National Ltd™’s Shane Reti Caught Out In Another Lie

Written By: - Date published: 7:12 am, August 26th, 2015 - 32 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, democracy under attack, Ethics, journalism, Media, national, newspapers, Parliament, Politics, russel norman, same old national, trade, treaty settlements - Tags: , , ,

John Key’s National Ltd­™ reduced yesterday’s Question Time to farce in an effort to pretend that its Whangarei MP, Shane “Bully Boy” Reti, had not been caught out in another lie.

This time, Reti lied about the process involved in the ratification of the TPP. In a recent press release to the Northern Advocate designed to assuage public concern about the TPP, Reti stated . . .

. . .   As part of ratification, the agreement comes before parliament and opposition parties and select committees for debate and modifications . . . the treaty comes before parliament many times for robust debate as “readings” and the “committee of the whole house”. After each reading the agreement is usually referred back to select committee for even further debate. It is in the many select committee processes that we look to hear the voice of the public through public submissions . . .

In fact, once signed, the TPP cannot be modified, it comes before a select committee and The House only once, and its not Parliament which decides, its John Key’s National Ltd™ Cabinet which gets to rubber-stamp approve ratification.

Any suggestion that Reti simply “got it wrong” defies belief. He is highly qualified and has worked as a GP, senior manager, academic, diplomat, and as a government appointee to the Northland DHB. Not only that, Reti is also deputy chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee – the very unit of government responsible for steering the TPP through the ratification process.

National Ltd™'s Todd McClay delivering John Key's promise of "higher standards from Ministers"

National Ltd™’s Todd McClay delivering on John Key’s promise of “higher standards from Ministers

The excuses Reti offers for his latest lie are laughable. He first tried to dismiss the deception as “bad grammar”. Then, in typical National Ltd™ manner, Reti sought to spread blame by stating that the Northern Advocate reporter and him got their “wires crossed”. His squirming continued when he further stated he was actually referring to modification of the process of ratification, not the TPP itself. The Northern Advocate does not accept that its reporter got her wires crossed and has presented the entire press release along with examples of Reti’s wriggling so that readers can decide for themselves.

The public can also decide whether or not National Ltd™’s contempt for Parliament has reached new and stunningly cynical lows. The question of whether or not the TPP can be modified after it has been signed was put to the Minister of Trade by Green Party MP Russel Norman yesterday. With Tim “Minibar” Groser unavailable, responsibility for answering the question fell to Todd McCLay. Already with significant form for his smarmy responses to questions and for helping John Key reinforce lies,  McClay covered for Reti’s lie with a defiant point blank refusal to answer the question asked.

Welcome to the reality of John Key’s promise of “higher standards from Ministers”.

32 comments on “National Ltd™’s Shane Reti Caught Out In Another Lie”

  1. lprent 1

    This particular line of complete bullshit, that ‘parliament has to ratify the TPPA’ been common amongst the National party apologists for years.

    What is more, after you point them at the relevant information, that parliament doesn’t get to vote on any treaty, they then just repeat it. A select committee gets to look at the treaty for a limited number of days, probably a cut down version at that. They have no control over approving it.

    The treaty is approved by the executive council and signed by the governor general. The executive council then adds any regulation. The cabinet presents legislation required to the house.

    After the treaty is signed is the first and only time it goes to the house, and only for parts of it that require legislative changes – which are usually minimal, unimportant, and not required to be passed for years. in NZ almost everything gets done by regulative changes.

    • JanMeyer 1.1

      Ok but if the opposition parties remain so strongly opposed to the TPP as finally signed (if we get that far) they are of course entitled to campaign at the next election for NZ to withdraw from the treaty, and do so if they attain the treasury benches. My bet is that a Labour led government will not withdraw (under any circumstances). The wiggle room Andrew Little has created is very wide indeed!

      • Hennnie van der Merwe 1.1.1

        Jan my understanding is that once it is signed it is binding on future governments and cannot be withdrawn from. This is why oversight and transparency is so important.

      • lprent 1.1.2

        I don’t think so. Labour and Little have effectively said that they’d need to see some major free trade concessions from other parties to even think about keeping this treaty. That is almost exactly what free trade aficionados like myself would require as a minimum. If that doesn’t happen, and it doesn’t look likely from the way that US, Japan and Canada are sandbagging Groser, then it is hard to see where there would be any support inside a Labour caucus. Certainly there won’t be inside the Labour party. There’d be a lot like me targeting individual MP’s for deadwood removal.

        If by some strange twist of fate there are major concessions in less than a 10 year timeframe, then it gets more problematic. But with an coalition with the Greens and probably NZ First, I still can’t see this surviving.

        And as it stands National has roughly the same issue. As it stands at present, the TPPA is wildly unpopular in the business community small, large, and rural – because they can’t see how it does anything apart from cause cost rises and no interesting new markets. They view it is a MFAT vanity project. No amount of spin is going to change that view without a solid look at benefits. Unless there are major concessions, it will form part of their reasons not to fund, act and not to vote. That is what throws National party turnout down.

        And it is a wedge issue with NZ First, so I don’t expect it will help in National cobbling a coalition together with them

    • Do you know if anyone has been tracking what legislative changes which would be required if the TPPA is signed?

      It would make sense for National to include any items upon which all parties to the TPPA agree in any relevant legislation moving through the house.
      Opportunity to get some of the housekeeping out of the way before the TPPA is signed.

      It’s what I would do if I controlled the parliamentary agenda and had no regard for either considered argument, the democratic conventions of the institution or the New Zealand public

      • lprent 1.2.1

        Not really. The problem is that I don’t think that a lot of legislation is likely to be changed. Most changes can be done with orders in council within existing legislation.

        Almost all of that legislation that is likely to change will require some pretty large changes. For instance the copyright and patent laws will probably require major amendments to massively restrict our existing open and clear systems with much murkier and prescriptive systems which are far more reliant on litigation.

        There are some areas that will require neither. For instance the investor-state systems are part of the international treaty only binding the executive council rather than parliament. Which I suspect is going to make life tricky for future governments because they will carry the can for what current or previous parliaments decide inside NZ.

        Somehow I suspect that executive pleas about treaty obligations are going to find favour with parliamentarians of the future when it is perfectly clear that the TPPA will be rammed through by Tim Groser and John Key. It won’t have cross party consensus and with large numbers of MPs across the house (I suspect many inside National as well) who would strongly oppose the executive signing it.

        At this point, if it does get signed without some major free trade concessions that actually bringing us some tangible benefits, then I suspect that it will be the shortest treaty we have ever signed. It will cost us less in the medium term to get rid of it rather than living with it. A change of government or even leadership is likely to cause it to get dumped. And I suspect we are going to have to put more of the control over international treaties out of MFAT’s hands and more into parliaments.

  2. les 2

    I personally feel reassured about the TPPA ,now that Wayne has revealed Dairy will benefit by $30 plus million ….that makes it all worthwhile.Now to more important things like the flag.

  3. dv 3

    So the answer is NO

  4. ianmac 4

    The thing that makes this so different from other Trade deals is that it is much more than a trade deal of commodities. TPPA is about three quarters of other than trade stuff. Alarming.

  5. crashcart 5

    Thank goodness this is getting a huge amount of press coverage so that as the speaker says “the public can judge”.

    Oh wait I didn’t see a single mention of this on the news last night or anything in the Herald this morning. No surprise this government isn’t held to account.

    • tracey 5.1

      chuckle… of course the Speaker is the Judge of Parliament and Parliamentarians, but he probably forgot that.

    • NZSage 5.2

      The main headlines on the NZ Herald Mobile site:

      1.”Ball burst has Addidas HQ worried” – (FFS!)

      2. “Count the Cost of going back to work” (The only interesting article)

      3. “I’m nearly 40! I can write! I’m bold!” (Follow up to blonde NZ’r in London can’t get job!)

      4. “Watch this Dad reacting to his son’s doll choice” (Probably lifted from a reporters Facebook page)

      5. “Whale in Auckland appears to have died” (Nothing to do with Cameron Slater)

      6. “(Duncan ) Garner caught in Ashley Madison drama” (Jounalist now making the news)

      7. “Buried alive: Teen wakes up in grave” (Speaks for itself)

      8. “Teacher offered sexual rewards in exchange for school work”

      9. “What’s inside the $60.5M super yacht?” (Who gives a !@#$)

      As if more evidence was needed that real journalism in New Zealand is dead and buried….. with little chance of waking up either!

      • dukeofurl 5.2.1

        I cant believe how naive you are about a newspaper mobile site.

        1) its constantly changing depending whats popular

        2) Its setup for a younger lifestyle demographic

        3) Its not the old front page of a print edition you remember

        4) They are a business trying to make money- this is mission 1to 10

        5) Journalism has nothing to do with it – have you watched TV lately very little news.

        6) To you its rubbish but to them they are only interested in renting space in front of your eyeballs, and it works.

        7) Wake up from your sleep , its 2015 not 1995

    • dv 5.3

      There was a small 3 cm on p2 of dompost.

  6. Tiger Mountain 7

    Reti–what a fleabag, TPP is an executive (Cabinet) decision as Russel Norman clearly pointed out, as was the recent decision to commit forces to Iraq and going back 100 years even to involving NZ in WWI

    Parliament it seems can be excluded when convenient to the governing administration particularly when under pressure from members of the Anglo alliance of USA, Canada, UK and Australia

    • AmaKiwi 7.1

      Sorry to sound like a broken record but “New Zealand is an elected dictatorship.”

      I hope someday soon New Zealanders will get angry enough to demand democracy for ourselves, not just for people in far away lands.

      Our system is parliamentary decision making system is despotic. We must change it.

  7. tracey 8

    But, but, but…it’s just a misunderstanding. What harm could come of it? 50% of polled kiwis, say nothing bad can happen. Nothing at all.

  8. tc 9

    A half decent media would be screaming about the contempt national continue to show in order to shove the TPPA down NZ’s throat.

    Their silence over this and the nature of the sneaky additions to talleys OHS legislation says it all really

  9. mpledger 10

    Are we actually able to get out of the TTPA once signed?

  10. dv 11

    ARE we actually going to see the text?
    I thought it was secret for 5 years?
    Has that changed?

  11. Murray 12

    seems to be too much concern about the rights and wrongs of TPP. and not enough about it being in being decided in secret.

  12. AmaKiwi 13

    I am hoping someone with definitive knowledge can answer the questions posed above by “mpledger” and “dv”.

    1. Are we actually able to get out of the TTPA once signed?

    2. ARE we actually going to see the text? I thought it was secret for 5 years? Has that changed?

  13. TE 14

    “Are we actually able to get out of the TTPA once signed?”

    6 February 1840 Maori signed treaty
    26 August 2015 Maori still trying to get out of it

    With successive nz governments changing the interpretation of the original document to suit the corporate rockstars of the day

    I have no illusions about how we can never get out of this TPPA treaty
    esp when we cannot know what is in it for years.
    Say NO to the TPPA for that reason alone; The Secrecy

  14. Gabby 15

    It might get a bit of coverage if an MP was ejected for calling Reti a lying sack of shit.

  15. Johan 16

    What is wrong with the TPPA? Would I give a signed blank cheque to my lawyer?

  16. RedBaronCV 17

    If it’s secret then how do we know if we breach it? Does someone (unspecified ) take us to court (then say our health & safety regs are causing them loss of profits from their farming) hand everthing to the judge who enters a conviction so no one knows what they have been charged for?

  17. newbie 18

    Just out of curiosity, the Speaker says that he is unable to do anything with regards to getting the Minister to answer the question. Isn’t the Minister in breach of the Standing Order
    386 Content of replies
    (1) An answer that seeks to address the question asked must be given
    if it can be given consistently with the public interest.

    Can the Speaker not insist that the Standing Orders are adhered to?

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Safety focus in improved drug driver testing
    Improving the safety of all road users is the focus of a new public consultation document on the issue of drug driver testing. Plans for public consultation on options to improve the drug driver testing process have been announced by ...
    7 days ago
  • Making it easier to get help from Police
    Police Minister Stuart Nash says calling a cop suddenly got a whole lot easier with the launch of a ground-breaking new service for non-emergency calls. “The single non-emergency number ‘ten-five’ is designed to provide better service for the public and ...
    1 week ago
  • More Police deployed to the regions
    Frontline Police numbers have been boosted with today’s deployment of 77 new officers to the regions. Police Minister Stuart Nash today congratulated the recruits of Wing 325 who graduated at a formal ceremony at the Royal New Zealand Police College. ...
    2 weeks ago