Andrew Little: TPPA no way …

Written By: - Date published: 7:23 am, July 24th, 2015 - 180 comments
Categories: capitalism, Economy, trade - Tags: ,

The first thing that David Cunliffe did after being elected Labour leader was to announce that Labour would not support the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement unless the text was released to the public.  At the time I thought the positioning was deft and principled.  It was clear that National would not release the text of the treaty so Labour could then oppose the TPPA without hesitation.

Andrew Little has, bless his heart, gone a few steps further.  From One news:

Labour says it will not support a trade partnership with the United States, Japan and 10 other Pacific nations if new conditions are not met because it worries that it could see New Zealand give up too much power.

ONE News can reveal that the Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade deal will stop the right to restrict sales of homes and farm land to non-resident foreigners in fellow TPP countries.

“We will not support an agreement that takes away basic rights for New Zealanders,” Labour leader Andrew Little told ONE News.

“This is a big problem we have at the moment we can not have an agreement that cuts across that right to restrict sales.”

Labour’s five bottom lines are:

  • Pharmac must be protected
  • Corporations cannot successfully sue the Government for regulating in the public interest
  • New Zealand maintains the right to restrict sales of land and housing to non-resident foreign buyers
  • The Treaty of Waitangi must be upheld
  • Meaningful gains are made for our farmers in tariff reductions and market access.

Looks good.  And I am pretty confident that National will not agree to meet them.

Labour is running a petition against the TPPA unless these conditions are met.  If you want to sign Labour’s petition the link is here.

180 comments on “Andrew Little: TPPA no way … ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. les 1
    24 July 2015 at 8:20 am

    Await the response of the Natz media acolytes.Hard to counter these bottom lines.

    • Chooky 1.1
      24 July 2015 at 10:00 am

      +100…GO Labour!….this party is really humming now

    • Chris 1.2
      25 July 2015 at 1:04 am

      “no investor state dispute resolution procedure”

      Does this mean Labour still support overseas investor rights? And without a dispute resolution procedure?

      • leftie 1.2.1
        25 July 2015 at 2:11 am

        @Chris

        What about our rights? and the right to make our own laws in the interests of our people without the interference of foreign corporations concerned that our law making may impact negatively on their trade?

        Suggest you make an effort and read the Open Letter. It is the Investor State dispute clause that would cost this country it’s sovereignty.

  2. Puckish Rogue 2
    24 July 2015 at 8:26 am

    Being that Little Angrys shown a habit of flip flopping already you’ll have to take what he says with a grain of salt

    • You_Fool 2.1
      24 July 2015 at 8:37 am

      We are back to the Angry Little thing again? Also there is nothing in those bottom lines that doesn’t make good sense to have as a bottom line at the negotiating table – maybe the only to give leeway on is foreign investors (just put in legislation to restrict investment in property full stop)

      • Puckish Rogue 2.1.1
        24 July 2015 at 8:48 am

        Being that Little Andy just magnificently back-tracked over the flag debate, turned around completely over the 90 day contract I’m saying hes got form when it comes to flip flopping

        • You_Fool 2.1.1.1
          24 July 2015 at 8:55 am

          Because JK never does things different to what he had said previously?
          Flag debate = parp anyway
          90 day contract appears to be bad communication or maybe trying to be too many things to too many people or who knows…

          This as I said is quite straight forward negotiation position so i will be surprised (or maybe not, because politician) if there is a back track at some point… Although I would be surprised if this is not the bottom line anyway (or maybe I won’t be because incompetence in politicians goes both ways.)

          • Puckish Rogue 2.1.1.1.1
            24 July 2015 at 9:00 am

            You’re not wrong regarding incompetency in politicians

            • leftie 2.1.1.1.1.1
              24 July 2015 at 2:08 pm

              @Puckish Rogue

              Does all of John key’s lies, flip flops, broken promises and brain fades over the last 7 years count?

      • Puckish Rogue 2.2.1
        24 July 2015 at 8:55 am

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/70319219/labour-would-retain-90day-trial-periods-but-make-them-fairer–little

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/70463735/editorial-andrew-little-cant-get-it-right

        I’m genuinely interested into why the left think anyone, not least John Key, would fear anyone Labour puts up as leader?

        Meaning everytime a leader pops up the narrative becomes John Key/National/the right fear *insert Labour leader de jour here*

        Phil Goffs experience was going to show up Keys inexperience, Shearer was pitched as the Lefts John Key, everyone said the Cunliffe was too intelligent for Key and now we have a dreary little (heh) union rep that can’t even convince an electorate to vote for him supposidly be the man to take down Key

        Really?

        • te reo putake 2.2.1.1
          24 July 2015 at 9:02 am

          Key has the fear because he knows he’s only just scraped through the last two elections and MMP means even a small swing to the opposition takes his fate out of his own hands. He doesn’t want to go out a loser, but that looks far more likely now. And Little is a hard nut to crack because he’s spent years speaking truth to power and winning against the odds.

          You have the fear because you’re not an idiot and you know the above is true.

          • Puckish Rogue 2.2.1.1.1
            24 July 2015 at 9:08 am

            Key doesn’t fear Little, he has no reason to fear him but Little Andy is an opponent which means Key will do to Little what he did to:

            Clark, Goff, Shearer and the Cunliffe
            Cullen, Campbell, Norman,Dot Con

            You’re doing a great job of geeing up the troops so well done but the reality is Little is a boy going up against the Man

            • te reo putake 2.2.1.1.1.1
              24 July 2015 at 9:14 am

              Ah, the sweet sound of digital knees knocking. It’s been a bad couple of weeks, but don’t worry, PR, maybe next week National won’t look so incompetent. I hear Serco Sam’s already written his resignation letter, so that should brighten the mood under the bridge.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                24 July 2015 at 9:20 am

                I’ll start to worry when Labour gets to 35% and sustains it for more than a couple of polls and if Little could get a higher rating than the Cunliffe then that’d be great too

            • Enough is Enough 2.2.1.1.1.2
              24 July 2015 at 9:36 am

              Key is petrified of Little.

              Key doesn’t want to face the inevitable loss in 2017 and will resign by the end of this year

              He is looking tired and so disinterested in the job.

              You can tell (from overseas “holiday”) that he is already looking for his next opportunity to steal money from the workers.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                24 July 2015 at 10:00 am

                Ok I’ll bite, tell me what it is that Little Andy has that scares Key over and above what Clark, Goff, Shearer and Cunliffe had

                • McFlock …
                  24 July 2015 at 12:35 pm

                  Energy (Clark ’08 didn’t)
                  National’s record of failure and lies (Goff ’11 didn’t – nats had barely started)
                  A caucus that seems to be getting the hang of pulling together for the first time since at least 2012 (Shearer, Cunliffe)

                  Basically, you guys are fucked unless you can sow discord and division within Labour in particular and the left in general. And if you, personally, are the best you guys have, you’re fucked.

                • Stuart Munro …
                  25 July 2015 at 12:04 am

                  I like your coinage of ‘Little Andy’ – the closer Andrew stands to Robin Hood the better I like him – and if he defeats Bad King John so much the better.

              • leftie …
                24 July 2015 at 1:58 pm

                @Enough is Enough
                +100

              • keyman …
                24 July 2015 at 7:19 pm

                key is longing for the feel of long hair flowing through his hand oh how he misses a bit of ponytail

          • Lanthanide 2.2.1.1.2
            24 July 2015 at 9:12 am

            2014 was only close because of the 4.6% wasted vote of the Conservatives. If you add their vote back onto the right (as we should expect for a 2017 election, all else being equal), then National is comfortably ahead for 2017.

            • Puckish Rogue 2.2.1.1.2.1
              24 July 2015 at 9:26 am

              Yeah it is shame that National will have to form a government with winstonfirst but thems the breaks i suppose

              • Enough is Enough …
                24 July 2015 at 9:38 am

                Bahah.

                Winston is in parliament for one reason. To bring Key down.

                There is 0% chance of him going into government with a man he despises.

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  24 July 2015 at 9:41 am

                  Winston is in parliament for himself and himself only, hes stated many a time his preference is to go with the largest party, he doesn’t like the Greens at all and National is the only party able to offer him what he wants and covets above all else, a knighthood

                  Remember what happened last time people thought he’d go with Labour?

                  • Enough is Enough …
                    24 July 2015 at 9:50 am

                    2005 you mean?

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      24 July 2015 at 9:56 am

                      I’m thinking 1996

                      However, to the surprise of the electorate, which had apparently voted for New Zealand First in order to get rid of National, Peters decided to enter a coalition with National, enabling and becoming part of the third term of the fourth National government. The most common explanation for this decision involved National’s willingness to accept New Zealand First’s demands (and/or Labour’s refusal to do so). However, Michael Laws (a former National Party MP who served as a New Zealand First campaign-manager) claims that Peters had secretly decided to go with National significantly before this time, and that he merely used negotiations with Labour to encourage more concessions from National.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      24 July 2015 at 10:15 am

                      Winston said in a documentary on Helen Clark that he went with National in 1996 because Helen and Jim Anderton were literally not on speaking terms. He didn’t see how it was possible to run a government with coalition partners that were so divided.

                    • You_Fool …
                      24 July 2015 at 10:35 am

                      What lanth said, and also Winston learned his lesson in the 96 election about going against the popular understanding of his words and who he will back post election, and he will be aware that the public still haven’t forgotten or forgiven. So unless he is happy for NZfirst and his own political aspirations to implode (which may be the case if he will retire after next term and cares not for the long term survival of NZ First) then he knows he can only go with National if there is no way to make a Labour government work and he is clearly seen to do all that is possible to make a labour government work.

                      One thing Winston is not is stupid

                • Marvellous Bearded Git …
                  24 July 2015 at 10:02 am

                  @enough
                  I agree. Winston hates Key and will go with Little if they can form a stable government. The bonus for Winston (unfortunately) will be to keep the Greens out of government. Greens will support Lab/NZF on confidence and supply.

                • leftie …
                  24 July 2015 at 2:15 pm

                  @Enough is Enough
                  Completely agree that there is 0% chance of Winston going into government with John key.

                  What PR and others like him need to remember is that it is not 1996 and Winston Peters apologized for forming a coalition with National at that time, and he has not supported the Nats since.

            • te reo putake 2.2.1.1.2.2
              24 July 2015 at 9:37 am

              And yet the polls disagree, lanth. Little has moved Labour and friends to the point where an alternative Government is now possible. And there is still room and time to improve on that. And the Conservatives 3 or 4% vote won’t all go to National anyway. if they vote at all, there are other options on which they can register their protest.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                24 July 2015 at 9:51 am

                Seriously? One poll jump? Try again after theres been months of positive polling, you know like National

              • Clean_power …
                24 July 2015 at 9:56 am

                Your optimism is very laudable but completely unfounded TRP. You can claim Labour has improved that only after Mr Little polls high over a few months.

                • te reo putake …
                  24 July 2015 at 10:13 am

                  Ha ha ha! I love it when the righties quibble over the results. National’s internal polling must be even worse than Roy Morgan and Colmar Brunton are saying.

                  • Lanthanide …
                    24 July 2015 at 10:27 am

                    Why are you assuming Clean_power has access to National’s internal polling? I suspect the data is jealously guarded and that even the National Party caucus is probably only told the general trends (or maybe not even that – can’t leak what you aren’t told).

                    • Clean_power …
                      24 July 2015 at 12:01 pm

                      The coming months will tell if Mr Little has made an impression and is liked by the NZ public, in which case he could become PM, or if he is just another one name on the list (Mr Goff, Shearer, Cunliffe) waiting to be rolled by Mr Robertson. Lets reserve opinion until the end of 2015.

              • Lanthanide …
                24 July 2015 at 10:25 am

                TRP my point is that 2014 was only close because of the wasted Conservative vote.

                You said: “Key has the fear because he knows he’s only just scraped through the last two elections”

                Actually it appears the Conservatives got 3.97%, I had thought it was 4.6% but I guess the special votes were against the Conservatives (the Greens picked up an extra list MP – Shaw).

                Here’s the election results:

                http://tinyurl.com/oubyhb3

                Here’s what it would have looked like if the Conservatives had gotten 5% party vote, with all of the extra vote coming solely from National:

                http://tinyurl.com/q3lqqxr

                Key differences: Conservatives 6 seats, National 56.

                Conservatives + National = 62 seats, enough for a majority. Add on Act and UF, 64. Add on MP, 66.

                That compares to the 69 seats their arrangement had in 2008, and the 64 they had in 2011.

                Not, IMO, ‘scraping through’. Just luck that not enough voters went for crazy Colin.

                • te reo putake …
                  24 July 2015 at 10:41 am

                  I suspect the 4.6% was NZF’s result in the election where they didn’t make it into Parliament. One other factor that you should take into account is the possibility that Cray cray runs again and still siphons off some votes. Despite the shenanigans, the Conservatives still got some support in one of the recent polls (the RM?).

                  But I agree with your analysis in a broad sense, the actual result is the only one that counts. And MMP works in a way that big winning margins are unlikely. In the last two elections, it really did come down to a percentage here or there. That is, 25 thousand voters made the difference.

                  Do you mind if I edit out the links? They look pretty ugly.

                  • Enough is Enough …
                    24 July 2015 at 10:50 am

                    I think if Cray Cray does run again they will give him an Epsom type free seat.

                    I think even though his party has disintegrated, at least 2% of the general population is bat shit crazy and will vote for a ‘party’ that he fronts.

                    The Nats will want his 2-3 seats.

                  • Lanthanide …
                    24 July 2015 at 11:59 am

                    Re: links, I don’t mind, ideally they’d be replaced with a short version using a URL shortener service. I can’t edit the post or I’d do it myself.

                    On my screen however they only take up 3 lines, and then vanish off into the wilderness; but I expect other browsers on other OS’s will render them differently.

                    The electoral seat calculator on that website really is quite poorly implemented; the URLs is only one of the problems.

                    Re: scraping through. I’m just highlighting the point that it is easy to get into a mindset where you think that because of the number of seats National won, that it meant the left bloc performed ‘within striking distance’ of winning the last election. But a closer analysis reveals that that mindset is only superficially true. And I truly believe NZ First would have gone with National over Labour/Greens, if National only needed 1-2 extra seats to form a government.

                    • te reo putake …
                      24 July 2015 at 12:12 pm

                      Cheers, lanth. I’ve put a couple of tiny url’s in. You’re right about the site, I’ve had exactly the same problem when trying to translate poll results into seats. It just doesn’t seem to want to allow you to just copy the outcome.

      • Chooky 2.2.2
        24 July 2015 at 10:01 am

        +100 trp…jonkey Nactional will be feeling the fear…these are concrete bottom lines…and I doubt Nactional wants to meet them

        • Puckish Rogue 2.2.2.1
          24 July 2015 at 10:16 am

          EnSame question to you then:

          Ok I’ll bite, tell me what it is that Little Andy has that scares Key over and above what Clark, Goff, Shearer and Cunliffe had

          • Chooky 2.2.2.1.1
            24 July 2015 at 10:21 am

            diddums back to the cooking sherry for you and the contemplation of a new cylinder…

            Labour has put up concrete bottom lines which New Zealand supports

            ….no TPPA without these bottom lines!

            • Puckish Rogue 2.2.2.1.1.1
              24 July 2015 at 10:29 am

              Is that why Key fears Little?

              Little also supported the referendum on the flag right up until Labour showeed their racist roots hadn’t completely died out and Little andy back traccked on the 90 day employment bill so whats to stop him flip flopping on this?

              Oh right because he really, really means it this time

              • maui …
                24 July 2015 at 10:54 am

                Flag referendum, no Government overseas buyer data and 90 day trial bill, you guessed it… all Labour’s fault.

              • Chooky …
                24 July 2015 at 11:26 am

                lets face it no one wants a flag change or New Zealand taken over….least of all by John Key

    • BM 2.3
      24 July 2015 at 9:10 am

      My guess is that Labour is going to follow the Syriza strategy.

      Promise this, promise that, promise what ever it takes to get into power and then no doubt do a 180 u turn and stick with the status quo.

      Hopefully Kiwis aren’t quite as dense as what Labour thinks they are.

      I do think they will fall flat on the trust thing though, that’s one thing Labour hasn’t regained and that’s the voters trust.

      People just don’t trust Labour.

      • Puckish Rogue 2.3.1
        24 July 2015 at 9:16 am

        Little Angry needs to learn he just can’t say whatever he thinks his latest audience wants to here, he really does need to stick to what he says:

        If you don’t stand for something you will have people for you and people against you, if you don’t stand for anything you’ll have nobody for you and nobody against you

        Stick to something Angry Little

        • Mark 2.3.1.1
          24 July 2015 at 12:23 pm

          I know all right wingers are natural fuckwits but you take the cake. You want Little to stick to a position while Key does a 180% turn every hour on every subject.
          I have no time for either of them but to run a line as a right wing fuckwit like you are with regards to Little is beyond the pale even for a fuckwit like you. Up your game, you are making Sam look good at the moment.

      • mac1 2.3.2
        24 July 2015 at 9:38 am

        “Promise this, promise that, promise what ever it takes to get into power and then no doubt do a 180 u turn.”

        BM, you describe this National Government perfectly. A large case in point is the promise to leave GST alone. Once made, this promise was broken by being raised from 12.5% to 15%.

        We were promised that our accounts would be in the black by now. Who believes English?

        Key told the House that the Budget’s withdrawal of the $1000 incentive payment to join Kiwisaver would not “make a blind bit of difference” to the uptake. When proven wrong on this ‘promise,’ his Minister Bill English then told us that the outcome of a 29% downturn was ‘expected’. Key then lamely tells us that this was because parents weren’t enrolling their babies.

        I don’t trust National. Once that GST promise was broken, and then reinforced by a whole series of dishonest moves, my belief is that nothing is sacred in the National world. I am not alone in this.

        As for Puckish Rogue’s response to you, the ‘angry Andrew’ and mocking of Andrew’s surname, I can but cite Matthew 21:12.

        Beware the righteous anger of people who see wrongdoing and act upon it.

        • Puckish Rogue 2.3.2.1
          24 July 2015 at 9:54 am

          Proverbs 14:30 – A tranquil heart gives life to the flesh, but envy makes the bones rot.

          Something for the left to consider don’t you think

          • mac1 2.3.2.1.1
            24 July 2015 at 10:32 am

            You never actually respond to the points that people make to you, do you PR?

            As for envy, I feel more like pity for the wealthy, for their shallow, earthly, temporal pleasures and life focus than I do envy. I must admit to strong feelings of justice when confronted with greed, aggregation of wealth at the cost of others and the misuse of power which wealth can bring about. Something about camels, eyes of needles and the rich.

            Read the novels of Jamie Lee Burke. A damn good read, anyway, but also a great expose of the corruption of power and wealth in the criminal, political and business fraternities.

            There is another quote I would offer you, PR. That one about the mote or beam in your own eye. Which is it?

            Finally, I like this one, just in case we should prefer more secular authorities.

            “The ‘working poor,’ as they are approvingly termed, are in fact the major philanthropists of our society. They neglect their own children so that the children of others will be cared for; they live in substandard housing so that other homes will be shiny and perfect; they endure privation so that inflation will be low and stock prices high. To be a member of the working poor is to be an anonymous donor, a nameless benefactor, to everyone else.”
            ― Barbara Ehrenreich, Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America

          • Anno1701 2.3.2.1.2
            24 July 2015 at 3:36 pm

            Mark 10:25…..

    • Anno1701 2.4
      24 July 2015 at 9:30 am

      “Little Angrys”

      mate thats just puerile ,

      are you 12 or something ?

      • Puckish Rogue 2.4.1
        24 July 2015 at 9:38 am

        You mean puerile like saying cut the crap and miming riding a horse in the house like a certain Andy Angry did?

        • mac1 2.4.1.1
          24 July 2015 at 9:43 am

          No, something ‘mannish’ like making slit throat gestures across the House as did our Prime Minister, John Key, the most senior politician in our system, the leader of the country, the spokesman for the nation.

        • te reo putake 2.4.1.2
          24 July 2015 at 9:43 am

          Andy Angry? You’re getting your talking points muddled, PR. Go and have a cuppa and calm down.

        • Anno1701 2.4.1.3
          24 July 2015 at 9:50 am

          he has an excuse,

          hes a politician & there all idiots aren’t they

          whats your excuse ?

          • Puckish Rogue 2.4.1.3.1
            24 July 2015 at 10:20 am

            By calling Andrew Little little andy or Angry Andy or similar it reinforces the notion that hes a boy playing a mans game, that hes not up to it and considering the flip flops hes done in recent weeks you’d have to agree that Little Andy isn’t up to it

            [Right. So you’re actively trolling this site. Not a good idea. Take a day off to have a think about what you’ve done. TRP]

            [lprent: Repeated replaying of lines. He used almost exactly that phrasing this morning, and (form memory) last night. TRP: you are generous. ]

            • McFlock 2.4.1.3.1.1
              24 July 2015 at 12:38 pm

              Heh – when their trooling gets that obvious, they’re getting desperate.

              Good to see 🙂

      • Stuart Munro 2.4.2
        25 July 2015 at 12:08 am

        Of course he is – you think the Gnats pay adults to troll for them? Youf rates & zero hours direct to you from Manila or Turkmenistan.

    • John Shears 2.5
      24 July 2015 at 10:57 am

      You need more than salt mate

    • North 2.6
      25 July 2015 at 12:04 am

      Traitor PR……sucking The Ponce Key.

  3. lprent 3
    24 July 2015 at 8:34 am

    Perfect. These are the more threatened cost sides.

    I would have added that there should be some solid evidence that NZ actually obtained some advantageous freer trade from the agreement. But all hope of that disappeared a long time back in the “negotiation” of this restraint of trade agreement.

    • Gosman 3.1
      24 July 2015 at 9:40 am

      What solid evidence was there before the China – Nz Free trade agreement that NZ would obtain some advantageous freer trade out of it? The Greens were certainly not convinced to support the agreement so it can’t have been terribly pervassive if it was available.

  4. Save NZ 4
    24 July 2015 at 8:44 am

    The reality is that there are ways around those conditions even if they were met. I don’t really want NZ to have to defend whether any government decision was in the ‘public interest’ or not.

    Even being part of an agreement like that would be having consequences for every decision. If you look at the Saudi farm deals for example, the idea that NZ have to bribe someone so that they can’t theoretically sue the government – it is adding complexity to a situation and taking it away from a simple yes animal exports, no to animal exports debate – that NZ has the right to make without political interference.

    My view is a complete ban on TPPA and I would prefer Labour to go with that.

    I have zero confidence in this or any other NZ government being able to successfully defend themselves in court even if these conditions were met.

    If you look at treaty of Waitangi, has this worked for Maori in the long term?

    The TPPA is the Treaty of Waitangi for the whole country sharing our country with corporates to plunder it from around the world, while taxpayers pay lawyers in foreign courts to decide – is this public interest or not?

    Pharmac is only part of the TPPA issue, what about our doctors and health system being privatised. What about the idea of the DHB’s being ‘bought’ by US health providers for example? This is not protected under Labour’s conditions.

    Pharmacy safe, but nothing about the DHB’s for example. This is why voters do not trust Labour – everything they do is so confusing and piece meal. Do they not have the guts to just say NO to TPPA?

    Recently I got an email about how the US government is about to let a giant international mining company dig up a beautiful stretch of national forest held sacred by the Apache tribe in the US.

    It went on to say that Arizona’s Senators — both of whom have financial links to mining companies — only got it through Congress last year by attaching the approval to a totally unrelated national defence bill.

    That is the future under TPPA – our country being plundered while corporate lawyers with financially linked MP’s pass through legislation for financial gain using devious means. Transparency gone.

  5. Eyre 5
    24 July 2015 at 8:50 am

    Question. If these bottom lines are agreed to. Would you support the tppa. The seem weak to me

    • mickysavage 5.1
      24 July 2015 at 8:51 am

      Can you imagine National agreeing to any of them let alone all of them?

      • Save NZ 5.1.1
        24 July 2015 at 9:19 am

        Personally I would like Labour to have policy independent of what National are doing and saying. Not relying on National to disagree so that they don’t have to say what they really think.

        In fact Labour are worse because they just say NO to TPPA and NO to surveillance but then say if (x,y,z) are met they are saying YES to TPPA and YES to surveillance.

        Sorry, too confusing to the average person who don’t have the time or inclination to deconstruct Labour’s discourses on a daily basis.

        In fact it makes them seem very untrustworthy.

      • Mike S 5.1.2
        24 July 2015 at 11:38 pm

        It’s not a question of National supporting them. The investor state dispute process is an integral part of the agreement, so the condition regarding that will never be met thus Labour won’t support the TTPA. Little knows this but is trying to ensure that the National Party spin doctors can’t turn it around and say Labour is anti business, anti growth, etc.

        He is highlighting 5 easy to understand points to the public which are things various parts of the population will agree with Labour’s position on and which National would find it very hard to attack Labour on. There’s something for Maori, Farmers, and Aucklanders as well as appealing to the rest of the population. In this way, when Labour doesn’t support the TTPA Little can offer a simple explanation, that one or more conditions were not being met which is clear and hard to counter with any spin.

        Some clever politics by Labour at last.

    • Save NZ 5.2
      24 July 2015 at 9:07 am

      Labour are falling into the same trap as the surveillance bill. They are trying to go National Lite on TPPA.

      Look back at what Corbyn said about Labour in the UK – they were too confusing. Too like the conservatives.

      This is an example of the problem voters face.

      It is why the left vote is being split and why so many people don’t vote.

      Learn from NZ First – they can at least have a Yes or NO answer to policy.

      If you look at Labour it is always Yes we agree with TPPA, Surveillance or whatever if these (often complicated and easily able to be got around conditions) are met…

      Not really a clear answer…..

      And not what voters are looking for…

      I prefer Angry Andy myself who not only tells John Key to Cut the Crap but actually tells Labour to do the same.

      Cut the Crap on TPPA and say NO Period.

      • Olwyn 5.2.1
        24 July 2015 at 10:20 am

        I don’t agree Save NZ. Those pushing the TTPA are very powerful, and are able to hurt us whatever position we take on it. As things stand, Little is more likely to succeed in protecting our sovereignty by outlining a firm negotiating position than by telling them all to go to hell. What we don’t need are leaders who act on behalf of international capital while duping and patronising the people they are meant to be leading. What we do need are leaders that acknowledge the power of international capital, but who are willing to negotiate with it on our behalf. Little, to me, is establishing a position from which to do that, and I for one am grateful that he is.

        • Lara 5.2.1.1
          24 July 2015 at 11:49 am

          I completely disagree.

          If the goal is to protect our sovereignty then we have to say NO to TPPA and TISA. Why on earth would we or should we continue with those negotiations if the problems with the agreement are so deep and entrenched?

          We don’t need to negotiate either of those potential agreements. We need to start over with something completely different that may actually work.

          And I agree with SaveNZ. Labour can’t be trusted. The electorate knows it. It’s why their vote is falling and the party is dying. We know they’re just National Lite.

          The Rogernomes are still entrenched within Labour’s caucus. When the membership wanted Cunniliffe the Rogernomes put the knives in his back. To replace him with someone more controllable.

          I distrust and hate Labour now, after being a Labour voter originally and coming from a Labour family (even with a grandfather as an MP).

          • Olwyn 5.2.1.1.1
            24 July 2015 at 12:00 pm

            I do see your point, and I certainly have no truck with the old rogernomes. But you still need to find a path from the way things are to the way you want them to be, and negotiations in which key points are strictly adhered to may work better in this regard than out-and-out hostility. For people like us, the out-and-out hostility approach might bring emotional satisfaction but prove self-defeating on a practical level. In this article on Greece, Zizek talks about “moving further from Mandela without becoming a Mugabe.” I am trying to say something along similar lines. http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2015/07/slavoj-i-ek-greece-courage-hopelessness

            • Lara 5.2.1.1.1.1
              24 July 2015 at 2:14 pm

              Politely declining and stepping away isn’t the same as outright hostility.

              We’ve done it before, stood up for NZ and our principles, against the rest of the world, and earned respect (eventually from most).

              We can certainly do it again.

              • Olwyn …
                24 July 2015 at 2:29 pm

                I was never confident that our standing our ground on nuclear vessels wasn’t in fact a trade off, or at least judged an affordable risk – the “economic restructuring” going on at the time looked to me like the nonnegotiable part of the bargain. However, I may well be wrong about this, and you, having a Labour MP from the time among your relatives, would know much more about it than I do.

    • Eyre 5.3
      24 July 2015 at 9:17 am

      Sorry big thumbs small keys. They seem…..

    • Eyre 5.4
      24 July 2015 at 9:22 am

      The headline is misleading. It should read andrew little tppa no way. Well Sort of no way.

  6. Ad 6
    24 July 2015 at 8:56 am

    That’s the kind of leader I want.

    Do it again Andrew, and put some wellie into it.

  7. Grey Area 7
    24 July 2015 at 9:01 am

    Agree totally with Save NZ. Labour needs to say NO TPPA, not No TPPA unless ….

    • Jenny Kirk 7.1
      24 July 2015 at 9:06 am

      That is, in effect, what Labour IS saying, Grey Area.
      By imposing those bottom line conditions, Labour is telling the Nats we don’t support whatever is in the secret TPPA unless it is a straight-out trade agreement which all NZ political parties have had input into – as Labour did with the China agreement.

      • Puckish Rogue 7.1.1
        24 July 2015 at 9:11 am

        Little Andy can say whatever he likes since National don’t need Labour, if the shoe was on the other foot you can bet Angry Andy would be leading the TPPA charge

      • Gosman 7.1.2
        24 July 2015 at 9:36 am

        Which has an Investor – State disputes process contained in the agreement. So does Labour support them or do they not Jenny?

        • mickysavage 7.1.2.1
          24 July 2015 at 9:40 am

          The NZ China FTA specifically preserves the right for NZ to regulate. The explanatory text for the treaty says “[t]he mechanism is subject to a number of provisions designed to safeguard a government’s right to regulate and avoid exposure to frivolous expropriation claims.”

          http://www.chinafta.govt.nz/5-FAQ/#disputes

          • Gosman 7.1.2.1.1
            24 July 2015 at 9:55 am

            I note you are avoiding the main point I am making MS.

            Does the China – NZ FTA include an Investor – State dispute resolution mechanism – Yes or No?

            If so why does Labour rule out a similar process in the TPPA?

            • mickysavage 7.1.2.1.1.1
              24 July 2015 at 10:01 am

              I thought I addressed it directly. Read the undertaking “Corporations cannot successfully sue the Government for regulating in the public interest“. Note the text from the description of the NZ China FTA agreement “[t]he [dispute resolution] mechanism is subject to a number of provisions designed to safeguard a government’s right to regulate and avoid exposure to frivolous expropriation claims.”

              • Gosman …
                24 July 2015 at 10:06 am

                What you are stating then is Labour IS in favour of Investor – State dispute processes being included in FTA’s if there are sufficient safeguards in place. Good then we are in agreement then. I support that position too.

                The question now becomes will Labour support the TPPA if the Investor – State dispute process contained within it has the same sort of safeguards as that in other FTA’s they have supported in the past?

                • You_Fool …
                  24 July 2015 at 10:44 am

                  Gosman – go read what Labour’s policy actually is and then separate that from what comments on this site are (remembering that comments here are not official Labour statements or policy) then realise that Labour supports the TPPA if it has safeguards in place like previous FTA’s (or at least that is my reading.)

                  Which is in fact what MS is saying… but I guess that stops your ability to make it sound like Labour are flip flopping.

                  • North …
                    25 July 2015 at 12:08 am

                    Gosman traitor……for love of The Ponce Key.

                    • Gosman …
                      25 July 2015 at 7:18 am

                      Traitor?!? You really need to get out more.

                      If we are going to start throwing terms around be prepared for a number of accusations of you being a freedom hating Commie. It won’t make the level of debate any better but it looks like you wish to descend to that.

    • Save NZ 7.2
      24 July 2015 at 9:08 am

      exactly

      • Save NZ 7.2.1
        24 July 2015 at 9:12 am

        That was exactly to Grey Area, not Jenny Kirk.

        In my view Labour is NOT against TPPA because they are saying the SUPPORT TPPA with these conditions

        Just like they voted to support mass surveillance with conditions

        Remember David Lange – he did not say Yes to Nukes in NZ with conditions – he said No Nukes

        You need to have clarity and that is what Labour is missing.

        • Macro 7.2.1.1
          24 July 2015 at 1:08 pm

          I totally agree Save NZ. This is conditional support for TPPA and it will fail to deliver anything for this country just like every other “free” trade agreement Labour and the Nats have got us into. NZ is a far poorer country for opening our borders to all and sundry. The only time we have developed our economy for the benefit of all has been when the first Labour Govt closed our borders in 1935 set import quotas and restricted foreign exchange, amongst other things and NZ, actually prospered.

          • Chooky 7.2.1.1.1
            24 July 2015 at 1:31 pm

            would you also rescind the agreement with China?

            …sometimes it is better to have some agreement but severely protectionist and in your favour

            …btw i always opposed the agreement with China…as a lawyer once said “Lie down with a giant and you are likely to get crushed”

            ……it is now time to renegotiate this agreement with China or rescind it!

            …Labour where are you on this?!

            • Macro 7.2.1.1.1.1
              24 July 2015 at 3:57 pm

              would you also rescind the agreement with China?

              Absolutely. Our land fills will soon be overflowing with “bought today thrown out tomorrow” junk brought over by the ship load from China. So many NZers have lost their jobs to China, and those who remain in work have to settle for lower wages because employers argue that if they don’t like it their jobs will be shipped to China as well.
              “Free” trade simply means that we all descend to the lowest common denominator, from working conditions, to labour rates, to quality of product, – almost everything. It’s naive to think we can out compete the largest country in the world, with a managed economy, and labour rates and conditions far below ours. Even the States is waking up to the fact that their economy is suffering because they have opened their borders to China. From a once thriving clothing manufacturing base, the states now employes hardly any – only at the top end of the market can they compete. Considerations such as this was the primary reason for the temporary hold-up of the passage of the legislation allowing Obama the freedom to fast track the TPPA. The democrates were worried about the effect this agreement would have on USA employees! At least they managed to screw some compensation, for workers who will loose their jobs. Nothing like that exists here.

  8. Tim 8
    24 July 2015 at 9:20 am

    Shame they haven’t included copyright, patents and other intellectual property ownership issues in their statement.

  9. Jenny Kirk 9
    24 July 2015 at 9:24 am

    oh for goodness sake, guys (I’m assuming you’re all guys) – you are just nit-picking.
    Labour supports good trade agreements – we’re a trading nation. But when those so-called trade agreements start going into taking over other areas of our sovereignity – that’s when Labour will pull the plug. You can’t get much clearer than that .

  10. Grey Area 10
    24 July 2015 at 9:26 am

    Snap. I was impressed with Andrew Little initially but disappointed hugely by Labour’s actions over mass surveillance (and told them so in one of their feedback emails). I’m a left of centre voter but Labour has a long way to regain my trust.

    • Marvellous Bearded Git 10.1
      24 July 2015 at 10:11 am

      @ Grey
      But Little is smart enough to work out you will never vote for Key therefore you can only vote Labour or Green.

      • Naturesong 10.1.1
        25 July 2015 at 12:27 pm

        With leaders who think like this, people are surprised Labour keeps losing?

        If you take for granted the constituancy that supports and votes you in, they will either leave, or stop voting.

  11. Gosman 11
    24 July 2015 at 9:35 am

    No Investor – State Dispute process??? Why did they build one in to the China – NZ FTA then if Labour is so opposed to them?

  12. Save NZ 12
    24 July 2015 at 9:38 am

    Were a trading nation, but TPPA is not a good agreement. Trading our jobs, lifestyle and country is a step too far.

    Neoliberalism on steroids, has failed. It is supporting banks and the rich and not supporting the rest of the population. It is not sustainable for the planet.

    Some people want a push away (myself), some people want a total change. But the point is, if Labour wants these voters they need to satisfy that push away from those agreements and also stop the spin.

    Just trying to help Labour get their voters back.

    You can pretend everything Labour is doing is good, but next election they will still be on 25% – 30% because they have split their potential voters, over this type of very important decision.

    All Labour has to say is NO to TPPA they don’t need to constantly justify themselves with why they are saying no and what it will take for them to say yes.

    • Chooky 12.1
      24 July 2015 at 1:38 pm

      and NO to the agreement with China!

      • Colonial Viper 12.1.1
        24 July 2015 at 1:50 pm

        Helen Clark signed that one.

        • Chooky 12.1.1.1
          24 July 2015 at 2:51 pm

          yes and I agreed with the Greens then …against Helen Clark …that it should not have been signed

          ….i now think it should be rescinded by Labour… or significantly changed… because it is no longer in New Zealand’s interests

          • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1.1.1
            24 July 2015 at 3:17 pm

            I don’t know of any FTA that in NZs interest any more and think we should drop out of all of them including dropping from the WTO.

  13. Penny Bright 13
    24 July 2015 at 9:48 am

    How can Prime Minister John Key and Minister of Trade Tim Groser be trusted to act in the ‘national interest’ of New Zealand, the majority of New Zealanders and NZ businesses – when John Key is a shareholder in the Bank of America, and Tim Groser is ‘widely tipped’ to become the next NZ Ambassador to the USA?

    Penny Bright

  14. Clean_power 14
    24 July 2015 at 9:49 am

    Words are cheap.
    Lets see how long this “NO” lasts, because it will not be long before we see a retreat from the same party which signed the FTA with China.

    • Chooky 14.1
      24 July 2015 at 1:41 pm

      …i dont see why not….it is not helping our dairy much anymore and this agreement with China is more of a liability now….a withdrawal from the deal with China would be in New Zealand’s interests

  15. Penny Bright 15
    24 July 2015 at 9:51 am

    How can Prime Minister John Key and Minister of Trade Tim Groser be trusted to act in the ‘national interest’ of New Zealand, the majority of New Zealanders and NZ businesses – when the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is currently, of her own volition, conducting an inquiry into the use of the GCSB to spy on Tim Groser’s rivals in his bid for the leadership of the World Trade Organisation (WTO)?

    How could Minister of Trade Tim Groser arguably NOT have known about the GCSB spying on his WTO leadership rivals?

    What would have been the point of that exercise – without Tim Groser knowing the results of this (unlawful?) GCSB spying?

    And who was the Minister responsible for the GCSB at the time of this (unlawful?) spying?

    NZ Prime Minister John Key.

    How can New Zealanders trust the judgment of Prime Minister John Key and Minister of Trade Tim Groser to act in New Zealand’s ‘national interest’, when, arguably the Inspector-General of Security and Intelligence doesn’t – or she wouldn’t be conducting this inquiry?

    How can the actions of the Prime Minister John Key and Minister of Trade Tim Groser, possibly be excluded from this inquiry by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security – given both were the ‘responsible’ Ministers?

    Penny Bright

  16. Penny. Bright 16
    24 July 2015 at 10:06 am

    Can Fonterra representatives see the text of the TPPA?

    If not – how can Fonterra be sure that Minister of Trade Tim Groser (‘widely tipped’ to become the next NZ Ambassador to the USA) will act in the best interests of the NZ dairy industry?

    I have asked both Fonterra and Minister of Trade Tim Groser if Fonterra representatives can see the TPPA text – have yet to receive a reply.

    In my considered opinion – Minister of Trade Tim Groser is personally ‘conflicted’, and cannot be trusted to put the ‘national interest’ of New Zealand, the majority of New Zealanders or NZ businesses ahead of the future potential ‘baubles’ of the office of NZ Ambassador to the USA, for which he is ‘widely tipped’ to obtain.

    Penny Bright

    VERY concerned New Zealander

    • North 16.1
      25 July 2015 at 12:17 am

      Penny, I love your bizo and your “considered opinion”…….much beats the crap-arse crap-arse that comes from the keyboards of the Lovers-Of-The-Ponce-Key. The Ponce Key, the fellow who poncing us all runs a stable of New Zealanders for his own advancement and the profit and pleasure of his cronies. It’s very sick and needs some pitchforks !

  17. travellerev 17
    24 July 2015 at 10:12 am

    Does this mean that he will take John Key who has proven himself to be a compulsive lying banker minion on his word or will he continue to demand the written text so they can verify for themselves? I fear he will do the first.

  18. Penny Bright 18
    24 July 2015 at 10:27 am

    The 79th Conference of the NZ National Party is being held this weekend at the Auckland Sky City Convention Centre.

    NZ Prime Minister / Leader of the National Party / shareholder in the Bank of America – John Key – will be giving his ‘KEY note’ address at noon, Sunday 26 July 2015.

    Are there any DECENT members of the National Party – who will stand up to be counted for the ‘national interest’ of New Zealand, the majority of New Zealanders and NZ businesses, and tell Prime Minister John Key and Minister of Trade Tim Groser to WALK AWAY from the TPPA?

    Penny Bright

  19. Paul Campbell 19
    24 July 2015 at 11:07 am

    What Little doesn’t seem to say (any what might possibly garner my vote) is whether he will pull out of a treaty that the nats have signed that dosn’t meet those conditions once they gain power – otherwise these are just empty words

  20. Richard@Down South 20
    24 July 2015 at 12:08 pm

    What about

    * Parallel importing
    * multi region DVD players

    etc

  21. adam 21
    24 July 2015 at 12:19 pm

    Whilst I don’t think it’s enough what labour have done.

    I do think it’s a lot better than doing nothing, and as it stands, is a lot better then the rolling over to corporate interests this national government has done.

    Good on labour for doing something positive to address this issue.

    I won’t hold my breath though, as the corporate class don’t like any dissension.

  22. Save NZ 22
    24 July 2015 at 12:31 pm

    The idea that we are ‘forced’ to sign the TPPA because otherwise we might be intimidated later makes an important point, in saying NO.

    If we don’t trust the parties in the first place, don’t enter into agreements tying us closer together.

    It seems to have worked for us to say we are Nuclear Free.

    We already have a number of trade agreements.

    We don’t need to keep entering into more especially as they are not trade agreements, they are corporate and government control agreements.

    Do we want the US health system?

    Do we want the Chinese or US political system?

    Nope, If the agreements make us change our country then they are not about trade, they are about colonisation by stealth. A separate country in name only. Right and left wing people all over the world are against these agreements. The agreements are against democracy and have gone too far.

    Companies and profit are more important now than people and social good.

    Neoliberalism is failing 95% of the population. Yes 5% are winning from it and owning more and more of the world’s wealth. I don’t think that is a good thing.

  23. redeye 23
    24 July 2015 at 12:49 pm

    I have a bit of a problem with the subjectiveness of ‘public interest’ in the point “Corporations cannot successfully sue the Government for regulating in the public interest”

    I mean is capitalism in the public interest? What about socialism? One mans meat…

    Apart from that, and not withstanding gosmans comment above, I am happy with their stand.

    • Save NZ 23.1
      24 July 2015 at 1:45 pm

      Many people in the US think it is in the public good to allow the public to carry semi automatic weapons ‘to protect themselves’.

      Public good can be argued 2 ways. Best barrister wins.

      National are arguing that selling state houses, power and prison contracts is in the public good.

      One person’s public interest is very subjective.

      Do we want to spend NZ $$ on barristers fighting our public interest?

      The TPPA that labour is advocating is not going to work for NZ.
      The TPPA that National is advocating is not going to work for NZ.

      But at least National are clear about it.

      Come on Labour – cut the crap and just say NO to TPPA.

  24. Rolf 24
    24 July 2015 at 1:05 pm

    TPP. This is really dangerous. What the USA is doing is going for a totalitarian autocratic control, economically, military and politically of the ASIA region, including New Zealand. I just read that USA is loading for an economic battle in the Far East. (Source http://www.svd.se/ use a translator). The USA will move significant military attack resources to ASIA aimed to win economic dominance. We are talking about 60% of the US sea and air resources. USA aim to marginalize China in the region, economically, politically and militarily, and control energy and natural resources. The USA aims to take de facto control over more countries in the region, as New Zealand.

    • Sable 24.1
      24 July 2015 at 1:21 pm

      Indeed Rolf. There has been good coverage on RT. The little creep Obama calls it the “pivot to Asia” a euphemism for economic imperialism. Of course having willing vassals ready to sell out their own people in key positions in Australia and NZ makes it that much easier.

    • Colonial Viper 24.2
      24 July 2015 at 2:01 pm

      The USA will move significant military attack resources to ASIA aimed to win economic dominance. We are talking about 60% of the US sea and air resources. USA aim to marginalize China in the region

      Correct.

      This is the backdrop for the USA signing up the nuclear peace deal with Iran. The US wants pressure off the Middle East hotspot and to be able to focus on Asia-Pacific.

      People say Labour was “courageous” to point the finger at Chinese investors last week. Bullshit. Labour is being 100x more courageous now, pointing out the economic imperialism represented by the TPPA.

  25. Sable 25
    24 July 2015 at 1:13 pm

    Shamed into acting by New Zealand First. As the self styled leaders of the left Labour should have been vocally leading the vanguard on this and long before now. Why nothing of consequence from the Greens too?

    In any case its good to see some action on this problem even if its belated.

    • Chooky 25.1
      24 July 2015 at 1:42 pm

      +100 Sable

    • Colonial Viper 25.2
      24 July 2015 at 2:03 pm

      Why nothing of consequence from the Greens too?

      Worth keeping a very close eye on their positioning on this, over the next few months.

      • Macro 25.2.1
        24 July 2015 at 4:12 pm

        The Greens are totally opposed to the TPPA. make no mistake.
        Green policy on trade is that all trade should be fair. Free trade agreements are invariably not fair, being slanted to the dominant player. Furthermore trade should be sustainable and be advantageous to both parties.

  26. Wayne 26
    24 July 2015 at 1:45 pm

    TPP will be force before Nov 2017. So if Labour forms a govt would they repeal any TPP legislation. Realistically “no”.
    Labours vote is not essential to get TPP across the line and Lanour knows that.
    So it is all about posturing (and pandering) to the left activists in Labour.

    • thatguynz 26.1
      24 July 2015 at 1:50 pm

      You’re on the wrong side of history on this one Wayne and you either don’t care or aren’t aware of it yet.

      • Draco T Bastard 26.1.1
        24 July 2015 at 3:14 pm

        He’s aware – he just doesn’t give a fuck about the people that the TPPA will make worse off.

    • Colonial Viper 26.2
      24 July 2015 at 1:58 pm

      Labours vote is not essential to get TPP across the line and Lanour knows that.
      So it is all about posturing (and pandering) to the left activists in Labour.

      You are familiar with the Westminster system of government, Wayne. Opposition political effectiveness is not about being able to stop a majority government from passing bad legislation and enacting bad policy.

      It is about making it deeply electorally costly for that majority government to do so.

      You already know all this of course, which makes your snide remarks about “posturing” and “pandering” quite clearly venal.

      • lprent 26.2.1
        24 July 2015 at 2:46 pm

        Besides, what is done through a parliamentary democracy can be undone through it as well. If the executive gets the few legislative bits through on a single vote, then they can hardly complain when they are removed with one as well.

        After all they could have negotiated to get a super majority support. However it appears that National has never bothered to try. Lazy fools.

        • Chooky 26.2.1.1
          24 July 2015 at 5:16 pm

          +100

        • Gosman 26.2.1.2
          25 July 2015 at 7:40 am

          And this should be the position of anti-TPPA campaigners. Instead we get silly ideas pushed such as the TPPA is going to lead to NZ giving up our sovereignty. I’m not sure how taking such a position can be justified but I know why it is used as a tactic. It is just highly dishonest.

          • Tricledrown 26.2.1.2.1
            25 July 2015 at 11:01 am

            Gooseman more pathetic bs from you you could never be straight up and honest.
            NAFTA was a 1sided which favoured only powerful corporations.
            If the negotiations were open,honest and fair I doubt anyone would oppose the TPPA.
            But big monopolistic corporations don’t like democratic process.
            Because they don’t like competition or aie Pharmac. Undermineing their monopoly
            Or rural Japanese and Ameriçan farmers who support right wing govts want to maintain their power and monopolistic political power at all costs.
            So no benefit for New Zealand.
            Gooseman socold free market yeah right your a complete fundamentalist f/w

    • crashcart 26.3
      24 July 2015 at 2:16 pm

      Wayne do you think that the bottom lines that Labour have described are reasonable?

      This is the key question here. You may be correct on the time line for when TPP finally comes together. You may even be correct about Labour not repealing it if they come into government. Taking all that into consideration do you think it would be a good deal if we gave up any of the bottom lines that Labour have said? Would it feel a hollow victory to get through a TPP which doesn’t protect New Zealand?

      I obviously don’t know what the contents of TPP are. For all I know they are perfect. The leaks don’t paint that picture for sure. However the idea that victory at any cost when our sovrenty is at stake is repugnant.

    • Jan Rivers 26.4
      24 July 2015 at 10:26 pm

      It’s not about Labour’s posturing but about the complete inability of the NZ media to address the important issues. Content to inflame accusations of racism for weeks on end no-one in the NZ media has addressed the most significant issue related to the main stories of the month – free trade agreements and housing.

      The government has bargained away the right for future governments to stop foreign speculator investment in residential property through the Taiwan and South Korea FTAs which have already been signed. Because of the most favoured nation status included in the China NZ FTA Chinese non-resident investors will now have this right as well. The same limits to government’s ability to act are said to be included in the TPPA.

      Despite all the information (bar the TPPA situation) being documented this issue has not been covered by anyone in the media in its entirety. National have lost NZ the democratic right to legislate against foreign investment in perpetuity and yet Bill English is still claiming – as recently as today’s Morning Report that this is not the case.

      • Save NZ 26.4.1
        25 July 2015 at 9:10 am

        @Jan Rivers

        If this is true, why the hell have the opposition parties not been campaigning on this? I get emails from all the opposition parties – none have organised any information about this issue that I am aware of.

        The opposition parties can not control the media and now must understand that their messaging must be done off the mainstream, websites, petitions, Facebook, emails and mail outs.

        If this is true and certainly I am getting a lot about “is Labour racist” but no effective fight back from Labour itself about (if true) how National has already signed NZ residential property and farm rights away.

        Do you think voters would be happy to know this – I think not – and from the conservatives in the rural communities to the urban middle classes – most voters would be very alarmed indeed to find we are now more constrained to being tenants in our own country by the Nats.

        And (if true) the opposition parties have been effective in getting this across.

    • Tricledrown 26.5
      25 July 2015 at 5:38 am

      So Wayne you putting any money on it being in force before 2017.
      The only way it would be in force before 2017 is if agriculture was left out.
      Pharmac excluded.

  27. infused 27
    24 July 2015 at 2:03 pm

    I still can’t see this being signed regardless.

  28. Michael 28
    24 July 2015 at 4:05 pm

    This is a good position to take, glad to see it.

  29. Eralc 29
    24 July 2015 at 5:43 pm

    Best case scenario, only 8% are listening (if that).

  30. Henry Filth 30
    24 July 2015 at 6:39 pm

    The first of these “new-style” trade agreements was NAFTA between Canada, the USA, and Mexico.

    It’s instructive to look at the benefits promised by the promoters, and compare them to the actual results.

    On that basis, you wouldn’t want a bar of the TPP.

  31. Peter 31
    24 July 2015 at 7:14 pm

    If Labour were really against this they would have said if it’s wrong for the people of NZ we will repeal it. just like they said they were against the assets sales all they had to say is when we become the government we will buy them back at 50cents on the dollar end of sales in one swift movement. But no tory light.

  32. Ian 32
    24 July 2015 at 7:38 pm

    GROAN. The NZ Labour Party is still equivocating, in my humble opinion. They still seem to think the TPPA has some sort of merit. OK, so Labour is effectively opposed to just about everything the TPPA seeks to achieve- so just come out and say NO to the TPPA! Wake up and realise this was never about ‘free trade’ (which carries its own risks). It just shows how embedded neoliberal thinking is, within the NZLP hierarchy.

    Whatever happened to the LABOUR Party? Almost time to write it a requiem.

    • AmaKiwi 32.1
      24 July 2015 at 10:47 pm

      Labour would be a laughing stock if it opposed a treaty whose contents are presently top secret. Key would slice Labour to shreds for jumping to conclusions about something they know nothing about. Little’s stance is solid.

      • Save NZ 32.1.1
        25 July 2015 at 9:19 am

        @AmaKiwi

        Not if Labour argue that the government is a laughing stock for signing a treaty nobody knows what is in it. Look at Sky City 90% of the public opposed.

        Labour could be arguing how out of touch national is, etc.

        Nope instead they just longwindedly try to argue and look stupid to the shrinking joe public still watching mainstream news, and untrustworthy to their potential voters who aren’t watching anyway.

        One of the problems with Labour is that they make everything so stupidly complicated and confusing (apparently cos they are frightened the media will shred them, but they are shredded in the media anyway, so at least bothering to have a clear message to the public it could stand them in good stead, Yes, No, rather than a worrying, NO but XYZ scenarios yes, etc.

        The media is shredding them partly because they can’t give any clear answers. Just say Yes or just say NO.

        • AmaKiwi 32.1.1.1
          25 July 2015 at 10:46 am

          @ Save NZ

          I find nothing “stupidly complicated and confusing” about Little’s clearly defined points of opposition.

          As for the MSM, you and I know they are the voice of the wealthy.

  33. Potato 33
    24 July 2015 at 11:07 pm

    Seems like a good time to post this again…..Sing along Andrew …

  35. Michael 35
    25 July 2015 at 12:29 pm

    If all of those conditions were met – no ISDS, no insane IP laws, sovereignty is maintained, and *most importantly* we get access to protected markets, then I’d support the agreement. NZ already has very, very low tariffs on imports. So *free trade* is almost entirely beneficial – we get access to new markets while not really having to do much on our end. However, the bad part is when the agreements include things that force us to give up sovereignty – like ISDS for example. This is why I support the China FTA, as it largely just got tariffs reduced and helped our exporters. There wasn’t much ‘bad’ stuff in it. I don’t think being protectionist is the way forward in the global economy, but the key is not to be exploited by MNCs. That’s why I think Little’s stance is perfect.

    • Colonial Viper 35.1
      25 July 2015 at 12:36 pm

      If you want to develop your own advanced industries you have to be protectionist for a period of time. Why do you think the USA is so keen on its IP protection.

      • AmaKiwi 35.1.1
        25 July 2015 at 10:59 pm

        +1

        That’s how the game is played. Keep out the competition until you are strong enough to take them on globally. In the 1950’s and 1960’s Japan did not allow any imported cars or electronics. Then they conquered the world . . . for a while.

    • Draco T Bastard 35.2
      26 July 2015 at 12:04 am

      Trade only exists in two things:

      1. Finished products
      2. Information

      Anything else such as foreigners being able to buy land, businesses and housing isn’t trade but a loss of sovereignty.

  36. Wayne 36
    25 July 2015 at 6:15 pm

    Andrew little has not said “no” to ISDS. What he did say is that it should be designed so that it will prevent successful suits by corporations against the government regulating in the public interest – think tobacco laws. His position would not stop tobacco companies suing, rather it is the outcome that is the concern.

    I am pretty sure that the ISDS rules will meet Andrew Littles requirements.

    In any event TPP will be in force by the time Labour gets in office, even if it wins the 2017 election. He won’t repeal it. To do so could trigger New Zealand state responsibility, particularly if it was repealed to take specific actions against foreign companies.

    The Left need to accept that this horse has bolted. With congressional authority, President Obama can now go to the other negotiating states saying that any deal the US does will stick, and not be unpicked by Congress. Therefore expect TPP to finalized late this year, and implemented in 2017.

    Of course Jane Kelsey and many commenters here will mount “days of rage”. But it will all be sound and fury signifying nothing. However, I guess it will be more fuel to the fire for your hatred of “neo-liberal” oppression.

    • Lanthanide 36.1
      25 July 2015 at 6:24 pm

      “The Left need to accept that this horse has bolted.”

      “Of course Jane Kelsey and many commenters here will mount “days of rage”. But it will all be sound and fury signifying nothing”

      Yip, should all just pack up and go home.

      I seem to recall National did a 180 turn on mining in conservation parks, after the public came out and marched against it.

      I also recall National putting up the main benefits by $25/week. They didn’t do it in a vacuum; they did it under pressure from the opposition.

      As of Monday, Mt Eden prison operations are being taken away from Serco. I don’t think that would have happened if it weren’t for Kelvin Davis standing up in Parliament.

      Who *knows* with certainty what will ultimately happen with the TPP? I suggest that you do not, as much as you might like to think that you do.

      I don’t think you quite understand this “opposition” and “democracy” thing we’ve got going on in this country.

    • Stuart Munro 36.2
      25 July 2015 at 7:16 pm

      I’ve heard this line before and it is rubbish.

      The NZ government cannot afford to contest dozens of cases in US courts against corporations with a hundred thousand times greater earnings than our English-numpty-stunted economy.

      Ceding the right to try such action exclusively in our own courts is the kind of sleazy fuckwittery that makes National universally loathed and execrated by educated people.

    • Tautoko Mangō Mata 36.3
      25 July 2015 at 7:39 pm

      Wayne:”The Left need to accept that this horse has bolted.”
      Me: The Left need to accept that the TPPA trojan horse needs to be euthanased.

      Your words ” But it will all be sound and fury signifying nothing.” betrays your rather arrogant disregard for rational argument.
      “signifying nothing?”
      How dare we lefties challenge you. How dare we point out your obvious total lack of respect for the democratic process and transparency!
      If the TPPA is so good for us, then the proposals should have been laid out in a transparent process to convince the public. We on the left are rational thinkers. We like to have all of the information and then make up our minds. We are not the faith-based, accept-without-question types. We like to research for trustworthy information which can be corroborated. The evidence on ISDS so far, together with the unprecedented secrecy of TPPA texts plus what has been made public by WikiLeaks overwhelming indicates that the TPPA is a total crock!

    • Tautoko Mangō Mata 36.4
      25 July 2015 at 7:39 pm

      Wayne:”The Left need to accept that this horse has bolted.”
      Me: The Left need to accept that the TPPA trojan horse needs to be euthanased.

      Your words ” But it will all be sound and fury signifying nothing.” betrays your rather arrogant disregard for rational argument.
      “signifying nothing?”
      How dare we lefties challenge you. How dare we point out your obvious total lack of respect for the democratic process and transparency!
      If the TPPA is so good for us, then the proposals should have been laid out in a transparent process to convince the public. We on the left are rational thinkers. We like to have all of the information and then make up our minds. We are not the faith-based, accept-without-question types. We like to research for trustworthy information which can be corroborated. The evidence on ISDS so far, together with the unprecedented secrecy of TPPA texts plus what has been made public by WikiLeaks overwhelming indicates that the TPPA is a total crock!

    • Draco T Bastard 36.5
      26 July 2015 at 12:16 am

      I am pretty sure that the ISDS rules will meet Andrew Littles requirements.

      No they won’t as the actions of the corporations and loss to sovereign nations over the last 20 years proves.

  37. Robert Glennie 37
    25 July 2015 at 11:06 pm

    If you don’t mind partaking in an activism act on behalf of New Zealand, I am sure many will be grateful. I have compiled a short generic message to Tim Groser, Minister of Trade regarding the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement. In order to make your job as easy as possible – should you decide to participate, I have also supplied the address details.

    If you want to e-mail Mr Groser, his e-mail is t.groser@ministers.govt.nz

    If you want to send him a short letter then try:

    Tim Groser
    Minister of Trade
    Parliament Buildings
    Wellington
    New Zealand

    The generic text is below. Have fun.
    —-

    Dear Mr Groser

    I am writing this out of deep concern that I and my fellow New Zealanders are not being told the truth about the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement that I understand final negotiation for are set to happen in Hawaii in the week starting 27 July 2015.

    What is so hard about releasing the text of the agreement to the public if this agreement is as good as you say?

    Prime Minister John Key famously said sometime ago that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

    So why is National hiding the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement? Why do the media stubbornly refuse to carry out their fourth estate duties and do investigative reporting on the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement?

    If it was really that good, you would have told us by now. So why have you not?

    Yours Sincerely

  38. AmaKiwi 38
    25 July 2015 at 11:26 pm

    Don’t bet on TPPA getting through the US Congress. There are some big question marks.

    1. Milk: US dairy production has risen each of the last 5 years and every year dairy prices have fallen more. With the US dollar up, American dairy farmers are in pain. If US farmers block access for our milk, there will be nothing in TPPA for National’s core constituency.

    2. Parmac: Obama (and Bush before him) OPPOSE the pharma 12 year patent protection in TPPA. It would save the US and the state governments billions to have a 7 year limit. In other words, there are NO countries that want these pharma changes, only the pharma business lobby. In the final version Obama might throw them to the wolves to try to make TPPA acceptable globally. The usual campaign “contributions” (bribes) won’t work on Obama. He ain’t running again.

    3. Obama does not want a lengthy pubic discussion about TPPA but the cat is slipping out of the bag. It’s US presidential racing time and TPPA will is an issue. No telling what will happen. (Maybe Trump will promise to nuke any country that doesn’t accept it!)

    4. If the Left wins the next NZ election in 2017, withdrawing from the treaty won’t be such a big deal. It will barely have come into force. The longer it takes to finally unveil TPPA, the greater the chances it will not happen.