In her campaign launch speech in Auckland on Sunday, Ms Ardern called climate change “my generation’s nuclear free moment”.
Last year Branko Marcetic talked to environmental groups and experts about the potential impact of the TPPA on the environment. The environmental groups and several of the experts he spoke to opposed to the deal. He has approached those groups again in the light of the Labour government’s claim that it has renegotiated the TPPA to meet its five bottom lines. The Spinoff has published the statements from those groups,
Rhys Jones, co-convenor of OraTaiao: the New Zealand Climate and Health Council:
The rebranded TPPA will still provide investors with the very broad entitlements to take action against the New Zealand government in response to future public health and environmental regulation.
… At a time when human survival depends on the [fossil fuel] industry becoming obsolete as quickly as possible, it makes no sense to give it additional powers to resist and prolong this process
Jane Kelsey, University of Auckland law professor and a prominent critic of the original TPP:
The special protections that foreign investors use against central, regional and local government measures remain totally intact, as does their right to enforce them through the ISDS regime,” she says. “None of that has been suspended.
ActionStation’s Rick Zwaan:
Virtually nothing has changed from the original TPPA agreement when it comes to climate.
In order to meet its ambitious climate goals, he argues, “the government may choose to stop new oil rigs from drilling into the seabed, or put a ban on fracking on farms.” This would “expose the government to risk of being sued by large multinational oil and gas companies with massive legal budgets”.
Niamh O’Flynn, executive director of 350 Aotearoa:
The changes to the text of the TPPA are in the form of suspensions, not significant changes that will ensure that corporations cannot sue our government for taking necessary action on climate change.
It seems highly risky to potentially hinder our ability to do the most important work of our time, taking real action on climate change, by signing the TPP
Simon Terry, executive director of the Sustainability Council of New Zealand:
previously called ISDS “the TPP’s biggest barrier to climate action.
Investor-State Dispute Settlement allows multinationals to sue governments over laws they don't like – such as better environmental and #climatechange laws. Now ISDS has been ruled incompatible with EU law – yet NZ Government still supports it in the #TPPA #CPTPP. Why? #nzpol https://t.co/l1alabQW18
— Coal Action Network (@coalaction) March 7, 2018
The European Court of Justice ruled today that controversial Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses in the Netherlands-Slovakia bilateral investment treaty are not compatible with EU law, raising fundamental questions about the legality of other EU trade deals which include the measure. 
While the ruling applies to intra-EU trade deals, it could have a significant impact on the future of the EU-Canada trade deal, CETA, which includes a similar measure – the Investment Court System. After a request from the Belgian government, the ECJ will rule on whether the Investment Court System is compatible with EU laws.
Paul de Clerck, trade campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe said, “This ruling confirms what citizens across Europe have been saying for years – there is no place for corporate courts to supersede the public interest. It also makes it even more uncertain if trade deals that include parallel legal systems like the EU-Canada agreement CETA are even legal under European law. National parliaments across the EU should pull the plug now and reject these unfair trade deals.”
We request the House of Representatives to urge the Government to reject the revised Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, now known as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement on Trans-Pacific Partnership, and that the House revise the Standing Orders of the Parliament to ensure the process for negotiating and signing trade and investment agreements is more democratic, independently informed, and regularly feeds information back to the Parliament and the people.