- Date published:
7:02 am, January 25th, 2016 - 114 comments
Categories: accountability, capitalism, class war, human rights, john key, Maori Issues - Tags: expert papers, lies, Maori, ratana, tpp, TPP Legal, TPPA
More cracks in Key’s teflon were on display at Ratana yesterday:
Key defends TPP as Ratana crowd boos
Prime Minister John Key mounted a strident defence of the Trans Pacific Partnership at Ratana, ranging from tapping into trans Tasman rivalry to pointing to the trading history of Maori.
“Strident” is an interesting choice of adjective.
After he was tackled on the issue by other speakers at the Ratana gathering, Mr Key responded with an impassioned speech trying to convince Maori that rights under the Treaty of Waitangi would not be affected.
However, he was boo-ed twice, most loudly after saying “I’m here to tell you the truth, and the truth is we need that” – a rare reaction at the Ratana celebrations.
Rare perhaps, but well deserved on this occasion, because Key is trying to peddle snake oil:
Mr Key said Treaty rights were protected in the agreement. “Not a single part of TPP cuts across the Treaty of Waitangi.”
And there we have it – another glib Key lie. TPP Legal (supported by the New Zealand Law Foundation and the NZ Public Service Association) has just released a set of NZLF Expert Papers on different aspects of the impact of the TPP. (It’s an enormously useful resource – bravo!) Expert Paper #3 is Māori Rights, Te Tiriti O Waitangi and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (by Dr. Carwyn Jones, Assoc Prof. Claire Charters, Andrew Erueti, Prof. Jane Kelsey, University of Auckland). It is well worth reading the paper in full, but the key points are reproduced below.
There is no way that Key can honestly claim that “Not a single part of TPP cuts across the Treaty of Waitangi”.
The crowd at Ratana knew they were being spun, and they reacted appropriately.
[From Expert Paper #3: Māori Rights, Te Tiriti O Waitangi and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, pages 4, 5]
• ‘With each instrument that it signs up to, the Crown has less freedom in how it can provide for and protect Māori, their tino rangatiratanga, and their interests in such diverse areas as culture, economic development and the environment.’ (Waitangi Tribunal, WAI-262, 2012)
• The TPPA fetters the sovereignty of New Zealand governments and has the potential to chill their future decisions, including those relating to Māori under te Tiritio Waitangi, He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga (Declaration of Independence), the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and as a matter of public policy and social justice.
• The TPPA conflicts with Māori rights and Crown obligations under te Tiriti and the UNDRIP. The Crown’s prior commitment to indigenous peoples’ right to self-government and political autonomy and their right to the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties should have informed the negotiation of the TPPA.
• Because the TPPA has the potential to impact on hapu and iwi and their resources, it requires informed consent, or at the least a robust bona fide engagement so Māori views are fully incorporated into decision making.
• Despite the Wai 262 report saying the Crown’s then policies and practices did not comply with the Treaty, and too often came after decisions were made, there was no credible attempt to engage with Māori as the Crown’s Treaty Partner before or during the TPPA negotiations.
• Several chapters guarantee foreign states and their commercial interests the right to participate in New Zealand’s domestic decisions, while Māori as tangata whenua have no similar guarantees.
• Rights of Māori relating to Intellectual Property (IP), biodiversity, and environmental law and policy, guaranteed through te Tiriti o Waitangi and the UNDRIP, could be significantly affected by the TPPA.
• The IP chapter strengthens the rights of holders of state-recognized intellectual property rights, a form of intellectual property that has generally not protected mātauranga Māori and the rights of kaitiaki and has, in many cases, undermined those rights.
• Despite the Treaty of Waitangi exception, the provisions in the IP chapter will make it more difficult for Mā ori to achieve changes to New Zealand IP law that are necessary to protect rights and obligations of kaitiaki in relation to mātauranga Māori.
• Commercialisation of the mātauranga associated with genetic and biological resources, and of the resources themselves, can compromise the kaitiaki relationship and put the Crown in breach of Treaty principles. Yet the importance of conservation and biological diversity in the TPPA is framed by an objective of facilitating use of biological and genetic resources.
• The Environment chapter provides general commitments to environmental protection, specific detail on a small number of environmental issues, and some procedural mechanisms for cooperation between parties. But there is nothing that reflects Waitangi Tribunalrecommendations to strengthen Māori participation in environmental decision-making, planning and management, including under the Resource Management Act.
• The UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples singled out investment chapters of agreements like the TPPA and investor-state dispute settlement as a risk to indigenous rights and a constraint on their ability to gain remedies.
• The TPPA leaves the rights and interests of Māori vulnerable to foreign states and corporations who have no obligations under te Tiriti or the UNDRIP, and who will have a legal right to pursue their interests through private international mechanisms. This may further undermine the willingness of governments to implement Tribunal recommendations for fear of legal action.
• The Treaty exception is limited in scope and relies on the good will of the government to protect Māori rights, which repeated Waitangi Tribunal reports show it has failed to do.
• The government has made far-fetched claims regarding the economic gains to New Zealand, and to Māori because of their significant presence in natural resource sectors of the economy. Those figures are not supported by evidence and ignore the tangible and intangible costs of the TPPA to Māori.
• The TPPA’s economic model is based on trade liberalisation, monopoly rights to own exploit intellectual property, and privileged rights for foreign investors, and will not serve a future Māori economic development agenda that is built around core Māori values, commitment to environmental sustainability, and tino rangatiratanga.
• The Waitangi Tribunal will hold an urgent hearing in March 2016 on a claim that the TPPA is inconsistent with te Tiriti, focusing on the Crown’s processes and whether the Treaty of Waitangi exception fully protects Māori using 3 studies: fracking, affordable medicines, and water. The Crown has refused to defer further action on the TPPA until the claim is resolved.
Disappointing that Radio New Zealand did not ask him some questions about the TPP.
Expected Paul, RNZ is toothless as griffin has it under control on behalf of the natz.
If shonky has a sniff there maybe awkward questions he doesnt show up.
Therefore you ask him to discuss Iraq and Auckland Housing, then throw in a question or two about the TPP.
And then the Prime Minister’s Office hands RNZ an informal complaint, and you find yourself being replaced by someone for whom your demise is a salutory lesson.
Dude its rigged to give a veneer of tough questions for an in control PM with all the answers. He hardly ever showed up till nat shills gluon and suzie got the gig.
RNZ is marginal anyway, the swinging voters are mostly consuming radio redneck, no repeat FM telling other peoples jokes or free to air fluff all of which are full of govt friendly memes.
Sadly I agree
As well as TPP being a dog of a deal that offers huge risks to NZ with minimal benefits (if any) someone should bring up the other big John Key lie, that no other state assets would be sold apart from power. Now we have the Chinese billionaire bidding against the OZ landlords for NZ state houses being sold off for mates rates by Key.
Oh to have a whole country to speculate on not just currency.
Stupid compliant media who just go on with this charade that Key is some nice Kiwi guy helping out NZ. NOT. His holiday house is in Hawaii where his business and political interests lie.
Paul RNZ is not exempt from right wing influence as the board appointments will show and the manager is from Fairfax media hardly sympathetic to left wing positions or wanting the status quo go be challenged sadly it is another example of bias dominating our media
Thanks for this r0b. Another one for BLips big list of lies.
Key’s speech was very much based on trickle down thinking. The TPP will make some of us even richer, therefore some of you plebs, even you maori plebs, will get some crumbs.
His reference to AFFCO and Scott Technology was telling. His idea of the future of work is compliant robots. Pretty much his idea of the current state of work, too. Robots don’t need tea breaks or unions.
On a related matter, Marama Fox from the Maori party seems blissfully unaware that her party is part of this Government:
“We know there is a Treaty exception clause in the TPPA which states that any rights arising from Tiriti o Waitangi are not subject to the dispute settlement provisions of the TPP.
“However the exception clause leaves it up to the government of the day to interpret our Treaty rights. Successive governments have failed to uphold Te Tiriti so we can’t trust the Crown on its own to interpret those rights.”
Yes Marama is interesting – she may just not be able to take the bullshit and pretend for too much longer – but it is the votes they place that count – I hope she realises the truth and walks very soon.
Everytime I’ve seen her she performs like a parata clone and looks every bit a part of natz political subsidiary parties.
Possible playing to the audience as an opportunist sensing the mood.
Really? I’ve been very impressed with her interviews on RNZ, she comes across as far less pro-National than any other Maori Party MP, bar Hone, in some cases she’s even anti-National.
He was talking about iwi-owned businesses and farms doing well out of it. Trickle down indeed.
The so called list of lies s risable.if honest john said that he thought it might rain and it stayed fine that would qualify as a lie . Keep on slagging and lying about honest john .it is really changing hearts and minds not.
Wonderful rhetorical logic. Year 9 or 10 maybe? Sooo convincing.
It’s almost like they’ve run out of decent material.
Thanks for the nod – but – is it really a lie for John Key to say “not a single part of the TPP cuts across the Treaty of Waitangi”? See, its not a “single part”, its actually multiple parts.
More the “I’m here to tell the truth” line!
Glib was a good word for our he spoke on RNZ this morning, I was trying to think of a word to describe his attitude when he spoke this morning and all I could think of was flippant. I find whenever there is anything of grave importance to be imparted to the nation he speaks almost as if he is shrugging and dismissing of our even needing to know anything. Like it is a waste of his time, that it is done and dusted no matter what he says, patronising and arrogance I think are good words. A consummate liar and very clever person – we have an uphill battle to topple him methinks.
RNZ has been repeating a sunday interview with shipley (first played in recent months – i think) – now, despite what any of us might think of her legacy – its an interesting exercise to compare how her and JK speak
Shipley (despite some poor arguments at times) can actually string a coherent and considered argument together that displays topic knowledge, research and personal conviction
key has none of this
Agree with you Framu, I did listen to Shipley & she certainly was coherent. I don’t know if they are online anywhere but a real insight into Key was the to Radio Live ‘Prime Ministers’ hour he did a few years back, they were so bad & shallow, he interviewed Mcaw & Richard Branson & others & they were really struggling to help him make a decent show, his questions were so banal & uninteresting. Very revealing, might be why he didn’t do one the last couple of years.
another interesting exercise is watch a nixon doco and count the similarities
Shipley (despite some poor arguments at times) can actually string a coherent and considered argument together that displays topic knowledge, research and personal conviction
key has none of this
And yet Key has managed to see off Michael Cullen, Helen Clark, Phil Goff, and David Cunliffe in live debates. It must be the Illuminati mind-control satellites.
he did that all by himself? Must be bloody jesus.
you do know that your comment is a reflection on the rest of NZ and not john key? And you know its really really old?
yeah – he keeps getting voted in – doesnt change that he is a piss poor speaker who hasnt bothered with research, doesnt believe what hes saying and doesnt care. (why people like that or think its something else is a different matter)
you can argue a bunch of stuff any which way you want, but descriptions of behaviour, much like sad/angry/happy etc are pretty much objective.
the subjective bit is how we react to them.
It’s amazing how year after year posters such as yourself persist in the self-delusion that John Key is anything other than an incredible communicator with deep fine-level knowledge of almost every aspect of policy for which he is responsible.
The greater Left’s ability to constantly underestimate John Key is astounding.
you are clearly missing what im actually saying in a very predictable way
if hes such a great communicator with deep level knowledge of policy why do so many of his media interactions consist of lies, distortions, evasions, flippiant dismissals, one liners, “labour did it to” etc etc? He doesnt even get his own policy right or know the details, let alone the attacks on his opponents
i know hes smart, hes got rat bastard cunning in spades and as an emotional trigger communicator who can talk past the MSM hes really good – but hes a terrible communicator in so far as his use of language, conviction etc
why do you buy that?
What exactly do you hear when key speaks?
I presume that John Key tailors his message, and the tone in which it is delivered, to the specific medium and audience as required in order to achieve the goal he desires, based on careful analysis of the message and the medium and the audience. Sometimes that analysis will show that the most effective message and tone will be flippant dismissals and one liners.
That he sometimes sounds unlike one of the world’s most respected foreign exchange advisors doesn’t mean he’s not a good communicator; it means he is.
So why’d he get booed at Ratana?
The speech wasn’t broadcast, the only audience was the one in front of him, booing.
Since it wasn’t broadcast I have no idea if he was booed or not. If he was, I have no idea by whom, or why.
People who were there, and would therefore know, say he was booed.
What reason to doubt them?
So you’re telling me that someone told you that someone booed John Key somewhere and you’re asking me why that happened?
It was in the paper, on the news website, linked in the original post on which you are commenting.
So yeah, I’m saying that:
who was there,
and who has a job as a journalist
which includes describing what she sees and hears so that people who were not there can know what happened
wrote that he was booed while doing his awesome communicating.
So why should you doubt it?
And what I’m wondering is why he got booed if he is a great communicator as described in your comment I replied to.
It’s not that hard mate, jesus.
Oh OK then,
Well then if we accept the premises:
– Key is a calculating and effective communicator
– Key communicates in ways that will cause his target audience to respond in ways that he desires
– Key’s appearance and speech at Ratana is a communications exercise
Then here are some possible conclusions:
1. Key’s target audience was the people at Ratana, and for some of them to react by booing was an undesired outcome
2. Key’s target audience was the people at Ratana, and for some of them to react by booing was a desired outcome
3. Key’s target audience was people not at Ratana, and for them to hear that he had been booed was an undesired outcome
4. Key’s target audience was people not at Ratana, and for them to hear that he had been booed was a desired outcome
have you been to Ratana?
It’s not for nothing it was noted booing is rare there.
So what do you reckon, he wanted to be booed so it would be reported that he was booed at Ratana. So he insulted his hosts, in a highly symbolic setting, to the point they booed him?
I reckon the more resonable, and charitable, conclusion is that he communicated really poorly, and arrogantly, totally misreading his audience and the mode of speech required in the circs, and got booed.
Well argued Magisterium. I’ve been thinking 4 is the correct answer for a while. Perhaps we can agree on something.
Unless it’s all entirely too Machiavellian and the real answer is serendipity.
and/or he doesn’t care.
After picking 4, PB’s argument has swayed me back the other way and maybe it’s really 1… Everything would have been fine if it weren’t for you pesky kids.
Actually he’s a shit communicator – he just prompts an affective response.
You and fisi are in love. Tragic really.
This is useful info to have, thanks, rOb.
Why was key booed the second time.?
Thank you Anthony a very detailed and timely post – you must have been working hard this weekend. Very informative and I am sure reliable, the opposite to yek.
And so Key does deserve to face being boo-ed for his litany of orchestrated lies. The Treaty of Waitangi isn’t covered under any protection of this TPPA deal, yet Key has the audacity to call for support by attending at Ratana. And Key is going to try again at the Waitangi meeting, after he’s had the TPPA deal signed.
Perhaps Key will be unceremoniously boo-ed upon arrival, during his “speech-making”, and at his departure from the marae.
A radio item about Key definitely having a fourth term this morning on Radionz.
Funny when I did a search hoping to quickly get to it the system gave me this.
A series exploring a range of themes about disaster awareness through an examination of the different natural disasters which have occurred
5 minutes of Key’s lacklustre leadership should be within your coping range.
Leftie lies and ‘the sky is falling’ rhetoric unfortunately has painted the left (read the Labour/greens) has desentisised the voting public to the lefts ‘doom and gloom’ daily missives :)….like or not, Key has steered NZ on a steady path and the slew of Labour leaders have not sparked a strong left resurgence, long live LITTLE …whoohoo the labour gift that is and will keep giving!
Massive debt and
morbidity with a social gradientdead children. You’re ok though. For a while.
I just wish Key had the balls to say…”Waitangi day is just an excuse for the rent a crowd to get on TV’, if he refused to go his and his party % would go up at least 5%, the majority of NZ only see the NZ national day as a day of protest to keep the Maori gravy train well oiled, bugger them and Waitangi appearances!
Thanks for reminding everyone what a bunch of racist trash National Party supporters are.
+ 1 that one is for sure
You’re welcome to call that one an Ansell-esque bigot.
you mean the yearly white whinge dont you
because thats who makes the most noise on waitangi day of late
Like this indulged and conceited whinger….
And the perfect response!
‘Dear Mike Hosking – I saw your Waitangi rant, and I can help’
While I may see that TPP is a shit deal more about reinforcing US political and commercial hegemony, it means diddley squat to most people.
What would need to happen to stop the TPP agreement from being put into place:
1. Government does not sign: -Unlikely to occur given that the time frame is measured in days and there is no pressure point upon which to pivot this inside the Executive.
2. Enabling legislation to be enacted: – To stop this there would need to be an alignment of voting by ALL parties except National and ACT and this is unlikely to happen given that Labour is not a solid base to establish this bloc on.
1. Other Countries do not sign up.: – US may not go through the ratification process under Obama Government due to Congress holding up the signing. But at the most this is likely to be a delay rather than a rejection of the TPP agreement.
Unfortunately the protest voice is not going to change the outcome. But I will heading off to protest but realise that this is just whistling into the wind and invoking Saint Jude.
The criticisms about the Treaty of Waitangi, loss of sovereignty, the lack of financial benefits, the amount of economic risk, the lack of environmental focus are too late. The strategy of keeping everything secret until the last moment means that there is no opportunity for meaningful review and improvement. We get a shit agreement because of the process not because of the initial idea of international trade.
Grandiose ideas up a super-sized agreement took a relatively small agreement manageable and stuffed it good and proper.
Hate to spoil the party but their points aren’t very valid.
1. TPP requires consultation with citizens and those effected with any new legislation. To say TPP requires consultation with business but not with Maori is therefore misleading.
2. There is the out-clause previously mentioned that issues arising from the Treaty of Waitangi won’t be open to the dispute resolution clause. Even if the government doesn’t respect Maori rights, it will certainly use this as a defense if it is ever sued (which is unlikely anyway).
3. Argument that TPP = less sovereignty is true to an extent, but the same argument applies to all the agreements our government enters into, including the aforementioned UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Treaty of Waitangi itself. Treaties can be good. This argument only works if treaties are bad by definition.
4. “Because the TPPA has the potential to impact on hapu and iwi and their resources, it requires informed consent, or at the least a robust bona fide engagement so Māori views are fully incorporated into decision making.” Yes. The TPP allows for this. You’d hope this happened though without the TPP. Does the TPP change how the government engages? No? Well then perhaps it is something we should work on. As an argument this is a non-starter. Or by robust engagement do you mean they can hold us to ransom if the majority of New Zealanders want a trade treaty?
1. TPP requires consultation with citizens and those effected with any new legislation.
Oh really. Please quote the relevant section. Or do you think the select committee will protect you?
26.2.2 (b): In regards to ” laws, regulations, procedures and administrative rulings” each party shall “provide interested persons and other Parties with a reasonable opportunity to comment on those proposed measures.”
So it is misleading to say that the opportunity is only guaranteed to business. In fact business isn’t mentioned? You have a) interested persons and b) other parties to the TPP. So interested persons could be Maori and businesses.
Which English dictionary are you using that has “comment” and “consultation” as synonyms?
That’s what you get for regarding Mrs. Malaprop as a reliable source I guess.
Honestly have no idea who Mrs Malaprop is.
In context comment and consult should be the same. Now you are just nitpicking. Turn it around: a large corporation would take this as consultation right? They would certainly complain if anyone took your line of thinking.
Of course they mean the same thing, how silly of me.
the action or process of formally consulting or discussing is identical to expressing an opinion or reaction.
Only an international trade lawyer would “nitpick” at the difference. No, wait…I reprehend the true meaning of what you are saying.
Just last year the Government ran a series of consultation workshops around the country on NZ’s GHG emissions Target for Paris. The large number of submissions (around 90%) from a great many people all urged the Government to adopt a far more ambitious target than that which was proposed.
You can of course imagine just what regard the Government took of those earnest submissions.
Cool. It paid no attention. Which is all it needs to do to corporate interests when consultation is done under TPP. Point isn’t how much the government listens. The point is the original statement said that under TPP the government would have to consult corporate interests but not Maori. I have pointed out (though words are disputed) that the government must consult both corporate interests AND Maori under the term ‘interested parties’.
Yes, you must be right, because only international trade lawyers care about the precise meaning of comment and how it differs from consult.
I can’t see any problem there, no sirree.
Sorry but you have it the wrong way round!
Investor says “We want to build a new Casino – but your law only permit 1000 pokies can you change the law for us so we can have 2000?” Ok says JK (or whoever) but we will need to “consult” with the plebs first (not that he did in the Sky City case). So after the “consultation” the Govt of the day then goes ahead and changes the law for 2000 pokies. Of course the inevitable happens and the sheeple slowly wake up and find that they have been well and truly shafted, and finally elect a Govt which promises to change the law back to a more sensible level of gambling.
Problem for the incoming Govt – They can’t do that – because the “Investors” say we are going to sue you for ever and a day because we built this wonderful Casino and now you are only going to let us rob 1000 people at a time rather than 2000. Look at all the money we will loose in “profits”.
Now this will happen not only for NZ’s as a whole – but also for those instances where a Government has listened to the foreign investors interests over those of Maori, and the Treaty of Waitangi, (The Govt does it constantly by the way) The recent sale of Meridian has Treaty issues still pending.
So now the problem is that Maori are being surreptitiously deprived of their rights under the Treaty.
In the very least you must accept that the statement the TPP gives “commercial interests the right to participate in New Zealand’s domestic decisions, while Māori as tangata whenua have no similar guarantees” is misleading. The term in the TPP is ‘interested parties’. It makes no distinction between Maori and ‘commercial interests’ (what a scary term!)
Judging from your command of te reo Irirangi I’d say that translates as “inconvenient to my deeply held reckons”.
Logical fallacy: ad hominem.
As for definitions I turn to Oxford English Dictionary.
Consult: Have discussions with (someone), typically before undertaking a course of action.
Comment: Discussion, especially of a critical nature, of an issue or event.
In context this would mean government consulting/public commenting on new legislation.
As I said, only lawyers go nitpicking on the meaning of such terms. What would they know?
As a teacher of language, I would see a big difference between ‘consult’ (ask for counsel on an equal basis) and ‘comment’ (we have done what we want, and now you may express an opinion.) Consult implies that you will consider the consultation before making the decision. Comment does not imply that.
Et tu Brute – your confessed lack of knowledge about who Mrs Malaprop is belies the erudite nature of your pseudonym.
I did not expect a knowledge of 17th century English theater was a prerequisite here. Perhaps I am too working class for such a left-wing forum 😉
I would still argue that the context requires both comment and consideration.
But in the end that is beside the point. It has caused a distraction. The original statement was that it required the government to [chose verb] with corporations but didn’t require government to [chose verb] with Maori. As I have pointed out they are given the same treatment and fall under ‘interested parties’.
The working class are uncultured.
I ate two brutes once, they gave me indecision. Got a wicked stomach ache.
And which century does your erudite ‘Et Tu Brute’ come from?
Actually, I think it was ‘Et tu mi fili Brute’ …
The distinction between consult and comment is vital: comment gives us no way of opting out
‘Logical fallacy: ad hominem.”
no it isn’t. He made an argument with the conclusion that you’re a bit thick. The supporting premise for that was some previous behaviour of yours.
Premise1: People who do ‘x’ are a bit thick (if a then b)
Premise2: You did ‘x’ (a)
Conclusion: You’re a bit thick (a, therefore b, via premise 1).
Looks valid to me.
I agree with OAB. You can assert that all you like but until you can reference what you are saying to the actual agreement, it’s just rhetoric that lots of people don’t beleieve.
I’d like a reference and explanation about #2.
Easy. 29.6 “nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the adoption by New Zealand of measures it deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Maori in respect of matters covered by this Agreement, including in fulfilment of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.”
 “The Parties agree that the interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, including as to the nature of the rights and obligations arising under it, shall not be subject to the dispute settlement provisions of this Agreement…”
Therefore essentially the Treaty of Waitangi comes first and the government’s or the Waitangi Tribunal’s interpretation of the treaty cannot be second guest by other Parties to the TPP.
Nope, that isn’t what that means. It means that ISDS can’t define te Titiri: it gives no assurance that it can’t spawn treaty breaches.
English comprehension 101 is probably the culturally appropriate solution.
Put one and two together. New Zealand can define the Treaty of Waitangi AND nothing in the TPP can stop New Zealand from implementing it.
That’s funny, because someone who doesn’t know the difference between “comment” and “consult” appears to know more about it than international law experts.
Perhaps I’ve failed to compensate your intervention.
Logical fallacy: appeal to authority.
Or maybe they have an axe to grind? I don’t know. How about you substantiate your own opinion and tell me what these two sections mean (one on ‘comment’ and second on Treaty of Waitangi).
Be careful though because now you know the term is ‘interested parties’ for every step you take to explain how it undermines Maori interests you will also be explaining how it undermines corporate interests.
Nah, that would simply be your feeble attempt to claim victory before hearing any argument.
I can go one better than providing you with my personal reckons on the matter, by referring you to the aforementioned informed opinions (pdf). For example:
I suggest you don’t bother reading it, because as a National Party supporter, all the references to treaty principles and good faith will just make you angry, and then I’ll start ridiculing you and then Weka will tell me off again.
I know it’s wrong to mock the affiliated and I just can’t help it.
Sorry never voted National (or Act) in my life. But you do like simplifying things and putting people into boxes don’t you?
According to quoted text the Crown is allowed to actively protect Maori interests. Read point 1 again. The TPP is an agreement not a new constitution to replace what we’ve got already.
As I said, you really shouldn’t read the entire document: you’d only find the Waitangi Tribunal pointing out that the Crown has failed to meet its obligations.
By the way “allowed to” isn’t the same as “has a duty to”. Pesky bloody defibrillations of words and their stupid meanings!
“According to quoted text the Crown is allowed to actively protect Maori interests.”
Only up until the point that someone disagrees with them. See my comment below.
Sorry never voted National (or Act) in my life.
A minor detail: nitpicking probably, and what I wrote was “supporter”. Perhaps you’re going to claim that your efforts here don’t constitute “support”.
Why have you never voted for them? Under eighteen? Not a citizen or resident of NZ? Rabid Mana voter playing devil’s advocate? I’m genetically curious.
The Crown has a duty to. The TPP allows it. There you go. You’re shooting from the hip at side issues.
Need I mention the international investment lawyers again? They thrive (and good luck to them) on such “side issues”, which is one of the significant downsides to ISDS.
Not to mention that there’s a substantive difference in meaning. Te Tiriti requires partnership: it isn’t an ‘option’ the Crown is ‘allowed’.
It certainly won’t be a side issue if the Waitangi Tribunal rules that the TPP constitutes a treaty breach. It’s getting into the guts of the argument, and probably the spleen too.
“Logical fallacy: appeal to authority.”
An appeal to authority isn’t a fallacy.
A logical fallacy would be something like:
“that authority has an axe to grind so their argument can be ignored”.
That would be an ad hom argument, one of the more famous fallacies, because it attacks the person instead of the argument. Whether the person has an axe to grind is irrelevant to the argument they make, the argument will stand or fall on its merits.
If it turns out the argument is actually shit, you can say ‘oh maybe they had an axe to grind’ by way of explanation, and that wouldn’t be a fallacy. You could even call them an idiot, and that wouldn’t be the fallacy of ad hom, (it would be the conclusion of a new argument, that may or may not be sound).
But in order to knock down an authority, you actually have to demonstrate their error.
Appealing to an authority is not a fallacy, how could it be?
Explain this alleged fallacy: ‘appeal to authority’ to me.
Remember it has to be all your own words, and you cannot quote a source without defeating your point entirely.
I would argue appealing to authority is a fallacy. One Anonymous Bloke appealed to the authority of Jane Kelsey’s expertise as if to trump me in debate. The problem with appealing to authority is that just like you can appeal to any expert, there is always someone on the other side who could be called an expert. It also doesn’t make them right.
I’m still waiting for you to respond to the comment I made below which directly addressed your own claim to authority. You are saying Kelsey and co are wrong, and asserting your own opinion as fact. Time to back it up.
Using Kelsey as an reference would only be a fallacy if she were crap at her job. Is that what you mean? Otherwise you look like you just said that anyone can get an expert on anythign to support their own side, which suggests you don’t know how to critically evaluate evidence or opinion.
“I would argue appealing to authority is a fallacy.”
You’d be wrong.
Where is the logical fallacy in appealing to an authority?
I’m only asking coz you keep rolling out “Logical fallacy: blah” as some sort of claim, but getting it wrong.
I’m kinda suggesting that if you don’t actually understand logic, you should stop doing that.
that someone can roll out another expert that disagrees, isn’t a problem of logic. It’s just another piece of evidence that needs to be considered.
If you think someone’s claimed expert isn’t an expert, or is wrong about the given point, then just say so and provide the evidence instead of blathering about alleged logical fallacies that aren’t.
I think that the mis-quoter can’t provide any evidence, certainly I haven’t seen him showing any signs of intelligence so far while moderating.
He appears to just like wrapping his fingers around his brain and sliding up and down to spurt these repetitive and invariably parroted homilies. I have no idea why you expect him to be able to do that AND think at the same time.
I am considering that his handle could do with some enhancement of his powers and a more accurate classical latin quotation describing it
Yeah nah Weka over all you’ve convinced me and I’ve got nothing.
One thing’s for sure: Kelsey et al have addressed these concerns more comprehensively and from a position of greater knowledge and study than I’ll ever have.
Bear in mind that I supported the TPP on balance initially. I probably still would were it not for its restraint of trade provisions, the consequences of ISDS and te Tiriti.
It means that ISDS can’t define te Titiri
At least they’d be able to spell it
D’oh! Come in Mrs. Malaprop. Your time is up!
It is quite possible that Magisterium doesn’t know Mrs Malaprop either.
Good performance OAB.
In fairness to Magisterium, “Titiri” was a genuine slip o’ the keyboard.
Magisterium is unfortunately suffering from Sick Parrot Syndrome which has spread through the National Party and its supporters, that is my professional diagnosis?
Article 29.6: Treaty of Waitangi
1. Provided that such measures are not used as a means of arbitrary or unjustified discrimination against persons of the other Parties or as a disguised restriction on trade in goods, trade in services and investment, nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the adoption by New Zealand of measures it deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Maori in respect of matters covered by this Agreement, including in fulfilment of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.
2. The Parties agree that the interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, including as to the nature of the rights and obligations arising under it, shall not be subject to the dispute settlement provisions of this Agreement. Chapter 28 (Dispute Settlement) shall otherwise apply to this Article. A panel established under Article 28.7 (Establishment of a Panel) may be requested to determine only whether any measure referred to in paragraph 1 is inconsistent with a Party’s rights under this Agreement.
I looked at this the other day and followed some of the references to other Chaters etc and I couldn’t make sense of it.
Who decides what ‘arbitrary and unjustified discrimination’ is?
Who is the Panel?
Bascially it looks to me like it’s saying that NZ is ok re Te Tiriti until someone decides it’s not. Which means we are dependent on both the good faith of the government of the day (fat chance) and corporations and lawyers we don’t even know about yet.
It’s also arrogant and obnoxious to say “more favourable treatment to Maori” as if that’s a given.
I’ve constantly been impressed over the years with Maori wanting to protect things for all New Zealanders and to share resources and hospitality – often at their own expense.
The big one in my lifetime was the allowing of the Whanganui River to be used for electricity generation – as long as it was for the benefit of all New Zealanders and not for profit.
The sell-off of the hydro generators for private profit is a betrayal of that and will forever be so.
There’s plenty of examples over the years from the gifting of National Parks, land for schools and hospitals, the access to marae for tourism and state events and so on.
Aye – good pertinent point.
@ dof sssmith
If the TPPA smells like a rat and looks like a rat it probably is a rat?
I get the feeling the natives are getting restless?
However JK and Iron Mike Hoskings have assured us its all well with the TPPA so what have we got to worry about?
So we say to Monsanto Caterpillar Microsoft all the fast food corporations all the banks that are subsidiaries of international corporations and Insurance companies and financial institution Wrightsons THE POWER COMPANIES and any others with their majority ownership in international corporations that you’re gone
But it will never happen so TPPA goes thru we suck it up fire the govt and start again more wasted time and resources for the taxpayer to pay for
The day before Waitangi Day that should be enough for us to know we are on a hiding to nothing
Key has betrayed this nation
You should really turn up at the TPPA signing at Sky City in a black balaclava and start smashing shit. That’ll teach them all. Wait until the cameras are on you to shout “FUCK JOHN KEY!”
You are very sad. For how long have you been advocating violence?
The only one dropping F-bombs here is you.
Only a sicko would suggest that
“You got it into your head to punish him for what you thought were repellent political views, but the only person behaving like a fascist was you.”
Speaking of right wing violence… be very very careful what you wish for, your Majesty.
Yep definitely displaying symptoms of SPS.
If you had a big red button and shouted “Allahu Akbar” you’d empty the building pretty quick. But you wouldn’t get within a hundred metres mate. You’re missing the point, which would be to stop the traitor Key from signing the TPPA.
To achieve that would require that you do something that either prevented the signing or caused an incident that delayed it or embarrassed Key sufficiently that he would not wish to proceed. Given that Key is a shameless crook and probable psychopath who’d even lie about the Treaty to Maori it presents an interesting strategic problem.
What would Lassie do?
Because I wasn’t at the Ratana gathering, could I please add
The lying scum