Open mike 07/08/2019

Written By: - Date published: 7:00 am, August 7th, 2019 - 88 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

88 comments on “Open mike 07/08/2019”

  1. A 1

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/114789346/grant-robertson-need-to-get-his-tools-ready-for-the-next-crisis

    He has a couple of years at the most before the paper ponzi of a monetary system collapses

    • vto 1.1

      Yeah, the whole world is going "let's wait for it to crash and burn, then get our repair tools active"

      Dingbats. Should change the system now. Wont happen but

    • Cinny 1.2

      It's an opinion piece, we've heard about the coming financial crisis for years now.  The last labour government left us in a great place to tackle the last financial crisis, I'm sure if there is another one they will again be prepared.

      However it's a popular article, 330 comments and counting

  2. Dennis Frank 2

    "Justice Minister Andrew Little says he will not be doing a deal with NZ First that would lead to a referendum on proposed abortion law reform."  https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/114804743/no-referendum-on-abortion-law–andrew-little

    Calling their bluff.  Either Peters folds, or the PM will have to intervene via some kind of leadership.  Interesting!

    • Ad 2.1

      Some female Nats will cross the floor on a conscience vote. Little will be fine on this.

      • veutoviper 2.1.1

        "Some female Nats will cross the floor on a conscience vote.  Little will be fine on with this."

        FIFY

        What a sexist comment, Ad. Shame on you.

        Also – Some Labour MPs will cross the floor on a conscience vote.  Little will be fine with this. 

        It is obvious that you have never looked at and analysed the make-up of conscience votes taken during this current Parliament such as those taken to date on the End of Life Bill.  I have followed the latter very closely, including watching the total 5+ hours of the debate last week when the Committee of the House began its deliberations on the Bill as it was returned from the Select Committee and at 11.38pm passed Part A of the Bill on a conscience vote of 70 Ayes to 50 Nays. 

        There was a real mixed bag as to who made up those totals in relation to their Party and their gender etc, and a number of MPs both National and Labour changed their votes from their earlier votes on the First and Second Readings of the Bill.

        I am in the process of putting together a summary of the above breakdowns for other reasons, and later today I will put up a short summary here of this breakdown in support of what I have said above. 

      • bwaghorn 2.1.2

        Surely it'll depend if simon says they can . The nats dont do courage they do as they are told . 

      • Chris T 2.1.3

        There is no such thing as "crossing the floor" on a concious vote.

        Unless you work for Winston

        There will be a heap of people from the Nats just voting for it

        • veutoviper 2.1.3.1

          True, there is no such thing as 'crossing the floor' on a conscience vote.

          I also agree that there will probably be a reasonable number of Nat MPs who will vote for the abortion changes – but there will also be quite a number who will not.

          My bet is that the voting from all parties will be similar to that on the various stages of the End of Life Bill and it may well be very close …  In other words, the passing of the abortion amendments is not a given.  

    • Gabby 2.2

      Fold franko? How does that work in praxis?

    • McFlock 2.3

      Or, if it's not a charade, then at least it's probably a disagreement within agreed bounds and with no danger of escalating – i.e. not 1997.

      But depending on how NZ1 mps vote, it does reinfoce NZ1's conservative base.

  3. Dennis Frank 3

    Turns out the PM has shifted stance on China, after all.  "The Government has rebuked China over its recent comments and actions where it sought to suppress freedom of speech and voiced support for violent opposition to Hong Kong protestors in New Zealand.  On Monday, Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials met with Chinese Government representatives in New Zealand to reiterate that freedom of expression would be upheld and maintained, which included on university campuses."

    "This is a significant move for a Government that has largely spoken generally about foreign interference and about democratic principles, while avoiding specifically mentioning China’s behaviour in recent years under an emboldened president." https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2019/08/07/734342/government-raises-interference-concerns-with-china

    "Along with New Zealand adding its name to a public letter regarding the treatment of Uighurs in Xinjiang, this public reproach seems to signal a change in Jacinda Ardern’s approach to China.  On Tuesday, Ardern confirmed MFAT reiterated the New Zealand’s position on freedom of speech, particularly on university campuses."

    When the invasion of HK occurs, she'll have a better opportunity to demonstrate moral leadership.  Xi's fate will hinge on whether he defaults to traditional communist state control, or attempts to chart a new course embracing democracy.  He'll make history if he chooses the non-conformist option.

    • James Thrace 3.1

      Labour only making such moves in terms of criticising China likely because Seymour's letter shamed them into doing something.

      • Dukeofurl 3.1.1

        Seymours letter ?

        Nothing that guy  do  has any effect and  'a letter' even less so. The Consul general probably used it for a paper dart

      • McFlock 3.1.2

        So they did absolutely nothing, then leapt into action and made their official representations to the Chinese government on the same day they discovered Seymour was so angry his top lip was quivering? Gosh, he has such influence.

      • Gabby 3.1.3

        See MoreCoq jumped in first to hog the attention thraycy.

    • Gabby 3.2

      How's that a shift franko?

    • Mark 3.3

      "When the invasion of HK occurs, she'll have a better opportunity to demonstrate moral leadership. "

      Not sure what you mean by invasion? How can a country invade itself. In case you don't know Hong Kong is a part of China (as Trump said), and that happened on 1 July 1997.

      That is why most Hong Kong people carry Chinese passports, but with HKSAR (Hong Kong Special Administrative region stamped on them)

      But, if you do insist on calling it an 'invasion', well that already happened on 1 July 97:

      Currently there are already around 10000 PLA troops stationed in Hong Kong.

    • Mark 3.4

      Fuck you are a hypocrite. New Zealand, and other countries tries to influence other countries, particularly under the pretext of 'human rights' all the time.

      So NZ signs up to that pathetic letter on Xinjiang with 21 other countries (37 other countries much more representative of the world community supported China's actions), and yet it cries 'interference' when some drama queen fakes a fall on campus.

      What about New Zealand's lack of respect of the rights of the elderly and women? Recently we have had old people, women, tourists bashed in horrific acts of violence, and the courts hand out pathetic home detention sentences —-is that not a 'human  rights' issue? How would NZ like it if China thought fit to comment on these incidents of outrageous injustice in NZ?

      That you can't see this reeks of a sense of western exceptionalism bordering on white supremacy

  4. Robert Guyton 4

    What's the point of a climate emergency declaration?

    "That question deserves a considered answer. First, let us immediately concede that the declaration of a climate change emergency produces no automatic and positive outcomes. It produces no new resources or solutions and provides no new powers. Such a declaration has no legal or statutory force – in that sense, it changes nothing.

    But in other senses it is a significant step forward. It is, first, a formal and public recognition by those in authority that the issue is real and that the threat will only become more serious if it is not addressed.

    And, it signals a determination to take whatever action is necessary to avert the threatened damage to our planet and our way of life. That signal serves as a constant reminder to themselves of their commitment to act – but is also a message to those they serve, alerting them to the certain need for measures that may be unwelcome."

    http://www.bryangould.com/whats-the-point-of-a-climate-change-emergency-declaration/

  5. Gosman 5

    A brilliant interview with Chris Finlayson by Sean Plunket laying out the actual facts around Ihumatao and the full and final Treaty settlement that included the land in dispute.

    https://www.magic.co.nz/home/news/2019/07/treaty-settlements-concerning-ihumtao-are–full-and-final—-chr.html?fbclid=IwAR338zS4DePQSaJgXXBt4EVrRzMNI7vOVLfBdXgIeLI7gLhi4UI5x5IeRfM

    • Muttonbird 5.1

      Finlayson is the guy who prided himself on ramming through settlements at record rate, isn't he?

      • tc 5.1.1

        what could possibly go wrong….

      • veutoviper 5.1.2

        No, Muttonbird.   Finlayson is/was a complete arsehole to work for (I know) and was a Member of the party I do not support or vote for – BUT he did a marvellous job as Minister in moving historical Treaty disputes and settlements forward in a timely but respectful manner.  He was/is respected for his knowledge and work in this area by the vast majority of other MPs from all Parties, and of parties to Treaty settlements, including iwi, hapu etc, the legal profession and the judiciary.

        I don't know whether you watched his valedictory speech on leaving Parliament but I doubt that National would have him back after that speech.  LOL.

        I have been thinking over the last week or so that he would be the go to person on the Ihumaatao* situation. Much as I cannot stand Sean Plunket, I will watch the interview in the link above.

        However, I also found two more articles on the background to Ihumaatao yesterday which are well worth reading for detail of the earlier Treaty settlement  and the complicated dealings, Council decisions etc in relation to the sale of the land to Fletchers by the Wallace family.

        This Spinoff one a week or so ago 

        https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/27-07-2019/our-trail-of-tears-the-story-of-how-ihumatao-was-stolen/

        And this 2016 Listener article which is again very relevant:

        https://www.noted.co.nz/planet/ihumatao-and-the-otuataua-stonefields-a-very-special-area/

        Vincent O'Malley was a source of information for both articles; and the Listener article details that the confiscated land was given to a “Gavin Wallace” and owned by the Wallace family for 150 years until sold to Fletchers by the family through Gavin H Wallace Ltd. (Obviously not the same Gavin Wallace unless he defied all usual human age limits!)

         This  registered company is still in existence but now based in Dargaville and is listed as a Fish breeding /farming (onshore) company. 

        https://www.bizdb.co.nz/company/9429040668253/

        * using a double a in place of macron, as suggested by weka. 

      • Gosman 5.1.3

        Ummm… he had no ability to "ram" through Treaty settlements. I have NEVER seen him make any statement to that effect.

        • Wayne 5.1.3.1

          In fact Labour and the Greens will have voted for all the Treaty settlement bills that CF proposed.

          Ngapuhi was the big miss. But that also seems to be the case with Andrew Little. Right at the moment the Ngapuhi negotiations seem to be stalled. Basically a fresh mandate is required, probably with major hapu sub groupings, such as Ngati Hine. 

          Peeni Henare in particular will be very conscious of the potential effect of Ihumatao on Ngapuhi (or hapu thereof) negotiations. As will Shane Jones and Winston Peters. What was likely to be a $200 to 300 million settlement could suddenly be $500 million, if the government does not get Ihumatao right.

          • veutoviper 5.1.3.1.1

            Totally agree, Wayne*.  It is a very complex situation which needs very careful handling otherwise the backlash and cost to- and from –  everyone, Maori and Pakeha, will enormous in relation to the Treaty agreements already completed. 

            I highly recommend the two links above in my 5.1.2.  You, probably better than any of us, will understand the conniptions etc vis a vis the Council decisions etc. 

            * Also well said on Bowalley Road. 

    • Pair of conservative White guys have little patience for Māori land protests – gee, who could have seen that coming?  We should subject ourselves to it for what reason, now?

      • Gosman 5.2.1

        Except one of those "conservative White guys" was intimately involved in resolving the Treaty claims around the very land in dispute now.

        If you don’t think his opinion on the topic is worth listening to then you are seriously close minded.

        • weka 5.2.1.1

          What is he saying about what should happen?

          • Dukeofurl 5.2.1.1.1

            It seems that he is taking the position that a signed full and final settlement should mean exactly that.

            • Psycho Milt 5.2.1.1.1.1

              Yeah, good luck with that.  

              • Dukeofurl

                Pania Newton has what leverage … she  started this in 2015.  Fletchers are in no hurry.

                • weka

                  Māori have been there for at least 800 years, so I think Pania and co probably have a different perspective on time and hurry.

            • weka 5.2.1.1.1.2

              As PM says, good luck with that. Even at the time it was implemented it was obvious the full and final was never going to work. There are also compelling reasons why it should be applied in this case.

              • Gosman

                Then the Iwi should never have agreed to sign the deed of Settlement. If full and final does not mean full and final then the whole Treaty settlement process is a joke.

                • weka

                  If they hadn't signed they would have got nothing. Hobson's choice.

                  The Crown mandated full and final, Māori weren't treated at partners in that decision. Yes, that part of it is a joke. There was plenty of discussion at the time that this would come back to bite the government.

                • Robert Guyton

                  Full and final…unless something genuinely significant comes up. Address the emerging issue. That's what a tribunal is for.

    • mauī 5.3

      This isn't a treaty issue however.

      • Dukeofurl 5.3.1

        Yes it is . The iwi  have made that clear as part of their claims in  1989 Treaty hearings  at the very marae  just around the corner from the land in dispute.

        As a result of those the Manukau Council purchased the Stonefields and mountain as open space reserve. The iwi wanted the other block included and that didnt happen, this block is the supject of the protest by SOUL

        “Sean notes that on average waitangi settlements result in two to three percent returns[of land] for Maori while Fletchers have gone above that and returned 25 percent of the land, which Pita [Turei] resoundingly agrees.

        The Crown gives financial compensation where it cant return land

        • weka 5.3.1.1

          Which Iwi?

          • Gosman 5.3.1.1.1

            The one that signed the Deed of Settlement that included the land in question.

            • weka 5.3.1.1.1.1

              Te Kawerau a Maki. What about the other Iwi and Hapū with ties to Ihumātao?

              • Gosman

                Such as ? 

                Have they had Treaty settlements or are in the process of getting one? If so they can raise the matter as part of their negotiations with the Crown.

                • weka

                  Private land is excluded from Treaty settlements, so how would that work?

                  I think there are at least four Iwi with connections to Ihumātao. I don't have a good enough grasp of the situation to explain how Hapū fit into that, but if we put the Crown's imposition of legal structures aside for a moment, it's clear that more than TKAM have a stake in this.

                  • Gosman

                    Land confiscation issues can be discussed and dealt with as far as I am aware. Compensation can be made for land confiscated that is in private hands and this can be used to buy back private land when it becomes available for sale. 

                    • weka

                      have you looked at the maths on Iwi buying the Wallace's land using settlement money? What were the blocks there?

                    • Muttonbird

                      Really? Maori have to buy back land which was stolen from them.

                      Seems fair.

                    • Gosman

                      Yes, with the compensation they received for having the land taken from them unjustly (not stolen).

                  • Gosman

                    What IS excluded from Treaty Settlements is the idea that Private land can be compulsory purchased to meet the settlement of claims. 

        • mauī 5.3.1.2

          You're talking about the treaty, the protectors want the land included as part of the existing historic reserve. This is more a reserve issue and how culturally important land is put into reserve.

          • veutoviper 5.3.1.2.1

            I get what you are saying, maui, and now I know a lot more about the historical significance of that whole area, I too would like to see as much as possible put into historic reserve.  And also, if done in a culturally respectful way (ie not as a  tourist site) a site for visits to learn the history of both the area itself and its role in NZ's overall history and culture. 

            If this could be done outside the Treaty and related processes – eg as a Reserve issue as you suggest – that would be great and hopefully a lot of very experienced, knowledgeable legals etc are currently working hard on trying to achieve exactly this.  Having worked on the fringes of the Treaty Settlement process/agencies, my limited knowledge of that process leads me to believe it is a minefield that needs to be traversed very carefully as one step out of place could have major consequences not only in relation to this particular situation, but many others including Treaty settlements already completed.   

            I have everything crossed that a good solution can be found without this happening.  If you haven't read the two links that I included in my 5.1.2 above, I recommend them as they gave me a much better picture of the complicated path that has led to the current impasse.  

            But on reflection after reading them, I am beginning to think that if the Wallace family had got their original consents through to allow the land to be rezoned, all would have been lost back in 2012; and that the sale to Fletchers may in fact have been a blessing in disguise in now leading to the opportunity to relook at the whole future of this area.  Here's hoping… .  

  6. Dennis Frank 6

    We're seeing the dark side of socialism again.  RNZ midday news had a story of the Canterbury manufacturer of tiny houses being bullied by little hitlers in the local council.  Apparently he explained that the ones he makes are actually vehicles.  Local govt folks get their jobs due to the need to reduce the number of unemployed drifters, so it's a mistake to assume they can actually do anything.  They obviously think "it's called a tiny house, so it must be a house".

    Check the specs & you find it ain't necessarily so:  "Built on a strong steel chassis, mobilised on tri-set axles, 6 low set radial tyres. Lightweight & size allows for ease of transportation. Unique efficient construction telescopic drawbar, both ends!" http://ecocottages.co.nz/

    The cerebral processing involved in thinking "well, if it moves around on wheels it obviously can't be a house" is way too hard for the council officials.

    • Dukeofurl 6.1

      Councils have  been ultra picky for the last 15 years or so. Your thing about  'its socialism' is   baseless.

      Thats the problem with calling it a tiny house to mean permanent fixed site when they want it  built under caravan regulations.

      Even Fixed houses can be moved – if they have  timber floor. Keith Hay  homes  arrive on the back of a truck.

      The downside is that  councils will be stuck with US style 'trailer parks'  which are mostly fixed houses.

      The pictures dont emphasise the mobility!

      https://i.ontrapages.com/static/images/117525.8244ec9c41c37b8442d480a924409217.JPEG

      • Anne 6.1.1

         Your thing about  'its socialism' is   baseless.

        I was going to pull up Dennis Frank on that one too. On the one hand he describes them as "little Hitlers" and them refers to "the dark side of socialism". Nothing to do with socialism. As my father used to call them "big frogs in little pools". Much more apt description.  

        • Gabby 6.1.1.1

          Franko prolly thinks the narzies were leftists anny, That's the twisty little wordgamery his ilk praxises.

        • OnceWasTim 6.1.1.2

          One aspect of the neo-liberal religion is to manipulate the meaning of language. If they could, they’d sell it to the highest bidder – along with emotion and religious belief itself if they perceived there was a market for it.

          One of the latest things that drew my interest was the idea that there are a huge number of ‘Co-Operatives’ in New Zealand. Now I guess that COULD be technically correct if you are prepared to believe that ‘franchises’ that pay minimum and under-wage to their workers should be included in the definition.
          Actually, now I think about it, they’ve already managed it if you consider how “Oh Woe! Bizzniss Confidence is down” seems to reign supreme – even when all else suggests it’s a complete bloody appeal to emotion and reality.

          These days – I wouldn’;t even call Fonterra a fucking Co-Operative – but more fool its owners eh?
          Trouble is they’ll be squealing like stuffed pigs if and when it all goes tits up and calling for mummy/nanny state

    • weka 6.2

      that's not socialism, its neoliberalism and protofeudalism. If it was socialism, the council would be full of socialists assisting people to build tiny homes.

    • Gabby 6.3

      Sounds like they're looking after the building industry in praxis franko. That's crony capitalism, that is.

    • McFlock 6.4

      Besides the "nothing to do with socialism" thing, the website even calls them "buildings" in one or two places.

      It's a smart-arse dodge around planning regulations. Maybe it'll work, maybe not.

      • weka 6.4.1

        They're registered as vehicles for the purposes of the Land Transport Act, so calling them buildings on their website is a bit daft. I'm going to guess they're built to code though (where possible), and that the issue for the council is about preventing unauthorised dwellings on sections.

        • Macro 6.4.1.1

          I've owned a similar transportable 2 bedroom home for around 12 years now. It cost around $90,000 on site. (Auckland). It is extremely well finished including cedar panelling and came with fridge/freezer, full gas stove/oven. gas hot water, and dish drawer, carpeted and ready to go. Just needs to be plugged in to a builders pole for electricity – a caravan connection suffices – can run off a tap for water supply or a small rain tank and water pump if not on town supply. The main problem for councils is the grey water and sewage disposal. Obviously, it has the same outflows as a normal dwelling. 

          The company has supplied a similar home to one of NZ's wealthiest, so they are far from tatty. It is classified as a caravan and awning, and comes on a steel chassis and is towed onto site. A large transporter truck can ferry it over large distances (each module is 3 m wide and 10 m in length), so no need to be registered for road use. So is very transportable.  I shifted mine to a new location in the Coromandel from Auckland after two years. No problems.

          Being small, well insulated it is very quick to heat on a cold night, and with two large ranch slider doors easy to ventilate and keep cool in summer. I think if we really wanted to house homeless people in NZ. a building programme along the lines of these transportable dwelling would ensure a lot of people could enjoy a private comfortable place in short order far quicker and less costly than the current method of building.

          • McFlock 6.4.1.1.1

            Trouble is that trailer-homes can end up being rusted in place after a few years in the same place – or people can't pay lot fees and then can't afford to move them. ends up being another trap for the poor.

            But my main issue with this is that if they become mainstream, it basically screws consents systems. Stick a prefab on wheels, oh look we don't need a consent to double the built-space area on our land. Double the infrastructure burden on council, too, but it's not an addition (even though we haven't moved it in 15 years) and doesn't count as an "improvement" on our rates bill.

            The area ends up being a high-density slum without any council knowledge or consent.

            Let me put it this way – currently, it seems that there might more process required around the installation of a 1.8m wide swimming pool for the summer than there is for a three-bedroom modular home for ten years… because wheels?

  7. Jimmy 7

    JAG getting grilled by Bishop over her letter in question time.

    • Peter 7.1

      Bishop reminds me of a chubby little four year old kid sitting on the floor with some upturned paper cups. He's trying to work out which one's got the piece of chocolate under it. He lifts one, not there, another, not there, …  Inevitably, when they've all been lifted and he knows there's no chocolate there what does he do? 

      Silly question – he keeps on lifting them and looking. Meanwhile the world keeps on turning. 

    • Robert Guyton 7.2

      Bishop caught Genter out on a technicality; fair enough; she's learned. I think she should have been more up-front in the House. Mallard thought so to. A minor issue, but that's all National have to chuck at the Coalition.

    • Red Blooded One 7.3

      Jeez, if you call that a grilling, you've been hanging out too long at National damp sausage with limp lettuce Barbeques too much. JAG didn't waiver and answered well. Bishop should go back to spending his time doing searches on Budget websites and "political grooming" on social media.

  8. greywarshark 8

    I thought this was interesting.   I feel that males are having hard time coping with life, finding what it is to be a man and a person coping with a contradictory culture – things being the opposite that is the accepted state in the public mind.    No wonder their mental health is down.   And no wonder so many are thinking of changing their gender – who can find their way in such a shitty present and see what they might be in the future?

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018707417/matt-brown-a-haircut-and-a-friendly-ear

    It's helping to encourage men and boys to talk about things that might be bothering them – encouraging them to open up and share what's going on in their lives in a safe place.

    Matt, who started barbering more than 10 years ago, realised while working at his first barbers in Auckland that men came for more than a cut.

    “Men were coming in and not you know, wanting more than just the haircut, they wanted a conversation. And not many places, spaces, allow men to really open up quite like the barber chair.”

  9. greywarshark 9

    The land claims over land now in private hands reminded me of Titford in Northland.    The road can be hard for Maori with connections to historic land to get it back from someone to whom it's just a piece of dirt.   Titford make a right old fuss and wanted compensation for the future profitable enterprise he was going to develop – yeah right.

    The tail-end of the saga:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9435787/Bittersweet-vindication-for-iwi

    It was found he had burnt down his own home in 1992, but had blamed it on local Maori to increase his claim to compensation from the government. Te Roroa Maori hope this is a chance for their story to be told and the claims of harassment, terrorism, and sabotage exposed as lies…

    Anything we had to say was just dismissed out of hand, the perception was such that we were the nasties, all the negative was laid on us,” said Alex Nathan, who along with Murray is the last of the Te Roroa Treaty negotiators.

    “At the time that was hurtful but we weren’t given an opportunity to put an alternative point of view. There wasn’t a mood to listen to what we were saying,” he said.

    Titford became a spokesman for apparently honest farmers having land stolen by apparently greedy Maori. He fed into a racist sentiment that turned many New Zealanders against Maori.

    “There is a current just beneath the surface that is quite racist and it doesn’t take much to reveal it,” said Nathan.

    “Titford represents the extreme end of the spectrum. It is very easy for someone if they are noisy enough to stir a response from the generality.”

    • greywarshark 9.1

      Date of the  stuff report on Titford was 24/11/2013.   The long time stand-off started with his farm purchase in 1986, then Maori claims against subdivision, then he burnt his house in 1992 and in 1995 the Crown came in and paid out $3.25 million.  He had paid $600,000 in 1986.

  10. Another piece of shit in a stolen car kills an innocent pedestrian.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12256538

    • mosa 10.1

      That " piece of shit " will get a slap on the wrist if they catch him.

      Manslaughter is not a serious crime in New Zealand.

      We don't value human life or animal life come too that.

    • Jimmy 10.2

      That judge Raoul Neave thinks he is a nice person and can come good!

  11. greywarshark 12

    I was at the negotiating round in Melbourne in early July. Officials met again in China this week for intensive negotiations on the investment chapter.

    RCEP trade ministers are due to meet in Shanghai on Friday to decide on matters still outstanding in this secretive negotiation, including the investment rules.

    There is a high risk that New Zealand will capitulate again and accept, at best, a footnote that allows it to object, but would still allow the investor to sue New Zealand in this expensive and discredited system of international investment arbitration.

    I call on David Parker to “assure New Zealanders that he won’t sell us out again by accepting ISDS and giving foreign investors even more power to intimidate governments from acting in the national interest.”

    Those are the final wordefrom Professor Jane Kelsey on negotiations around our international trade deals that NZ thinkers hate.   So David Parker have you any spine?

    https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2019/08/04/is-nz-about-to-break-its-promise-again-by-accepting-investment-disputes-in-rcep/

Leave a Comment

Use WYSIWYG comments on next comment (inactive new feature)

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago