Message from Andrew Little about TPPA

278 comments on “Message from Andrew Little about TPPA ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Matthew Hooton 1

   29 January 2016 at 9:04 am

   “It means we won’t be able to stop non-resident foreigners from buying Kiwi homes.”

   That’s a straight out lie, and Little knows it.
   • weka 1.1

     29 January 2016 at 9:05 am

     Please explain how Matthew.
     • Matthew Hooton 1.1.1

       29 January 2016 at 9:09 am

       The TPP allows NZ to introduce a stamp duty on the purchase of Kiwi homes by non-resident foreigners. This would be set at, say, 1000%, so that someone who wanted to but a Kiwi home for, say, $750,000, would have to pay a $7,500,000 tax to the government. Personally, I would think we should let that deal go ahead. But if a Labour-led government felt that the 1000% tax wasn’t high enough to stop all foreigners buying property, it could increase the tax to 10,000%, 100,000% or whatever it wanted.

       Given this is the only one of Labour’s “bottom lines” which Little said wasn’t met, it means Labour is opposing this deal over the SOLE ISSUE of wanting to use an outright ban rather than a stamp duty to “stop non-resident foreigners from buying Kiwi homes”.

       This is the point many Labour MPs made at the caucus retreat and that Phil Goff made to the media this week.

       Little knows this is the situation but he prefers to lie to party members.
       • Mike 1.1.1.1

         29 January 2016 at 9:26 am

         And also, Labour was claiming last year that the Korean FTA (which has already been signed and ratified) would prevent a house-buying ban on Korean or Chinese nationals (through the MFN clause in the China FTA). So even if the TPP does not come into force, no house buying ban can be imposed on citizens of those and other countries that we have an FTA with (that has an MFN clause).

         Also, Labour’s own policy on overseas buyers already specifically exempts Australia due to CER.
       • mac1 1.1.1.2

         29 January 2016 at 9:30 am

         Matthew. Is it possible that a litigious foreigner could challenge a government’s very high stamp duty set at the levels you write of on the grounds that the intent of the duty was to circumvent the intent of the TPPA?

         Such an out clause, if legitimate, makes a mockery of so-called binding agreements. Clearly, a stamp tax just makes for an instance of ‘one rule for the rich”.
         • weka 1.1.1.2.1

           29 January 2016 at 9:39 am

           Who came up with the stamp duty out?
           • Matthew Hooton 1.1.1.2.1.1

             29 January 2016 at 9:59 am

             MFAT. They were informally instructed to negotiate to meet all of Labour’s five bottom lines. They believed they had done so, and did in fact do so, and Labour was kept informed of what was going on. So MFAT staffers are now furious that Labour is saying they did a bad job and telling lies about the TPP for political reasons.
             • Brendon Harre -Left wing Liberal …

               29 January 2016 at 10:09 am

               More BS from Hooten. Grosser deliberately tried to put Labour in a difficult position by only giving Labour a dishonest way to ban foreign buyers.

               Also Grosser and MFAT were useless in negotiating benefits -what did Gnats farming constituents get again Mathew?

               People from all around NZ, almost certainly a majority, are angry with MFAT and Grosser for being such poor negotiators, especially the fact they are willing to throw away our hard fought sovereignty to foreign corporates for what? Not even 30 pieces of silver.
               • Markm …

                 29 January 2016 at 10:18 am

                 What a load of BS.
                 Where do you get your ridiculous idea that a majority of people in NZ are angry at MFat and Groser?

                 I certainly dont know anyone who is , and a few hundred at Tuesday nights protest , say otherwise
                 • Brendon Harre -Left wing Liberal …

                   29 January 2016 at 10:26 am

                   Chris Trotter has discussed a survey late last year showing the majority of kiwis did not support the TPPA.
             • Lanthanide …

               29 January 2016 at 10:44 am

               Given that Australia were able to negotiate an outright ban on foreign owners, I don’t see why NZ couldn’t have.

               If MFAT did truly go with this silly stamp duty work-around as a favour to Labour, they only have themselves to blame.
         • Bill 1.1.1.2.2

           29 January 2016 at 9:46 am

           Individuals cannot use the ISDS process. They could only take their case to the NZ courts.

           Corporations buying tracts of land is a different matter. They could launch an ISDS (and probably win).

           I’m thinking Labour ought to have somebody read their mail-outs before the ‘send’ button is hit.
         • Matthew Hooton 1.1.1.2.3

           29 January 2016 at 11:11 am

           No, see Annex II:

           “New Zealand reserves the right to adopt or maintain any taxation measure with respect to the sale, purchase or transfer of residential property (including interests that arise via leases, financing and profit sharing arrangements, and acquisition of interests in enterprises that own residential property).”
           • mac1 1.1.1.2.3.1

             29 January 2016 at 1:21 pm

             So, why not just allow a sovereign government the right to restrict sales to residents or citizens along lines which it decides rather than resort to what is a subterfuge (I mean, really, a stamp tax of 1000% per cent of the value of the property? 10,000%? 100,000%?). It seems other sovereign nations did in the TPPA.

             Why does a MFAT instructed by our government. led by a Minister of the Crown, get into such ridiculous subterfuge? To me it seems explicable only to allow what most NZers do not want- lack of sovereignty, foreign ownership- by a government aligned to the interests of foreign individuals and businesses and foreign capital, to the 1%ers.

             Such a stamp tax subterfuge points to a loss of sovereignty, is cincumventable, does not apply to non-residential properties, and would be seen as ridiculous. Why, a reasonable person would ask, should New Zealand set a 1,000-100,000% stamp tax as a mechanism if it doesn’t want to allow sales of New Zealand land to foreign ownership?

             Are we not able to set our own standards here? Are we in the hands of foreign individuals, companies, corporations or even foreign governments here? How easy is it to circumvent stamp tax if NZ taxpayers can successfully avoid paying $7 billion in tax per annum? What is the difference between a home and a farm? How easy is it for a smart lawyer to argue that a lakeside station is actually a home with grounds? How easy will it be for New Zealand land to be sold to foreign buyers anxious to build themselves a bolt-hole here?
             • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …

               29 January 2016 at 1:23 pm

               If Labour agrees with you and ever again forms a government, they can simply leave the TPPA.
               • mac1 …

                 29 January 2016 at 10:46 pm

                 Ok, gormless, but my point is that what National has ‘negotiated’ is a good enough reason to have done with them.
           • Tricledrown 1.1.1.2.3.2

             29 January 2016 at 2:09 pm

             Machevelian Henchman the louder you doth protest the more I smell a rat.
             Last time you doth protested so loudly was when John Key was caught with his firery pants down up to his very long in dirty politics.
           • whateva next? 1.1.1.2.3.3

             29 January 2016 at 4:06 pm

             “reserves the right to adopt or maintain any taxation measure with respect to the sale, purchase or transfer of residential property ” and who will decide when we exercise this right? RIGHT AGAIN.
       • weka 1.1.1.3

         29 January 2016 at 9:37 am

         What about rural land sales?

         And it’s still true that a NZ govt would have difficulty passing legislation that controlled overseas land sales and other things, right? Which is what Little said.

         Given this is the only one of Labour’s “bottom lines” which Little said wasn’t met, it means Labour is opposing this deal over the SOLE ISSUE of wanting to use an outright ban rather than a stamp duty to “stop non-resident foreigners from buying Kiwi homes”.

         Wow Matthew, within five minutes of calling Little a liar you are lying yourself. Have you no shame at all? Go read the post again, it’s pretty clear that that this isn’t the sole issue.
         • Matthew Hooton 1.1.1.3.1

           29 January 2016 at 11:20 am

           Andrew Little said when the text was issued:

           “The TPP is here. The National Government has signed up to it. That’s not going to change. We had five bottom lines that we were going to measure it against. We haven’t been through the 6000 pages of text in detail, but we’ve been through enough to know that four of our bottom lines have been met. There’s one, a pretty serious one, that hasn’t been, and that’s the one that concerns restrictions on land sales. We don’t think that it’s acceptable that other countries should dictate to us whether or not we can pass laws to stop non-resident foreign buyers buying our homes and farms, and we reserve the right to do that. And there’s a second aspect to it as well, which is the fact we have an international agreement that tries to prevent our parliament doing what it might think is right for New Zealanders, and we’re opposed to that, and so we will fight very hard against that.”

           Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/tvshows/thenation/transcript-labour-party-leader-andrew-little-2015110712#ixzz3ya28kGKL
           • weka 1.1.1.3.1.1

             29 January 2016 at 11:35 am

             1. land sales (residential and rural, still waiting for you to address the rural land issue).

             2. The NZ govt’s ability to make laws for the good of NZ.

             That’s two things Matthew, not a SOLE thing. Two things from your own quote.

             And now that they’ve had more time to look at the TPPA, they’ve seen the job loss issue, which is obviously huge for the Labour party. So that’s 3 things (or 4 if you count the land issue as two), all of which you will be well aware of. Yet you have the gall to call Little a liar in virtually the same breath as you completely misrepresent Labour’s position.
         • Matthew Hooton 1.1.1.3.2

           29 January 2016 at 12:09 pm

           Rural land is covered by the OIO rules.
           The MFAT summary of this is:
           “Under TPP, the threshold above which an investor must get approval to invest in New Zealand will increase from $100 million to $200 million for investors from TPP Parties. No changes will be made to the way New Zealand approves investments relating to ‘sensitive land’ or fisheries quotas. New Zealand also retains the flexibility to make the approval criteria under the Overseas Investment Act more or less restrictive.”
           • weka 1.1.1.3.2.1

             29 January 2016 at 12:14 pm

             So same thing, the NZ govt couldn’t bring in new legislation but can manipulate existing legislation? Again, this is a restriction on sovereignty.
           • mickysavage 1.1.1.3.2.2

             29 January 2016 at 8:37 pm

             So because one particular thing that Andrew said in an interview may not have been breached he is bound to support it even though on other occasions when he used slightly different language and the breach was clear?

             Cherry picking too much?
       • Brendon Harre -Left wing Liberal 1.1.1.4

         29 January 2016 at 9:39 am

         Australia negotiated that they can ban foreign buyers, Grosser forgot to ask if NZ can too, despite that being the position of Labour, Greens and NZ First. As you say a stamp duty would achieve almost the same but it would be dishonest, because the intent is to ban not tax. Of course, John Key is used to hiding his intent and being dishonest that he thinks this sort of behaviour is normal.

         Mathew you are trying the usual Gnat trick of not addressing the full argument -the loss of sovereignty – by picking on only a small part of Little’s argument and then distorting the argument until you have reframed the discussion in a way that is better for the right.

         I think everyone here is clever enough to see that.

         The TPPA is a dog of deal and quite rightly now that people have seen it -they are not impressed.
         • weka 1.1.1.4.1

           29 January 2016 at 9:41 am

           How tory-proof would the stamp tax be?
           • Bill 1.1.1.4.1.1

             29 January 2016 at 9:51 am

             Obviously, not at all. And as Molly indicates, loop-holes will be found and exploited (I’d say) before the ink has dried on any tax legislation.
           • Brendon Harre -Left wing Liberal 1.1.1.4.1.2

             29 January 2016 at 9:51 am

             Exactly as stamp duty is not designed to ban it would at a later date be easy to water down and change.
             • weka …

               29 January 2016 at 10:11 am

               as opposed to say legislation that Labour introduces that National would find much harder to repeal.
             • Matthew Hooton …

               29 January 2016 at 11:21 am

               Yes, it would. So would a ban be able to be changed. You aren’t against parliaments being able to change the laws of their predecessors are you?
               • Brendon Harre -Left wing Liberal …

                 29 January 2016 at 11:35 am

                 Again you are trying slimy PR tricks -obviously it is easier to waterdown a stamp duty tax with loopholes etc than it is a honest law like a ban which has a clear intent -it does what it says.

                 Also I am a believer in Parliamentary sovereignty -whose history dates back to the Glorious Revolution of 1688? This cemented Parliament as the highest court in Britain and NZ has inherited this constitutional principle. I don’t see why an alternative court for non-sovereigns such as corporates should be higher than our Parliament.

                 When New Zealand was debating setting up a new Supreme Court in New Zealand it was discussed whether it would have any authority over Parliament. Michael Cullen successfully argued that it should not in his speech titled -‘Parliament Supremacy over Fundamental Norms’.
                 http://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/parliament-supremacy-over-fundamental-norms

                 So why are we giving corporations power over our Parliament?
                 • weka …

                   29 January 2016 at 11:39 am

                   Plus watering down tax policy is likely to bypass most people’s concern, whereas repealing a law to protect NZ land would be a much harder sell.
                   • Brendon Harre -Left wing Liberal …

                     29 January 2016 at 11:48 am

                     Yes that is the point I was trying to make. Grosser was playing domestic politics because it is Labour policy to ban foreign buyers and it is not National’s. I don’t believe that MFAT couldn’t negotiate the foreign buyer ban like Australia has, as an opt out option.
             • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …

               29 January 2016 at 12:13 pm

               So Brendon, you want the government of the day to be able to bind future parliaments? How democratic of you.
               • Brendon Harre -Left wing Liberal …

                 29 January 2016 at 1:22 pm

                 WTF -how do you conclude that from what I have written?
                 • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …

                   29 January 2016 at 1:37 pm

                   Exactly as stamp duty is not designed to ban it would at a later date be easy to water down and change.

                   Why should a future, democratically-elected government not be free to change the stamp duty? Or the ban?
               • crashcart …

                 29 January 2016 at 1:49 pm

                 You do realise Gorm that you are arguing in favour at the moment of the current government binding future governments from being able to legislate as they see fit?

                 What Brendon and others are arguing for is the ability for a future Government to be able to legislate and have a requirement, that for that legislation to be changed or removed, it have to go through full and proper process. I think they call that Democracy.
                 • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …

                   29 January 2016 at 2:32 pm

                   I see what’s happened, crashcart. You have misunderstood what I am arguing in favour of. And what Brendon is arguing in favour of.

                   Entry into the TPPA does not bind a future government to legislate as it sees fit. A future government could simply withdraw from the TPP.

                   Brendon (who claims to be a liberal) wants a ban instead of a stamp duty because (he claims) a stamp duty would be easier to water down and change. To me, that sounds like he wants a ban because a ban would be harder for a later government to change. That he is just plain wrong about that does not preclude me from pointing out that his purpose his undemocratic.
                   • crashcart …

                     29 January 2016 at 2:42 pm

                     Oh I thought you were in favour of the TPP which specifically prevents a government from legislating in the manner desired. Unless as you say we remove our selves from the agreement. This is done via a negotiation which does not require a vote from the democratically elected parliament to ratify.

                     Brendon has argued he would rather we retain the ability to introduce through parliament legislation which would ban non resident sales of land or property. This could be removed in the same manner by an elected government via a standard democratic parliamentary process. This could have been negotiated into the agreement as it was for Aus.

                     It is a great trick to try and switch a position with someone else so it seems you are in the right. However when someone can point out that you are actually in the other position you have essentially admitted that your real position is in the wrong.
                   • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …

                     29 January 2016 at 2:51 pm

                     Removing yourself from the TPP doesn’t require a negotiation. Article 30.6 says you just give notice. And you’re out six months later.

                     Brendon looked to me like he wanted a ban so it would be harder to change. I got this from him saying about a stamp duty:

                     it would at a later date be easy to water down and change.

                     As I say, he is wrong. But I am only observing that he was trying to find a way to stop a future democtratically-government from legislating as it wanted.
                   • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …

                     29 January 2016 at 2:52 pm

                     Removing yourself from the TPP doesn’t require a negotiation. Article 30.6 says you just give notice. And you’re out six months later.

                     Brendon looked to me like he wanted a ban so it would be harder to change. I got this from him saying about a stamp duty:

                     it would at a later date be easy to water down and change.

                     As I say, he is wrong. But I am only observing that he was trying to find a way to stop a future democratically-elected from legislating as it wanted.
                   • crashcart …

                     29 January 2016 at 2:59 pm

                     We all understand that we could remove ourselves from the TPP. That doesn’t change the fact that whilst in it we are restricted. Something you are well aware of.

                     Also I think you are deliberately misinterpreting a single line. That statement meant that if we could introduce a punitive stamp duty (which has been pointed out that we can’t) it would not require any form of legislation or public consultation to reduce it. The government could essentially change the duty as part of a budget proposal. If a legislative ban were in place then you would have to go through the full process of having the law changed and or removed.

                     Yes that is more difficult but nothing like un-democratic as you tried to paint it.
                   • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …

                     29 January 2016 at 3:06 pm

                     That doesn’t change the fact that whilst in it we are restricted.

                     So, you want to be in it?
         • Matthew Hooton 1.1.1.4.2

           29 January 2016 at 10:01 am

           No, the problem was that Australia was able to grandparent such powers, but we were not, so we needed to try another approach and were successful with the stamp duty approach.

           The sovereignty issue is so absurd and dishonest it’s not worth addressing. Phil Goff did so well earlier this week.
           • Kevin 1.1.1.4.2.1

             29 January 2016 at 10:28 am

             Groser couldn’t negotiate a hand job in a whore house.

             Other countries have managed to protect issues that the electorate wouldn’t stomach but NZ seems to have just rolled over on everything. And the proof is in the economic expectations as have been shown here and elsewhere.

             The Government probably knows all to well that Stamp Duty is bound to end up in an ISDS dispute with an overseas corporate and would then blame Labour for ‘forcing’ them to include it.
             • Stuart Munro …

               29 January 2016 at 12:56 pm

               The problem with Groser is he doesn’t want to protect NZ. A Labour TPPA would’ve been a very different beast – still unattractive but plausible in places.
             • savenz …

               29 January 2016 at 2:09 pm

               +1 Kevin
           • Brendon Harre -Left wing Liberal 1.1.1.4.2.2

             29 January 2016 at 10:38 am

             So MFAT didn’t successfully meet Labour’s condition of being able to ban foreign buyers. They found a fudge that they would be acceptable only if Labour was dishonest.
             • Matthew Hooton …

               29 January 2016 at 11:24 am

               It’s not a fudge. It is specifically written into Annex 2:

               “New Zealand reserves the right to adopt or maintain any taxation measure with respect to the sale, purchase or transfer of residential property (including interests that arise via leases, financing and profit sharing arrangements, and acquisition of interests in enterprises that own residential property).”
               • Brendon Harre -Left wing Liberal …

                 29 January 2016 at 11:44 am

                 Yes it is a fudge -Labour condition is they want to be able to ban foreigners buying land or houses. They didn’t ask for a tax. Grosser didn’t do what he was asked to do and National are trying to fudge their way out of it by saying if Labour is willing to be dishonest about their intent then they can ban foreign buyers.
               • Lanthanide …

                 29 January 2016 at 11:46 am

                 It’s a fudge in the sense that it’s a “ban-in-all-but-name” to introduce an exorbitant stamp duty.

                 Given that an outright ban was apparently impossible to negotiate in the TPPA, I don’t see why a ban-in-all-but-name would somehow be seen by other TPPA parties as abiding by the spirit of the agreement.
                 • Matthew Hooton …

                   29 January 2016 at 12:46 pm

                   I think it has something to do with that allowing us to legislate for a ban would be seen as us making our laws more restrictive, whereas allowing us to maintain our current ability to have a stamp duty would at least be seen as maintaining current regulatory framework. Who knows what complications there were over this point. It was necessary to get 11 other countries to agree in order to ensure a future Labour government could stop foreign investment in residential property. This is where things landed.
                   • Lanthanide …

                     29 January 2016 at 1:15 pm

                     “whereas allowing us to maintain our current ability to have a stamp duty”

                     Ok, let me get this straight.

                     Our “current ability to have a stamp duty” is by passing legislation in Parliament to do so, correct? So they’ll let us pass legislation to do that.

                     Also our “current ability to” ban foreign ownership is by passing legislation in Parliament to do so. So they won’t let us pass legislation to do that.

                     It was necessary to get 11 other countries to agree in order to ensure a future Labour government could stop foreign investment in residential property. This is where things landed.

                     Or, this current National government, could have passed the law last year, or whatever other “current ability” you want that somehow falls short of passing the law, and thereby gotten the clause into the TPPA negotiations.

                     Alternatively, they could have met with Labour and proposed the stamp duty as an alternative arrangement. John Key then could have publicly announced the result of that discussion – either to say Labour had come to an agreement, or to say that Labour hadn’t (and therefore make Labour look bad). National chose not to do that.

                     Either way, National failed. Instead of constructively working with Labour to ensure the TPPA would be able to get super-majority support in Parliament for its enabling legislation, they dropped the ball.
           • Brendon Harre -Left wing Liberal 1.1.1.4.2.3

             29 January 2016 at 10:53 am

             Hooten the following found the sovereignty issues of ISDS and the TPPA not absurd:

             http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21623756-governments-are-souring-treaties-protect-foreign-investors-arbitration

             http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2016/01/18/TPP-Foreign-Investors/

             http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2016/01/18/TPP-Foreign-Investors/

             Yet, the arbitrary, non-transparent, corporate-favoured and public policy chilling nature of the system has made ISDS “a very toxic issue,” Cecilia Malmström, the EU’s Trade Commissioner, has said.”
             http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/76114721/Rod-Oram-Dark-clouds-on-the-horizon

             Brazil doesn’t negotiate any trade agreements that contain ISDS

             Mathew there really is a worldwide backlash against ISDS provisions. So why should NZ rush into the TPPA? Why is it absurd to worry about loss of sovereignty?
             • Brendon Harre -Left wing Liberal …

               29 January 2016 at 10:58 am

               Winner of a Nobel prize Joseph Stigliz discusses US trade agreements and investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms in his book “Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy, in a chapter titled;

               Restore balance to global trade agreements

               While it is essential that the United States work with global partners to establish rules for international trade and investment, the kind of rules that we’ve been making through trade agreements increasingly set the terms in favour of businesses and against workers and the public interest in both the United States and among our economic partners. These rules determine who will benefit from an increasingly globalized world, but trade agreements -written behind closed doors, with the active participation of firms but no other stakeholders -are failing to deliver the rules we need for managing globalization in a way that benefit all.

               One set of provisions that increasingly balances the odds against ordinary Americans is the protection for investors that US negotiators insist other countries must adopt in the so-called investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. These provisions create private international arbitration panels in which investors can sue governments, and parties have no recourse to legal review and appeal. While investors should be protected against rogue governments seizing their assets or formulating policies that discriminate against specific firms, this is not what the provisions are about; investors can already buy insurance against such outcomes from the World Bank’s Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency as well as some US government programs for insuring investment. Rather, the real intent of these provisions is to impede health, environmental, consumer safety, and even financial regulations meant to protect the public interest from egregious business practices. That’s why the US negotiators insisted on including such investor protections in an agreement with the European Union -where the rule of law and protection against expropriation are already on par with the United States. By limiting the scope for policy in the public interest, investor protections actually make it harder for trading-partner countries to raise their own standards and make it easier for companies to move production offshore or extract wage concessions with such threats.

               Trade agreements with true high-road standards for the global economy -be they in labour rights or environmental, consumer, and public health protections -would have rules where the benefits of an agreement are only made available contingent on certified compliance with standards. In other words, businesses wishing to trade with businesses in the United States under the terms of an agreement should be audited and certified by a credible, independent third party such as the International Labour Organization; certification then buys the company a right to trade under the preferential treatment of a trade agreement. This requirement has been shown to work to raise standards -for example, among Cambodian garment exporters -in contrast to the enforcement model of other US agreements covering trade from Bahrain to Bogota on which the Trans-Pacific Partnership is based.

               Getting the rules right on trade begins by not exporting to other countries the economic rules that have led to skyrocketing inequality in income, wealth, and political influence. While much of the “trade policy” agenda focuses on technical legal aspects of international economics, we also know that international agreements don’t create trade, people do. Policies outlined elsewhere in this report aiming to establish true equality of opportunity and to tame the excesses of market power for a more open and broadly beneficial market competition will also be key to ensuring that people in the US economy can seize on and create the opportunities made possible by a world with deepening globalization.
               • Wayne …

                 29 January 2016 at 12:14 pm

                 Brendan,

                 Your argument in these two posts is that TPP should not include ISDS provisions. However, it does and all 12 countries agreed to them. So if it was bottom line forLabour, that would mean NZ could not be a party to TPP at all. But Labour is clearly not against ISDS as such. They are in many trade agreements that Labour has not taken exception to.

                 Labour’s prime point is the residential sales issue. Despite your insults, Matthew Hooton has addressed that point quite precisely.

                 The reality is this is all political posturing by Labour. They know National has the numbers (including Goff) to pass any enabling legislation.

                 They have not said they will withdraw from TPP. Instead they would go back to the other 11 nations to get a carve out to ban sales of residential property. Fat chance; no state party is going to agree to unravel an agreement that by then will be in force. Where would it end? Instead they will point Labour to the stamp duty provision that already exists and tell them to use that.

                 And at that point can you really imagine Labour withdrawing from TPP. Obviously the Greens would, but they will not be the core of the alternative govt.
                 • Brendon Harre -Left wing Liberal …

                   29 January 2016 at 12:45 pm

                   Wayne if you read Andrew Little’s conditions he has a catch-all condition of not giving away our Parliament’s sovereign ability to make decisions for the public good. Worldwide it seems the ISDS provisions are going rogue and putting corporate interests above the wider public interests. Thus there is all sorts of backlashes. This is what you are seeing in NZ.

                   ISDS provisions may need to restricted not necessarily removed -this could be negotiated.

                   The TPPA may be signed soon but it is not ratified -not yet in NZ and certainly not by all countries. The treaty needs to be ratified by all 12 partner countries or something like 6 partner countries including Japan and the US, before it comes into force.

                   Given the state of US politics it may never be ratified in the US. So why are we in such a rush?

                   Whether to go with the TPPA as it currently exists is an important move by New Zealand and we should consider the full implications with care. Really it should be properly debated in Parliament, although that will be a challenge for Key and Carter.

                   A small 50% majority in Parliament agreeing with a treaty with such long term implications is quite inadequate.

                   Wayne this National approach of making the TPPA a fait accompli is really disrespectful to NZ and its long history of democracy.

                   My wife is Finnish, her country is really struggling due to loss of sovereignty -the ability to control interest and exchange rates. When the country joined the Euro -the political elite made all sorts of reassurances that the benefits would exceed the costs. Events changed, there was the GFC. Now it seems the loss of sovereignty was important after all.

                   Countries should be very careful when signing away sovereign rights.
                   • Matthew Hooton …

                     29 January 2016 at 12:48 pm

                     The Euro Treaty really did involve a loss of sovereignty because it had no withdrawal provisions. It was designed to be irrevocable.
                   • Brendon Harre -Left wing Liberal …

                     29 January 2016 at 1:07 pm

                     So Mathew could NZ declare its Parliament is sovereign if the TPPA as it exists comes into force? Could Parliament declare it is through constitutional tradition and because of natural justice -given it is the most representative and democratic body in NZ -that it has the power to overrule ISDS tribunal decisions if Parliament finds the public interest exceeds the corporate interest?

                     Or in practice do we throw away an important aspect of our sovereignty if the TPPA comes into force?
                   • Wayne …

                     29 January 2016 at 1:30 pm

                     Why would New Zealand be an early ratifier?

                     Because New Zealand has consistently (at least until the Andrew Little U turn) argued the case for free trade.

                     We were the pioneers of the TPP when it was a P4. We (under Labour with Goff as Trade Minister) helped get the US into the negotiations. We are the depositary for the agreement. We are seeking to be the home of the TPP secretariat.

                     We therefore have to be an early ratifier.

                     As Margaret Thatcher once said, at a key time in her Prime Ministership, “You turn if you want to, but the Lady’s not for turning.”
                   • Brendon Harre -Left wing Liberal …

                     29 January 2016 at 2:13 pm

                     Wayne Labour has no trouble with free trade agreements -past agreements have had benefits. But now we can read the full text of the TPPA it can be see this is a corporate power grab not a free trade treaty. That the large loss of sovereignty issues versus the small gains from trade mean that there is nothing in the agreement for Labour constituents. So why should Labour support the TPPA?
                 • Stuart Munro …

                   29 January 2016 at 12:59 pm

                   No, Labour is trying to catch up. ISDS is electoral poison to Labour, and it will cost National too, if they are stupid enough to bring it in. And National has enormous reserves of stupid.
                   • Matthew Hooton …

                     29 January 2016 at 1:05 pm

                     Little is not really concerned about ISDS. If he was, he would be promising to renegotiate chapter 11 of the NZ-China FTA with the Chinesa, but he is not. And he is certainly not suggesting invoking the withdrawal procedures from the NZ-China FTA under Article 213(3). His only concern is this ban v stamp duty issue over residential property.
                   • Brendon Harre -Left wing Liberal …

                     29 January 2016 at 1:13 pm

                     Mathew is the ISDS chapter in the TPPA the same as the FTA we have with China? How many ISDS court cases have Chinese companies pursued vs. US companies (in other trade agreements)?
                 • Tricledrown …

                   29 January 2016 at 2:24 pm

                   Goff has impress National voters in Auckland Shearer has to make shure aunty Helen gets Ban Ki Moons job at the UN.
                   Their are dangerous hooks in the TPPA that’s why China and Europe don’t want anything to do with this agreement.
                   I will be for a free trade agreement that doesn’t have hooks and has good access for our agriculture exports.
                   Hooten and Mapp are distracting us with minor details.
                   Canada and Japan will never ratify such a Deal.
                   The US will probably change its strategy to reopen the European free trade deal and will have to change to bring China Japan and Canada on board.
                   The Devil is in the detail.
       • Molly 1.1.1.5

         29 January 2016 at 9:40 am

         Stamp duty was utilised in the UK, but failed to stop the speculative trading of houses there.

         Residential properties were put into companies, and those companies were traded – leaving the ownership intact – so no stamp duty collected.

         Consider, those wishing to speculate and trade housing have incentives to hop, skip and jump over any such hastily considered impediments to them making money.

         BTW – there was a group of UK house sellers that paid the required stamp duty on 100% of their sales.

         They were the one-house owners who lived in their own properties and had to sell for whatever reason.
         • weka 1.1.1.5.1

           29 January 2016 at 9:48 am

           Thanks Molly. The whole stamp duty thing as a replacement for sovereignty smacks of a set up.
         • savenz 1.1.1.5.2

           29 January 2016 at 2:46 pm

           +1 Molly – stamp duty and CGT have not stopped property speculation. The rich avoid the taxes and it just gets the middle class. The class dying in the West is the middle class, they are losing their jobs, job security, housing and so forth.

           If you have a look at journalists for example – being paid less and less, if they don’t get into PR and sell their souls they too are on short term contracts, their IP is sold to corporations and if they don’t tow the party line they are terminated.

           John Campbell most popular guy on TV gone, current affairs gone, Rachel Glucina in.

           The current system does not support the smart and the ethical, it supports the brainwashed, trivial and the weak minded and the below average.

           Soon our more esteemed journos might turn into this pulitzer winning photographer who drives a taxi and rents his house out to make ends meet in between contracts in the US. (http://www.salon.com/2015/12/29/the_sharing_economy_partner/) Or maybe in court with their computers seized illegally like Nicky Hager.

           Look at the farmers. Is it a dream milk pay out or have they been lured down this ‘free market’ path that helps the Fonterra CEO get millions while they lose their farms and create products that cost more to make than what they can sell them for under the CEO?

           Many multinational corporations don’t pay at all, and certainly not locally and TPPA is keeping this rout going AND on steroids such as the opportunistic play by Phillip Morris in OZ and the TransCanada pipeline ISDS claim.

           We see corporations threatening to sue in Wellington if the council try to put in a ‘living wage’. Ethics is gone and Greed is in.

           The TPP should be renegotiated to give more power to local government and to protect the environment which is a shared resource. Unfortunately it is been written by corporate lobbyists to do the opposite, increase inequality not reduce it and stifle innovation and wage conditions by Corporate Lawfare.
       • framu 1.1.1.6

         29 January 2016 at 9:54 am

         you kind of shoot your own feet when you use 1000%

         why not 1,000,000%
       • BlueSky 1.1.1.7

         29 January 2016 at 10:30 am

         Stamp duty could easily be avoided and not prohibitive and more than likely litigious under TTP.
       • DH 1.1.1.8

         29 January 2016 at 10:55 am

         “The TPP allows NZ to introduce a stamp duty on the purchase of Kiwi homes by non-resident foreigners. This would be set at, say, 1000%, so that someone who wanted to but a Kiwi home for, say, $750,000, would have to pay a $7,500,000 tax to the government. ”

         Mathew. can you point to the TPPA text that permits member nations to discriminate against non-resident foreigners in such a fashion. Any discriminatory act must be written into the agreement as a specific exemption. If there is no exemption permitting such a stamp duty then the TPP does not allow it.

         When John Key mentioned this he qualified it by saying we could charge ‘costs’ in the form of a stamp duty. Those costs would, of course, need to be quantified and certainly could not be any amount we please.

         Quote here from Key….

         http://www.interest.co.nz/property/78095/pm-says-tpp-carved-out-ability-nz-impose-land-tax-or-stamp-duty-non-resident-buyers

         “I wouldn’t say we were actively looking at that (a land tax or stamp duty on non-residents) today, but certainly TPP allows us, if we want to, to apply taxes — or costs would be a better term — to non-residents,”

         Thanks.
         • Matthew Hooton 1.1.1.8.1

           29 January 2016 at 11:16 am

           See Annex 11 of the TTP:

           “New Zealand reserves the right to adopt or maintain any taxation measure with respect to the sale, purchase or transfer of residential property (including interests that arise via leases, financing and profit sharing arrangements, and acquisition of interests in enterprises that own residential property).”

           Quite clear really.
           • weka 1.1.1.8.1.1

             29 January 2016 at 11:22 am

             But not rural land?

             edit, no it doesn’t, and of course you left that bit out.

             
             Investment

             New Zealand reserves the right to adopt or maintain any taxation measure with respect to the sale, purchase or transfer of residential property (including interests that arise via leases, financing and profit sharing arrangements, and acquisition of interests in enterprises that own residential property).

             For greater certainty, residential property does not include non-residential commercial real estate.

             Annex II New Zealand (not Annex 11)

             https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/about-us/who-we-are/treaty-making-process/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp/text-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership-annexes/
           • DH 1.1.1.8.1.2

             29 January 2016 at 11:24 am

             “Quite clear really.”

             That is not clear at all Mathew. That does not say we can tax only non-resident foreigners, so where is the text that says we can.
             • Matthew Hooton …

               29 January 2016 at 11:27 am

               It’s an exception to the National Treatment rules Article 9.4. Go and read the text yourself.
               • DH …

                 29 January 2016 at 11:31 am

                 Can’t find it can you Mathew.
                 • DH …

                   29 January 2016 at 11:55 am

                   Well here’s all I could find so far…..

                   “(h) the adoption or enforcement of any new taxation measure aimed at ensuring the equitable or effective imposition or collection of taxes, including any taxation measure that differentiates between persons based on their place of residence for tax purposes, provided that the taxation measure does not arbitrarily discriminate between persons, goods or services of the Parties;[11]”

                   My interpretation of that is we can charge foreigners any reasonable costs incurred in the process collecting taxes, in the form of stamp duties, but if the stamp duty exceeded the actual cost we’d be discriminating against foreigners and breaching the TPP.

                   So that says we can’t charge foreigners whatever tax we like. Where’s the text that says we can?

                   And btw here’s what an exemption looks like;

                   “9. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent Singapore from adopting taxation measures no more trade restrictive than necessary to address Singapore’s public policy objectives arising out of its specific constraints of space.”

                   Where’s our one?
                   • Lanthanide …

                     29 January 2016 at 1:20 pm

                     That’s pretty much what I expected.

                     Hooton is spinning this and John Key was (unusually) specific in what he said about the ‘costs’ we could apply to foreigners.
                   • weka …

                     29 January 2016 at 1:29 pm

                     Good work DH!
                   • Nick Nack …

                     29 January 2016 at 1:34 pm

                     Hi DH. Doesn’t the sentence “that differentiates between persons based on their place of residence for tax purposes,” mean that NZ could impose a stamp duty on, eg, individuals tax resident in China? Or are you suggesting the ‘arbitrary discrimination’ wording trumps that? Not taking sides here, just following the debate.
                   • crashcart …

                     29 January 2016 at 1:59 pm

                     Nah Nick, what it is saying is that you can impose a stamp duty specifically on non residents. However that stamp duty can only be used to recover costs that would be incurred.

                     That is why Key even specifically stated that yes they could introduce a stamp duty however it can’t be any amount we want so as to be punitive. Puts the lie to Hoot’s 1000% claims.
                   • DH …

                     29 January 2016 at 2:20 pm

                     Would need a resident English teacher to confirm or deny that Nick but my recollection of grammar lessons was you can remove the section between the commas and it will still hold its meaning;

                     “(h) the adoption or enforcement of any new taxation measure aimed at ensuring the equitable or effective imposition or collection of taxes .. provided that the taxation measure does not arbitrarily discriminate between persons, goods or services of the Parties;[11]”

                     I’d gauge my reading comprehension as being reasonably good but it’s not perfect and legal wordings only need one to miss a comma to misinterpret their true meaning. I don’t think I’ve misread that one though.
                   • Tricledrownl …

                     29 January 2016 at 3:14 pm

                     All for a paltry .3% GDP growth and an expected 5 to 6,000 jobs loss.
                     Pharmac undermined.
                     Bernie’s Sanders quote why does it cost $ 750 for a pill in the US when it only costs 66cents in the UK.
                     Pharmac won’t be aloud to purchase generic medicines = corporate welfare.
                     This trade deal in its present form.!

                     Key has lied to us Hooton has lied to us Grosser has lied to us about Pharmac.
                     The Pharmac costs alone will wipe out any benefit the TPPA.
                     New advanced expensive Medicines which be far more advanced than we’ve had will have to stay under patent protection for years longer at much higher prices.
                     Big Pharma monopolizes medical research their are very few pharmaceutical companies left now.
                     Free trade in Pharmacy is a joke any company that comes out with a new medicine is gobbled up by big Pharma.
                     Medicines are pushed down consumers throat at much higher rates than necessary by the publishing of false research .
                     Pharmac will have to keep its independence if I am going to support the TPPA.
                     Key and Grosser know full and well those costs are going to blow out as they keep referring to the statement that the cost now is such and such.
                     While their is whole new wave of genetically modified life lengthening medicines coming through.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 29 January 2016 at 2:39 pm

                 Matthew, you really think you can pull out a couple of sentences from a 1600 page document which is deliberately designed to be interpreted as an integral whole?

                 You wouldnt read even a bog standard contract in that way.

                 Get serious mate and stop treating us like idiots.
                 • Scott M …

                   29 January 2016 at 5:01 pm

                   Matthew/Wayne

                   Talk about dancing on the head of a pin. The whole concept of ISDS is outrageous. Why would NZ – with a competent and independent judiciary need to be subject to ISDS.

                   And why would COUNTRIES have a concern about NZ carving out of ANY ISDS provisions.

                   This is about extreme US corporations and their undemocratic demands.

                   Simple as that.
                   • Scott M …

                     29 January 2016 at 5:03 pm

                     Take out ISDS and the TPPA would be just another boring trade agreement no body cated about.
       • Whateva next? 1.1.1.9

         30 January 2016 at 2:53 pm

         Basically Mathew, I look at Andrew Little’s back story, and I look at yours………And it comes down to this:
         Andrew Little has bucketfuls more integrity, and is interested in others. You have no integrity and only signs are of self- interest, self aggrandisement, whilst looking after yours hares interest.
         I trust what Andrew Little says, whilst being too busy working and caring for a family etc to scrutinise all the documents.
         I do not trust you or others who display obvious values so far from what we need to govern a country.
         • whateva next? 1.1.1.9.1

           30 January 2016 at 2:56 pm

           Your share interests, not “yours hare interest”
   • Pasupial 1.2

     29 January 2016 at 10:36 am

     Hooton

     Speaking of; “straight out lie[s]”, you would seem to have experience there.

     In this TDB piece, a tweet of yours represents an offer by Kelsey and Wallach to brief the Labour Party staff on the TPPA while in Wellington as; “Internal Labour email shows… TPPA policy being driven by Jane Kelsey & loony left”. Bradbury was most interested in how you got a copy of the email in the first place. Myself, I am more interested in whether you are; blinded by ideology, or simply manipulatively representing the facts. Of course, it could be both.

     http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/01/29/who-inside-labour-leaked-to-matthew-hooton/
   • savenz 1.3

     29 January 2016 at 11:56 am

     @Matthew Hooton

     zzzzzzzzzz
   • Keith 1.4

     29 January 2016 at 12:19 pm

     But of all people we should believe John Key and or any Nat MP or any PR firm that have so faithfully gone into bat for this bunch of dodgy pricks? Seriously? That is laughable!
   • whateva next? 1.5

     29 January 2016 at 4:09 pm

     Apart from your efforts to undermine Mr.Little, could I ask why haven’t the US signed up yet if it’s the TPPA is so great? and why are we all rushing to sign it before?
     I am asking for the real answer not the spinned, technical answer before you rattle off the rhetoric
   • Paul 1.6

     30 January 2016 at 11:49 am

     Anyone else noticed that this was a sufficiently important message that Hooton felt he had to get his spin right at the top of the thread?
     I sense the Nats are very nervous about the public’s perception of TPPA.
2. Matthew Hooton 2

   29 January 2016 at 9:06 am

   “And it also means that people who don’t even live here have the right to have a say on many of our laws.”

   That is the current position with our Select Committee process and the usual convention of consulting those, including other governments, who may be affected by law changes.

   What the TPP does is give NEW ZEALANDERS the right to do this with respect to the 11 other TPP countries.

   Little knows this too.
   • Brendon Harre -Left wing Liberal 2.1

     29 January 2016 at 9:25 am

     BS Mathew, TPP if it is ratified gives corporations the power to sue governments, it doesn’t give power to people and certainly not ordinary kiwis -with the result that governments sometimes stop doing things they should, like plain packaging cigarette cases, very few NZ companies are big enough to try that elsewhere but there are thousands of corporates, especially litigious US corporates who are big enough to try it in NZ.

     This ISDS process has gone rogue because the corporates believe they have a veto over democracy. They need to be put in their place. There is a backlash against these provisions across the world -In Europe, Brazil, South Africa and even in the US itself.
   • Bill 2.2

     29 January 2016 at 9:28 am

     The ISDS process is a completely different kettle of fish Matthew, and you know it. A foreign corporation can launch an ISDS. The ISDS is independent of any national laws. It can – and probably will, given that its judgments are made by a small clique of corporate lawyers – find against a government on the ground that some legislation or other has affected current or future profits.

     Nothing to do with select committee processes and a process not open to governments or individuals.
   • Sacha 2.3

     29 January 2016 at 9:29 am

     “the usual convention of consulting those, including other governments, who may be affected by law changes”

     Do we consult foreign *corporations*?

     And can they sue our government if they do not like the outcome?
     • framu 2.3.1

       29 January 2016 at 9:56 am

       and claim profits that are yet to be earned and are projected of the companies own predictions
   • Mike 2.4

     29 January 2016 at 9:33 am

     Andrew Little was quite happy to have a say on Australia’s immigration laws last year. He went over and submitted to a Select Committee on the issue in fact.

     And Labour enthusiastically cited the ‘foreign’ opinions of Google, Microsoft etc regarding the Telecommunications Interception legislation in the previous Parliament.
     • One Anonymous Bloke 2.4.1

       29 January 2016 at 9:42 am

       Yes, because that’s exactly the same as giving a secret panel of unelected corporate lawyers a say in our democracy.

       Go and practice your curtsy.
       • Matthew Hooton 2.4.1.1

         29 January 2016 at 1:06 pm

         “secret panel of unelected corporate lawyers”

         What on earth are you talking about? Go read the TPP text about how the ISDS process works.
         • whateva next? 2.4.1.1.1

           29 January 2016 at 1:20 pm

           and you think they would state that the lawyers switch around, being the judge and defense? Have you ANY knowledge of the ISDS actually works, or you are blindly following the manual? Would they put the dodgy stuff in the manual???? c’mon you’re not that naive are you?
           • One Anonymous Bloke 2.4.1.1.1.1

             29 January 2016 at 7:45 pm

             Of course they put the dodgy stuff in the manual: you think they couched it in plain English?

             For example: all the people who were paying attention figured out what “collateralised debt obligation” was. And then they all got paid.

             Hooton is pretending that he understands the morass of clauses the TPP contains: otherwise he’d link to a rebuttal rather than urging me to “read the text”. Guess what: I read the text: it’s full of weasel words.
         • Tricledrown 2.4.1.1.2

           31 January 2016 at 10:15 am

           Countries sovereignty undermined by ISDS.
           Latest news the guardian UK.
   • savenz 2.5

     29 January 2016 at 11:58 am

     @Matthew Hooton

     Obviously mind reading is also part of your PR Skills

     … variation on ‘Labour did it too”
     to
     ….. Little knows this too.

     zzzzzzz
     • Matthew Hooton 2.5.1

       29 January 2016 at 12:54 pm

       if he doesn’t know what is in the TPP, that is almost worse than telling lies about it.
       • Stuart Munro 2.5.1.1

         29 January 2016 at 1:03 pm

         Whose fault is it if anybody doesn’t know what’s in the TPP? Why, the lying Tim Groser and the treacherous Key ‘government’ of course. Even utter scoundrels like the Gnats were ashamed to let NZ see the full extent of their betrayal.
         • Matthew Hooton 2.5.1.1.1

           29 January 2016 at 1:07 pm

           Everyone knows what’s in the TPP if they bother to look: https://tpp.mfat.govt.nz/text
           • savenz 2.5.1.1.1.1

             29 January 2016 at 1:30 pm

             What about all the confidential side agreements?

             And the US can change it anyway.

             Do we trust Groser’s skills?

             I can just see the public trawling through 6000 pages of legalese with pleasure as likely as I can see a PR or lazy politician doing the same.

             How’s the 11 million Saudi bribe going?
             Or the Sky City Convention centre?
             Or the Chch rebuild?
             Or the 5.2 million Charter school recently closed?
             Or the Serco prisons?
             Or the economy under the Natz?

             Seems to me, that the Natz are not really very good at negotiating anything apart from Corporate welfare.
3. weka 3

   29 January 2016 at 9:34 am

   The link in the post appears to be wrong, it shows the page after you sign. I can’t find the right one (ffs Labour, you really need to sort this kind of shit out).
   • Bill 3.1

     29 January 2016 at 10:23 am

     Very odd. Attempted to edit a fix for the link in the post, but the url for the post signing page is exactly the same as the one for the pre-signing page. Meaning that although I cut and pasted the url from an open pre-sign page, the link still goes to the post sign page.

     Here it is in long form. Suspecting it will do the same as the one in the post though.

     http://go.labour.org.nz/tppa?utm_campaign=150128_tppa&utm_medium=email&utm_source=nzlabour

     edit. yup. Goes to the post-signed page
     • weka 3.1.1

       29 January 2016 at 11:00 am

       Turns out it’s an old petition and I’m guessing we’ve both signed it. I just dumped all the Labour cookies from my browser and now your link goes to the right page. Still annoying though and I wonder how many people will be put off sharing the link.

       It has close to 24,000 signatures.
4. Bill 4

   29 January 2016 at 9:38 am

   …our opposition will be much stronger with tens of thousands of Kiwis standing with us.

   A little humility would have gone a long way duntyathink? Maybe something like, “Now that we are standing with you….”.

   Really irks when the ‘Johnny come lately’s’ seek to set the narrative and position themselves as some kind of vanguard.
   • Molly 4.1

     29 January 2016 at 9:47 am

     I had the same reaction Bill.

     I would have preferred a narrative that says something along the lines of “we will use our political presence to reflect those amongst you who have quite rightly shown concern over the TPPA, and will vehemently oppose it in parliament”.

     And he could have added his name to the itsourfuture campaign, clarifying the reasons for doing so.
     • Macro 4.1.1

       29 January 2016 at 10:15 am

       My thoughts as well.
       Gezzz!
5. fisiani 5

   29 January 2016 at 11:19 am

   The TPP allows NZ firms to trade in the US and Japan and 9 other countries. Our wine makers will have more cases of wine in Tokyo. Our software will be used in Silicon Valley etc. Our NZ firms will be able to take legal action in the other 11 countries if we are somehow denied access.
   It seems clear that https://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/ our potential for growth and jobs and income is immense.
   How dare Andrew Little lie about the efforts of our MFAT negotiators who brought us this great deal. Does he not realise as MH has so clearly demonstrated that his lies are being laid bare? Does he really think he can pull the wool over our eyes. Honest John will have him for breakfast.
   • Sacha 5.1

     29 January 2016 at 11:34 am

     “It seems clear that https://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/ our potential for growth and jobs and income is immense.”

     Funny that’s not how anybody other than chief govt spinner Joyce is describing it. Words like ‘modest’ or ‘insignificant’ are way more common, even from those who support the thing.
     • Pasupial 5.1.1

       29 January 2016 at 11:55 am

       Well “immense” can technically mean; “unable to be measured”. So fisiani may not be completely wrong about that. It does usually imply that whatever is called immense is; so great that it can’t be defined in any unit, rather than; so small that you’d need to be a forensic accountant to even guess at it’s meagre impact on the economy amongst all the spun numbers used to conceal that reality.
   • dv 5.2

     29 January 2016 at 12:02 pm

     Yippee .7% by 2030 now means immense!!!!
   • Bill 5.3

     29 January 2016 at 12:02 pm

     Think ‘agricultural produce’. Now think ‘environmental standards and safety regulations’.

     With ‘free trade’, the producer with the lowest production costs enjoys a certain advantage over heavier regulated domestic producers. Lower production costs go hand in hand with lax or absent environmental/food processing regulations.

     So if US milk or chicken or pork starts to flood the NZ market, and if that produce is cheaper, at least in part, due to weaker legislation in the US, then local producers will petition the government to have NZ legislation weakened or scrapped in order to re-establish a level playing field.

     But sure, NZ companies will be free to trade in countries they already trade in.
   • Tricledrown 5.4

     29 January 2016 at 1:44 pm

     Fishy your full of it.
     Out software already has free access to silicone valley.
     Japan will never allow open markets the conservative govt will protect its voter base at all costs.
     No mention of Dairy ,Meat or farm exports in your comments.
     Fishy.
   • Tricledrown 5.5

     29 January 2016 at 2:01 pm

     China and Europe are not having anything to do with this free trade agreements until all the hooks on sovereignty are removed.
     Hooten is shouting out loud the master of spin.
     Canada Japan and other countries are already getting cold feet.
     As Rod Oram pointed out not until China and European needs are met will the TPPA be ratified .
   • Keith 5.6

     29 January 2016 at 4:25 pm

     We already trade with those countries, which may astound you and plenty, what rock on Planet Key did you crawl out from?

     And how dare John Key treat us like idiots.
     • fisiani 5.6.1

       29 January 2016 at 5:50 pm

       These countries have huge tariff barriers and we manage to trade. With lowered tariffs we could trade easier. God I wish the Left had some economic literacy.
       • Colonial Viper 5.6.1.1

         30 January 2016 at 3:30 pm

         Huh? TPPA has almost nothing to do with trade and everything to do with Japanese and US corporations having the upper hand over sovereign governments.

         It is also an attempt by the US to sideline China and Russia as growing powers on the Pacific rim.
   • Ch-ch Chiquita 5.7

     30 January 2016 at 3:09 pm

     “Our software will be used in Silicon valley” do you mean those IT companie that our government said didn’t have the required skills to implemet the new IRD system?
6. savenz 6

   29 January 2016 at 11:52 am

   A stamp duty is clearly not a ban on foreign ownership (it is a tax!).

   But foreign ownership is one of many overwhelming problems for dog of an agreement of TPP with negligible benefits. What about the 6000 projected job losses, the copywrite issues, patents, environment, climate change etc etc

   People in the US do not even have the right to water in cities under this corporate greed. Taxpayers are bailing out banks! Where will it end!

   The TPP deal should be about having more corporate controls and international tax agreements that actually make corporates have to pay taxes in their location as well as more hefty penalties for environmental damage.

   Now that is a TPP agreement I would like to see negotiated!!
7. savenz 7

   29 January 2016 at 11:54 am

   Research paper: The Economics of the TPPA
   http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1601/S00118/research-paper-the-economics-of-the-tppa.htm
8. fisiani 8

   29 January 2016 at 11:55 am

   http://www.3news.co.nz/tvshows/thenation/transcript-labour-party-leader-andrew-little-2015110712#axzz3ya0puhLZ

   Just have read at this link then try to convince me that Andrew Little is now telling the truth.
9. BM 9

   29 January 2016 at 11:58 am

   In Government, we’ll go back to the TPPA partners and renegotiate the deal to make sure New Zealand’s sovereignty is protected. And as Prime Minister I will never back down on making laws in the interests of New Zealanders.

   If no one is willing to renegotiate, will Andrew Little remove NZ from the TPPA.
   • Matthew Hooton 9.1

     29 January 2016 at 12:24 pm

     Of course he won’t. But it is academic. He will never be prime minister. Labour’s lurch to extreme left means it is now unelectable.
     • BM 9.1.1

       29 January 2016 at 12:40 pm

       Looks that way.

       Having said that I’d still like to see some one in the media actually get the truth out of the guy.
       • Brendon Harre -Left wing Liberal 9.1.1.1

         29 January 2016 at 12:53 pm

         So the right is still pushing the anti-democratic fait accompli line.

         What about the lies that John Key said that we wouldn’t sign the TPPA before the country had access to the full treaty and it was fully debated in Parliament.

         Also signing doesn’t equal ratification -the treaty may not be in force by the time Little is PM, so he may not have to remove NZ from the treaty.
         • Matthew Hooton 9.1.1.1.1

           29 January 2016 at 12:56 pm

           John Key never said that. He said it wouldn’t be ratified before it had been debated by parliament. And we have seen the text for many months before it has been signed. Which is unusual: usually process is signed and then text released.
           • Brendon Harre -Left wing Liberal 9.1.1.1.1.1

             29 January 2016 at 2:02 pm

             So this signing thing really is meaningless as we discussed earlier. The critical points are when NZ completes its task to ratify the TPPA and more importantly when sufficient other partner countries do their bit. Which in the US case doesn’t look like soon.
         • BM 9.1.1.1.2

           29 January 2016 at 12:58 pm

           I’m more interested in knowing,

           If Andrew Little can’t renegotiate the treaty will he pull NZ out of the TPPA.

           If he can’t state a simple yes or no then he’s full of shit and trying to play the public for fools.
           • weka 9.1.1.1.2.1

             29 January 2016 at 1:37 pm

             I can’t recall Labour even hinting that they would pull out, so your question is odd. But even if they were considering that, they probably don’t have enough information currently to form a policy on it.
             • BM …

               29 January 2016 at 1:47 pm

               What?

               If Labour has no intention of leaving the TPPA then what the hell is Little on about.

               Some quotes from the bull shit at the top of this post

               It undermines our democracy and our sovereignty.

               It prevents future governments passing laws in the best interests of New Zealanders

               It means we won’t be able to stop non-resident foreigners from buying Kiwi homes

               also means that people who don’t even live here have the right to have a say on many of our laws.

               The way Little is carrying on the TPPA is the worst thing that could ever happen to NZ yet has no intention of actually removing NZ from the TPPA.

               What a full of shit, blow hard, do the left enjoy being treated like gullible fools.

               Christ, at least you know where you stand with John Key.
               • weka …

                 29 January 2016 at 1:50 pm

                 🙄

                 If you can’t understand their strategy it’s not their fault.
                 • BM …

                   29 January 2016 at 1:56 pm

                   What strategy is that?
                   Talk nonsense, hopefully fool enough people to get elected and then do nothing.

                   Andrew Little, the left must be proud to have him as your leader.
                   • weka …

                     29 January 2016 at 2:08 pm

                     lol, he’s not my leader. Like I said, if you can’t understand what they are doing it’s not their fault. It’s not that hard.
                   • BM …

                     29 January 2016 at 2:31 pm

                     Apart from trying to get on the right side of the house, I have no idea what their strategy is and I doubt they do either.
                   • Tricledrown …

                     29 January 2016 at 2:34 pm

                     So if we pulled out corporations with bigger resources wouldn’t bog us down in big legal suits.
                     Like presently happening in Canada.
                     You are very naive blinkered monetrist.
                     The TPPA will try and have its own legal resolution service rather than proper and fair international courts.
                     As we have seen with the NAFTA agreement huge corporations ate finding loopholes where they can sue the Canadian govt and companies.
                     Its becoming an industry all of its own.
                   • BM …

                     29 January 2016 at 2:37 pm

                     @Tricledrown
                     So why isn’t Andrew Little signaling that he’ll pull out.

                     He’s just coming across like he’s trying to play both sides and failing dismally.
                   • Tricledrownl …

                     29 January 2016 at 3:27 pm

                     Labour has never said it would pull out its said it would negotiate a better deal.
                     Other countries even congress is not happy with the Deal.
                     The financial benefits are less than the socold surplus National has promised and failed to deliver !
                   • weka …

                     29 January 2016 at 3:46 pm

                     Ok, BM, enough with the stale strawman. You don’t have to like Labour, but ffs, why should anyone care what you think Labour should be criticsed for not doing, when them in power is something you are actively trying to prevent.
                   • weka …

                     29 January 2016 at 3:49 pm

                     So if we pulled out corporations with bigger resources wouldn’t bog us down in big legal suits.
                     Like presently happening in Canada.

                     Apparently there is a get out of jail free card in the agreement (with 6 months notice). I don’t know if we could be sued in that case, I thought that the danger was more that the powers of greed and manipulation would feel the need to teach us a lesson for stepping out of line.
                 • weka …

                   29 January 2016 at 2:12 pm

                   It’s also not their fault if you refuse to understand.
                   • greywarshark …

                     29 January 2016 at 3:31 pm

                     “He’s just coming across like he’s trying to play both sides and failing dismally.”
                     BM Playing both sides is what you do when you say you’re the central party so that’s everyday politics now.
                     You seem to accept that as you pass judgment on Little’s prowess at it and say he is failing dismally.

                     You could be right about the dismally. I think the term is wanting the cake while also eating it. Sounds like quantum theory as I (don’t) understand it. And that’s my fault!! But Labour seem to be lukewarm about the TPPA. How much wiggle room have we got though, is it something that they should reject outright – who would be annoyed? Can we have a bob each way please?
                   • Bill …

                     29 January 2016 at 4:12 pm

                     Take a simple ‘yes or no’ proposition. Triangulate it. Result? Well, no-one can quite pin that. Becoming a time worn and tedious mark of Labour Parties across the English speaking world. As to how far they have traveled, consider the following from that email.

                     Labour has always supported free trade and we always will.

                     Any one with half an ounce of knowledge knows that’s utter bullshit. Savage? Kirk? All for ‘free trade’ were they? Of course not! Labour were a statist party, not a ‘free market’ party.

                     Mind you, nice message to send to the thousands who really would appreciate some acknowledgment and form of apology from Labour for what they unleashed in the 80s.
                   • weka …

                     29 January 2016 at 4:41 pm

                     What does “triangulate it” mean?
                   • greywarshark …

                     29 January 2016 at 7:07 pm

                     triangulate – I imagine it means placing Labour at the apex and the other two points – one would be veering left and the other right, trying to find those with fellow feelings on both sides.
                     Perhaps Bill would explain.
                   • Bill …

                     29 January 2016 at 7:42 pm

                     Triangulation means that ‘the third way’ is still being pursued; that Blairism is still twitching; that instead of coming down on one side or the other of an issue, a dogs breakfast is prepared and presented as cohesive positioning….lots of contradictory yapping from politicians ensues as they struggle through the dishonest smash they’ve created.
               • Brendon Harre -Left wing Liberal …

                 29 January 2016 at 1:56 pm

                 BM when will the TPPA come into force?

                 It isn’t ratified. No one knows when it will be ratified by a sufficient number of countries. It may not be in force by the time of NZ’s next election, which means the public will get a vote of whether to join the TPPA. This time the public will have access to the full text and enough time to make a considered judgement.

                 Of course you nasty right-wingers want to rush the debating/analysing democratic participation stage with your fait accompli tactics.
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 29 January 2016 at 5:14 pm

                 Christ, at least you know where you stand with John Key.

                 Not according to alwyn.
                 • alwyn …

                   29 January 2016 at 6:35 pm

                   It is not really my fault that you don’t listen.
                   Were you never taught that you can’t hear when you have your mouth open?
                   Just listen to what the man says, not what you wish to hear.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     29 January 2016 at 11:02 pm

                     I listened. You refused to believe the truth after it was pointed out to you.
                   • alwyn …

                     29 January 2016 at 11:58 pm

                     You poor fellow. As the bible puts it
                     “‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'”
                     Just what is this obsession you have with your insistence that John Key is Satan? The truth? You are crazy.
             • The Chairman …

               29 January 2016 at 2:35 pm

               “I can’t recall Labour even hinting that they would pull out…”

               Little on TPP: “I don’t support it, we don’t support it”

               If efforts to renegotiate fail, the only legitimate way to oppose the deal is to withdraw.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 29 January 2016 at 3:17 pm

                 Labour seems to believe that “flouting” the TPP is good enough.
                 • The Chairman …

                   29 January 2016 at 5:31 pm

                   Wasn’t there latest announcement a move away from that crazy position?

                   https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/labour-finally-confirms-it-s-opposed-to-controversial-tppa
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     30 January 2016 at 12:07 am

                     Labour’s TPPA pendulum is going to keep swinging from side to side depending on whether it is an odd month of the year or an even month of the year.
                   • greywarshark …

                     30 January 2016 at 11:16 am

                     Colonial V
                     LOL
                 • The Chairman …

                   30 January 2016 at 10:12 am

                   The more they continue this dance (swinging from side to side) the more incompetent they look.
               • weka …

                 29 January 2016 at 3:45 pm

                 “If efforts to renegotiate fail, the only legitimate way to oppose the deal is to withdraw.”

                 I quite agree TC (or just pull out as the first act of the incoming govt). But I’m not arguing what Labour should do, I’m arguing that their stance has been clear all along and that afaik pulling out has never been something they would consider, it’s just not part of their approach to the whole thing. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong.
                 • The Chairman …

                   29 January 2016 at 5:36 pm

                   Their stance being clear all along is questionable, bottom lines an all.

                   Nevertheless, their latest announcement (see link above) hints at this, albeit it was never directly stated.
                   • weka …

                     30 January 2016 at 10:56 am

                     It’s certainly an interesting change.
           • whateva next? 9.1.1.1.2.2

             29 January 2016 at 5:18 pm

             I”f he can’t state a simple yes or no then he’s full of shit and trying to play the public for fools.” gawd, that applies to YOUR Leader alright
       • savenz 9.1.1.2

         29 January 2016 at 4:50 pm

         @BM maybe someone in the media should try to get some truth out of our serial lying prime minister first….
     • crashcart 9.1.2

       29 January 2016 at 2:07 pm

       Hyperbole is fine but calling this “a lurch to the extreme left” is more along the line of hysterical.
       • greywarshark 9.1.2.1

         30 January 2016 at 11:23 am

         crashcart
         Taking a dictionary approach to the TPPA brouhaha has brought up good words –
         hyperbole, hysterical. I add hype to the set. Any other hy-s anyone?

         It’s an interesting thought exercise and involves more searching brain work than has gone into all the political input that NZ has applied to the TPPA affaire
     • Tricledrown 9.1.3

       29 January 2016 at 2:40 pm

       Bullshit Hooton .
       Labour has said it would support the TPPA but not in its present form.
       You are under direct control of Crosby Textor obviously Matthew.
       For more Bullshit call NZ office manager Crosby Textor Machiavellian Henchman M Hooton expert spin Doctor and govt grovelar.
     • Keith 9.1.4

       29 January 2016 at 4:30 pm

       Wow wee, extreme Stalinst extreme left or Pol Pot extreme left. What next, “The domino effect” Senator McCathy? I realise saying utter bullshit like “extreme left” is part of the Dirty Politics smear on this one but mate, talk to the mirror!
   • The Chairman 9.2

     29 January 2016 at 2:25 pm

     “If no one is willing to renegotiate, will Andrew Little remove NZ from the TPPA?”

     That’s the question he needs to be asked.
10. Ad 10

    29 January 2016 at 12:07 pm

    Swordfish or someone:
    Which political poll will cover this week and the TPPA signing?

    I’m interested in the overall favourability reaction.
11. savenz 11

    29 January 2016 at 12:10 pm

    Look what NZ can look forward to under TPPA and ISDS….

    ‘Red Alert’ In Beijing, ‘Severe’ In Delhi: Air Pollution Is Choking Us From Chandni Chowk To China

    http://newsworldindia.in/india/air-quality-delhis-pollution-level-shoot-up-to-severe-category-beijing-issues-red-alert/159459/
    • Wayne 11.1

      29 January 2016 at 12:24 pm

      Savenz,

      Why do you consistently make such extreme (and frankly ridiculous) assertions about TPP, unsupported by any facts.

      For instance the US has worked hard over the last 30 years to clean up air quality. In the 1970’s when I went to LA (several times) smog was a real problem, Now California has extremely strict clean air standards, and smog is unknown.

      There is no way the US (the Obama administration remember) would agree to an agreement whereby LA would once again be subject to smog as it was in LA in the 1970’s and is in Beijing now.

      If you are going to argue against TPP, at least keep your arguments on planet earth.
      • Tricledrownl 11.1.1

        29 January 2016 at 2:46 pm

        Left Wing governments in California Wayne.
        Don’t repeat clean air in California to loudly their maybe Koch brother funded freak after you.
        Your spin is of poor air quality.
        • alwyn 11.1.1.1

          29 January 2016 at 7:19 pm

          “Left Wing governments in California”
          You are quite sure of that are you?
          Since 1970 there has been a Republican Governor for 29 years and a Democrat for 17.
          Care to reconsider?
          • tricledrown 11.1.1.1.1

            30 January 2016 at 2:09 pm

            Arnold Swartsnigger is a green conservative.
            Looking at debt in California the Right gave taxcuts ran up huge debt.
            the left raise taxes get rid of debt.
            same as New Zealand.
            • alwyn 11.1.1.1.1.1

              30 January 2016 at 6:23 pm

              Amazing. You want to adopt a Republican Governor as being of the left do you, so that you can claim that it is Right 21 years, left 25?
              Do you also plan therefore to count the deficits during those years to be the fault of the left?
              Or do you think Arnie has a split personality?
              That doesn’t sound right though. In fact it sounds quite sinister to me.

              Do you have some numbers to backup your rather wild claims about California? Who actually ran deficits and surpluses?
              Personally I don’t think if you did the sums honestly they have had a genuine surplus in at least the last 50 years. The fiction about the value of the State pension schemes is a joke. Except for the members and the residents of California of course.

              The problems in California date back to the time they passed limitations on what could happen to property taxes. That and the fact that 60% of income taxes is paid by about 3% of the people who earn over a couple of hundred thousand. It is enormously dependent on capital gains from the rich few and when the stock market goes down California doesn’t get any money.
              They fudge the numbers continually. Nobody, left or right, wants to admit that the Emperor has no clothes.
      • savenz 11.1.2

        29 January 2016 at 3:15 pm

        @ Wayne – have you heard that water is not not considered a human right in the US? Yep in one of the world’s richest economies US citizens are not allowed water because a banks profits are considered more important.

        http://guardianlv.com/2014/10/detroit-judge-rules-there-is-no-basic-human-right-to-water/
      • greywarshark 11.1.3

        30 January 2016 at 12:45 pm

        The point of TPPA is for the USA to be in a good position in every way that matters to the wealthy people and the corporates, and matters like smog, severe exploitation of people and other externalities are kept at a distance. Though Mexico could be their Achilles heel. Which way does the prevailing wind there flow, north or south? And there is the drug problem, that is not as visible as smog, but undermines a culture and country for longer and deeper. Already Mexico is suffering from that, Zika is drifting north. Perhaps the USA
      • greywarshark 11.1.4

        30 January 2016 at 12:47 pm

        The point of TPPA is for the USA to be in a good position in every way that matters to the wealthy people and the corporates, and matters like smog, severe exploitation of people and other externalities are kept at a distance. Though Mexico could be their Achilles heel. Which way does the prevailing wind there flow, north or south? And there is the drug problem, that is not as visible as smog, but undermines a culture and country for longer and deeper. Already Mexico is suffering from that, Zika is drifting north. Perhaps the USA in the end will reneg on TPPA and become isolationist.
    • Matthew Hooton 11.2

      29 January 2016 at 12:25 pm

      The TPP includes the most significant environmental protections of any trade deal in the history of the world.
      • Sabine 11.2.1

        29 January 2016 at 12:46 pm

        citation needed.

        thanks
        • Matthew Hooton 11.2.1.1

          29 January 2016 at 12:52 pm

          How about you bother to read the text all on your own.
          • weka 11.2.1.1.1

            29 January 2016 at 1:39 pm

            Matthew, you’ve told at least two blatant lies on ts today already. Asking for citations for your claims seems reasonable in light of that.
          • Sabine 11.2.1.1.2

            29 January 2016 at 3:21 pm

            I am not the one making spurious comments about what is and will be, when literally no one on this planet knows what will be in the future once that crap agreement is in force.

            So, if you make a claim/statement, be so polite as to include the link to support your claim/statement? Or is politeness something that you are not paid for?
          • Tricledrown 11.2.1.1.3

            29 January 2016 at 3:32 pm

            Its got more hooks than a fishing store Matthew once again spinning little bits of truth with large amounts of Bullshit.
            Propaganda.
            Pharmacy needs to be taken out of the Deal that alone with New super expensive medicines will blow the meagre benefit.
      • savenz 11.2.2

        29 January 2016 at 1:41 pm

        You missed out the word ‘corporate’.

        most significant CORPORATE environmental protections of any trade deal

        TPPA is so “revolutionary” it does not mention ‘climate change’.

        Love how the Paris climate change agreements are voluntary but the ‘trade’ deals have heavy penalties for governments that seek to curb corporate profits and help the environment.

        Not to mention how these deals rewards polluters like in the Nafta deal where The TransCanada Corporation, announced that it has filed a notice of intent to initiate a multibillion-dollar investor-state claim against the US government under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)….

        http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/02/26/how-nafta-could-spoil-keystone-xl-rejection
      • Tricledrownl 11.2.3

        29 January 2016 at 3:19 pm

        Matthew it sounds like an add from the World Wrestling Association.
        Why is California getting sued by Monsanto.
      • whateva next? 11.2.4

        29 January 2016 at 4:02 pm

        oh yeah RIGHT, lets see shall we? the cleverest thing about TPPA is the people who crafted it, and the way it has been written. You are a fool
      • Tricledrown 11.2.5

        29 January 2016 at 4:19 pm

        Hooton that’s not ratified in any way yet if we get a Koch Bros govt in the US that will be most likely as they are spending US$ 880million + another billion or 2 on making sure Democracy is undermined.
        Those clauses will be thrown out.
        Just like access for our agricultural exports.
        Matthew mouth on about something relevant like how little benefit for our economy •3% in 15 years.
        Pharmac getting shafted costing more than the benefits every other countries news medias are reporting huge job losses as a result.
        Bang on Mathew your full of shit.
      • greywarshark 11.2.6

        31 January 2016 at 7:00 pm

        Matthew H
        Shakespeare had Portia say in The Merchant of Venice:
        Portia: How far that little candle throws its beams; So shines a good deed in a naughty world.
        The Merchant of Venice Act V, sc. i

        I think you are trying to apply that quote to the very naughty world of the TPPA. Some environmental protections are put in so it isn’t all dire, and the light from those elevated promises and statements is supposed to blind us to the rest!

        Who is going to make the environmental promises happen? Who is going to fund them, police them, sternly ensure they are followed to the letter through strong agencies and not individuals who act as toothless observers and report to some agency?

        Who checks what is done after the reports are made? What about when the watchdogs themselves are subsumed, captured by the large rich corporates involved. Investigations show that all of the above are inclined to follow.

        Your line of defence is just a bunch of symbolic shapes with no meaning in Planet Key or wherever these power guys hang out. Probably not where you are, you aren’t really in the top echelon are you.
12. whateva next? 12

    29 January 2016 at 1:07 pm

    Mr.Hooten is hooting very loudly about Andrew Little these days, and I grow deaf.
    This is not a “free” trade agreement, but corporate welfare, strong for corporations, weak for workers, and even weaker for the environment. The offshore tribunals are a racket, why not let the market decide, rather than the “big boys” or are you a share holder by chance?
13. Colonial Viper 13

    29 January 2016 at 1:20 pm

    In Government, we’ll go back to the TPPA partners and renegotiate the deal to make sure New Zealand’s sovereignty is protected.

    How the hell does NZ think it is going to force the Japanese and United States corporations back to the negotiating table?
    • weka 13.1

      29 January 2016 at 1:40 pm

      He’s talking about governments not corporations.
      • Colonial Viper 13.1.1

        29 January 2016 at 1:43 pm

        I’m talking about who actually wrote and negotiated the TPP in the back rooms, and it wasn’t governments.
        • weka 13.1.1.1

          29 January 2016 at 1:51 pm

          So? Little is saying they will go back to the people who signed the agreement and renegotiate.
          • Colonial Viper 13.1.1.1.1

            29 January 2016 at 2:44 pm

            the people who signed the document don’t have any power to renegotiate it, just like they werent the ones who formulated it.
            • weka 13.1.1.1.1.1

              29 January 2016 at 3:42 pm

              citation for that please.
              • Bill …

                29 January 2016 at 4:25 pm

                You want a citation for an opinion? Pu-lease!

                If you think it’s feasible to assume that governments were the real power brokers and that they all banged their heads together to come up with such great ideas as (among other things) undermining their own legal systems, then fine. I guess that would open the door for re-negotiation.
                • weka …

                  29 January 2016 at 4:40 pm

                  He’s asserting an opinion as a fact. He can either back it up, or provide some rationale for the opinion. Saying there are evil manipulators behind the TPPA doesn’t address the point, it’s just stating the bleeding obvious without explaing what exactly would prevent Little from doing what he intends.

                  If you think it’s feasible to assume that governments were the real power brokers and that they all banged their heads together to come up with such great ideas as (among other things) undermining their own legal systems, then fine.

                  I don’t believe that, why would you think that?

                  What I’m saying is that I haven’t yet seen the evidence that Little wouldn’t be negotiating with the other governments. Sure there is a whole bunch of powermongering going on behind that, but governments aren’t nothing either. There is a reason that corporations need governments to sign the TPPA.

                  You and CV also seem to be missing the doorway that Labour’s stance at least points to, which is pulling out of the agreement.
                  • Colonial Viper …

                    29 January 2016 at 4:49 pm

                    He’s asserting an opinion as a fact. He can either back it up, or provide some rationale for the opinion.

                    Nah fuck it weka.

                    You believe what you believe, you are welcome to it. I am not here to convince you that I am right, I am just here to state the bloody obvious:

                    Andrew fucking Little, who will be replaced as Labour leader come early 2018, is in no position to force Abe or Obama or the US Congress back into the domestic political mine field of renewed TPPA negotiations.

                    And no, there’s no citation for that apart from bloody obviousness.

                    You and CV also seem to be missing the doorway that Labour’s stance at least points to, which is pulling out of the agreement

                    You seem to continue to see shadows of hope in the foggy whispery changeable swirls of Labour PR. Good luck with that. I on the other hand don’t think that the future of the nation should rely on such tripe.

                    PS wasn’t Little saying just a month or two ago that the TPP met Labour’s much vaunted “bottom lines”???
                    • weka …

                      29 January 2016 at 5:18 pm

                      “PS wasn’t Little saying just a month or two ago that the TPP met Labour’s much vaunted “bottom lines”???”

                      So? They finally start heading in the right direction and all you can do is condemn then.

                      “You believe what you believe, you are welcome to it. I am not here to convince you that I am right, I am just here to state the bloody obvious:”

                      No, you’re here to play out your personal crisis about the state of the world and bring everyone else down while you do it.

                      It’s a legitimate question – how would Little renegotiate? It’s a question that requires thought and debate, not expositions from people who believe they’ve seen the future. You’ve already decided the way things will be, which puts you in the same category as Robert Atack on climate change. You can’t see past your own despair to even begin to see what change might look like.

                      This subthread has nothing to do with what I believe other than that I’m open to finding solutions whereas you want to wallow in your pit of darkness and by the sounds of things take everyone down with you.

                      tl;dr, you can’t even make a half intelligent argument to support your earlier assertion. It’s a fucking political blog, it’s normal for people to describe what they mean. By all means use the comments section for your own agenda of doom, but don’t expect other people to put up with it.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      29 January 2016 at 6:16 pm

                      So? They finally start heading in the right direction and all you can do is condemn then.

                      Oh I see, you believe that Labour has changed its stance on the TPP because it has suddenly had a genuine change of heart and realised at last that it is a bad agreement for NZ.

                      Thing is, I don’t believe that Labour has had any such genuine change of heart.
                    • weka …

                      29 January 2016 at 9:50 pm

                      I don’t either. Why are you making shit up about my views?
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      29 January 2016 at 10:54 pm

                      You clearly think that Andrew Little and Labour should be given real credit for a real change in direction.

                      I don’t because I do not think that he, or Labour, are at all sincere.

                      Don’t try and back peddle.
                    • weka …

                      30 January 2016 at 1:10 pm

                      No, I don’t think that, you just made that up. You’ve had ample opportunity to find out what I actually think but haven’t bothered and instead have put your own mistaken intepretations on it. Why is that?

                      FWIW, I think Labour has made a small but significant change that bears examination and encouragement. You on the other hand appear to think that Labour should be damned unless they become a left wing party. But we all know that that’s not possible at this time.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      30 January 2016 at 3:39 pm

                      FWIW, I think Labour has made a small but significant change that bears examination and encouragement.

                      You are free to put your trust in their words.

                      I for one won’t be played as a fool by them yet again.
                  • Bill …

                    29 January 2016 at 5:18 pm

                    Weka, he stated an opinion and no-one has said anything about evil anything. Have they? (If they did, I missed it.)

                    Did corporations need governments to sign the deal? Yes.

                    That might be a bit of a heads up….that if NZ pulls out, it won’t be other governments getting all pissy, but a far more powerful conglomeration of international finance and corporations, who can inflict huge damage on the NZ economy – by way of example if they are of a persuasion to, if, for instance, they calculate that it might dissuade others from kicking the ba’ onto the slates….

                    And please, don’t ask for a definitive shopping list of potential sanctions/punishments….disinvestment, crashed currency etc.

                    Nation states are small fry compared to global finance and corporate bodies. Governments are presently only acting as a fig leaf of legitimacy for their machinations. They (nation state governments) really don’t amount to much more than that these days.
                    • weka …

                      29 January 2016 at 5:28 pm

                      I’m talking about whether Little can partially renegotiate NZ’s part in the TPPA. You don’t appear to be talking about that at all.

                      Asking CV for some back up to his statement that Little won’t be able to renegotiate is a completely valid question given the context. That CV can’t provide any kind of real response is fine, I can now just assume his opinion is based on his hot air and he is just assuming that the corporate powers will stop this, because they’re corporate powers. In a debate forum like this, that’s just childish.

                      “Weka, he stated an opinion and no-one has said anything about evil anything. Have they? (If they did, I missed it.)”

                      You think the powers behind the TPPA aren’t evil? It’s just a short hand on my part.
                    • weka …

                      29 January 2016 at 5:32 pm

                      “And please, don’t ask for a definitive shopping list of potential sanctions/punishments….disinvestment, crashed currency etc.”

                      Yeah, I’m going to start calling bullshit on this one. I haven’t asked for a shopping list, so let’s drop that straw man for a start. And if people want to express political opinions on a political blog about serious shit like this, but they don’t want to have to explain what they mean or how they came to their opinion, they’re likely to get called out on it. If PR or BM was running this line, they’d get lambasted. Although at the moment CV’s actions are more Pete George than RWNJ.
                    • Bill …

                      29 January 2016 at 5:48 pm

                      You’ve previously done the ‘but precisely what measures’ game. So good. Neither of us want to play that one.

                      A change to a country’s provisions requires the consensus of all other parties. (Article 30.2 Amendments) That’s huge. In any context or situation, consensus is bloody hard – never mind one where every government is seeking market advantage for ‘their’ domestic corporate lobbyists.

                      late edit – in other words, whatever is signed into place is what will run. No fucker is going to agree that another party can shift the rules to their own advantage at the expense of others.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      29 January 2016 at 6:22 pm

                      yeah, I’m going to start calling bullshit on this one. I haven’t asked for a shopping list, so let’s drop that straw man for a start. And if people want to express political opinions on a political blog about serious shit like this, but they don’t want to have to explain what they mean or how they came to their opinion, they’re likely to get called out on it.

                      Seriously?

                      I’ve explained it previously: many senior and influential people in the Labour caucus are pro-TPPA, and Andrew Little has fuck all leverage in that caucus.

                      But you know what? Let’s wait until Labour get into power in 2017, and we will see who is right about whether or not Labour will pull the pin on the TPPA, or manage to renegotiate a single thing of substance while it is still in power.

                      While you keep your fingers crossed that it can, I am not so naive and my position on it is crystal, predictable and unchanged.
                    • weka …

                      29 January 2016 at 9:42 pm

                      “You’ve previously done the ‘but precisely what measures’ game.”

                      I don’t believe I have, so feel free to point out some specific examples.

                      A change to a country’s provisions requires the consensus of all other parties. (Article 30.2 Amendments) That’s huge. In any context or situation, consensus is bloody hard – never mind one where every government is seeking market advantage for ‘their’ domestic corporate lobbyists.

                      late edit – in other words, whatever is signed into place is what will run. No fucker is going to agree that another party can shift the rules to their own advantage at the expense of others.

                      Thanks. I’m baffled why that was so hard to comment on earlier. So it begs the question of what Little and co are thinking. Maybe they’re incompetent. Or maybe they have access to different legal opinion than you and CV. I’d like to know what the thinking is.
                    • weka …

                      29 January 2016 at 9:48 pm

                      Seriously?

                      I’ve explained it previously: many senior and influential people in the Labour caucus are pro-TPPA, and Andrew Little has fuck all leverage in that caucus.

                      But you know what? Let’s wait until Labour get into power in 2017, and we will see who is right about whether or not Labour will pull the pin on the TPPA, or manage to renegotiate a single thing of substance while it is still in power.

                      While you keep your fingers crossed that it can, I am not so naive and my position on it is crystal, predictable and unchanged.
                      

                      You need to take a step back CV and pay attention to how little you are listening in this conversation.

                      I don’t have my fingers crossed, so please stop misrepresenting my views. But in the same way I don’t take Little’s word for it, I also don’t take yours.

                      I fail to see how what you’ve just said relates to the original thing I was asking about.

                      let’s wait until Labour get into power in 2017, and we will see who is right about whether or not Labour will pull the pin on the TPPA, or manage to renegotiate a single thing of substance while it is still in power.

                      I’m not saying I’m right, and I haven’t expressed an opinion about what Labour will do. Get that? I’m not taking a “I’m right, your wrong” position, and I’m not making claims. You are the one doing that and you’re so caught up in your own shit you can’t even recognise what the person talking to you is saying and meaning.
                    • Bill …

                      29 January 2016 at 10:58 pm

                      I don’t have access to any legal opinion. I just read the text, which is pretty clear on amendments. Read it yourself.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      29 January 2016 at 11:02 pm

                      I’m talking about whether Little can partially renegotiate NZ’s part in the TPPA. You don’t appear to be talking about that at all.

                      You claim that I’m not addressing your main point.

                      I fucking well am addressing your point, clearly and directly: Little will be able to do ZERO to renegotiate anything of substance to do with the TPPA.

                      I am also adding that he likely already knows this at this stage, so he is basically throwing up populist rhetoric which he fully realises that he cannot deliver on.

                      There’s a word for that kind of behaviour, but I’ll just describe it as politically cynical on his part.

                      Don’t try and back pedal.
                    • weka …

                      30 January 2016 at 1:15 pm

                      I don’t have access to any legal opinion. I just read the text, which is pretty clear on amendments. Read it yourself.

                      If it’s that easy, I guess Kelsey and co have been wasting their time then.

                      So do you think Little is stupid or disingenuous or what?
                    • weka …

                      30 January 2016 at 1:19 pm

                      I’m not backpedalling CV, I’ve barely expressed an opinion about what Labour are doing, so there’s nothing to back pedal on. You are reading things into my questioning that simply aren’t there. Which you would know if you could have a decent political conversation.

                      I fucking well am addressing your point, clearly and directly: Little will be able to do ZERO to renegotiate anything of substance to do with the TPPA.

                      Yeah, that’s what you said at the start, and I asked for a citation (or even a decent theory). All I’ve got so far is that you think Little is being a populist liar. That doesn’t explain your assertion that he will have no power to renegotiate parts of the agreement. Honest to god, why is it so hard for you to put up your rationale?
                    • Bill …

                      30 January 2016 at 4:17 pm

                      @ Weka.

                      All I’m saying is that I read the article and it’s unambiguous. All parties need to agree to any amendment. Amendments include any appendix as they, as the document states, are considered as a part of the main body text.

                      You say.

                      If it’s that easy, I guess Kelsey and co have been wasting their time then.

                      I wouldn’t say that, although yes, as I’ve said, that article is easily understood.

                      So do you think Little is stupid or disingenuous or what?

                      I have no thoughts on Andrew Little and what he’s saying. I’ve read the relevant article of the document and provided a source that backs up the original contention that Labour won’t be re-negotiating ‘jack shit’.

                      As I suggested above, go and read it for yourself. I’d be really quite genuinely surprised if you were able to conclude anything different to what I’ve said…it’s a lock down given that in seeking an amendment, any party can exercise a veto and any party seeking an amendments has, unlike in initial negotiations, no position to horse trade from.

                      Here’s the entire wording of Article 30.2 Amendments

                      The Parties may agree, in writing, to amend this Agreement. When so agreed by all Parties and approved in accordance with the applicable legal procedures of each Party, an amendment shall enter into force 60 days after the date on which all Parties have notified the Depositary in writing of the approval of the amendment in accordance with their respective applicable legal procedures, or on such other date as the Parties may agree

                      https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/TPP-Final-Text-Final-Provisions.pdf

                      edit – NZ is the Depositary
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      30 January 2016 at 4:55 pm

                      “NZ is the depository”

                      As a FVEY nation we continue to have particular privileges in this global geopolitical club.
              • Colonial Viper …

                29 January 2016 at 4:42 pm

                citation??? LOL.

                Put it another way – did you review Andrew Little’s citations proving that he could force a renegotiation of the TPPA with the American and Japanese governments?

                No?

                Do you really think “citations” have anything to do with the world of geo-power-politics?

                Just going on hope then?
                • weka …

                  29 January 2016 at 5:22 pm

                  I’m not going on hope CV, I’m going on intelligence, the intelligence that understands what to do in the face of massive powermongering instead of running round naysaying anything that doesn’t fit one’s negative and disempowering world view. When was the last time you contributed something that engenders change? I know you’re capable of it.

                  You don’t own the patent on truth. Your continual insistence that you know what is what and everyone else is deluded or inept is boring, and worse, it’s damaging our capacity to change.
                  • Colonial Viper …

                    29 January 2016 at 6:24 pm

                    So, did you review Andrew Little’s citations proving that he can in fact force the major powers of the TPP back to renegotiate the deal like he says he can.

                    You asked me for citations, did you ask him? Or did you just take his word on it?
                    • weka …

                      29 January 2016 at 9:37 pm

                      You just don’t get it CV. I haven’t claimed that Little is right, nor am I taking his word for it. I find his proposal interesting enough to explore. That’s all. If you claim he is wrong of course I am going to ask for something more than your assertion, not because I believe you are wrong, but because I’m interested.

                      It does look like “[citation needed]” is a trigger for some people’s annoyance and possibly intolerance. For me it’s just shorthand for please explain what your opinion is based on by using references. I would have settled for good theory also. You appear incapable of both at this time.

                      The biggest motivator for me being here is to learn and to take part in effecting change. I can’t believe I’m having to argue for political discourse over opinion posing as fact.

                      “the people who signed the document don’t have any power to renegotiate it”

                      That’s a statement as fact. I don’t know if it’s true, but I do know it’s worth finding out. This whole conversation you are basically refusing to do engage in a way that furthers understanding. You can of course state opinion as fact all you like, but it’s daft in this context to expect to not be called out on it.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      29 January 2016 at 11:07 pm

                      You just don’t get it CV. I haven’t claimed that Little is right, nor am I taking his word for it. I find his proposal interesting enough to explore. That’s all.

                      Little is just wasting your time. Explore it all you want, he, and Labour, are not just insincere on wanting out of the TPPA; IMO they also fully realise that they have zero grounds and zero leverage to force the United States and Japan back to the negotiating table but have decided to yank the populist chain (again).

                      I say again because they have done exactly the same on previous occasions – that they will “flout” any provision of the agreement that they do not like; that they have set unmovable “bottom lines” regarding the TPPA, etc.

                      All nonsense that they never intended to stand by.

                      And here we have more of the same from Labour and Little. Feel free to “explore” such as much as you like, though, that is your perogative.
                    • weka …

                      30 January 2016 at 1:22 pm

                      I can certainly understand why you feel that way all things considered. I disagree, but that’s by the by. This whole subthread started because you stated that Little (or anyone presumably) would have no power to renegotiate any part of the TPPA once in power. I’ve asked for your rationale with some back up, you haven’t given it, despite a huge number of comments since. I can’t tell if you’re talking shit or being an arse or both.
                  • Lanthanide …

                    29 January 2016 at 8:24 pm

                    Hey weka, this is pretty off-topic for your argument at hand.

                    I’m very happy that you choose to stick around at The Standard and debate with the rest of us in the comments. I don’t always agree with your positions on things, but I appreciate that you’re willing to stand up and argue for them, against myself and others here.

                    Reading that back, it comes across as a little condescending – I don’t mean it to be.
                    • weka …

                      29 January 2016 at 9:27 pm

                      Thank-you Lanth, I appreciate that! and feel likewise about you being here 🙂
                    • te reo putake …

                      30 January 2016 at 8:53 am

                      Plus 1 from me, too, weka. I like your rational, logical approach to discussions, which is especially effective when you’re up against folk who aren’t debating in good faith.
                    • greywarshark …

                      30 January 2016 at 12:59 pm

                      TRP
                      I like your rational, logical approach to discussions, which is especially effective when you’re up against folk who aren’t debating in good faith.
                      Pot – kettle with you, after reading much of your stuff.
                      You are fulsome about weka. Possibly weka doesn’t take you to task for your every word to see if it passes her standard of acceptability.
                    • weka …

                      30 January 2016 at 1:25 pm

                      lolz gw, TRP and I have gone toe to toe a number of times where I’ve called him out on things in some pretty hard conversations.
    • Sabine 13.2

      29 January 2016 at 3:27 pm

      oh c’mon a hand full of pineapple lumps out to get everyone negotiating? Maybe a sheepfarm, sheep and an abattoir would be enough?
14. The lost sheep 14

    29 January 2016 at 2:39 pm

    Labour is asking people to stand with them in opposing NZ signing this agreement, while at the same time ensuring TPPA legislation will be ratified by allowing one of it’s MP’s to vote for the TPPA.

    That MP has been given the blessing of Caucus, who “decided that his longstanding public position was such that he would be allowed to hold a differing view”, while at the same time another MP who supports the TPPA is going to face ‘consequences’ because “Everybody in caucus understands about caucus collective responsibility and it isn’t acceptable to depart from that, ever,”

    Labour is making strident noises about opposing NZ signing the TPPA, while while at the same time very quietly indicating that they will not pull out of the agreement if they became Government.

    Mixed messages anyone?
    Guess that’s inevitable when attempting to straddle the fence between the far left and centrist voters that Little knows is necessary if Labour is to rebuild voter support towards an electable level.
    Trouble with straddling the fence is that if you slip you’d better have concrete balls.
    • Colonial Viper 14.1

      29 January 2016 at 2:47 pm

      are you pointing out that Labour is all over the map on this? Everyone already knows.

      Someone please remind Andrew Little that he recently said that the TPP passes Labour’s “bottom lines”.
      • Karen 14.1.1

        29 January 2016 at 7:15 pm

        No he didn’t.
        • Colonial Viper 14.1.1.1

          29 January 2016 at 11:16 pm

          Little clearly told Paddy Gower that the TPPA passes four out of Labour’s five bottom lines. See my comment below for more details.
          • Karen 14.1.1.1.1

            30 January 2016 at 8:32 am

            Yes, 4 out of 5. Your statement suggested all the bottom lines were met.

            It is something you do all the time – mislead in order to validate your attacks on Labour and Little. You did the same thing last year where you said Labour had supported a welfare reform bill in 2015 so that you could blame Little and not Cunliffe who was the leader in 2014 when the bill was voted on.

            I used to think you were someone worth reading CV, but now I cannot accept anything you say without having to check the details myself. Not really worth the time.
            • greywarshark 14.1.1.1.1.1

              30 January 2016 at 1:01 pm

              And you are nit-picking Karen because you don’t want such close scrutiny of Labour which is bound to result in negative conclusions.
              • Karen …

                30 January 2016 at 1:29 pm

                WTF?
                I am often critical of Labour actually, but I don’t see why CV should not be called out when he makes misleading, inaccurate statements in order to pursue some personal vendetta he has with Labour.
                • weka …

                  30 January 2016 at 1:52 pm

                  I’ve also generally been appreciative of CV’s comments here, but lately I feel the same, that his statements are now so loaded with Labour-hating as to be misleading and undermining good change.

                  There’s also a certain amount of irony in the reaction to questioning his authority.
          • marty mars 14.1.1.1.2

            30 January 2016 at 10:03 am

            didn’t he also say this recently,

            “Over the summer, I’ve been reading the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement — and one thing’s become clear: as it stands, New Zealand shouldn’t sign this agreement.

            Labour has always supported free trade and we always will. But the TPPA does more than just deal with trade. It undermines our democracy and our sovereignty.”

            cv your bitterness in being (or thinking you have been) disregarded and disrespected by labour (or someone in there) has distorted the lens you look through. Can people change their minds? politicians? – You have, oh ex attempted candidate for parliament for labour, but little can’t???

            anyway you know I’m not such a fan of labour but I can’t see any point putting the boot in constantly for no purpose, can you?
      • Anne 14.1.2

        29 January 2016 at 7:24 pm

        I have no recollection of him saying that CV?
        • Colonial Viper 14.1.2.1

          29 January 2016 at 11:14 pm

          Little clearly states that it passes four out of five “bottom lines”.

          The only significant concern he has about the TPPA is to do with land sales to foreigners. (Apparently sales of businesses, technology, the financial system etc. is OK).

          He also states that the TPPA is a done deal and you can’t “pick and choose.”

          Further he makes it clear that Labour is totally for “free trade” and is proud of its history of being pro-free trade.

          LITTLE Andrew Little: The TPP is here. The National Government has signed up to it. That’s not going to change. We had five bottom lines that we were going to measure it against. We haven’t been through the 6000 pages of text in detail, but we’ve been through enough to know that four of our bottom lines have been met. There’s one, a pretty serious one, that hasn’t been, and that’s the one that concerns restrictions on land sales.
          …..
          GOWER It is quite a simple question. All the other major parties have a position. National is for it. The Greens and New Zealand First are against it. So the question is this – the TPP is here, as you’ve said. Is the Labour Party for or against the TPP?

          LITTLE The problem with the question is I know that if I say, right, we’re for this or we’re against that— we are for free trade, we understand the importance for a country like ours of free trade to open access to markets to help our exporters generate wealth and create jobs. That’s absolutely vital.

          GOWER Sure, but—

          LITTLE But the TPP does something else. Now listen. The TPP does something else, and it does something pretty rotten, actually. It tries to tell the New Zealand Parliament and therefore the voters and citizens of New Zealand how our parliament should operate. That’s wrong, and that can never be justified and can never be defended, and we will fight against it.

          GOWER Sure.

          LITTLE But I want to be clear that fighting against that, which is what we will do – I’m absolutely committed to doing – is not anti-free trade. It is not opposing our long-standing heritage as a party in supporting free trade. I want to make that clear. So when you ask the question, it is too simplistic and too simple to simply say, yeah, we’re for this or we’re against it, because it’s too complex.
          Because it’s a deal and it’s a package, and you can’t pick and choose, and it’s here now, the time for fighting is over. It’s here.

          http://itsourfuture.org.nz/patrick-gower-interviews-labour-leader-andrew-little/
          • Karen 14.1.2.1.1

            30 January 2016 at 8:37 am

            And here is what he says having now read the whole document:

            “But the TPPA isn’t just a free trade agreement. It goes way beyond free trade. And it’s necessary to look at the non-trade parts of the deal. Two things that disturb me are, first: the restriction on New Zealand legislating to regulate land sales to non-resident foreigners (Labour’s policy is to require them to build a new house, not buy an existing one, and we would be unable to do this under the TPPA); and secondly the requirement to allow other TPPA countries, their citizens (including corporates) to have a say on changes to many New Zealand laws and regulations. For instance we would have to let Carlos Slim, the wealthy Mexican telecom company owner, vet any regulation of our telecommunications industry.

            Constraints on law-making and opening up our political system to overseas interests is unheard of. Every citizen is entitled to know their parliament is responsible only to them, not subject to the direction and influence of outside forces.”

            He has also talked about the loss of jobs.
            • Bill 14.1.2.1.1.1

              30 January 2016 at 10:30 am

              Pretty sure that the TTP has nothing to say on sales of property to individuals. Why would it? Individuals are not parties to the agreement and can’t access the ISDS process.

              Meanwhile, on land sales to corporations, Labour is being kind of silent.

              What they seem to be doing is muddying the waters by throwing residential sales out there and saying how they will ‘ignore’ the TPP on that front – as though the TPP is concerned with individual residential property sales – and as through they are the same as major land sales to corporates.

              So at some point, do we get a Labour government announcing it’s gained a win on the non-TPP matter of residential sales to individuals in the same breath as it says it couldn’t secure a change to TPP rules around corporate land sales?

              Find myself looking at Labour as pursuing as a dishonest, “We tried our best gov (now suck it up)” strategy.
              • Karen …

                30 January 2016 at 12:44 pm

                This is the bit that extends the concerns about loss of sovereignty past domestic home sales:

                “and secondly the requirement to allow other TPPA countries, their citizens (including corporates) to have a say on changes to many New Zealand laws and regulations. For instance we would have to let Carlos Slim, the wealthy Mexican telecom company owner, vet any regulation of our telecommunications industry.”

                I suspect some comms person has told them to talk about individuals because it is easier for those not really interested in politics to see that as a problem. I share most of your concerns about Labour because I suspect there are several members of the caucus who would happily go along with the TPPA. However, I am also relieved that Little has at last got a majority willing to oppose it and I think he should be applauded for this. It has obviously been a hard fought victory.
                • weka …

                  30 January 2016 at 1:05 pm

                  God forbid that Labour does something right and gets acknowledgement for it 😉
              • weka …

                30 January 2016 at 1:02 pm

                Where did Little talk about land sales to individuals? He’s talking the residential market, and any overseas corporation or business can currently buy residential housing stock in NZ. Labour’s policy is to introduce legislation to restrict that and it clearly states they are talking about speculators.

                Overseas property speculators are making it worse. Currently there are no restrictions on non-residents buying houses in New Zealand. Our lack of restrictions, stamp duty and capital gains tax make us an attractive target for speculators. Real estate agencies are actively marketing Kiwi homes to overseas speculators.2

                This adds nothing to our economy and forces New Zealanders to compete against foreign investors who are able to borrow at lower interest rates than in New Zealand.

                Figures from IRD released under the Official Information Act show that over 25,000 overseas speculators own New Zealand rental properties and this doesn’t include those who leave properties vacant.

                An estimated 2,750 houses are bought by overseas property speculators each year who have no intention of living in New Zealand.3 That’s a significant number when compared to the 6,300 new homes built in Auckland last year.4

                John Key doesn’t think overseas property speculators are a problem.5 But experts such as BNZ economist Tony Alexander and David Whitburn of the Auckland Property Investors Association have raised concerns that it is contributing to the problem of housing affordability.6

                Australia, Denmark and Iceland all restrict non-residents from buying established houses. Hong Kong, Singapore, United Kingdom, Switzerland and China have all tightened restrictions or added stamp duties for non-resident buyers in the last two years.

                Labour’s solution

                Labour will amend the Overseas Investment Act 2005 to close the loophole that makes New Zealand an easy target for overseas speculators.

                Labour will:
                apply new restrictions on the purchase of residential property by non-residents, so that they will only be granted permission to purchase a residential property if they intend to live here permanently or that purchase adds to our existing housing stock, e.g. building a new house
                These restrictions are the same as those in place in Australia. A non-resident wishing to purchase vacant land with a commitment to begin building a new dwelling within 12 months will likely have their application granted.

                https://www.labour.org.nz/sites/default/files/issues/policy-overseasinvestment.pdf

                They also want to change legislation to tighten up on rural land purchasing. See same document.
                • Bill …

                  30 January 2016 at 2:17 pm

                  Where did Little talk about land sales to individuals?

                  I didn’t say he did. I mean, maybe he has, but I wasn’t saying that he had.

                  So, are we on the same page on the residential property front now? Houses? Yes? Okay.

                  See. Unless something like HNZ stock hits the market, I can’t see a corporation looking to buy residential real estate. Assuming I’m way wrong on that front, I don’t think it’s controversial in the slightest to suggest that most residential properties are bought by individuals.

                  And individuals are not party to the TPP… so if they had a gripe with government legislation, they (unlike corporations) would have to pursue their case through the NZ court system.

                  In other words, they (Labour) can implement their overseas investment policy and the likelihood of it affecting a corporate party to the TPP would be bloody remote. To reiterate – it is individuals who are building up portfolios, not corporations.
                  • weka …

                    30 January 2016 at 2:43 pm

                    I just don’t think that’s right Bill. Yes, individuals buying property from offshore is an issue also, but afaik there is nothing to stop corporations/businesses either and that this already happens. That’s what they’re talking about in the policy re speculators and rentals. Businesses that buy property here to rent them out for profit from rent and from later resale. Perhaps there is a definition issue here of what is an individual and what is a business and what is covered by the TPPA. I have no doubt that if Labour passed law banning individuals then people would just set up legal structures that weren’t individuals but were businesses. This probably already happens (people using legal structures for their speculation that removes the risk from them as individuals).

                    But let’s see if we can get some confirmation either way.
                    • Bill …

                      30 January 2016 at 3:44 pm

                      A typical business would struggle to access SDSI processes.

                      8. HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO ARBITRATE?
                      Research by the OECD12 indicates that the average legal and arbitration costs for a claimant are around $8 million.

                      I’m guessing that’s US$8 million.

                      trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/january/tradoc_153046.pdf

                      So, some person forming a company in order to access the SDSI process had better be able to absorb an US$8 million hit in case they don’t get awarded costs. That puts many companies outta the game before kick-off.

                      And where are these figures for foreign companies/corporates buying residential properties? If it was a significant number, then why Labour’s Chinese sounding surname thing?

                      I can’t think of any situation where a foreign corporation has bought extensive holdings in a residential property market. If you know of any, please share.
                    • weka …

                      30 January 2016 at 4:22 pm

                      what’s the minimum cost? Average would be adding the costs of all of the different ISDSs and dividing them by the number of actions. It doesn’t tell us the lower number from companies with the least costs.

                      You may very well be right. Or you may be wrong and Labour despite all their problems might actually know something about their own policy and how it would work with the TPPA ratified. Or maybe as CV believes, they’re fucking with us. Basically you and I are arguing theory from places of ignorance. Sorry, but being able to read parts of the TPPA isn’t enough and I think it’s not particularly productive to spend time debating things when we have no idea what we’re talking about. We need opinions form people who can put what we are talking about in context.

                      (that incidentally is part of why I don’t take CV’s orginal comment and subsequent refusal to back as being meaningful until he or someone else does. Not saying you are doing the same thing, obviously you’re willing to share what you are basing your opinions on, just that we’re all still guessing).
                    • Bill …

                      30 January 2016 at 4:47 pm

                      This link http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/finance-and-investment/investor-state-dispute-settlement_5k46b1r85j6f-en#page19

                      Can be downloaded as a pdf rather than read on-line.

                      Follow on through the ‘paper trail’ of provided links, and do some reading of source (or as close to as is possible) materials. No need to opine from a position of ignorance.

                      Apply critical evaluation and, well…context and possible/likely courses of action look pretty damned obvious. And, you know, doing a bit of fairly basic google searching, if you look for closer to source documentation, means that you can wind up basically knowing what you’re talking about. Try it 😉
    • savenz 14.2

      29 January 2016 at 2:58 pm

      @the lost sheep
      One thing both the left and right seem to be agreeing on is that TPPA – NO WAY.

      Only Monsanto and other lobbyists, PR people and lazy politicians seem to be keen to sign.

      There is zero economic benefit with a huge amount of risks.

      Yep the politicians know it is a dog, but too gutless to pull out and face their lobbyist backers – instead hoping that they sign in our backwater of NZ (not not in Washington for the 40% agreement of world economy says a lot), and passes the buck to the future generations to unravel this mess. Any one in business knows, don’t sign a bad deal. It is easier not to sign than to sign hoping to re negotiate downstream and find a lot of pitfalls and costs that could have been avoided AND screwing up the next generation and environment even more while they muddle around.

      TPPA is a classic case of emperor has no clothes.
    • Tricledrown 14.3

      29 January 2016 at 3:38 pm

      The last sheep shager Labour has not said its against the TPPA its said its against parts that affect our sovereignty.
      And the poor Access for agricultural exports facts right f wit.
      • savenz 14.3.1

        29 January 2016 at 4:21 pm

        The New Zealand Government still intends to give a $3 million abattoir to Saudi Arabia despite being concerned by the mass executions there this month.

        http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/295060/saudi-abattoir-deal-will-proceed-pm

        Ive said it before crucifixion is no barrier to Key and has trade deals! Human rights are obviously for sissys at Key’s table and he relying on ‘trickle’ down obviously as now we actually pay business people our exports and IP in their own country – kinda the opposite of business this corporate welfare.
    • Jenny Kirk 14.4

      29 January 2016 at 4:18 pm

      Lost Sheep – you are actually a bit lost on this issue re Goff and TPPA. Andrew Little has said Goff has been given dispensation to differ from the Labour caucus on TPPA
      for a specific reason – Goff’s part in setting up the original deal (which is very different from the current deal apparently), and Goff is leaving Parliament for the Auckland mayoralty and he doesn’t have a spokesperson’s role in Labour – so he’s a bit irrelevant in Parliament now, isn’t he?

      But to differ does not necessarily mean Goff will be voting with the Nats on the various bits of legislation relevant to the TPPA.

      Shearer on the other hand does not have that background in the original TPPA, and is Labour’s spokesperson on trade and foreign affairs and as such has to put forward Labour’s view of the TPPA – so his situation is quite a different kettle of fish.
      • Anne 14.4.1

        29 January 2016 at 4:41 pm

        to differ does not necessarily mean Goff will be voting with the Nats on the various bits of legislation relevant to the TPPA.

        Someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but I think I read somewhere earlier today that Goff has made it clear he “respects the position of the Labour caucus” and “he will not be crossing the floor of the House “. That is a mature and acceptable response. It does not represent a “split” in the Labour caucus. David Shearer has more to answer for… but that also doesn’t represent a major “split”.

        I think the disgraceful spin on Labour’s TPP stand from a significant portion of the MSM proves beyond doubt they are nothing less than dishonest, self-serving acolytes for the Key government. The load of bullshit which passed as professional commentary on the TV1 news yesterday evening was a case in point – Josie Pagani was only a small part of the problem.
        • Naturesong 14.4.1.1

          29 January 2016 at 7:59 pm

          If Goff respects the position of the Labour caucus but feels unable to vote against the TPP, he should abstain or resign.

          I’m assuming that Shearer will now resign from the foreign affairs shadow portfolio. Can’t see how his position is tenable now.
          • rhinocrates 14.4.1.1.1

            30 January 2016 at 11:28 am

            “If Goff respects the position of the Labour caucus”

            That’s the problem right there. Fucker doesn’t know the meaning of the word ‘respect’.
            • Bill 14.4.1.1.1.1

              30 January 2016 at 4:31 pm

              There’s bound to be some meaty positions up for grabs given that NZ is the Depositary for the TPP. Some peeps wouldn’t want to be shooting themselves in the foot now, would they? 😉
      • The lost sheep 14.4.2

        29 January 2016 at 5:16 pm

        The message to the electorate is clear Jenny, anyway you spin it.
        If you are forced to give one of your senior figures dispensation to disagree, and your shadow Minister for Trade expresses open rebellion…..then it is a kettle of fish that is boiling so vigorously you are obviously struggling to keep the lid on.
        • fisiani 14.4.2.1

          29 January 2016 at 5:39 pm

          Labour are the Yeah, Nah Party.
          • savenz 14.4.2.1.1

            29 January 2016 at 7:35 pm

            @Fisiani
            Actually Goff and Shearer are in the wrong party. They should be National if Corporate welfare and privatisation is the ideology they believe in, and the sooner they join the party that best represents their ideals like National and ACT the sooner Labour will win the election.
          • tricledrown 14.4.2.1.2

            30 January 2016 at 2:21 pm

            National the Colonial sheep lemmings follow our Colonial masters party!
            • fisiani 14.4.2.1.2.1

              30 January 2016 at 2:48 pm

              Which of the other 11 countries in the TPP were our colonial master’s? Vietnam?? Chile??
              Sounds like the public clearly accept the benefits of the TPP as will become very apparent in the next lot of polls. Honest John says it will be wonderful Angry Andy claims the sky will fall. Who do expect the public to believe?
              Will the public back Mike Moore/Helen Clark/Phil Goff/David Shearer/John Key or Jane (i oppose every trade deal) Kelsey and the badly behaved mob endorsed by Chicken Little.
15. Kriss X 15

    29 January 2016 at 8:27 pm

    To Little too late. Labour did nothing to stop this when it started. Contrived appeals to popular sentiment have come too late. Labour will lose the next one. It does not please me to know this.
16. Northsider 16

    29 January 2016 at 10:13 pm

    Captain Mumblefuck rides again.

    Many/most things Shearer did a leader undermined the Labour Leadership.
    Now Shearer has gone and holed Andrew Little below the waterline AND ruined his own credibility as Foreign & Trade Spokesman.

    You couldn’t make it up.

    What a massive cock-up.

    This is the novice MP that Robertson and his crew foisted on the Party,

    We, Labour, have been in a mess ever since Captain Mumblefuck was choosen as Robertson&Co’s tool to block Cunliffe.

    Jesus wept.
    • greywarshark 16.1

      29 January 2016 at 10:32 pm

      Leave Jesus out of this. He is busy trying to sweep up the world’s messes caused by us before God notices.
17. Chooky 17

    29 January 2016 at 10:44 pm

    This stance on the TPPA will be a winner for Andrew Little….the Labour Party is looking more like a real Labour Party and a real Opposition

    …and Andrew Little is looking more like the leader of a left coalition and the next Prime Minister
    • savenz 17.1

      30 January 2016 at 9:36 am

      +1 Chooky – the winner is the Labour party as a whole. Yep it was like getting blood out of a stone but Labour got there in the end.

      Interestingly the trolls on this site can only attack Labour as being supporters of TPP in secret or what they previously said, (Labour does it too) rather than actually any merits of TPP for NZ ( because there aren’t any!)

      How about a referendum on TPP to see what the public want!!!!

      I think we all know it will come back as TPPA – NO WAY.

Links to post

1. Abattoir Blues « The Standard: posted on 30 January 2016 at 12:27 pm
2. New Day Rising | Te Reo Putake: posted on 31 January 2016 at 12:53 pm
3. New Day Rising « The Standard: posted on 31 January 2016 at 1:12 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS