Greens oppose rebranded TPPA

Written By: - Date published: 12:33 pm, November 13th, 2017 - 150 comments
Categories: capitalism, Economy, greens, trade - Tags: , , ,

Newshub are reporting that the Green Party will vote against the rebranded TPPA.

Green Party trade spokesperson Golriz Ghahraman says it will be opposed by the Party as long as foreign investors have the ability to sue our Government – either now or in the future.

“We’d like to move forward to a more modern type of trade agreement. We see this much more as an investor type of agreement,” Ms Ghahraman told Newshub.

“We’d like to put things like environmental protection and protection of human rights and our democracy at the centre of trade deals, so we won’t be supporting this.”

Golriz Ghahraman tweeted this morning and is answering some questions on twitter:

The TPPA is now called CPTPP – the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Or TPP for those that think ‘Comprehensive and Progressive’ is an oxymoron when applied to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.

Details of Green Party trade policy are here.

150 comments on “Greens oppose rebranded TPPA”

  1. The decrypter 1

    James,- sort things out pronto.

    • weka 1.1

      Assuming you mean Shaw and not our commenter James 😉 Shaw is in Germany for the Climate Change conference,

      https://twitter.com/jamespeshaw/status/929841529127968768

      • The decrypter 1.1.1

        No I meant commenter james, he seems to be on the negative side of things.

        • James 1.1.1.1

          Nope – I’m all for signing it.

          Not negative on it at all. Just finding it funny that labour will sign it.

          • David C 1.1.1.1.1

            You mean funny that Labour needs Nationals help to get it passed?

            • Muttonbird 1.1.1.1.1.1

              You’re jumping the gun there. This deal has gone back into negotiation. There’s more to be done on it and the Greens might very well be happy with the outcome at a later point.

              No need for corrupt National then.

              • David C

                Mutton.
                Yip we know the Greens will bend whichever way Taxcinda tells them to so you are right, they will support in the end.
                Souls are sold.

                • Muttonbird

                  No. There’ll be discussion, partnership, and consensus.

                  National weren’t very good at that. They preferred to destroy their friends. They killed the Maori Party and they tried to killed NZF. This is the reason they failed to form a government and one of the reasons their front bench was in the high court today.

                  • David C

                    Mutton.
                    I really hope you are right and the Greens bend over and take it, consensus, if that is what you wish to call it.

                    As for the Nats, pray tell, which of the front bench attended HC today?

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  Another bitter angry little Toryboy. How does opposition feel, Davey?

            • Puddles 1.1.1.1.1.2

              I can understand your amusement David but you can’t really be surprised. Labour were opposed to the TPP only because they saw it as a potential vote winner vs real ideological reasons.

              Now they are in power they are just as keen to sign up to this dog of an agreement as National were/are. People may think that Labour are somehow “better” than National but the sooner citizens wake up to the fact that they are simply to sides of the same coin and both owned by the same corporate masters the sooner New Zealand can be reformed into a country for her citizens vs overseas interests.

          • Peter 1.1.1.1.2

            If Labour needs National for it to pass then there is something wrong with it, and cannot be good for the workers.

            • The decrypter 1.1.1.1.2.1

              Yep –but good for the likes of james and his mates,-very good for them all, in its probable, present format.

            • Muttonbird 1.1.1.1.2.2

              Agree. The carve outs some of these other countries have negotiated on worker conditions is appalling. Single party Communist nation Vietnam for instance has negotiated exemptions from worker protection and, as has been mentioned elsewhere today, harasses anti-government activists.

              Still at least they’re not as bad as China.

      • cleangreen 1.1.2

        James Shaw please save us from disaster as I am fullly supportive of your opposition to TPP 11 (or what it is called for now) see this event justn reported from our own scientists in Antartica as we are needing to reverse our use of oil now and use electric trains for freight and passengers and ditch trucks.

        http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2017/11/daunting-antarctic-sea-ice-plummet-could-be-tipping-point.html
        13 November 2017
        Newshub

        ‘Daunting’ Antarctic sea ice plummet could be tipping point
        • 1 hour ago

        Samantha Hayes

        Fullscreen
        Your video will resume in 1 seconds
        Learn More
        The Antarctic sea ice growth in winter and melt in summer is the biggest annual change on the planet. Credits: Newshub.
        A dramatic drop in the amount of sea ice around Antarctica has scientists wondering if the continent has hit a tipping point.
        There has been a record 30 percent decrease in the total amount of sea ice, and this summer it’s disappearing from the Ross Sea at a rate not seen in more than 30 years.
        The rapidly changing conditions are having a major impact on this year’s scientific research at Scott Base, with scientists describing the changes as “unusual”, “unprecedented” and “daunting”.

        One of the affected scientists is Antarctic oceanographer Dr Natalie Robinson, who studies sea ice and what lies beneath it.
        “We had about 200km of sea ice to play with last year, but this year we’re down to about 25-30km, so it’s certainly a very different ball game,” she told Newshub.
        The team’s plan to drill holes through the sea ice has proved impossible this season, with some of their sites now just open water.
        It’s also affected their camping plans. The team usually bring eight modified shipping containers onto the ice to live and work from for several weeks, but Scott Base checked the ice and it was deemed too thin or weak for heavy vehicles to travel on.

        The Antarctic sea ice growth in winter and melt in summer is the biggest annual change on the planet. Dr Robinson describes it as the heartbeat or pulse of Earth, and it affects everybody because it drives global weather.
        “It basically doubles the size of Antarctica each year and where that sea ice sits determines where the storms go, and when and where they might hit New Zealand,” she said.
        But the big changes occurring in Antarctica impact not only weather, but the health of the world’s oceans too, delivering oxygen and nutrients.
        During November the sea ice edge is usually around 100km further north of where it is this year. For it to have broken out this early is a significant change and it’s causing alarms bells to ring.
        “This is my 30th trip into the Southern Ocean and Antarctica,” climate scientist Professor Gary Wilson told Newshub.
        “Of all the visits I’ve made down here, we haven’t seen the sea ice break out as much as it has this early.”

        This graph shows the normal range of sea ice in November since 1978. In 2016, there was a sudden and dramatic drop.
        This year looks to be following suit.
        “We’re seeing the ice shelves break up around the peninsula, we’re seeing sea ice extent change,” Prof Wilson said.
        “It dropped rapidly last year and we’re seeing now early break-up of the sea ice. Many of these things coming together certainly don’t bode well.”
        The sea ice is not only melting ahead of schedule, there’s a lot less of it to begin with. Last year there was 30 percent less ice – a drop of around 1 million square kilometres.
        Climate scientists believe Antarctica may have hit a tipping point.

        “This could be the moment that Antarctica is catching up with the Arctic,” Prof Wilson said.
        “Geologically we know that’s the case that both poles warm equally, but it hasn’t been the case yet with the Antarctic. But maybe this is the moment.”
        There is now less sea ice globally than at any other time since satellite records began in 1978. Last year, when it reached a record low, was also the hottest year on record.
        “The impacts that we’re having on the planet, it wouldn’t surprise me if we are going to some sort of step change in how the Antarctic sea ice system operates,” Dr Robinson said.
        “We’re really in a critical position I think… We’re actually in a race because we know changes are coming, and it’s just whether we’re ahead of the changes to understand them and predict them better.”
        Prof Wilson said the abrupt change is “exciting” but troubling.
        “In one sense it’s exciting we’re starting to see signs, in another sense it’s daunting because when ice melts it tends to melt rapidly,” he said.
        The scientists and staff at Scott Base have been forced to adapt to the changes in sea ice this season. They can’t traverse as far north on it and it needs to be regularly checked for safety when the large vehicles are driving over it.
        At least one expedition has had to be cancelled, while cracks have made some regular routes impassable for vehicles carrying scientific equipment.
        Climate scientists will be watching closely over the next few years to establish whether this is a one-off event, or the moment Antarctica began to succumb to a rapidly warming planet.
        Newshub.

        More From Newshub

  2. Ad 2

    What are the Green numbers on Foreign Affairs and Trade Select Committee?

    That is the next hot point.

    • Wayne 2.1

      Ad,

      Not a hot point at all.

      The government has guaranteed support from National.

      Sure, the people who are opposed will make submissions in opposition, but in reality they will make no difference.

      • weka 2.1.1

        Resistance is futile.

      • marty mars 2.1.2

        Democracy in action eh wayne

        • Stunned Mullet 2.1.2.1

          Yep, fair to note that over 75% of votes counted were for Labour and National so if passed through the house it would definitely be democracy in action from an NZ perspective.

          • Draco T Bastard 2.1.2.1.1

            Yep.

            So would Labour losing all it’s voters as them agreeing with National is not what Labour voters want which would giving us our first Green government in 2020.

            • Stunned mullet 2.1.2.1.1.1

              You may be right, albeit unlikely that..

              1. All those who voted for Labour were against this agreement

              or

              2. Of all those who voted for Labour and were against the agreement that Labour proceeding with the agreement outweighs all the other issues that cause them to the vote for Labour.

              Also Labour probably have a base of around 20-25% of the potential voter base who’ll vote for them regardless of what they do.

              • 1. 56% voted for change. IIRC, from the polls 54% wanted the TPPA dropped. This would tend to indicate that most of those that voted for labour wanted the TPPA dropped.
                2. I’d say that it’d be quite high as many see a large part of the problems that they want addressed as being caused by the FTAs that both Labour and National have entered into against the publics wishes. At no point in the last thirty years has the majority of people wanted FTAs, the dropping of tariffs and foreigners being able to buy up NZ.

      • tracey 2.1.3

        I think you are right, which is sad cos it means the public submission process is simple a charade. Will full cost/benefit analysis be released before the call for submissions do you think Wayne?.

        • Wayne 2.1.3.1

          Tracey,

          I presume so.

          I would note that on lots of legislation the select committee process is really valuable and can improve legislation.

          But on treaties, especially multilateral treaties, it is really an exercise where everyone gets to parade their views. The submissions can’t change the legislation to implement a treaty, unless the legislation somehow fails to implement the treaty, or does more than required to implement the treaty.

          • tracey 2.1.3.1.1

            Do you mean the legislation already passed? If yes, cannot a new government move to repeal any of that? I realise labour is not going to want to do that but am asking for clarification. I replied to you in yesterday’s thread relating to your statement that parker was talking about stuff already in the agreement. Might be worth your while to take a peek. It is not a long or offensive post.

            • Wayne 2.1.3.1.1.1

              I actually did not recall the Aussies had already made that agreement back in 2016.

              If so it makes it look like that Labour has been spinning to excess. All govts spin to some extent, but how much makes a difference. As soon as I saw Parker on Q & A I knew he was exaggerating, to an extent that was virtually a lie. Not that the things he was claiming weren’t there, but rather that he had negotiated them. They were mostly already there.

              On Select Committees I mean on the bills actually referred to the Select Committees. They do their thing between the first and second readings. And most bills get some changes during the select committee stage. But not treaty bills, they go back unchanged, but with a commentary on the hearings. The Greens will do a minority report on the CPTPP.

              • KJT

                Seems to be a trait of advocates of the neo-liberal religion. Lying!

              • tracey

                But you were always ok with Keys levels though Wayne 😉

                And he made spin, flip flops, poor memory and misleading statements an art.

                Thanks for the committee clarification

              • Drowsy M. Kram

                According to Dick and Spielberg, we need to heed The Minority Report, but tbh I can’t take much more of National.

              • Muttonbird

                How would we know what was already there and what wasn’t? The National government arrogantly draped the entire process in secrecy which was more than half of the reason for opposition. It’s great that Parker is more open and informing the public – to you though he is somehow stealing Nat’s IP???

        • Draco T Bastard 2.1.3.2

          I think you are right, which is sad cos it means the public submission process is simple a charade.

          It is and always has been.

          The MPs in a select committee have no compunction to even read the submissions never mind actually taking them into account and so we see select committees passing on policies that the majority of submitters were against (often with good arguments and reality backing them) which then gets passed as legislation by government.

      • UncookedSelachimorpha 2.1.4

        Blinglish did suggest National might be difficult for the sake of being difficult – so maybe they will about-face on the TPP simply to oppose Labour, and save us all!

      • cleangreen 2.1.5

        Wayne,

        Regarding NZF – it is not a clear now NZF will be backing TPP 11 (or whatever they call it for now).

        So do you think Labour are prepared to risk ‘isolating their base and both suppoort poliitical parties’ over this toxic rat swallowing of -TPP 11??

  3. I hope the spokesperson hasn’t gone early on this. Something doesn’t feel right about this announcement to me – hope I’m wrong.

    • tracey 3.1

      Like what? I suspect it is part of Labour and Green pre Coalition announcement discussions.

      • marty mars 3.1.1

        What – are you saying the greens knew about this ages ago?

        • weka 3.1.1.1

          New that they would oppose the TPPA? Yes. New that they would oppose the TPPA with a revised ISDS clause whereby older parts of the agreement could be reactivated if the US join the TPP? Yes.

          • marty mars 3.1.1.1.1

            So they are agreeing to disagree with labour – assuming they are up to speed on everything. So it really now is just a massive pr exercise of distancing and political siloing to minimise any fallout. Not that I have problem with any of that – politics is more like survivor than married at first sight generally imo.

            • weka 3.1.1.1.1.1

              “So it really now is just a massive pr exercise of distancing and political siloing to minimise any fallout.”

              Not sure what you mean there tbh. The Greens have had a very clear position on the TPPA, including in the month before the election. Their position was to not support the TPPA, whereas Labour’s was to renegotiate it. None of that is new. Even on the bits in the public domain in the past day it’s clear that what Labour are doing isn’t supportable by established GP policy.

              I don’t see a massive PR exercise, I see a single, brief interview with Shub and some tweets, designed to let voters know where the GP stand. I’m grateful for that, not least because it’s clear.

              “of distancing and political siloing to minimise any fallout.”

              I don’t see how this is the Greens siloing, they’re just doing normal, routine stuff under MMP and with the kind of agreement they have with Labour. That was the whole point, that the Greens go to be a distinct party and work on issues as they see fit.

              • Fair enough I got a bit carried away thanks for explaining.

                • tracey

                  😉

                  We all have to remember there is a reason (and a prid quo pro) to Greens being outside cabinet. I think this is an example.

                  NZF on the other hand are very very quiet on the new iteration of TPP which is odd considering…

                  ““The government and the TPPA cheerleaders need to remember Japanese farmers are the most subsidised farmers in the world with $US45 billion every year in direct support.

                  “We need a decent free trade deal with Japan. New Zealand First is all for free trade deals that benefit us, but going through the TPPA is not the best approach.

                  “By all means negotiate with Japan, but not with rose-tinted glasses so you can tick off a deal, but come away the loser.

                  “The TPPA was not a free trade deal, but an international corporate protection racket, covering a wide range of laws which challenged our national sovereignty, giving legal preference in a court not of New Zealand’s choosing. That’s just to highlight just some of its defects,” says Mr Peters.” May 2017 http://www.nzfirst.org.nz/nz_foolish_to_sign_up_to_dead_tppa_with_japan

                  How hard he is pushed to provide evidence for why this should not now be the case will be interesting.

                  • Wayne

                    NZF is actually part of the government and their Ministers, being in Cabinet (as opposed to being outside it), are bound by cabinet responsibility.

                    I therefore expect NZF will support the legislation to implement the CPTPP.

                    Also another reason to support is that much of NZF support is in the provinces, and unlike the Greens, they will not want to be seen as implacably opposed to an FTA. The provinces live and die on agricultural trade. NZF, like Labour, will say all their concerns have been met (whether or not that is really true).

                    • tracey

                      And yet Peters was very scathing on it…

                    • cleangreen

                      As much as you are a gracious man Wayne (that I quietly admire) this is wrong; – that NZF is bound by Cabnet resas it apears there is an agreement for both parties to agree to disagree aparently.

                      NZF confirmed this today on Newshub.

                      http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/11/nz-first-support-for-tpp-not-guaranteed.html

                      13 November 2017
                      RadioLIVE
                      LISTEN NOW

                      NZ First support for TPP not guaranteed
                      • 1 hour ago
                      Anna Bracewell-Worrall

                      NZ First leader Winston Peters and Labour leader Jacinda Ardern. Credits: Newshub.
                      Labour may have to pass the CPTPP into law with the support of National and ACT – and without its Government support partners.
                      Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says New Zealand First won’t make a decision on whether it backs the CPTPP (the rebranded Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement) through Parliament, until it’s seen the final deal.
                      Labour already knows it doesn’t have backing from the Greens.
                      Earlier on Monday, the Greens reiterated its decision to vote against the deal, while investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms remained an option.
                      Without support from either Government partner, the CPTPP can still easily pass through into law. National says it does – and will – support the agreement.
                      Speaking from the Philippines, Ms Ardern said, despite New Zealand First having Cabinet responsibility, it also had the ability to agree to disagree.
                      “We won’t have a conversation about where party support will fall, until we have a final agreement,” she said. “I absolutely understand parties in some cases will wait until the final deal’s on the table.”
                      From time to time, Labour, New Zealand First and the Greens will take differing positions, she said.
                      Ms Ardern has had ongoing conversations about the deal with NZ First leader Winston Peters.
                      The TPP agreement initially included the United States, but President Donald Trump withdrew from the agreement, forcing the remaining countries to form a TPP11 agreement.
                      Newshub.

                  • Thanks Tracey – I spose my ramblings give a good opportunity for people to outline the greens policy and ethos as you and weta have done. Thanks again.

                  • veutoviper

                    NZF on the other hand are very very quiet on the new iteration of TPP …

                    Well NZF may be quiet, but Winston Peters has been standing to the left of Jacinda Ardern, with David Parker at the right of her, in numerous video interviews from Vietnam over the last few days on the TPP negotiations – and he has not looked unhappy.

                    In fact from a couple of video interviews from Vietnam and from Manila in the last few hours, I get the impression that Winston and Jacinda are getting on well (and I don’t mean anything untoward) and that he is actually growing to quietly admire her handling of interviews etc from his facial expressions when she is talking.

            • cleangreen 3.1.1.1.1.2

              Marty mars,

              NZF have now said they may not support TPP 11 (or whatever it is called for now)

              They want to see the full completed legal text of the TPP 11 ‘thing’ first.

              This is very wise because only a fool signs sometjhing they have never seen written as proof firstly, – any Lawyer would advise their clients of this, it’s a no-brainer. Common sense policy no less.

        • tracey 3.1.1.2

          That they would oppose the TPP or its new incarnation? Absolutely. They even campaigned on that?

  4. tracey 4

    I am not suprised by tis announcement. Anyone who is does not follow Green party politics. I am pleased to see it in black and white so it cannot be used as a diversion by those saying “what about the Greens”.

    Now we await NZF’s statement again or in support. Peters as I posted in another thread has been pretty scatching of TPP. I suppose the name change will give him an out 😉

    I am looking forward to analysis that might come from the Greens spokesperson who has this backgroound

    “Ghahraman has a Masters degree in International Human Rights Law from the University of Oxford. She has worked as a lawyer for the United Nations in both defence and prosecution with the tribunals in Rwanda, Cambodia and The Hague.[3] She returned to New Zealand in 2012 and worked as a barrister, specialising in human rights law and criminal defence. Ghahraman appeared before the Supreme Court of New Zealand in a case which ultimately led to the police overhauling their rules about undercover operations|

  5. Puckish Rogue 5

    Well they can oppose it all they like but labour and national equals 80 percent of the vote so if it comes down to a vote it’s going to happen…unless national plays silly buggers

    • Ad 5.1

      If I were National on this, I would simply screw Labour again in the Select Committee, in the debates in the House, and in the media.

      If National can shear the Greens off this government enough, the government will become inoperable, the government will fall, and Ardern will then have to go for a snap election. We’re a long way from a Confidence and Supply issue yet, but this is where it starts.

      The objective is not to be “loyal opposition”; the objective is to bring the government down and force a change of government.

      • weka 5.1.1

        How are National shearing the Greens off the government?

        • Ad 5.1.1.1

          They would do this by using any future instance of disagreement by the Greens
          with the remainder of the government to sow division. Wait for the next 48 hours and you will see what this looks like.

          • weka 5.1.1.1.1

            ok, using spin etc (I wondered if you were meaning parliamentary processes somehow).

            • Ad 5.1.1.1.1.1

              Just suspend your judgement until this hits the Foreign Affairs and Trade Select Committee.

              I can understand why Wayne as a trade specialist and previous relevant Cabinet Minister would presume all will sail smoothly in Parliament with National on this.

              I remain skeptical, but look forward to their cooperation.

              • weka

                So the Greens could push for further changes in the select committee? I would expect that as well.

                • Ad

                  Both there and through all bill stages in the House.

                  • weka

                    Yes. Do you mean that National might politicise the select committee process to fuck with Labour even though they’re going to vote for the TPPA?

                    • ianmac

                      There were numerous times when the Maori Party or Act or United Future did not vote with the past Government. A big deal? Nah!

                    • tracey

                      It’s what Ad would do if he were National, and from a principles/values perspective he might as well be 😉

                    • greywarshark

                      tracey
                      It’s useful to have someone who can get their mind around Natinal’s ploys. I think Ad’s RW learnings are useful as a tool to indicate where the fractures might occur, the pressure be placed.

                    • Ad

                      I see it as a reasonable risk.

                      Far better to rehearse the plays before going into Parliamentary battle.

                      And as we have seen, National are in full battle formation from the start.

                    • tracey

                      It is one thing to play devils advocate greywarshark but I have been reading Ad for a long time and it is his Machievellian approach that I am criticising, which is NOT the same as Devils advocate.

      • Wayne 5.1.2

        Ad,

        On this issue National will not cause trouble, except of course to highlight the contradictions within the govt. National is too deeply committed to TPP to “play” with it. That would be hugely brand damaging.

        National knows the govt will not fall on it, since it was obvious all the way along that the Greens would oppose TPP, no matter what changes. Anyway all the hard left opponents will be able to gravitate to the Greens as the one true bearer of the light. The conditions the Greens, through their spokesperson Golriz Ghahraman, put on free trade agreements are such that there will never be any free trade agreements the Greens would agree to. No surprise there.

        • marty mars 5.1.2.1

          It is good to get the hard right perspective ta wayne

        • Ad 5.1.2.2

          That will be a welcome magnanimous sign from National on the government’s first parliamentary test when they fought hard and well against the Deputy Speaker appointment.

          The new government would otherwise be in a very weak position, so I look forward to being shown wrong and seeing National’s full cooperation through all stages on this one.

          • tracey 5.1.2.2.1

            Rather than displaying magnanimousness (is that word?)? won’t it reinforce the notion that labour lied to its members and cant be trusted cos it is introducing something the Nats love?

            • AB 5.1.2.2.1.1

              Magnanimity.
              As in Yeats:
              “Have no business but dispensing round
              Their magnanimities of sound”

              (Comparing his daughter’s thoughts to the song of linnets)

        • tracey 5.1.2.3

          Theoretically Wayne, given NewsHub’s reporting today, National are also climbing down from a position. Afterall their position (and yours) is they did all they could, the team worked bloody hard to get these kinds of changes but just could not get it… or, those changes were not necessary at all and yet… here we are with 11 nations thinking they were (including NZ. You will know as a lawyer if you can get more certainty out of your clauses you should try and not rely on a belief that we won’t be sued). It is how both sides play it that will be interesting.

          Given many in the media covering this did not even pick up that Parker’s statement yesterday about Aussie and ISDS was not new, their part as a purveyor of information rather than regurgitation of press rleases will also be interesting.

        • Matthew Whitehead 5.1.2.4

          Actually, the Greens have said all along that they could be persuaded to support the TPP if the contentious parts, like the current style of ISDS, the harmful intellectual property provisions, (which go well beyond just an extension of copyright to life + 70 years from the current, too high life + 50) and so on, were removed from the deal.

          The new CPATPP proposal gets us like 10% further to that goal but it’s not enough.

          You can claim reasonably that what the Greens wanted would never be agreed to, but the party isn’t actually against the deal categorically like you imply. I’d rather see it fail than pass even in the form currently agreed, as would the Green Party, (especially as they’re pulling the trick of suspending the worst parts instead of removing them so they can simply reactivate them if a more globally-minded/pro-corporate President comes to power next after Trump. If the US wants into the CPATPP, they should have to negotiate from scratch rather than using this “suspend the bad parts” nonsense to avoid having to pass laws again on it in the future) but that’s not the same thing as it being “obvious all the way along that the Greens would oppose TPP.”

          The Greens support fair trade deals. The problem is that the CPATPP proposal isn’t even a trade deal as-is, let alone fair: it’s a multinational corporate rights deal.

          • Enough is Enough 5.1.2.4.1

            Yep

            The Green Party and Labour Party held similar positions prior to the election essentially opposing the same bits and saying they could not support it for that reason.

            The fact that the Green Party is still opposing it clearly demonstrates that the Treaty is essentially the same, and Labour’s pre-election opposition was disingenuous cynical politics.

            • Matthew Whitehead 5.1.2.4.1.1

              I’d actually argue that taken as a whole, this is not “essentially the same.” The suspension of the intellectual property chapter is a giant leap forward in the defacto immediate impact of this proposed CPATPP revision, but the fact it’s done through suspension means that that progress is insecure, because the terrible policies insisted upon by the USA can be reactivated at any time, presumably to allow their re-entry into the deal.

              Where it is essentially the same is the critical area: no meaningful progress has been made on the ISDS mechanism, they’re just saying “look, we agreed with Australia we won’t use that mechanism with each other” and then moved the goalposts aftewards and claimed they’d got 80% of what they wanted because right now 80% of our trade is with aussie. That’s spinning so hard a tyre would be envious.

              • cleangreen

                100% Matthew.

                Goood call there.

                What is disturbing is that o-one has seen any text of ISDS or the changes/alterations ‘changed’ for a deal yet so this is not transparency promised at all.
                It is as if we have to take Labour only at their word like we have for nine years?

                Where is the trust to be built on as this TP 11 (or whatever is is called for now) as we know it is binding on all 11 to be enforced for 30+ yrs and what government lasts for that long?

                • Matthew Whitehead

                  Well, I understand why we haven’t seen any text yet: because it’s only an agreement in principle and there’s still outstanding issues to resolve. Unknown if they’ll write a draft on the new revision now or wait until those four issues are dealt with, but either way I wouldn’t have expected them to have a draft agreement penned and released quite so quickly.

                  (I can understand why people are already calling for the text though- there’s been so much policy laundering on this rubbish that nobody wants them to do that stuff again. Not only should they release the text, they should release notes telling us who asked for what)

                  It’s called the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership now, which some media have been acronyming to CPTPP, but I’ve maintained the A as per TPPA to make it the CPATPP.

                  Going back to the Australia thing again- it’s even worse than that, because if any of that trade coming through australia is from a company that has offices in any other TPP signatory, they can avoid this new side-letter by simply rehoming to their other country and then suing us under the ISDS. So this limited ISDS carveout with Australia doesn’t necessarily even protect us from Australian multinationals- in fact, Australia had exactly this happen to them when Phillip Morris International rehomed to Signapore to sue them under that FTA agreement for their plain packaging law on cigarettes.

                  • cleangreen

                    Yes Matthew i get that but many secretive facets to this setup are toxic to us ‘outsiders’ wile unsetling to say the least.

                    You wrote; “Unknown if they’ll write a draft on the new revision now or wait until those four issues are dealt with,”

                    1/ we are not consulted on these issues, or privy to anything?
                    2/where s jacinda’s promise of “transparency”
                    3/ Where do “we have a voice & will be heard” as promised by jacinda?

          • greywarshark 5.1.2.4.2

            Thanks Matthew W
            It would be so hard to get through the thickets of the TPP original document, its changes, their meaning to us, now and in the future, the effect on not having the USA, the value to us of opening up anything we may still have left to explore in the bag of gizmos left to us, that not many of us will have read it all and will rely on seemingly honest brokers like yourself!

            What are we to do? We are so little, and the others are so big. This is explained as the very reason we have to be in. So it seems we are stuffed if we go in and we starve if we stay out, that’s the way it is presented to us.

            I think we are a bunch of people being gamed and humoured so that we feel important. We are ignorant of how tiny we are and how precarious we have made our economic position, and how high our expectations of personal wealth are in a completely irrational belief that a small city isolated from the world can enjoy the world’s wonders.

            With that image of being an advanced country blinding us, we have overlooked the fact that the country is being directed back to our colonial past when we all relied on dairy and sheep and primary produce. Our new big thing, our tourism resource is being put at risk to do this, and yet primary only produces about 6% of our GDP. Only a small fraction, and the cost to keep exporting the volume of this dried milk is great and only looks good when one ignores all he externalities.

            We have a hostile takeover of the country aided by quisling politicians and the Greens are trying to do much with the support of many of those who still have enquiring minds. But almost half the country don’t want to feel the discomfort of the truth. They can’t handle it.

            A Treasury report tends to inflate the importance of primary sector and confuse when referring to the size of exports compared to financial return. I have attempted to give a quick summary of statements and relevant figures:
            ‘Given the importance of the primary sector to the economy….'[p7/52]

            ‘Primary commodities account for more than half of total goods exports while exports of goods and services represent around one-third of real expenditure GDP. ‘[p11/52]

            In a chart for 2015 Table 7 – Primary industries are 7.9% of GDP, Goods-producing industries are 19%, and Service Industries 65.6%. [p14/52]

            In Figure 2 Piechart, the importance of Housing, rental shows in its greater proportion to Agriculture, forestry and fishing [p15/52]

            ‘The agricultural, horticultural, forestry, mining and fishing
            industries play a fundamental role in New Zealand’s economy,
            particularly in the export sector.
            Overall, the primary sector directly accounts for around 6% of real GDP and contributes just over half of New Zealand’s total export earnings.’ [p17/52]
            ‘Dairy farming [45.0] is the predominant agricultural activity, followed by beef [12.4] and sheep [meat 10.3, wool 3.0] farming and horticulture’
            [p17/52]

            External Sector
            External trade is of fundamental importance to New Zealand.
            Primary sector-based exports and commodities are important
            sources of the country’s export receipts, while exports of
            services and manufactured products also provide a significant
            contribution.'[p25/52]

            [A key feature of New Zealand’s current account deficit is the large
            deficit on the primary income balance, reflecting New Zealand’s
            net international investment position which stood at -61.9% of
            GDP in the year to September 2015.]
            [p30/52]
            http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/overview/2016/nzefo-16.pdf

            (I included the last sentence referring to NZ international investment which someone more proficient may interpret for me and others.

            But I again note the importance laid on the earnings from primary production, when it is only a small percentage of the total GDP. And that dairy is less than half of that small percentage of primary export earnings.)

            • Matthew Whitehead 5.1.2.4.2.1

              I was planning on doing an analysis of the highlights of both the best and worst parts of the most current available TPPA text, (there are good bits, but they’re mostly symbolic, or they involve things like “protect intellectual property in countries with loose laws” etc…) but I’m not sure I can honestly condense it enough for people to find it helpful. The suspended bits are great bits to be rid of, (the IP clauses were some of the most troubling to me, it basically brought all TPP12 signatories halfway to the US copyright law) but the problem is that they’re suspended, not gone.

              I suspect there’s no way the trade deal is worth saddling ourself with the ISDS, even the reduced one Labour piggybacked onto Vietnam’s requests for.

    • weka 5.2

      It’s a little thing called values PR. Also, if the Greens vote against it means Labour early in its first term has to rely on National to pass an important piece of legislation. That’s not a problem per se, it’s MMP after all, but it’s not a good look. Will be interesting to see what NZF do.

      It’s also the longer game for the next election.

    • Enough is Enough 5.3

      National will play silly buggers, like they did with Mallard.

      They will support this through the house but it will come at a cost.

      • marty mars 5.3.1

        Yep the gnats led by their great brainboxes bennett and bridges will try to score points. That in itself will provide many laughs. But playing silly tuggers is automatic when you are silly tuggers so go you good things gnats.

      • Matthew Whitehead 5.3.2

        Actually, I’m going to disagree slightly.

        I think National want the TPP in any form so much that they’ll support this without game playing, all they’ll do is try to claim victory on it for themselves, and claim that Labour messed up the process.

      • cleangreen 5.3.3

        Agreed EIE.

  6. ankerawshark 6

    Ok, I was wrong. Said Greens would support the TPP (or whatever it is now called) on a thread yesterday. Said I might be wrong and so I was.

  7. Enough is Enough 7

    Thank you Green Party.

    Their current position is not exactly a surprise as it is entirely consistent with their pre-election policy. This is what a principled party does.

    Labour watch and learn. You have time and the opportunity to joins the Green Party and walk away entirely from the mess.

    Do not spin this as some kind of good thing for us after all your opposition. we are not that stupid, we can read and we will know whether you have sold us down the river.

    • The Chairman 7.1

      “We can read and we will know whether you have sold us down the river.”

      As long as we forgive them by next election, I don’t think Labour care.

      • Drowsy M. Kram 7.1.1

        When National was re-elected in 2011 they didn’t waste much time transferring public assets to private ownership. In the 2014 election campaign, PM Key promised no more sales of public assets, then continued on as before but didn’t stay to face the music.

        Labour will burn some popular support if the CPATPP is signed on their watch, and if so I hope they can recoup that support by 2020.

    • tracey 7.2

      and when Nats support labour it will paint labour as a liar and not the new great hope they wanted to be… if only for now. BUT they will have to scrub that stain off first.

  8. Richard Christie 8

    If NZF come out with a similar reiteration of position (in particular over their stated allergy toward ISDS) where would that leave Labour?

    So early in the term Labour would be suicidal to lie down with National in opposition to the views of their coalition and C&S partners (as well as the viewpoint of a sizeable proportion of the Labour party’s base.

    • Ad 8.1

      That would be testing whether NZF are bound by Cabinet collective responsibility.

      If NZF split from Labour of CPTPP without rupturing Cabinet, it would also demonstrate to NZF and the Greens that Labour can simply sideline them both by going with National on a vote-by-vote basis. Principles don’t keep you warm at night.

      • tracey 8.1.1

        They do keep you warm at night and you do take them shopping with you.

        • Ad 8.1.1.1

          Principles are stars.
          Partners keep you warm at night.

          • tracey 8.1.1.1.1

            non principled partners wont keep you warm at night, partners that aren’t home when you go to sleep won’t keep you warm at night, a partner that stays way on the edge of the bed doesn’t keep you warm at night. Keep rolling out your pseudo poetry. I know you and I will not agree because in the end there is the merest hair difference between you and National. As long as you have the Treasury benches you have made it clear you don’t care the price.

            • cleangreen 8.1.1.1.1.1

              Bloody well said Tracey.

              I will always vote for NZF as they have a clear policy against TPP as greens do.

              National are trying to figure how to fracture NZF/Greens on this one but wont kill their allegance to disagree with TPP.

              That is the stain labour will altermately bear over this if they sign TPP.

              Remeber it was jacinda at the Auckland town hall Pre-election that her Labour government will be ‘inclussive’ and that eveyone will have a voice and be heard’
              Then jacinnda put this into a referedum then!!!!!

      • Richard Christie 8.1.2

        it would also demonstrate to NZF and the Greens that Labour can simply sideline them both by going with National on a vote-by-vote basis. Principles don’t keep you warm at night.

        And it would spell the end of Labour as a political force, as the overwhelming majority of its base would regard such accommodation with National an anathema.

        So, as usual recently, the power to set the agenda rests with Peters.

        • Ross 8.1.2.1

          I don’t agree Richard. Parties can hop into bed with each other over a single issue. Remember the anti-smacking bill? Did that dent National’s support?

          • Richard Christie 8.1.2.1.1

            National members were granted a conscience vote on the anti-smacking bill, wasn’t a case of parties hopping into bed with each other.

    • tracey 8.2

      Labour may paint it as them being bi-partisan, to achieve what is |best” for NZ.

      Peters will find a way to distance himself from the following, the name change of the agreement might help…

      http://www.nzfirst.org.nz/nz_foolish_to_sign_up_to_dead_tppa_with_japan

  9. Puckish Rogue 9

    Its a win-win for National no matter what happens. Support the TPPA (or whatever its called now)and National get to say we got it through even if we’re not in power.

    Vote against it and add another brick to the support being built with the Greens while embarrassing Labour

    Personally I want them to vote for it

    • McFlock 9.1

      still after the blue-green fantasy, eh?

      The nats might be able to make some hay, but it’s up to the greens and nz1 as to whether this is a coalition-breaker. And if it is, I’d be surprised if Labour go through with it – in fact, I’d expect the coalition partners to have had a fair idea of what the result could be well before the talks fell through.

      • Puckish Rogue 9.1.1

        I’m not suggesting blue-green is going to happen anytime soon but if it is going to happen it has to start sometime, I mean there’s this and the fishing companies seem to be going all right at the moment at the expense of sanctuaries…

        • McFlock 9.1.1.1

          Whatever dream gives you comfort. You guys need friends…

          • Puckish Rogue 9.1.1.1.1

            So you scoff at the idea of blue-green then say national need friends…

            • McFlock 9.1.1.1.1.1

              The Greens are out of the nats’ league, unless the nats stop being nats.

            • weka 9.1.1.1.1.2

              if the Greens go with National they’ll end up with no friends too, which I assume is the point of RWers pining for it.

              • Drowsy M. Kram

                “He’s not dead, he’s just pining for the fjords.”; that and mining the conservation estate.

              • GregJ

                More likely to try and split off sufficient of the (imaginary?) right of the Greens so neither wing gets over the 5% threshold and the core Green vote – say 7% gets no representation in Parliament. National’s whole long term strategy appears to be based on sitting on 45-46% and drive the smaller parties under the threshold so they can manipulate the Webster/Sainte-Laguë method to achieve a single Party parliamentary majority.

        • tracey 9.1.1.2

          If Greens had gone with Nats, National would not have the support of its only partner on this issue

    • Puck if the gnats vote with labour, which is likely, it will be the gnats which will be the big losers. Labour will get the deal and the gnats will be laughed at for supporting them. Over time the gnat aspect of the deal will be forgotten. Frankly the gnats cannot win with this – they are supporting labour lol what a joke of a party the gnats are.

  10. SpaceMonkey 10

    Good. This is what a principled party does and why the Greens have my support.

  11. greywarshark 11

    But playing it for the long game must also be in the mix. It’s the old thing that clever politicians can walk and chew gum at the same time, and change direction without falling over.

  12. Andre 12

    Am I the only one that mentally sees CRAPT every time the new abbreviation appears in writing?

  13. Sparky 13

    Well that’s something I suppose. I personally feel they should have steered clear of Labour from the get go. The Greens lost my vote to NZF in good part because of their decision to partner with them.

    • weka 13.1

      that worked out well didn’t it.

    • cleangreen 13.2

      Me to sparky. I thought we stood more chance there for change. I voted NZF party and labour MP.

      Our family may vote different next time as I like James Shaw now since he stood against the TPP 11 (or whatever it is called for now) today as we need to stand against this corporate thugery at alll costs here as it will bind us for 30yrs + if it is signed off, then I will die in 10yrs and leave my kids and grandkids in corporate bondage which I will be haunted in my grave with.

      • weka 13.2.1

        “Me to sparky.”

        Ok, you stopped voting Green, because of the MoU with Labour, and you voted NZF who are now in an actual formal coalition with Labour?

        Shaw has been standing against the TPPA for his 3 years in parliament (and I’m pretty sure long before that).

  14. cleangreen 14

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/11/nz-first-support-for-tpp-not-guaranteed.html

    Interesting NZF may jump ship also on TPP (or what else it is called for now)

    • Wayne 14.1

      Cleangreen,

      If that is true, that will cause coalition trouble, and so it should. A big policy where Labour is entirely dependent on National. That did happen with the China FTA, but in that case NZF was not formally in coalition, and it was near the end for Labour.

      Because this is at the beginning of the govt it will be remembered. A fine start to the coalition indeed. Except in this instance it is a different coalition than is formally the case. Effectively a grand coalition.

      Labour may as well ditch NZF and the Greens now and just do a coalition with National. That way it covers 80% of all those who voted.

      Jacinda can be PM for 18 months and Bill for 18 months. It would certainly be a better govt than the current one. I guarantee that votes would never be lost, since they would only do things they both agree on. Which in fact would be a huge amount. The country would get more houses, more green policy, and more effort on child poverty. Immigration would not be wound back nearly as much so there would be people to actually build the houses.

      It works for Germany. They regularly have grand coalitions. Since we adopted MMP from Germany, we might as well adopt the way they do things over there!

      • Richard Christie 14.1.1

        It will only cause the coalition trouble if Labour fall in with National and vote against both their C&S partner and coalition partner.

        Labour’s support will then implode and National will have a field day in opposition, which is why the rw trolls are suggesting that the grand coalition is a viable option.

      • Labour may as well ditch NZF and the Greens now and just do a coalition with National. That way it covers 80% of all those who voted.

        Except that some 56% voted for change and Labour going with National would not bring about the change that they wanted.

        And there’s a high probability that one of the changes that they voted for was the dumping of the TPPA.

  15. Wayne 15

    Draco,

    Well, it is all dependent on Winston (yet again). Is he going to decide whether Labour allowed to do TPP?

    Obviously my suggestion was tongue in cheek. But it has a serious side to it. The TPP does illustrate that grand coalitions are possible. And in many circumstances would be better for New Zealand. The current situation being a case in point.

    If grand coalitions are work well enough in Germany, why not New Zealand?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 15.1

      Because the National Party is utterly untrustworthy, tells too many lies, sells access to ministers and trades legislative favours for “lucrative business opportunities”.

      That’s not an opinion; those really are the reasons no-one wants to be in government with you.

      Plus, your breath smells of dead rats.

  16. Wayne 16

    Well, all I can say is that Jacinda is dependent on National votes on one of her first major initiatives.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 16.1

      That’s how MMP works.

      Surely you understand this by now. After all, it’s another reason you’re not in government anymore.

  17. Macro 17

    James S: ” It that a turd you’re rubbing David?”

    David P: “Yes but look how shiny it is!”

    The TPPA was called by Jacinda a “dog”. Now it has a new shiny name and is “Comprehensive and Progressive” I guess it is now a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

  18. RRM 18

    [deleted]

    I’ll do it if nobody else is keen.

    But I kinda feel like someone from the left should do it, because… consistency… principles…

    [too much weird hatred in that comment to parse, so I’ll just suggest you mind your manners – weka]

    • RRM 18.1

      Really, weka?

      Here’s a post by The Standard CELEBRATING that dildo incident, back when National and Joyce were advancing that same trade deal that Labour are now advancing..

      https://thestandard.org.nz/spare-a-thought-for-steven-joyce/

      And now suddenly you’re all testy about it.

      Do your feet get sore from dancing on the head of a pin?

      [lprent: We get testy when idiots:-

      1. Think that “The Standard” has a mind.
      2. Think that the authors or commenters here think the same.
      3. Repeatably do it despite being told to read the policy.
      4. But since you like testy, and I’m a kind soul who likes to grant people their wishes….
      5. Banned for 6 months.

      Fuck off and finger your brain elsewhere. We can’t be bothered with the grunting you seem to think indicates thought. ]

Leave a Comment

Show Tags

Recent Comments

Recent Posts