Jane Kelsey on TPPA

Written By: - Date published: 7:58 am, January 25th, 2016 - 43 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, democracy under attack, Economy, Globalisation, International, Politics, trade, us politics - Tags: , , ,

Posted with permission from the legendary Bryan Bruce.

And from his Facebook page:

Huge TPPA Auckland Town Hall Meeting 7pm Tomorrow Night.

Please Share.

It’s not too late to stop the TPPA. Tomorrow night (26th January) in the Town Hall at 7pm you can hear why and what we can do to prevent it happening.

Speakers will include:

US former trade attorney and TPPA expert Lori Wallach, Director of Public Citizen Global Trade Watch, on how the US politics may sink the TPPA.

Professor Jane Kelsey who will explain the highlights of the expert papers saying what the TPPA would really mean for Kiwis.

Grant Robertson, Labour; Metiria Turie, Greens; Marama Fox, Maori Party; and Fletcher Tabuteau, NZ First who will form a political panel a political panel to tell us why they oppose the signing of the TPPA:

The speaking Tour then continues at the following venues

Wellington St Andrews on the Terrace on Wednesday 27th 7pm
Christchurch on Thursday 28th at Cardboard Cathedral at 7pm
Dunedin on Friday 29th Burns Hall (next to First Church), Moray Place. at 7pm

These are free events. Please come to them if you can.

The Facebook event page for the meetings is here.

43 comments on “Jane Kelsey on TPPA ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. weka 1
    25 January 2016 at 10:30 am

    two excellent and succinct videos that say it all really.

    I especially appreciate the clear naming of what Labour’s problem is, that it’s the caucus not the party.

    The Daily Blog is livestreaming the Auckland meeting tomorrow night from 7pm,

    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/01/25/tppadont-sign-fill-the-auckland-town-hall-tomorrow-tues-7pm/

    Any chance we could have a dedicated post up at 7pm tomorrow for discussion?

  2. Dot 2
    25 January 2016 at 10:42 am

    The level of secrecy is highly disrespectful of our democracy!

      • framu 2.1.1
        25 January 2016 at 11:46 am

        “Download a Zip file of all 30 Chapters (excluding Annexes) [ZIP, 3.15MB]”

        “(excluding Annexes) ”

        no its not – its the annexes that tell the detail and how the clauses work together.

        and when do we get to comment on the contents?

          • dv 2.1.1.1.1
            25 January 2016 at 12:06 pm

            Nope still Excluding annexes.

          • framu 2.1.1.1.2
            25 January 2016 at 12:38 pm

            do those annexes explain the detail and how the clauses work together?

            or are they annexes within the chapters?

            (i dont know)

            OK – im getting a bit lost in terminology – but the text released (as far as im aware) doesnt have the heavy detail that fully explains the way it all works – ie: they are but summaries of the chapters at an individual level

            regardless – when did the public get to have a say on the TPP, after being made aware of its contents via official channels?

            • BM 2.1.1.1.2.1
              25 January 2016 at 12:51 pm

              I have no idea, haven’t read it.

              if I did, I’d doubt I’d understand 10% of it, that’s if I could get through more than the first few pages without falling asleep.

              Guess what it boils down to, is a trust issue.

              Do you think the reptilian Illuminati shape shifter is working for what’s best for NZ or for other nefarious reasons ?.

              Like the majority of NZ voters I believe it to be the first option and welcome our new TPPA overlords.

              • framu …
                25 January 2016 at 12:53 pm

                umm yeah whatever

                i do think that claims that what has been released is only a summary, to be correct

                you?

                regardless – when did the public get to have a say on the TPP, after being made aware of its contents via official channels?

                • BM …
                  25 January 2016 at 1:02 pm

                  Christ, it’s hard enough to get 12 countries to agree, then you want every bush lawyer and his dog to have a say.?

                  This thing was kicked off by Labour and finished by National, both parties together represent around 80% of the voting population.

                  I trust that both parties have done their best and have tried to achieve the best out come for NZ.

                  • framu …
                    25 January 2016 at 3:20 pm

                    what are select committies for BM?

                    im pointing out that the TPP has had LESS democratic input than most other legislation, and that the common rebuttal from others is to claim a democratic mandate via election.

                    the original comment on this thread is about democracy

                    i dont care how much the majors represent – because i hold the view – one supported by basic logic – that there is no mandate for a single policy without a vote in the house (and public input if were lucky) on said policy.

                    so – considering that this chain of discussion is off the back of a comment about democracy, maybe give us your view of why the TPP has a democratic mandate and how democracy has been upheld during its progress?

                    (and frankly i trust none of them, even the ones i vote for – i thought you would as well)

                    • Wayne …
                      25 January 2016 at 3:59 pm

                      It really is impractical for twelve separate nations to negotiate a deal of this nature, then post the fact have each parliament try and effectively re-negotiate it.

                      That is why for instance the US Congress, under fast track authority, can only do an up or down vote.

                      In the New Zealand context, Parliament’s role is essentially only a public examination, without a vote. Ratification is done by the executive (i.e. the govt of the day). Similarly for enabling legislation, if needed, it is effectively an up or down vote. In this instance ACT and UF are locked in as part of the core of the govt. The MP has always opposed TPP, but it is actions like this which make them effectively only part-time members of the governing coalition.

                      So in a fundamental sense BM is right; this is an issue of trust. Supporters of the govt trust them to do the right thing. Most commenters on this site think the opposite, and typically attribute venal motives to everything the govt does.

                      But there is a middle group of voters, who may or may not support the govt, who nevertheless expect the government of New Zealand to act in New Zealand’s best interests. For instance many supporters of the govt did not necessarily agree with the partial sale of the SOE’s. But they had enough trust in the government’s general competence and philosophy to continue voting for them. In short they trusted the government.

                      And without some level of trust, even of ones opponents, our democracy would be seriously weakened.

                      For instance, I don’t suport Andrew Little. But I do trust him to honestly to act in New Zealand’s interest. He of course does many things I don’t agree with. But I have had no reason to actively distrust him.

                      But most commenters on this site don’t seem to accept that any of their opponents can act honestly; they simply default to a view that all their actions are simply a sell out to US corporate interests. But I am not sure how you can easily explain how the Vietnamese communists, the Malaysian nationalists and the Chilean social democrats have sold out to US corporate interests.

                    • framu …
                      25 January 2016 at 4:23 pm

                      “In the New Zealand context, Parliament’s role is essentially only a public examination, without a vote”

                      so its anti democratic – thanks for playing wayne

                      so – considering that this chain of discussion is off the back of a comment about democracy, maybe give us your view of why the TPP has a democratic mandate and how democracy has been upheld during its progress?

                      and as for trust – i trust none of you lot – untill youve earned it! And frankly – if you want ‘me’ to give ‘you’ power im going to be skeptical of you every damn day

                    • Brendon Harre -Left wing Liberal …
                      27 January 2016 at 10:06 am

                      Wayne if MPs from National, United Future and ACT are the only MPs who vote for TPPA then is it democratic? What proportion of the 2011 vote did they achieve. I make it 48%.

                      How can John Key and his executive sign NZ up to an agreement when he has only 48% of the vote? Is that democratic or a sign of galactic arrogance?

                  • Pat …
                    26 January 2016 at 4:21 am

                    it was started by NZ under Labour , but the nature and control of the agreement changed the day the US decided to join.

    • cogito 2.2
      25 January 2016 at 8:57 pm

      Traitors always plot in secret.

  3. Tautoko Mangō Mata 3
    25 January 2016 at 1:15 pm

    Australian video on TPP

  4. Michael 4
    25 January 2016 at 4:18 pm

    So is Labour officially anti-TPP now if Robertson will be attending the panel?

    • pete 4.1
      25 January 2016 at 4:33 pm

      No, its more just a case of Robertson officially (or publicly) declaring his point-of-difference and thearby positioning himself for the inevitable leadership challenge late this year.

      Its the same reason Adhern is hitting the populist womens magazines in an attempt at a charm offensive.

      • fisiani 4.1.1
        25 January 2016 at 8:58 pm

        Absolutely correct. Robertson has to win the union vote to be leader and will say whatever he thinks the unions want to hear. He is the most ambitious person in Labour and will have a campaign of speaking out without permission. Little cannot control Robertson.

  5. Tautoko Mangō Mata 5
    25 January 2016 at 5:36 pm

    It is an issue of trust

    So why what was the purpose of the secrecy during negotiations?
    Why are public submissions only held AFTER signing for NZers?
    Why were the public not treated as stakeholders?
    Why did our negotiators accept the form of ISDS which was rejected by the EU?
    Why don’t you address the specific points raised by experts pointing out the flaws in the TPP instead of falling back on the “Trust us” meme?

    The other thing to consider is that it is not just a matter of having trust in our negotiators or the current Govt. It is the untrustworthiness of the big corporates who had huge input and access to the text that is a huge issue. The TPP is being used as a means of bypassing governments and locking in regulations for the benefit of corporations but at the expense of consumers; for example, removing the Country of Origin labelling requirement for beef.

    The whole TPP process has illustrated a disregard for the public who are now expected to “honour” and have “trust” in the outcome! You’ve got to be joking, Wayne.

    • Reddelusion 5.1
      25 January 2016 at 6:29 pm

      no the vast majority of people would agree with Wayne, you are the outlier TMM but that’s your perjogative. TPP overhype is just going to play into Nationals hands, the left just keeps shouting wolf and people have just turned off

      • Tautoko Mangō Mata 5.1.1
        25 January 2016 at 8:18 pm

        Here’s an extract from the Guardian on Investor State Dispute Settlement ISDS.

        With the rapid growth in these treaties – today there are more than 3,000 in force – a specialist industry has developed in advising companies how best to exploit treaties that give investors access to the dispute resolution system, and how to structure their businesses to benefit from the different protections on offer. It is a lucrative sector: legal fees alone average $8m per case, but they have exceeded $30m in some disputes; arbitrators’ fees at start at $3,000 per day, plus expenses. While there is no equivalent of legal aid for states trying to defend themselves against these suits, corporations have access to a growing group of third-party financiers who are willing to fund their cases against states, usually in exchange for a cut of any eventual award.

        Increasingly, these suits are becoming valuable even before claims are settled. After Rurelec filed suit against Bolivia, it took its case to the market and secured a multimillion-dollar corporate loan, using its dispute with Bolivia as collateral, so that it could expand its business. Over the last 10 years, and particularly since the global financial crisis, a growing number of specialised investment funds have moved to raise money through these cases, treating companies’ multimillion-dollar claims against states as a new “asset class”.

        http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/10/obscure-legal-system-lets-corportations-sue-states-ttip-icsid

        For more information read this link:
        Chapter 5: Speculating on injustice: Third-party funding of investment disputes

        Imagine a multinational company eager to sue a government on the basis of an international investment treaty. It is about to hire a top arbitration law firm as counsel. But the lawyers charge astronomical fees – more than the company is willing to pay. Fortunately for the company, an investment firm offers to invest in the case. It pays parts of the lawyers’ pay cheque in exchange for getting a share of the potential profits at the end. Welcome to the world of third-party funding.

        Commercial third-party litigation funding is most readily described as buying into someone else’s lawsuit in the hopes of sharing in the spoils if a payout is awarded. Typically, a funder will take between 20% and 50% of the final award2.

        Little is known about the industry, but occasional reports suggest that litigation finance shops such as Juridica (UK), Burford (US) and Omni Bridgeway (NL) are becoming an established part of international investment arbitration. Banks, hedge funds and insurance companies also invest in international disputes. Brokers and electronic marketplaces where claimants can shop for potential funders and funders can shop for claims are emerging3. One lawyer from the law firm Debevoise and Plimpton recently claimed: “There’s no shortage of funders who want to step in […] even when there is a rogue debtor on the other side”4.

        Third party funding is a fast growing industry and will undoubtedly play a large role in investment arbitration in the future. Investors will need or want to outsource the financial risks involved with investment arbitration.

        Dr. Eric De Brabandere & Julia Lepeltak, Leiden University

        There has even been talk of third-party financiers creating new ways to maximise profits, as outlined by Fulbrook Management’s founder and chairman Selvyn Seidel: “There are other products we’re considering […] Anything from derivatives, where we fund a single motion rather than the entire case, to a basket of five or six cases put together as a mini-portfolio to give some security through diversification. There is even the possibility – heaven forbid – that we could fund a case and then resell it to third parties, a bit like credit default swaps”

        http://corporateeurope.org/trade/2012/11/chapter-5-speculating-injustice-third-party-funding-investment-disputes

        You really need to read the whole article to grasp the scale of the operations.

  6. fisiani 6
    25 January 2016 at 9:09 pm

    Who do the public believe, Honest John or Jane Kelsey?
    Honest John every time.
    Crying wolf all the time and always being wrong makes people not listen. Out free trade deals have all been criticised by Jane Kelsey and all have been a roaring success. Note that even Chicken Little has never said that he would remove NZ from the TPPA. Of course not. Our negotiaters have struck such a great deal that there may be problems getting US ratification.
    Tim Groser and his team have agreed a good if not great deal. Go ahead and have your meetings and marches. The sky will not fall. The fears will be baseless and the economy will continue to grow. Beneficiaries will soon get a massive rise and many will find jobs and housing.

    • Tautuhi 6.1
      25 January 2016 at 10:51 pm

      One thing John Key and National have been very successful at over the past 6-7 years is growing the countrys debt from $10 Billion to $105 Billion, we may have had more growth recently.

      • Smilin 6.1.1
        25 January 2016 at 11:48 pm

        would appear we now have along way to go to pay it. Gezz John cant you do better than that whose bitch are you

    • Smilin 6.2
      25 January 2016 at 11:50 pm

      Are you blind in both eyes and deaf in both ears or just a right wing chain puller

    • Sacha 6.3
      26 January 2016 at 9:45 am

      TPP is not a free trade deal.

      • fisiani 6.3.1
        26 January 2016 at 8:45 pm

        TPPA is a trade deal. Better in than out. When has Jane Kelsey ever been right?
        I trust Helen Clark Andrew Little and Phil Goff who all reckon it’s a good deal
        The impact on GDP in the long term is projected as:

        Reductions in tariffs and quota barriers on goods trade $624m
        Reductions in non-tariff measures (NTMs) on goods trade $1,460m
        Improved trade facilitation measures $374m
        Reductions in barriers on services trade $250m
        Copyright term extension -$55m
        Foregone tariff revenue -$20m
        No wonder Tim Groser was delighted.

        • Tricledrown 6.3.1.1
          26 January 2016 at 8:56 pm

          Fishy answer from fisiani the South African spin doctor employed by the National party to disrupt the left.
          Helen Clark is trying to be elected to head the United Nations she will have grovel to all the world leaders any hint of dissent no chance to take over from Bankemoon.

        • Sacha 6.3.1.2
          26 January 2016 at 9:28 pm

          yes, trade deal. not “Free” trade deal.

          • fisiani 6.3.1.2.1
            26 January 2016 at 9:32 pm

            Care to name any free trade deal?

            • Tricledrown 6.3.1.2.1.1
              26 January 2016 at 9:46 pm

              Fishy you were freely traded from South Africa by the National party Dirty tricks brigade to disrupt the left.
              Poor spin.

            • Pat 6.3.1.2.1.2
              26 January 2016 at 9:53 pm

              hey fisi, have I got a deal for you….if you let me vet your business plan, I’ll get you a 1% increase in turnover in 15 years….a couple of riders though, if i find something in your business plan I don’t like I’ll need it removed and if you don’t agree my mates and I will decide whether thats ok…what do you reckon?

              oh and by the way there will be a small fee for this service

            • Sacha 6.3.1.2.1.3
              27 January 2016 at 9:43 am

              “Care to name any free trade deal?”

              Uh, any of the others NZ has signed. Clue: they focus on ‘freeing up’ trade, not restricting it like most of TPP’s clauses do.

              • fisiani …
                27 January 2016 at 11:25 am

                Free is not freeing. Nice try but still no evidence any any Free trade deals. it’s a loose term I admit and the TPPA will free up some trade and restrict a few.
                let me quote you independent numbers from MFAT officials
                The impact on GDP in the long term is projected as:

                Reductions in tariffs and quota barriers on goods trade $624m
                Reductions in non-tariff measures (NTMs) on goods trade $1,460m
                Improved trade facilitation measures $374m
                Reductions in barriers on services trade $250m
                Copyright term extension -$55m
                Foregone tariff revenue -$20m

  7. rawshark-yeshe 7
    26 January 2016 at 9:33 am

    From a sumofus.org petition this morning .. for anyone who still thinks the TPPA is a good idea and enjoys poisoned food …

    ‘Monsanto just filed a lawsuit against California, to stop the US state adding glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup) to its list of known carcinogens.

    Without a hint of irony, Monsanto’s lawsuit calls California’s environmental health hazard assessment agency an “unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable and foreign body”. ‘

    http://action.sumofus.org/a/monsanto-agm-shareowner/?akid=16706.6552347.hNSLkk&rd=1&sub=fwd&t=2