 October 2013 at 6:06 pm

              Yep and the polls have always shown that 75 to 80 percent oppose the sales. This means selling them is undemocratic.

            • Tracey 12.2.1.4.1.4
              2 October 2013 at 2:24 pm

              Do you accept that the campaign promise included what the proceeds would be put to?

        • KJT 12.2.1.5
          2 October 2013 at 3:00 pm

          “but a democratic vote at the next election does tend to limit craziness”.

          Doesn’t seem to be working in the USA at present.

      • srylands 12.2.2
        1 October 2013 at 1:20 pm

        Don’t be so stupid. Of course the negotiations need to be secret. All the countries will need to pass domestic laws to implement the treaty. You will see the details at that point.

        Which multilateral treaties did the 5th labour Government negotiate where the negotiatiing drafts were made public? None. It will never happen. You are wasting your time.

        • Pascal's bookie 12.2.2.1
          1 October 2013 at 2:28 pm

          Oh and look, another lackwit pops up from the seats of repetition and completely fails to explain why it must be secret.

          If these deals are win/win, why shouldn’t citizens be part of the discussion?

        • Tracey 12.2.2.2
          1 October 2013 at 2:33 pm

          which multi lateral treaties did the 5th labour government negotiate which had over 400 corporate “advisors” privy to the draft terms and the negotiations?, gave tobacco and other corporates rights which effectively overrode NZ law? None. It never happened. You continue to waste everyone’s time. Perhaps you are the one drinking in Hamilton, it would explain alot.

          You understand that saying it has to be passed into law is contrite because NACTUNITED will probably have the numbers.

        • Colonial Viper 12.2.2.3
          1 October 2013 at 5:17 pm

          Don’t be so stupid. Of course the negotiations need to be secret. All the countries will need to pass domestic laws to implement the treaty. You will see the details at that point.

          You wouldn’t sign a contract sight unseen. So why should the NZ public?

          Do you think democracy is just a rubber stamping process for the corporate wide boys big money projects?

          • Draco T Bastard 12.2.2.3.1
            1 October 2013 at 5:39 pm

            Do you think democracy is just a rubber stamping process for the corporate wide boys big money projects?

            After reading what he says over the last few weeks I’d say that’s exactly what he thinks. He’s obviously as anti-democracy as National.

          • Jim Nald 12.2.2.3.2
            1 October 2013 at 5:42 pm

            Is the TPPA about undermining the social contract by installing the corporate compact?

        • McFlock 12.2.2.4
          1 October 2013 at 5:34 pm

          Of course the negotiations need to be secret.

          Why?
          If the negotiators are willing to follow the democratic will of their people and it’s a simple trade agreement, why does any stage of the process need to be secret?

          • Pascal's bookie 12.2.2.4.1
            2 October 2013 at 7:21 am

            There seems to be a remarkable reluctance to answer this pretty straightforward question doesn’t there.

            If the deal is such a win/win, and it is obvious that it must be done in secret, then an explanation for the secrecy should be pretty straightforward. But, zip, nothing, because because, that’s why.

            • McFlock 12.2.2.4.1.1
              2 October 2013 at 12:48 pm

              It might just be that sithlands is ignoring me because he doesn’t like me making fun of his handle while he advocates policies that create more (and then imprison and kill) poor people.

              • srylands …
                2 October 2013 at 1:27 pm

                “It might just be that sithlands is ignoring me because he doesn’t like me making fun of his handle while he advocates policies that create more (and then imprison and kill) poor people.”

                I am having nothing to do with you. You have no manners.

                [lprent; Just a point, if you’re expecting “manners” around here then you’ll be waiting for them for a long time. It just isn’t a requirement on this site.

                The standard in the policy is that we encourage “robust” debate with the only limitations being such things as “pointless abuse”, various forms of “trolling” (which is roughly equivalent to “I can write a program to generate comments with more intelligence”), things that are illegal (including advocation of violence), outright offensive bigotry as determined by moderators, and a refusal to engage with other commentators (also known as astroturfing and other names).

                You will need to sure that your pursuit of “manners” doesn’t violate the latter. In particular because I suspect that your statement will encourage more of the lack of “manners” that you dislike. ]

                • Tracey …
                  2 October 2013 at 1:53 pm

                  while accusing people of being drunk just covers you in glory. More Tory do as I say not as I do.

                  • srylands …
                    2 October 2013 at 2:22 pm

                    I have never in my life heard anyone in any conversation in New Zealand refer to anyone as a “Tory”. It is utterly bizarre that it is used liberally by the posters here.

                    “A Tory holds a political philosophy (Toryism) based on the traditionalism and conservatism originating with the Cavalier faction during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms.”

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tory#Current_usage

                    I don’t think so !

                    • McFlock …
                      2 October 2013 at 2:40 pm

                      Yes, it is so.

                      The eternal policies of the tory: preserve their own power, exploit the poor, crush the middle class.

                      Oh, by the way, you’re obviously another stupid tory who thinks that nobody else has access to wikipedia. There are three paragraphs in the section you linked to, none of them being the sentence you quoted.

                      Paragraph three in the section you linked to, because it refers explicitly to your country of residence:

                      In Australia, “Tory” is used as a pejorative term by members of the Australian Labor Party to refer to members of the conservative coalition Liberal and National parties.[15]

                      Oh, you said you’d never heard anybody in New Zealand use the term. I guess they must have been well behaved at the last left-wing meeting you went to in NZ. None of your tory friends would use the term, because abusers never call themselves what they are.

                      At least I have the honesty to call you a “stupid fuckwit” outright, whereas you just assume that nobody will catch your patently obvious misdirections.

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      2 October 2013 at 2:47 pm

                      😎 Bro’

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      2 October 2013 at 2:55 pm

                      I have never in my life heard anyone in any conversation in New Zealand refer to anyone as a “Tory”. It is utterly bizarre that it is used liberally by the posters here.

                      Good grief. You should really get out more, or read more about politics in NZ.

                      Here’s one from yesterday:

                      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/super-city/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501110&objectid=11132426

                      Here’s one from a while back:

                      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/blogs/bull-dust/8625466/Happy-Gilmores-political-career-likely-to-be-brief

                      There’s no shortage of it, and more people know who it means that the ‘watermelon’ jibe you keep dragging out from the sewers you frequent.

                  • srylands …
                    2 October 2013 at 2:23 pm

                    I only accuse you of being drunk.

                    • Tracey …
                      2 October 2013 at 2:31 pm

                      When you lose the battle of ideas as the world goes in the opposite direction to your dream, you resort to rudeness. I have seen this before and it is predominantly Righties that do it. Nobody likes rude people.

                    • srylands …
                      2 October 2013 at 2:51 pm

                      None of my left wing friends use the term. My lefty wing Green voting wife doesn’t use the term. None of my wife’s flaky socialist friends use the term.

                    • KJT …
                      2 October 2013 at 3:10 pm

                      You should listen to your wife. She is obviously wiser than you.

                    • Tracey …
                      3 October 2013 at 7:34 am

                      is that your real wife or the one you make up to make it seem like you are attractive to a human being?

                • McFlock …
                  2 October 2013 at 2:31 pm

                  I have an honest bark while you shed crocodile tears.

                  As far as I’m concerned, you’re like any other conceited, narcissistic pissant who doesn’t have the decency to admit to murder when the evidence against them is patently overwhelming. A nasty little scrote complaining about hurt feelings.

                  And yes, the policies you advocate kill people – often children.

                  • srylands …
                    2 October 2013 at 2:48 pm

                    So what are you going to do? If the TPPA negotiations are finalised, New Zealand will ratify. It doesn’t matter whether Labour is in power or National is in power.

                    So you can’t change a thing. Move on to something you can influence. Like Asset sales. It looks like Solid Energy is going to remain state owned – there is a win for you.

                    Labour could probably get 80% of what it wants to achoeve through a coalition with National. It would provide popular stable government. It would freeze out all the crazies. Why do you think Helen never went into government with the Greens?

                    If Labour does lose the 2014 election (or wins and ends up being a one term government) you will see a National-Labour coalition govt in the 2020s.

                    But I digress. Apologies.

                    Back to the TPPA – to summarise – there is nothing you can do.

                    • richard …
                      2 October 2013 at 2:53 pm

                      Back to the TPPA – to summarise – there is nothing you can do.

                      But there are things we can do.

                      And people are doing what they can.

                      And you bootlickers hate that people are doing it because you fear that it may offend those whose boots you lick.

                    • Alanz …
                      2 October 2013 at 2:57 pm

                      The TPPA is not inevitable.

                      There were societal pushbacks against the TPPA in its past reincarnations, including the MAI, and there needs again to be organised, systematic, and well-connected worldwide fightback.

                      MAI:
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilateral_Agreement_on_Investment

                    • McFlock …
                      2 October 2013 at 3:05 pm

                      Well, the first thing we can do is ask candidates about it at public meetings.

                      I can use the democratic process that the TPPA avoids to find out which parties are prepared to sell out their country, and which parties will work in the true “national interest” – maximum benefit for the most people.

                      Then, if Labour support it, I can send my vote to a party that won’t support it, and might be in a position and have the will to threaten government confidence over it. A couple of options spring to mind: Mana, maybe the Greens, maybe Winston1.

                      But it will be interesting to see what labour does after they win in in 2014, yes.

                      It looks like Solid Energy is going to remain state owned – there is a win for you.

                      Amputating a limb at the knee rather than mid-thigh is not much of a “win”.

                      Your nothing to do, nothing to see, do something else mantra is not so much defeatist as just desperate.

                      Labour could probably get 80% of what it wants to achoeve through a coalition with National. It would provide popular stable government.

                      And the suffering of people who are too poor for you to count will continue.
                      And the following election “Labour” would be <20%.

                    • thatguynz …
                      2 October 2013 at 3:11 pm

                      “It looks like Solid Energy is going to remain state owned – there is a win for you.”

                      I suggest you look a little more closely at that statement. It is currently proposed to undergo a debt for equity swap with its prime banking creditors – partial privatisation by any other name.

                    • McFlock …
                      2 October 2013 at 3:12 pm

                      @Alanz – I’d forgotten about the MAI.

                      That was another one where tories like sithlands claimed “it’s inevitable, you can do nothing, nothing to see here, move along” mantra. So much for that bullshit.

            • srylands 12.2.2.4.1.2
              2 October 2013 at 1:27 pm

              It has to be done in secret because there will be significant oppoistion to many of its provisions. Debated in public, that opposition will undermine the negotiations. The case for secrecy is so strong I am annoyed at having to spell it out.

              You don’t want to debate the treaty. You want to trash it. Why would the Government allow that? If the negotiations are still in progress when Labour win the next election the new government will adopt exactly the same stance. So why do you bother?

              BTW I never said the treaty is a “simple trade agreement”. (Someone here keeps saying that but I can’t find the post.) It has 30 chapters covering IP, investor state disputes, technology transfer, FDI, just to name a few. It is a treaty covering 36 aspects of international economic connections.

              The treaty will need to be ratified. There will be plenty of room for debate. Anyway by the time ratification comes around Labour will be in power. Why are you worried? The new government can just refuse to ratify the treaty.

              New Zealand has very limited leverage at these negotiations. If the Government threatened to do what you ask it would be the end of the road. New Zealand would exit. Of course that is what you want.

              • Rogue Trooper …
                2 October 2013 at 1:43 pm

                politely, first paragraph, Right On!

              • Tracey …
                2 October 2013 at 1:54 pm

                Just repeating the same things over and over doesnt make them true.

                The negotiations are five years old. There is nothing new under the sun. You refuse to address the involvement of over 400 corporate representatives while saying secrecy is crucial.

                • srylands …
                  2 October 2013 at 2:24 pm

                  The 400 corporate representatives have signed confidentiality agreements – i.e they can keep the secret. I have no problem with the Leader of the Opposition being briefed if he signs the same agreement.

                  • Tracey …
                    2 October 2013 at 2:40 pm

                    “The 400 corporate representatives have signed confidentiality agreements” link please?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      2 October 2013 at 3:15 pm

                      Shitlands means to say that the rights of 400 corporate officers outweigh the rights of 4.5M New Zealanders.

                      Of course, this is the standard shite attitude of the servants and hangers-on of the top 0.1%.

              • Tracey …
                2 October 2013 at 2:38 pm

                Are you getting your constitutional information directly from the PM, as opposed to a constitutionl lawyer (or two)?

                “”This mistruth has been repeated so many times by ministers and National MPs that it has to be a deliberate attempt to defuse growing concerns about the secrecy of these negotiations and anti-democratic nature of the agreement,” says Prof Kelsey.

                Instead, under the law the decision rests with “the executive” – in New Zealand’s case, Prof Kelsey says, this means Cabinet.

                “Parliament does not get to see the text until after it is signed. The text is then tabled in Parliament and referred to a select committee. But the committee cannot change the text. Nor can Parliament.”

                She says even if Parliament voted against the TPPA, Cabinet could legally ratify it anyway – and would be expected to do so under international law.”

                Now she could be lying but it is VERY VERY easy to check. I wonder why the PM and Grosser didnt bother to check, because with a smidgeon of research it turns out Kelsey is right. And Mr Mapp ought to have known this when he started talking about ratification too.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                2 October 2013 at 2:44 pm

                It has to be done in secret because there will be significant opposition to many of its provisions. Debated in public, that opposition will undermine the negotiations. The case for secrecy is so strong I am annoyed at having to spell it out.

                And yet Wayne, and various others, assure us that it is win/win. That it’s a slam dunk in terms of the overall benefits. That we’d be daft not to be involved. If that is the case then they should welcome the debate and the ensuing chance to explain the benefits.

                Your ‘annoyance’ is laughable. As is this belief that you have ‘spelled it out’. The idea that there would be opposition to what is happening isn’t a reason for secrecy, it’s a reason for openness and debate.

  13. Bill 13
    1 October 2013 at 11:31 am

    I know the internet is full of similar articles. Overwhelming evidence? Anyway. The shit has been hitting the fan in Columbia recently due to the effects of the 2012 FTA with the US and EU. Informative read for those with an interest.

    http://www.redpepper.org.uk/colombian-protests-show-cracks-in-disastrous-economic-model/

    • greywarbler 13.1
      1 October 2013 at 6:46 pm

      Very upsetting Bill. The people of the world are being put through the mill in an easily identified scam and such treaties should almost come under that waiver of legality which can be called when a powerful body treats with a wekaer body, and can impress their own wishes on the weaker. Usually used when developed and undeveloped nations with different cultural practices make agreements. The USA is definitely more powerful and forceful than most other natons.

  14. Half Crown 14
    1 October 2013 at 12:37 pm

    Thanks for pointing us to that site Bill. I think Federated Farmers a National Party stronghold should really start asking Key if we can expect “this” under any TPPA agreement.

    From the same site

    “The ‘Monsanto Law’

    In order to end the strike the government agreed last week to freeze one of the most controversial laws which was passed in preparation for the implementation of the FTA. The law has been dubbed the ‘Monsanto law’ by the campesinos because it effectively prohibits them from using any seed which has not been ‘certified’ by the state, and thereby forces Colombian farmers to use the seeds of agribusiness multinationals such as US giant Monsanto.

    The process of certifying a seed is expensive and very technical, and thus beyond the means of many small and medium scale producers. According to the recent documentary, ‘9.70’, only 8% of certified seeds were registered by Colombian companies.

    Furthermore, because seeds are deemed to be the intellectual property of the company which registered them, the traditional practice of holding back some seeds to use as seeds for the following year’s crop is now a crime for which a farmer can be sent to jail for 4 years. It has been reported that more than 2.5m tonnes of ‘illegal’ food has been seized and destroyed by the Colombian authorities since the decree was passed in 2010, in a country where around 40% of the rural population live in extreme poverty. This is the twisted logic of the free trade agreement.

  15. George D 15
    1 October 2013 at 1:04 pm

    There’s a lot of misunderstanding about the TPPA. Though it contains trade components, it isn’t a FTA, it is first and foremost a regulatory alignment agreement. That is why the software industry is very concerned and why Pharmac and ACC are under threat – they both restrict the ability of international businesses to operate as they do in the United States, an outlier in both health and IP law. This threatens all industries that rely on innovation. That is to say, all of them. See, for example: http://internetganesha.wordpress.com/2013/09/22/the-jagged-edges-of-the-tpp/ Phil Goff seems to have got the unfortunate impression that “90%” of critics of the agreement are Jane Kelsey’s friends. While she makes very good points, opposition and concern are much wider.

    • Chooky 15.2
      1 October 2013 at 1:27 pm

      +1 George D….anything that “threatens all industries that rely on innovation” must be opposed!

      ….it is giving away our economic sovereignty….our creativity ….our intellectual property….it is selling our identity…and our physical and mental health……It is theft!…..we would be FOOLS to sign this……and Phil Goff has always been one of them imo

      ….and YES the opposition is much wider than Jane Kelsey’s friends, much as I admire Jane Kelsey

    • Tracey 15.3
      1 October 2013 at 2:37 pm

      EXACTLY.

      Mr Mapp keeps talking about it as a free trade agreement and ignores all these aspects. Makes you wonder if he is in any position to judge whether it’s in the best interests of NZ or not.

    • Rogue Trooper 15.4
      2 October 2013 at 1:44 pm

      +Lots

  16. blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 16
    1 October 2013 at 1:27 pm

    There should be nothing to fear by making the negotiations transparent. If they are negotiations to do with the public interest, in the public realm then transparency is a requirement.

    If they are in the private realm, however, then I guess privacy is a valid argument.

    If they are in the private realm governments should discontinue the negotiations and let the private sector conduct them. And finance them. If these negotiation were being conducted solely by private sectors, then public rights would not be up for negotiation.

    If they are in the public realm, then issues of privacy is no longer a valid argument and transparency needs to be pursued.

  17. Tracey 17
    1 October 2013 at 1:29 pm

    Bob

    it will not be seen before it is signed and we are required to comply.

    that is ONE of the points.

    the usa has over 400 corporate advisors who are in on it.

    negotiations began in 2008. There are no secret positions left.

    if it is so beneficial to us. Show us before signing.

    wayne mapp is a lawyer. Tells us its in our best interests but hasnt seen it. So there is a lwayer committing to something he hasnt read. I for one dont feel reassured

  18. Chooky 18
    1 October 2013 at 2:44 pm

    …American corporate lawyers are some of the meanest and most outrageous around….haven’t they tried to copyright human genes?

    They would probably copyright NZ if they could!…not to mention NZers

    Lets not be taken for FOOLS!

  19. Clement Pinto 19
    1 October 2013 at 3:36 pm

    It would be prudent and wise for an MP to ask Key during question time, the following pertinent and crucial question:

    Can the Prime Minister assure the country and give a guarantee that the TPPA agreement will protect Pharmac and protect the sovereignty of the New Zealand Parliament in terms of future regulation-making without having to pay subsidies or compensation to foreign multinationals?

    • Tamati 19.1
      1 October 2013 at 4:46 pm

      Nothing can and ever will be able to undermine the sovereignty of Parliament. Not past Parliaments, not the Supreme Court, not the Waitangi Tribunal and not some TPPA arbitration panel. The only thing that ever could is an 86 year old lady living in London, called Liz.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 19.1.1
        2 October 2013 at 4:07 pm

        No, the National Party undermines our sovereignty every day as part of a perfect expression of everything they represent.

    • Wayne 19.2
      1 October 2013 at 5:03 pm

      Clement,

      International agreements inevitably limit the sovereignty of Parliament. For instance, by virtue of being a member of the WTO means we can no longer increase tariffs or introduce quotas. If we do so, we would get hit by a WTO panel ordering us to stop, and in appropriate cases the Panel could allow other states to place a specific tariff against NZ goods.

      And if we pass regs that clearly breach our undertakings and they damage specific companies, they can get compensation.

      It was how we got apples into Australia. They may stall for a while, but eventually they will comply.

      Sure NZ could pull out of the WTO, but as a trading nation, where would that get us.

      And Jane Kelsey (as far as I recall) has opposed every single FTA she has come across. Well, she did not do so on the recent Taiwan FTA, but I guess she realised that was essentially part of the China FTA (which she did oppose).

      • Clement Pinto 19.2.1
        1 October 2013 at 5:13 pm

        Thanks, But it would still be a very good idea to ask my question in parliament and see and hear Key’s answer.

      • KJT 19.2.2
        1 October 2013 at 8:06 pm

        Being a member of the WTO doesn’t seem to stop Australia from protecting their industries, or us from subsidising dairying.

        • Colonial Viper 19.2.2.1
          1 October 2013 at 8:13 pm

          And has anyone mentioned the massive ag/hort subsidies to farmers in both the USA and the EU.

          • Wayne 19.2.2.1.1
            1 October 2013 at 9:02 pm

            There are permissible agricultral subsidies in the WTO, like direct income payments to farmers. Also various environmental subsidies (payments to keep land out of production) are OK. What is banned is direct export subsidies.

            And agricultral quotas were to be converted to tariffs. In some cases these are very high – like 800% for dairy in Japan.

            So TPP will be quite tough in Japan because it will directly attack that level of tariff. Japan would have liked to exempt agriculture altogether, but they have lost that battle. They will have to accept reductions in agricultral tariffs or else not be part of TPP. And Japan (PM Abe) has calculated, at least so far, that they cannot afford not to be in TPP. It was one of the issues in their last election, and the farmers lost that round.

            There can also be support for industrial and high tech innovation – NZ has these (though not enough in my view) for products ultimately for exports. It has to be for the innovation, not a direct subsidy for the value of exports. Cheap or subsidised premises seem to be OK.

            And you can do deals like the $30 million for Tiwai, which clearly helps the export business. Actually that must be starting to push the WTO boundary.

            Certain things are definitely banned, like increasing existing tariffs, or introducing new import quotas. The trend is always supposed to be reducing the level of protection of local business, in order to promote trade and allocate international efficiencies.

            It might mean the loss of some specific jobs, but an overall benefit of cheaper goods for the whole economy and consumers. The gains outweigh the losses according to just about all economists. Most of the Asian growth over the last 30 years is based on this concept.

            • Colonial Viper 19.2.2.1.1.1
              1 October 2013 at 9:17 pm

              The gains outweigh the losses according to just about all economists. Most of the Asian growth over the last 30 years is based on this concept.

              Come now Wayne, NZ/UK/USA factories closed down and manufacturing jobs relocated to much cheaper Asian countries. Starting with Hong Kong and Japan, going on to Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, China, then on to places like Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia.

              And who has won out of this game of wage arbitrage? Large multinationals, and potentially also Kiwis who are in positions where they have not suffered the income deflation of the working class but now get access to cheaper luxury items and overseas holidays.

              The gains outweigh the losses according to just about all economists.

              These are predominantly bank economists, and economists employed by the institutions of power pushing for these changes. You could not expect them to say anything different.

              Meanwhile, the US government cannot fund itself, and US municipalities all over the continent are going bankrupt. In the UK, the new “bedroom tax” are forcing vulnerable people into homelessness while tax breaks for million pound banker bonuses are kept in place.

              In which direction exactly have all the gains gone, Wayne?

            • KJT 19.2.2.1.1.2
              2 October 2013 at 7:50 am

              The economists that predicted that another GFC would never happen. Right!

              The economists who said that if we de-regulated, cut Government services, cut taxes and worked harder for less money (except for a few at the top of course) we would all be better off. Laugh!

              The people that think having cheaper prices for a flat screen TV compensates for having no job to pay for it.

              The ones that think every country, including us, is going to become prosperous by out exporting every other country.

              I suggest reading some Steve Kean. An economist who does not suffer from cognitive dissonance and the religious faith, against all the real world evidence, of neo-liberal economists.

            • KJT 19.2.2.1.1.3
              2 October 2013 at 8:30 am

              It is nice, though, to hear a National politician expressing support for industry and high tech.

              Watch out. Someone may hear about you speaking against the “free market” religion.

      • KJT 19.2.3
        2 October 2013 at 8:34 am

        Even if you support FTA’s, and I will try and post in the near future about pros and cons, the TPPA, from what we know so far, is a corporate magna carta, advantaging, mostly, US corporates..

      • Tracey 19.2.4
        2 October 2013 at 2:06 pm

        do they change social laws Wayne. Like anti smoking, banning liquor and tobacco advertising?

    • srylands 19.3
      2 October 2013 at 4:11 pm

      and the answer would be “No”. Next question.

      Why would anyone be surprised that the answer is “no”?

      I guess he could say “No, of course not. I’m surprised you need to ask.”

  20. Clement Pinto 20
    1 October 2013 at 5:46 pm

    Well, if he says that and later it is found to be a lie, then what? Haul him before the privileges committee or court to be jailed for life for treason?

  21. lprent 21
    1 October 2013 at 9:34 pm

    The http://itsnotright.org.nz is apparently getting worked apon and will hopefully be backup soon (according to Jane Kelsey)

  22. Tracey 22
    2 October 2013 at 2:49 pm

    “”I’m broadly in favour of free trade agreements, especially multilateral ones, but when we were dealing with China they were not seeking for us to basically trade away a good deal of our sovereign law – including some really important things like environmental regulations and food safety regulations.”

    But Mr Key says Kiwis have nothing to fear from the agreement, and it will add between $2 and $4 billion to New Zealand’s GDP.”

    Of course ACC can generate that without selling our sovereignty.

    Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/Key-accused-of-spreading-TPPA-mistruths/tabid/1607/articleID/315300/Default.aspx#ixzz2gcT5lrcT