The Comprehensive and Progressive Trans Pacific Partnership

Written By: - Date published: 8:53 am, January 25th, 2018 - 137 comments
Categories: business, capitalism, Economy, employment, Environment, farming, Free Trade, overseas investment, tech industry, wages, workers' rights - Tags: , , ,

We may be forgiven for thinking that the main reason we got into the TPP in the first place was to enhance our industrial agricultural interests and diversify our trade and investment relationships. Personally I blame the undemocratic process of its formation for this. For agribusiness interests, the results on balance have been mixed and the entire predicted export sectoral outcomes don’t blow me away.

But there are three even better reasons than NZ agribusiness for the CPTPP’s staying power.

First, it rises to the needs of digital trade and e-commerce, the fastest growing sector of the global economy.

Second, it addresses the importance of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in international trade.

Third, it promotes trade tariff eradication and trade access with the countries we need (good globalisation), along with the values of civil society (playing by the rules being essential to small, trade-dependent and peripheral states like ours, plus environment, labour and native peoples protection) —things that, despite populist backlashes in America and Western Europe, continue to be highly desirable in other markets.

1. Digital Trade and E-Commerce

The dematerialisation of our economy away from bulk and low-value commodities like dairy and wool is a massive task for New Zealand’s economy. That means e-commerce in all its forms. The CPTPP does a good job of addressing today’s digital trade and e-commerce phenomenon by laying out practical rules on how to facilitate business in such a fluid environment. Unlike the majority of existing “shallow” FTAs, which deal primarily with the reduction of customs duties, the CPTPP goes well beyond this to tackle non-tariff issues such as the protection of intellectual property, transparency standards, e-commerce rules and cyber security.

CPTPP standards are already trickling down into the digital economy. Consider, for example, “open sourcing,” a practice which began in Silicon Valley. Despite this seemingly perilous act—which involves publicizing and sharing product designs, software code and digital infrastructure on the web in order to tap into collaborative opportunities in the global commons—open sourcing has become an everyday business practice. Companies as diverse as Alibaba, GE and Volvo couldn’t survive without open sourcing. It works not only because it’s mutually beneficial, but because it’s free, it’s open, and, generally, these commonly accepted behavioural rules result in fair treatment for everyone.

Can governments and multilateral trade bodies formally adopt the same kind of CPTPP standards, combined with the practices of digital commerce? The answer is yes, and CPTPP provides massive momentum for the rest of the world to adopt the same.

2. Small to Medium Enterprises

The New Zealand economy consists of mostly small and medium-sized enterprises, and has been so since we started trading flax, sailship spars, whales, furs and weapons with Sydney from the late 1700s. International trade is and will always be the very fabric of our society. Over the past twenty years we have seen digital technology empower SMEs, the number of cross-border transactions will increase exponentially. That is an outcome of the platform economy. Technology is lowering barriers and levelling the playing field for buyers and sellers in the most remote parts of the globe. The CPTPP provides a forward-looking and practical framework for integrating SMEs into Free Trade Agreements. Those protections have been needed for a while, and now we have a binding cross-national framework to enforce them.

3. Upholding Civil Society Values, including for labour and the environment

We’re probably used on the left to seeing FTA’s as a blunt weapon to smash civil society values particularly labour – and every trade agreement since the Battle for Seattle lives with the stigma of that foolhardy repression.
But the logic behind this claim about the CPTPP upholding civil society values is straightforward. Ultimately, foreign direct investment (which we regrettably need) and global value chains will gravitate towards stable, open markets that also recognize the benefits of civil society. The benefits of civil society include being able to depend on wrongdoers being held to account, on enforcement of deals you make not just handshakes, and like reduced carbon footprints and protecting native peoples agreements and the prevention of illegal logging or fishing as noted below.

To achieve this strengthening of civil society values, the deal that the Labour-led government will be signing in Chile this March has significantly improved. The differences between the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the CPTPP are summarised as follows:

  • Pharmac is fully protected
  • Businesses cannot sue the government for investment contract breaches
  • Financial services claims have been reduced
  • The copyright term will stay the same
  • No data or market obligations for new medicines, including biologics
  • There’s more flexibility around what is able to be patented
  • Government procurement processes are unaffected
  • Protection for the Treaty of Waitangi
  • Committed to stopping trade in endangered species

There are now specific labour and environmental standards provisions in the agreement:

3.1 Labour
As part of the Labour chapter contained in CPTPP, the Parties agree to:
• Make the labour provisions of CPTPP subject to dispute settlement so they can be enforced.
• Reaffirm their obligations as members of the International Labour Organization (ILO).
• Ensure their laws and practices uphold certain labour rights stated in the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, including:
o freedom of association and effective recognition of collective bargaining;
o non-discrimination in employment; and
o the elimination of all forms of forced labour and abolition of child labour.
• Ensure they have laws governing ‘acceptable conditions of work’ with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health, as determined by each party.
• Recognise that labour standards should not be used for protectionist trade purposes
• Recognise that it is inappropriate to encourage trade or investment by weakening or reducing labour laws.
• Ensure they do not deviate from their laws (or offer to do so) in a manner affecting trade or investment between the parties.
• Commit to discourage the importation of goods produced by forced or compulsory labour from other sources.
• Encourage businesses in their respective jurisdictions to adopt corporate social responsibility initiatives on labour issues.

3.2 Environment
As part of the Environment chapter in CPTPP, the Parties agree to:
• Make the environment provisions of CPTPP subject to dispute settlement so they can be enforced.
• Prohibit subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported or unregulated fishing or that negatively affect over-fished stocks. This is a meaningful contribution to achieving UN Sustainable Development Goal 14 (on dismantling fish subsidies and addressing collapsing fishing stocks before 2020).
• Take action to address the illegal trade of wild flora and fauna.
• Make sure they implement the commitments they have made under the following international environmental agreements:
o Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
o The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL); and
o The UN Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).
• Co-operate on environmental matters of shared interest including :
o the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and sharing the benefits arising from the utilisation of genetic resources;
o reducing carbon emissions;
o the conservation and sustainable management of marine fisheries; and
o liberalising trade in environmental goods and services.
• Encourage the private sector to develop flexible voluntary mechanisms to protect natural resources and the environment in ways that are science-based, conform with international best practice, promote competition and innovation, and are not discriminatory

Granted, it’s not intended to save the world or any of the standard liberal causes. It’s still basically a trade agreement. But it’s ambitious enough to do more.
If you’d like to dive into the impact of these in more detail, see the MFAT National Interest Analysis.

No one has to pretend that this deal is perfect. And without the United States, and pretty much no dairy access to Canada, the benefits are less to do with future uplift in our GDP and more to do with our SME-dominated economy and enhancing the global connectedness of New Zealand with 10 other countries in a strong rule-based order, as well as the specific tariff gains noted by MFAT for our dominant exporting sectors.

And like yourselves, I’m very interested to see how this government will finesse Investor-State Dispute Settlement processes in our interests.

But let’s be really clear: it’s far bigger than CER and at least as big as the China-New Zealand FTA (now our two dominant trading partners) in their integration of economies in to the medium term. The economies in the agreement are the destination for 31% of both our goods and services exports, four of our top ten trading partners, and four countries we’ve never had trade agreements with. If amending legislation needs to come into our Parliament, there will be almost no resistance.

The CPTPP is a really big deal for New Zealand.

137 comments on “The Comprehensive and Progressive Trans Pacific Partnership ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tuppence Shrewsbury 1
    25 January 2018 at 9:11 am

    The CPTPPPA?

    You can’t polish a turd. It was a turd I liked and would have sucked on regardless, but I think the endless grandstanding over the TTPA by labour in opposition is rather galling now they are claiming this as a success

  2. Matthew 2
    25 January 2018 at 9:19 am

    We will gain access to a multitude of corrupt government’s markets and countries with poverty levels that would make your eyes water. A turd does not deserve to be compared, a turd is a universal experience, this Convoluted Prejudiced Toilet Paper Parchment is not good enough for a toilet bowl. Excuse me if I can’t get excited.

  3. ropata 3
    25 January 2018 at 9:20 am

    Is this The Standard!? I feel like I am reading the wrong blog… this is a thoughtful and balanced piece without the usual hyperbole 😉

  4. Stunned Mullet 4
    25 January 2018 at 9:31 am

    Looks like the government is attempting to spin that this is a significantly different agreement to the original TPPA .

    I wonder who will buy the spin, or if anyone will actually care ?

    As Labour and National will pass it through the house not much that anyone can really do now one way or t’other.

  5. Observer Tokoroa 5
    25 January 2018 at 9:35 am

    To; AD

    Thank you for an excellent presentation on the CPTPP.

    It is a far better product than the National Party secretly scratched around with, during its long term of nothingness.

    It also places New Zealand – a tiny nation – in a good 360 degree position within a large block of successful Nations.

    The near death Green Party may do well to reassess its condemnation. I sincerly hope they read your Presentation AD.
    .

    • Stunned Mullet 5.1
      25 January 2018 at 9:44 am

      😆

    • Ad 5.2
      25 January 2018 at 9:48 am

      If this post starts having a crack at the Greens we will never hear the end of it. Please.

    • Tuppence Shrewsbury 5.3
      25 January 2018 at 10:07 am

      Open your eyes.

      This is fundamentally the same agreement, sans USA. the greens have been consistent in the opposition to this deal, Labour grabbed it with two hands after spending years deriding it as stalking horse for foreign companies to own New Zealand, which this agreement still allows for.

      Edit: not that i’m against the CP/TTPA, I just find it hilarious that after labour mocking national for taking credit for the china FTA, Labour have done exactly the same on an issue that the left hate. Trade and globalisation,

    • cleangreen 5.4
      25 January 2018 at 1:01 pm

      Nah!!!!

      It is another snow job pure and simple!

      If it was that good, then why isn’t David Parker releasing the final agreement now????

      Answer;

      Because it is seriously problematic; – this is what we believe.

      We were told this constantly right;
      “If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear”

      Labour; – then release it for god’s sake now so we have time to carefully examine it now before you sign it!!!!!!!!!!

      • SPC 5.4.1
        25 January 2018 at 2:38 pm

        They are not allowed to, the parties have to all sign it first.

        Thus there is no room for any late public pressure to force a government to seek a last minute re-negotiation.

        • cleangreen 5.4.1.1
          25 January 2018 at 6:55 pm

          “They are not allowed to, the parties have to all sign it first.” this is Russian roulette just as bad.

          who would even sign first before reading the fine print or contract?”????

          Only a fool would enter these terms blindly here, so are in the shit with this rat hole of a stupid ‘deal”.

          We should never have agreed to be forced into this draconian sign first before reading what you have to comply with fuck these are awful terms simply a bad deal

          I walk away from this and in 3 yrs will the politicians also do this to when they know that they signed our death warrant???

          This was a setup system period, as it is toxic.

  6. Puckish Rogue 6
    25 January 2018 at 9:53 am

    Its funny but this a good, reasoned argument but i bet others will just hear something like:

    The point is, ladies and gentleman, that trade, for lack of a better word, is good. Trade is right, trade works. Trade clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Trade, in all of its forms; trade for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And trade, you mark my words, will not only save the Labour party, but that other malfunctioning corporation called NZ. Thank you very much.

    • indiana 6.1
      25 January 2018 at 10:18 am

      Trade also reduces inequality and lifts people out of poverty?

      • cleangreen 6.1.1
        25 January 2018 at 12:08 pm

        No Indiana;
        “Trade also reduces inequality and lifts people out of poverty”

        It does not work that way in reality.

        As we see that “flooding the world markets with cheap Chinese stuff” that forced our manufacturing to close down as has happened in NZ so your they is flawed in reality.

        • indiana 6.1.1.1
          25 January 2018 at 12:33 pm

          I think, perhaps one of the reasons you believe this, is because you lack the capacity to adapt. The Chinese are not flooding markets with their cheap stuff, they are creating a choice for consumers. If NZ could build televisions and price them the same as Chinese made televisions, I doubt you would maintain the same mindset.

          Judging cheap labor markets & why freedom to choose lifts people out of poverty- Dr. Yaron Brook
          https://youtu.be/tbIRHbQwk-Y

          If You Hate Poverty, You Should Love Capitalism
          https://youtu.be/_n6ivGgb9RY

          • cleangreen 6.1.1.1.1
            25 January 2018 at 3:30 pm

            Indiana;

            You sound like a spin doctor for Chinese interests only.

            Do you know what happend in NZ?

            Chinese are buying up companies and closing them down or shifting part to China, so your theory is flawed here.

            China don’t do nice, they are opportunists and aggressive ones at that, as they will finally buy up most industries and lower competition so your capitalist theory of creating jobs is wrong as the jobs go back to China not here.

            Try our carpet mills all closed and equipment gone to china and India same with our F&P white ware icon was sold to china and now we buy from their factories fridges and ovens, so we need some protection from the selling off of our industries to foreign buyers who close them down and “create an off shore company to sell their products back to us using chinese workers.

            Trump sees this and is setting up ways to prevent any more loss of US companies in this same way.

            You say we cant adapt?????

            if the government changed the rules on business investment here we would then adapt. It is the government who must control the loss of local industries everywhere.

    • Macro 6.2
      25 January 2018 at 11:19 am

      But is it fair trade? Is it fair to both parties – is it fair to the workers in sweat factories of Vietnam? Is it fair to workers in related industries in this country? Are you aware for instance that at one time, all wine bottles used in this country were manufactured here – now they are imported from China? What good was that to the workers in the glass works of NZ to be replaced by an inferior product? Or don’t you care about them, so long as you have the latest iPhone or whatever?

      • Richard McGrath 6.2.1
        25 January 2018 at 1:26 pm

        You’d rather the workers in Vietnam were out of a job, Macro? And what about the laptop from which you sent your post? Are you certain that wasn’t put together in a sweat shop?

        • Macro 6.2.1.1
          25 January 2018 at 2:00 pm

          So the poor in Vietnam work in sweatshops and the poor in NZ be on the dole? Is that your choice Richard?
          As for my 2011 Macbook I’m sure it was – I would prefer that it wasn’t.
          I’m prepared however to pay more for such an item which as a matter of interest I tend to keep longer than most. I still have a 2004 eMac going strong.
          It isn’t that I can’t afford more modern equipment – I just don’t see the need.

          • McFlock 6.2.1.1.1
            26 January 2018 at 12:06 am

            lol

            Dunno how old it is, but my home linuxbox needs a RAM upgrade. Not sure it’s feasible with DDR2 🙂

            Still works fine though.

      • Draco T Bastard 6.2.2
        25 January 2018 at 1:37 pm

        Hypothetically the normalisation of rules should ensure that it’s fair trade. But China’s manipulation of their exchange rate to push up exports while the majority of their people still work in atrocious conditions on low wages shows that it doesn’t happen.

    • Stuart Munro 6.3
      25 January 2018 at 9:46 pm

      Trade agreements however, substantially serve the large inefficient multinationals at the expense of locals. We see this with Fonterra salivating over new markets that consumers will pay for in higher cost of living.

      The Gnats were too corrupt to even do due diligence on the TPPA – and the lack of detail suggests this government has drunk the Stupid Party’s koolaid yet again.

    • reason 6.4
      25 January 2018 at 11:40 pm

      “Trade, in all of its forms;” …..

      Slave trade
      Weapons trade
      Opium trade
      Sex trade
      illegal logging …. etc etc etc

      Or how about trading on a good reputation … to help facilitate …..and get a cut …from the proceeds of crime. https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/10/new-zealands-gt-group-romania-moldova-uk.html

      There are numerous examples of ‘bad’ trade and destructive markets ….
      http://www.osisa.org/economic-justice/blog/undermining-africas-wealth

  7. red-blooded 7
    25 January 2018 at 10:02 am

    Like you, I’m much happier with this version of the deal, Ad. The things I was most worried about in the TPPA were the threat to Pharmac (both because I see it as a vital part of our national health infrastructure, it’s very good at its job and as someone who depends on high levels of med.s that I know to be bloody expensive but are provided to me for a smidgeon of their cost to the state – something that I’m very grateful for and very defensive of – this had particular significance to me), the protection of land and housing, the status of the Treaty and investor state dispute issues. I always knew it had positive elements, and thanks for laying those out so clearly, but I felt that the threats were too great under the version signed by the Nats.

    Labour have been pretty nifty about finding work-arounds and negotiating improvements. I still want to see the details of the investor state provisions, but we’re told that they’re now in line with previous agreements like the one with China, and that there are carve-outs with a number of countries anyway. By no means perfect, but probably liveable.

    And while some of the more egregious stuff was put aside because the US dropped out (I can’t believe I’m saying this, but thanks Donald) and that also allowed for more fine tuning and negotiation, I’m pretty sure they can’t just impose the previous conditions if they decide to opt in in the future. The version they were part of isn’t the version others are signing up to, so surely anything they wanted to change would have to be negotiated with the whole block of countries. That’s a more even relationship than before, with all countries negotiating separately but the US having the biggest market and so the loudest voice.

    Anyway, I understand that some people aren’t going to drop their opposition, but I’m feeling like this is now a reasonable agreement.

    • Stunned Mullet 7.1
      25 January 2018 at 10:21 am

      😆 there was no threat to PHARMAC in the original TPPA, but congratulations on buying the spin that this is a new supa dooper deal that Labour has negotiated.

      • red-blooded 7.1.1
        25 January 2018 at 11:06 am

        Congratulations on buying the spin that there was not threat to Pharmac during earlier negotiations. Here’s what the a report from Science Direct on How the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement could undermine PHARMAC and threaten access to affordable medicines and health equity in New Zealand were saying in 2015:

        Because of its effectiveness in negotiating prices for medicines, PHARMAC has long been in the sights of the pharmaceutical industry. The 2012 special 301 watch report of the United States Trade Representative cites US industry concerns over “unfair reimbursement policies” in several countries, and particularly the operation of PHARMAC:

        “The industry continues to express concerns regarding, among other things, the lack of transparency, fairness, and predictability of the PHARMAC pricing and reimbursement regime, as well as the negative aspects of the overall climate for innovative medicines in New Zealand or in the original agreement.

        This report went on to explore US demands in other recent trade deals and explored in detail the likely effects on Pharmac of the requirements that were in the 2011 version of the deal (which was the most up to date info of the time), saying These are not the only issues of concern, but those most likely to present particular difficulty to PHARMAC. They are:
        • Text that may preclude the use of therapeutic reference pricing;

        • Introduction of an appeals process that would allow challenges to PHARMAC’s decisions;

        • Requirements to specify and disclose formulary decision criteria (which may create inflexibilities);

        • Transparency and disclosure requirements that may undermine price negotiations;

        • Mechanisms for ongoing engagement that would facilitate further industry influence; and

        • Text mandating the legalisation of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines via the internet.

        It’s true that not all of that came through in the version signed by the Nats, but there were certainly still threats, including:
        – patent extensions projected to cost about $1 per year
        – a review process for pharmaceutical companies to challenge decisions ($4.5 mill up front, then $2.2 mill per year).

        I admit that I don’t know how much or if that’s been improved in the current version. The basic model is safe, and if those costs are still there then I trust this government more than the last to even that out with funding increases (something Key and Co had ruled out).

        • Stunned Mullet 7.1.1.1
          25 January 2018 at 11:13 am

          🙄 your article predates the TPPA and raises a number of potential issues that may have been problematic but were either taken care of in the carve outs negotiated into the original TPPA or were in the case of many bogeyman raised e.g five year data exclusivity for medicines – part of the regulatory regimen that already exist in NZ and which we currently operate under.

          • red-blooded 7.1.1.1.1
            25 January 2018 at 12:34 pm

            You asserted that there was no threat in the original TPPA. I guess it depends how you define “original”. There were certainly threats in the draft versions.

        • Rosemary McDonald 7.1.1.2
          25 January 2018 at 11:19 am

          red-blooded…your trust in this government is commendable and will hopefully bring Labour some consolation while they face opprobrium from others.

          But, did you read what you’ve written?

          “I admit that I don’t know how much or if that’s been improved in the current version. ”
          “I still want to see the details of the investor state provisions,”

          I struggle to see how you can be so positive about this version when you don’t know the detail.

          • cleangreen 7.1.1.2.1
            25 January 2018 at 12:00 pm

            100% Rosemary,

            Winston said on Radio NZ today even he has yet to see the full final text agreement so we are in a real pickle now.

            labour have botched this one again by rushing this through right now as Davos is beginning and this was “orchestrated” timing wrongly executed sadly +

            sloppy result there.

            left wanting.

          • red-blooded 7.1.1.2.2
            25 January 2018 at 12:42 pm

            Actually, Rosemary, I do read what I write – nifty, eh?

            I’m not being “so positive” – I said I’m “happier with this version” and “I think this is now a reasonable agreement”. I’m aiming for a balanced view. I understand why some people disagree, but I do think we should consider the whole package, including the innovations highlighted by Ad.

  8. cleangreen 8
    25 January 2018 at 10:24 am

    Advantage,

    Good spin you made of that turd Advantage and who actually does this all “advantage”??????

    The foreign carpetbaggers and rot that they will cause by importing all their bugs ad; of introducing all those biological diseases right???

    So they can pick up the deals to insecticide/ herbicide/fungicide all of the country, while they will also chlorinate our whole watering system and kill our ‘clean green’ country then walk away without any penalty.

    I am not convinced you know the present dangers that we now face as many of these countries have terrible bugs and diseases that we will now obviously inherit though this foolhardiness.

    For instance lookup ‘General Chemistry’ by PW Atkinson Oxford University on “substitution reaction” and the mixing of airborne elements between chlorine and methane, in our environment for instance.

    In sunlight these two elements that we are pumping into our air every day you are producing a banned toxic chemical called tetrachloromethane, a very nasty toxic banned chemical.

    We are stuffed since if the universities knew this and the professors didn’t speak up for us we are left very unsafe now and in the future.

    There are no protections written into this agreement protecting us or compensating us for fixing what they cause in future.

    Bye bye clean green NZ.

    TPP = How to poison a country.

    • Stunned Mullet 8.1
      25 January 2018 at 10:40 am

      I don’t believe the TPPA or the CPTPP had/has clauses which obliged NZ to import all their bugs or introduce all biological diseases, or indeed to insecticide/ herbicide/fungicide all of the country, while chlorinating our whole watering system.

      • Tuppence Shrewsbury 8.1.1
        25 January 2018 at 10:45 am

        but didn’t you hear Jane Kelsey / Robert Guyton or anyone on this properly? CPTPPA trumps all biosec and customs requirements.

        No more border security shows will be the outcome of this deal.

      • cleangreen 8.1.2
        25 January 2018 at 10:50 am

        SM

        Yes the TPP has carefully omitted any clauses making any country responsible/liable if they did (accidentally or otherwise) import any bugs, diseases or any medical dangerous objects so we are left with no protection under this agreement again so this was too quickly put together without any public health or other real care and responsibility here.

        Why rush this TPP as we need to protect our citizens first and the environment also This is our governments duty to us all.

        • Stunned Mullet 8.1.2.1
          25 January 2018 at 10:52 am

          That’s because the importer/exporter would be responsible for the importation/exportation of the bug or disease and why countries such as ours have agencies like MPI/MAF, customs etc.

          • cleangreen 8.1.2.1.1
            25 January 2018 at 11:11 am

            SM;
            Yeah right!!!
            “countries such as ours have agencies like MPI/MAF, customs ”

            These agencies are long recorded as understaffed and underfunded. so their control of hazardous substances/bugs hasn’t worked has it eh?

            We now are infested by so many new bugs now that we are entering into a dangerous zone.

            Argentine ants, bovine disease and all, and every other bug virus and other, and soon a pandemic will arrive soon with dengi fever and many others since our open importation of produce and goods carries all of these dangers.

            No one can can get blood out of a stone”

            We are opening a “Pandora’s box here”

            • Stunned Mullet 8.1.2.1.1.1
              25 January 2018 at 11:15 am

              On reflection you’re quite right let’s close our borders immediately. 😆

              • cleangreen …
                25 January 2018 at 11:48 am

                Stunned mullet;
                Best we learn to not cause a flood of toxic insects/bugs pandemics and other viruses else we wont have a life or a country that we could live in again.

                You see Stunned mullet i lived as a young kiwi in Africa for a year in 1970 and my job was to travel around Rhodesia, (Zimbabwe) then and fix electrical systems on heavy machinery out in the bush, and what i learned then has taught me never to take it for granted that our country would remain free from the hundreds of diseases that were abundant in Africa so we need to move with caution here now so go slowly forward not rush this all.

                Our kids and their kids are at peril if we don’t take care here.

                • Stunned Mullet …
                  25 January 2018 at 1:39 pm

                  Many of the diseases in Africa at that time relied on low vaccination rates (many of the viral infections), vectors which aren’t a concern in NZ (certain varieties of mosquito) or non potable water supplies. We are in the very fortunate position that we have good access to vaccination in NZ, few nasty vectors for the likes of Dengue or malaria and good water supplies.

                  • cleangreen …
                    25 January 2018 at 3:47 pm

                    Shit no you are totally wrong there.

                    What diseases are you talking about???

                    I am referring to insidious bugs and diseases that we have never seen here or imagined yet could be here.

                    Take Bilharzia parisite worm for instance and the tsetse fly disease that causes ‘sleeping sickness’ until it cause paralysis in your spine and you bend over and break your own spine.

                    I was exposed to both when travelling down the Zambezi valley and other region’s where the tsetse fly disease was and my helper needed to use a fly-swat all the day to keep them from biting through my overalls from my back while was working try that then when we went back to the base at Salisbury Harare) we got a shot into our spine, so you need to know this is not standard medical treatments we get here.

                    Apparently the Bilharzia parisite worm that has a ‘life cycle’ through a certain type of snail has already invaded Australia now.
                    This shit is real so be wise be cautious as we don’t want these and many other African diseases here anytime.

                    • Stunned Mullet …
                      25 January 2018 at 3:54 pm

                      Very unlikely that our climate would be suitable for either of these parasites cleangreen – luckily for us.

                    • cleangreen …
                      25 January 2018 at 4:40 pm

                      Stunned Mullet …

                      “Very unlikely that our climate would be suitable for either of these parasites cleangreen – luckily for us.”

                      SM, sorry;
                      My knowledge and that of the pandemic expert on radio NZ yesterday say it is likely that these parasites and diseases will adapt to our warming climate in the future if we don’t keep careful to stop the spread through freight containers.

                      Did you know that the tsetse fly can attach to any plane and move around the African continent?

                      Be wise be cautious in your approach not to disregard that NZ will always be safe from infestation? It may happen nas Australia is being invaded by these bugs now.

  9. cleangreen 9
    25 January 2018 at 10:41 am

    Advantage;

    Worse still those two elements also produce the most toxic chemical called ‘carbon tetra chloride’ which was banned as a nervous system destroyer.

    it was a dry cleaning solvent and a general anesthetic until they recognised it as highly toxic to our brain and bodies.

  10. David Mac 10
    25 January 2018 at 10:47 am

    Opportunity has no value in itself. Unrealised potential is worthless. But utilised opportunity, nothing happens without it.

    It’s difficult to determine the opportunity that pursuing a particular plan may present. It’s an intangible.

    That’s where I see the value in this agreement, the bit we can’t put a $ value on.

    There are only 4.5 million of us, we don’t need to be all that brilliant.

    Yep on the SME’s Ad, that’s where we’ve always flourished. Charismatic individuals with a passion so fierce they inspire those about them.

    100 little O-rings, 100 little straws and 100 little balloons. Put them together and we’ll be buying the Dot-Com dump before the year’s out….Who would of guessed!

    Bring it on, show me the lines you’ve marked out on the pitch Jacinda, pick up the whistle and leave me free to play.

    • cleangreen 10.1
      25 January 2018 at 10:55 am

      100% David mac Brilliant thanks.

      Jacinda please; – give us the promised “transparency as we need to see the “devil in the details’.

      “Lets do this transparency.”

  11. One Two 11
    25 January 2018 at 10:47 am

    ” All I wanna say is that they don’t really care about us“….

    Michael Jackson

  12. Son of Don 12
    25 January 2018 at 11:01 am

    So, all the posturing from the likes of Parker (ranted outside US Embassy), Labour MP’s who marched and “Cindy’s” views on capitalism were bullshit designed to win an election?, or perhaps they are all just first class LIARS?

    • red-blooded 12.1
      25 January 2018 at 11:13 am

      Son of Don, you may want to think about the discussion being had on this blog today about gendered abuse. Drop the infantalising and the link to a Barby-style doll with the “Cindy” nickname. Our PM is called Jacinda Ardern.

      Plus, Labour always said it would pass the TPP if it could address 5 key issues:
      – protect Pharmac (done)
      – protect Treaty rights and obligations (done)
      – protect NZ farmland and housing (done)
      – protect the NZ government from being sued by overseas corporations (improved)
      – make meaningful gains for farmers in tariff reductions and market access (improved).

      So, not perfect, but not a sell out. Workable – worth signing up to.

      • Stunned Mullet 12.1.1
        25 January 2018 at 11:17 am

        What did you call our previous three PMs ?

        • red-blooded 12.1.1.1
          25 January 2018 at 12:45 pm

          I’ve tended to just use their last names – English, Key, Clark. What have you called them?

      • cleangreen 12.1.2
        25 January 2018 at 11:38 am

        RB,

        Best we can call that list is “under whelming”

        Where is the Environmental social cost of protection here no mention in that iost.

        Even Winston said this morning that he has yet to receive the full text of the final agreement so we are very sorry for this hesitation here.

        Next twenty five years is at stake for us and our offspring; – here so what’s the rush????

      • srylands 12.1.3
        25 January 2018 at 12:49 pm

        Of course nobody at The Standard infantilised the names of the the two Prime Ministers who preceeded the incumbent.

        • red-blooded 12.1.3.1
          25 January 2018 at 1:02 pm

          Well, I didn’t!

          Beside, I was connecting this specifically to the discussion of sexism that is being conducted on this site today. “Cindy” is not only infantilising, it’s also a link to a Barbie-type doll. Maybe you’re OK with that kind of sexism (I suspect you are). I’m not.

          • cleangreen 12.1.3.1.1
            25 January 2018 at 1:13 pm

            yes RB

            Our Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern appropriately deserves our respect as all leaders did.
            demeaning them with slang names is not proper.

    • cleangreen 12.2
      25 January 2018 at 11:14 am

      Yes Son of Don,

      Labour is now copying National Party policy’s it seems here to.

      “To lie is acceptable now.”

      Labour must now put a line in the sand on all this type of back room politics.

      As we remember that during the last meeting held in south America the Group opposing the TPP were blocked from going to that TPP meeting as observers,

      So we are becomming very weary of the new government role here to keep the full agreement text secretive until it is signed off as this is not what labour had promised when they said;

      We will be a kinder, gentler,, inclusive, caring, transparent government where everyone will have a voice and be heard.

      We are still waiting>

  13. Draco T Bastard 13
    25 January 2018 at 11:53 am

    Ultimately, foreign direct investment (which we regrettably need)

    No we don’t. No country needs foreign money to utilise their own resources.

    No data or market obligations for new medicines, including biologics

    So, they’ve removed the need for pharmaceutical companies to prove that their medicines work and that they’re not dangerous?

    There’s more flexibility around what is able to be patented

    Patents needs to be removed as they restrict peoples ability to be creative.

    Government procurement processes are unaffected

    So, can the government legislate that government departments must look to local business first?

    Recognise that labour standards should not be used for protectionist trade purposes

    When they damn well should be. There’s no way that we should be trading with a nation that mistreats its workers.

    Encourage the private sector to develop flexible voluntary mechanisms to protect natural resources

    And what happened when we left the farmer in NZ to do that?

    Oh, that’s right, they continued to fuck up our waterways and our environment for their own profit.

    Leaving the fox in charge of the hen-house is generally a Bad Idea.

    But let’s be really clear: it’s far bigger than CER and at least as big as the China-New Zealand FTA (now our two dominant trading partners) in their integration of economies in to the medium term.

    And Australia obviously no longer wants to be part of CER any more while China is using their dominant position and the FTA to make us conform to their wishes.

  14. Tony Veitch (not etc) 14
    25 January 2018 at 12:18 pm

    There’s been so much written, both for and against the original TPP that I, for one, got lost in all the verbiage!

    Ultimately, I suppose we have to have faith either in the government, or in a stern critic of the original TPP like Jane Kelsey.

    So, in reality from my point of view, that’s a no-brainer. If Jane give this latest agreement the thumbs up, I’ll rest contented. Otherwise, it’s back on the streets in protest.

    I say again, any trade agreement that needs the votes of National to ratify, can’t, simply can’t be good for the workers of this country.

    • Molly 14.1
      25 January 2018 at 12:28 pm

      “So, in reality from my point of view, that’s a no-brainer. If Jane give this latest agreement the thumbs up, I’ll rest contented. Otherwise, it’s back on the streets in protest.”

      I’ll be with you there Tony Veitch.

      I have more faith in the scrutiny and judgement of Jane Kelsey than I do for the political spin of those in favour of the agreement. Especially the out-and-out cheerleaders.

      Surprised at Labour’s haste to get this completed? – not really.

      They seem too focused on addressing manufactured concerns about the Party’s business acumen to consider the rightful concerns of those who protested, and have forgotten all claims to conduct themselves with transparency.

      • cleangreen 14.1.1
        25 January 2018 at 12:35 pm

        Molly;

        I wholeheartedly agree with you to on this as Jane Kelsey is five times more knowledgeable than any of the current politicians involved in the TPP table so labour is foolish not to use Jane Kelsey in their lobbying, and keeping Winston in close knowledge of what was the final outcome..

        Winston was the only one who knew the pitfalls and hooks that will stubble any government and yet he said today on radio NZ that he (Winston) has not seen the new final agreement to be signed off????????

        • red-blooded 14.1.1.1
          25 January 2018 at 12:49 pm

          NZF are endorsing the new agreement. Peters has given it a tick.

          • cleangreen 14.1.1.1.1
            25 January 2018 at 1:20 pm

            red blooded;

            Yes but he said this morning that he has yet to review/see the final agreement so he may see something he does not agree with, or that has been changed.

            I cant see why this government is in so much hurry to sign the bloody thing when so much is still left undone.

            Parliament are not to ratify it i believe, as in the interview today with David Parker he did not indicate there was time for parliamentary ratification.

            this is a real worry here..

            • red-blooded 14.1.1.1.1.1
              25 January 2018 at 1:31 pm

              If Peters has announced that NZF are supporting it, he knows enough to convince him it’s a good deal. He wouldn’t announce that then back out publicly – they’d be ridiculed.

              • Stunned Mullet …
                25 January 2018 at 1:43 pm

                Winston’s only interest is self interest and with a stint as Prime Minister coming up and no doubt a plum job offshore after this parliamentary term he’ll happily support anything so as not to rock the boat.

                • McFlock …
                  25 January 2018 at 1:48 pm

                  That’s what the nats thought. Then he turned them down.

                  And he didn’t “happily support” a total fix of 90-day fire at will, either.

                  • Stunned Mullet …
                    25 January 2018 at 1:56 pm

                    “That’s what the nats thought.”

                    And it looks like it’s one of the calls they got correct.

                    • McFlock …
                      25 January 2018 at 2:00 pm

                      Yes. the nats chose to move offices for the hell of it.

                      Or maybe they wanted a view from the other side of the House just for a change?

                    • Stunned Mullet …
                      25 January 2018 at 2:09 pm

                      Now now don’t continue with your daft babbling.

                      It’s fairly obvious to most that among Winston’s over-riding reasons for going with Labour was self interest, that’s hardly surprising for a politician let alone Winston.

                    • McFlock …
                      25 January 2018 at 3:14 pm

                      Well, that’s one possibility.

                      Another is that the NZ1st party chose Labour because National offered baubles and no policy.

                      The opposite of your opinion.

                      But then, your opinion also requires one to believe that national were too principled to offer a practically infinite number of baubles to Winston – whereas we know National was prepared to knife its own candidates for single-seat coalition partners and invent diplomatic posts for political gain.

                    • Stunned Mullet …
                      25 January 2018 at 3:28 pm

                      Yes I’m quite sure Winston’s decision had nothing to do with self interest 😆

                    • McFlock …
                      25 January 2018 at 3:41 pm

                      Well, no, you don’t believe that at all (and that’s not what I said, and it wasn’t solely his decision anyway).

                      Like the nats (with whom you are not now and have never been supporting, honest) you have a prediliction towards believing that anyone’s personal and immediate self interest is their overriding (as in “primary” motivation, as in “overrides all other factors”) motivation to do anything. That’s why they thought they could knife him during the campaign, then offer his lot five or more cabinet posts and he’d go into coalition with them.

                      It cost them the government.

                    • Stunned Mullet …
                      25 January 2018 at 3:48 pm

                      😆 “it wasn’t solely his decision anyway”

                      “you have a prediliction towards believing that anyone’s personal and immediate self interest is their overriding (as in “primary” motivation, as in “overrides all other factors”) motivation to do anything.”

                      No not anyone – but certainly Winston.

                      And as I have mentioned elsewhere I didn’t vote for the Nats this time around, not that who one votes for is anyone elses business.

                    • McFlock …
                      25 January 2018 at 3:54 pm

                      It’s a secret ballot, but you sure as shit have a lot in common with the nats. A belief that everyone is as corrupt as you, for a start.

                      And if Peters is as self-interested as you claim, why didn’t he go with the nats? Do you really think that Labour would offer more pointless baubles than National would?

                    • Stunned Mullet …
                      25 January 2018 at 3:57 pm

                      😆 Dear old Mcflock you do remind me of my dear mate Felix at times.

                      Not sure where you got the idea that I think I’m corrupt ?

                    • McFlock …
                      25 January 2018 at 4:16 pm

                      Just your comments.

                    • Stunned Mullet …
                      25 January 2018 at 4:44 pm

                      😆 The ones where I encourage people who see corruption or the like to report it to the authorities ?

                      Do you need a cup of tea and a hug ?

                      My dear old mate Felix would never have written such tripe.

                    • McFlock …
                      25 January 2018 at 4:51 pm

                      Yeah, that’s the stuff – the bits where you think “corrupt” = “illegal”. In other words, the distinction between “upstanding pillar of society” and “corrupt swine” is whether or not you can get away with it.

                      Or as Cartman puts it, if you get caught it’s “cheating”, if you don’t get caught you’re “savvy”.

                    • Stunned mullet …
                      25 January 2018 at 5:36 pm

                      So my comment that

                      “For the avoidance of doubt I do believe that anyone who knows of any person or child that is being neglected or abused should definitely report it to the relevant authorities and any one seeing such abuse occurring should intervene immediately.”

                      in your world = I believe everyone is as corrupt as me.

                      Have you been to the Morrissey Breen school of stenography McF ?

                      You really do seem to need a sit down and a cuppa, me dear old mate Felix would be rolling around the floor laughing if he saw anyone writing the load of tosh you’ve spewed out this afternoon.

                    • McFlock …
                      25 January 2018 at 6:00 pm

                      Your solution to a child living in material hardship is to “report it to the authorities”, when it’s usually the authorities who fail to give caregivers enough resources to take care of their children in the first place.

                      That doesn’t indicate you’re a stellar human being.

                    • Stunned mullet …
                      25 January 2018 at 6:15 pm

                      😆 you really should have a cuppa and a lie down, you appear to be babbling wildly now.

                    • McFlock …
                      25 January 2018 at 6:42 pm

                      Geez, all these people you say are babbling and need a hug or a lie down – it couldn’t possibly be the fact that your tory brain impairs your reading comprehension… /sarc

                    • Stunned mullet …
                      25 January 2018 at 6:53 pm

                      😆 tory 😆

                    • McFlock …
                      25 January 2018 at 6:58 pm

                      It’s a broad classification that involves many flavours of self-important jerks who have difficulty understanding ethical concepts and any human motivation other than selfishness.

                    • Stunned mullet …
                      25 January 2018 at 7:03 pm

                      😆 you really should have a cuppa and a lie down, your making yourself look more foolish with each additional comment.

                      Dear old Felix would be doubled over with laughter and Oleolebiscuitbarrel would undoubtedly have shat himself by now.

                      😆

                    • McFlock …
                      25 January 2018 at 7:06 pm

                      names from the past – have they read your comments lately?

                    • Stunned mullet …
                      25 January 2018 at 7:09 pm

                      😆 having too many laughs reading yours at the moment.

              • Rosemary McDonald …
                25 January 2018 at 3:49 pm

                “….he knows enough to convince him it’s a good deal.”

                Or maybe they just have him by the baubles….

                • Stunned Mullet …
                  25 January 2018 at 4:46 pm

                  Possibly Rosemary but he’s a sly old git, my pick would be the other way around.

              • cleangreen …
                25 January 2018 at 7:04 pm

                stunned mullet,

                I wished you was right believe me for my kids future’s sake, as I’m to old to have anything hurt me now 74 this year. but we owe care to do what is right for you kids.

      • red-blooded 14.1.2
        25 January 2018 at 12:56 pm

        Reply to Molly at 14.1: Labour were always transparent about what they would need to sign up to the deal. Check out the link in my previous comment to see the 5 sticking points. They’ve also been clear about what’s been progressed under the new agreement and said they’ll have a select committee and release the text of the agreement before signing it. That’s a transparent process. What more do you want?

        • cleangreen 14.1.2.1
          25 January 2018 at 1:32 pm

          No RB,

          The select committee will just rubber stamp the agreement.

          We want submissions by the public after we see the agreement not just before signing, as it doesn’t give any time to place a submission process in place to give us all our ‘promised voice will be heard and “inclusion” which was always promised during the election and after;

          quote; – Our government will be kinder, gentler, caring, inclusive, transparent and every voice will be heard and considered.

          This deal will affect alll our people for the next twenty five plus years so we need to firstly have our day in court in front of government comittee to have our voice considered before signing.

          Select committee should be able to delver this and carry this out in regional panels/commissions at least.

          Not just shut the door on us all. – that is not inclusion.

        • Molly 14.1.2.2
          25 January 2018 at 3:27 pm

          They had five sticking points that did not seem to address the concerns of the public – but appeared to have been manufactured in some focus group as soft concessions.

          An analogy that springs to mind is a marriage partner in a prenup agreeing to go to the movies, and take out the garbage, when the other partner is asking for agreement on whether to have children, how to divide income, where to live. You might end up in a relationship that has good garbage turnover and loyalty cards to Events cinema, which is all that was promised, but it is still the pits.

          The failure of the previous draft to show economic benefit, has not been addressed. The issues around the benefits to workers and residents in all partnership countries – not just NZ – have not been addressed. The concerns about ISDS are still there.

          Just because they created mediocre sticking points – which left the bar low enough to shuffle over – doesn’t mean they are operating with integrity.

          If they were, they would acknowledge the extremely flawed public consultation process – and would conduct a fair and comprehensive one. They would acknowledge the pitiful economic benefits and ask whether they are worth the possibility of litigation or impact on the ToW or legislation.

          Given the comments about capitalism and transparency – this is an ideal place for Labour to show their point of difference to how things have been done in the past.

          • cleangreen 14.1.2.2.1
            25 January 2018 at 7:05 pm

            yes Molly i see that to this was manufactured crap just another diversion again.

  15. McFlock 15
    25 January 2018 at 12:23 pm

    If the current version is good for SMEs, then we should get a decent GDP boost from it.

    So while I agree with red-blooded that Labour seems to have pretty much fulfilled its promises regarding the CPTPP, I’m not sure it’s worth signing up to until we get the economic impact assessments.

    ISTR that the TPP was <1% of GDP benefit after 20 years – margin of error bullshit from the crowd who can't routinely predict GDP within 1% a year out. So if the CPTPP has similar trace-element economic advantages, what are the reasons to sign it?

    • ropata 15.1
      25 January 2018 at 1:37 pm

      The TPP creates a trade bloc to rival the dominance of China. It would have been in the US’ geopolitical interest to sign up. However I’m afraid for NZ that will mean even more cheap crap from Asia going into NZ landfills.

      I’d be interested to know if it will improve the lot of workers in the respective countries, and will it improve safety and quality standards of goods and services?

  16. Janet 16
    25 January 2018 at 12:24 pm

    “it’s far bigger than CER and at least as big as the China-New Zealand FTA (now our two dominant trading partners) in their integration of economies in to the medium term. The economies in the agreement are the destination for 31% of both our goods and services exports,
    The New Zealand economy consists of mostly small and medium-sized enterprises, and has been so since we started trading flax, sailship spars, whales, furs and weapons with Sydney from the late 1700s. International trade is and will always be the very fabric of our society.”

    As a small artisan pottery enterprise along with medium sized production ones like Crown Lynn, whose products were mainly destined for internal New Zealand sales, the “wonderful” FTA with China saw the end of most New Zealand-made pottery. Three thousand pottery businesses and their associated service industries were wiped away with the stroke of a pen. One of the many sad outcomes of that is instead of New Zealand made souvenirs for tourists to take home, it’s mainly Chinese- made souvenirs on offer to represent the heart and soul of New Zealand. How sick is that!
    It is not just about export opportunity it should also consider the diversity of skills we have and should hold in New Zealand. Pottery will not have been the only one so decimated.

    • cleangreen 16.1
      25 January 2018 at 12:30 pm

      yes janet,

      Same happens in our manufacturing industries as we over the last 32 yrs seen the NZ ‘iconic’ industries close down as overseas cheap Asian products come here.

      So yes the flood of overseas cheap products will further undermine our NZ industries.

    • Ad 16.2
      25 January 2018 at 3:39 pm

      Yet we have greater economic diversity, a stronger society, more trading partners, 4.6% headline unemployment. And sell only high quality artisanal products rather than cheap suburbanware.

  17. Observer Tokoroa 17
    25 January 2018 at 1:22 pm

    Hi CleanGreen

    Your thesis is that we should not trade with anyone. We should shut shop. Pull the blinds down. Do nothing.

    And you can march Everyman and Every woman and Every child to the Cleangreen Crematorium. Where everything is dust.

    Count me out of your Cult.

    • Draco T Bastard 17.1
      25 January 2018 at 1:33 pm

      What a load of bollocks.

      It’s trade that’s been causing our industries to falter because they can’t compete with the cheap labour overseas. It’s trade that’s causing us to ‘do nothing’ although it’s probably more accurately expressed as doing more cheap shit that destroys the environment.

    • cleangreen 17.2
      25 January 2018 at 7:09 pm

      Your’e welcome.+ Observer Tokoroa.

  18. cleangreen 18
    25 January 2018 at 1:43 pm

    Observer Tokoroa;

    Read my posts plan to have “our voice heard now” and not be herded like some bloody sheep here!!!!

    As this will affect every person in this country for generations after this becomes enacted.

    Why don’t they release the full agreement now?

    “Nothing to hide; – nothing to fear” we are told all the time; – so are you not that inquisitive???
    If it is that good why not give us the proof now? give us the full agreement.

    Get us into the “tent” and release the bloody full agreement now so we can plan submissions to present to a panel of commissioners after we investigate the full ramifications of this “trade deal” which we believe it is not really that good for us all.

    How will we know if we don’t see the full agreement now???

    So we have time to be included in the “Select committee process” before they go back and sign it;

    We need to be on board fully now or this is trouble for labour.

  19. Observer Tokoroa 19
    25 January 2018 at 2:22 pm

    Cleangreen
    .
    I will believe you and your wistful followers when I see you taking the bulldozers and tractors off the paddocks and roads – and giving the workers picks and shovels.

    I will believe you when all workers will not have transport to work – but will walk miles to their – like the olden days. No buses; no trains no cars; no planes.

    I will believe you when you and your followers led by Jane Kelsey rage through New Zealand ripping out every thing that looks remotely robotic. Such as toilets. Can openers. Electric lights. Whiteboards. Radios. TVs

    If you want higher wages in NZ, you will need well educated creative designers and Engineers.You will not need professors writing garbage.

    You will not need people who are pining for picks and shovels.

    sorry .

    • cleangreen 19.1
      25 January 2018 at 7:14 pm

      Well Obverser Tokoroa,

      You can use fear but personally I don’t respond to fear or threats.

      And am a true ‘Kiwi can do’ – what are you?

  20. CHCOff 20
    25 January 2018 at 2:40 pm

    As long as it doesn’t bugger the economy to the extent for the masses that the international criminal underworlds can move in to fill the societal vacuums with drugs, crime extortion rackets etc.

    Cause know, for all the current interests that think they are on the winning team at the moment, once that happens, they will become increasingly irrelevant also no matter how hard a line is taken on crime.

  21. SPC 21
    25 January 2018 at 2:48 pm

    We need to push on, with RCEP (ASEAN and the 6 nations it has FTA’s with
    with China, Japan, South Korea, India, Oz and us in one comprehensive agreement).

    It gives us means to improve on current arrangements (take advantage of the EU looking to realise qualitative (labour and environment) FTA’s with ASEAN and China) free of the American imperatives – TPP is not safe from them if the US joins. And it adds India for us.

    • Ad 21.1
      25 January 2018 at 3:49 pm

      Countries already keen:
      Philippines, Thailand, South Korea, more to come.

      Big extra plus:
      Collectivity that resists US trade isolation.

    • cleangreen 21.2
      25 January 2018 at 7:20 pm

      One world governance, seems to be what you are taking about here aren’t you SPC.

      12 families ruling the world at the end of it all.

      sovereignty gone forever then.

      • McFlock 21.2.1
        25 January 2018 at 7:27 pm

        Global government doesn’t mean dynastic government.

        We have global problems that need globally-coordinated solutions.

        • cleangreen 21.2.1.1
          25 January 2018 at 7:33 pm

          Mcflock,

          No guarantee it wont be a dynastic global government again will it?

          We have been here before 80 yrs ago haven’t we?

          • McFlock 21.2.1.1.1
            25 January 2018 at 7:50 pm

            What, you mean the empire that arose out of a constitutional monarchy?

            Let’s go for the current global government: how dynastic is the UN?

            Maybe the UN will be dynastic, maybe not. Guarantees are usually made by fools and used car salesmen. But global problems require global solutions, and at the moment we have a power vacuum on the global leadership level.

            • cleangreen 21.2.1.1.1.1
              25 January 2018 at 7:58 pm

              Mcflock,

              What a risk to take, so are we that desperate for taking these risks for our kids futures?

              • McFlock …
                25 January 2018 at 8:07 pm

                We are obliged to take the least-risky option for future generations.

                Just imagine if the security council had no vetos and the UN had teeth in 2003. The chances of a US invasion of Iraq and all the consequences would be dramatically reduced.

            • cleangreen 21.2.1.1.1.2
              25 January 2018 at 8:02 pm

              Mcflock,

              “We have a power vacuum at present”?

              Well I trust Russia more than US now!!!!

              Why aren’t we knocking on their door???

              • McFlock …
                25 January 2018 at 8:03 pm

                there’s polonium on the doorknocker.

                edit: besides, russia is at best a regional power.

  22. Drowsy M. Kram 22
    25 January 2018 at 3:10 pm

    Wistful follower of cleangreen here,

    It’s ‘business’ as usual. Despite the apparent safeguards, this ‘agreement’ will facilitate inequality, the further sale of NZ, and the degradation of local skill bases so important for resilience. Climate change is exposing and exacerbating the degradation of societal networks and natural environments.

    Yet many remain determinedly focused on short-term personal gain (to get ahead of what/who, I wonder?) Turkeys voting for Xmas isn’t quite right; how about sheep trading in mint sauce futures? A few will certainly be salivating!

    • cleangreen 22.1
      25 January 2018 at 7:24 pm

      Yes Drowsy M Knam,

      The end is total control, as we have never seen before that’s the end game from these “build phony trade agreements” put up lines.

      It is about global dominance now not ‘trade’

      Wake up people!!!!.

  23. koreropono 23
    25 January 2018 at 6:20 pm

    I prefer the opinion of Professor Jane Kelsey, I believe she is probably better qualified to understand the implications of the ‘rebranded’ TPP (see https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/25-01-2018/labour-progressive-tppa/). The spin is a sad attempt to sell this BS deal to an already suspicious public, we’re not stupid but…Labour are just doing what Labour does, spin the truth while pretending to be ‘progressive’, duplicitous all the way.

    • cleangreen 23.1
      25 January 2018 at 7:27 pm

      Perfectly said koreropono, 100%

      Some cant see the woods for the trees.

      There’s none so blind as those who will not see.

    • Carolyn_Nth 23.2
      25 January 2018 at 7:38 pm

      Thanks for the link.

      Labour and NZ First are seriously disappointing on this. A major part of the problem is having David Parker taking the lead on it. He is a soft neoliberal, and will never lead the really progressive change we desperately need.
      Some key points from Kelsey’s article:

      What has changed? Overall, very little. Former trade minister Tim Groser said New Zealand had to swallow a number of dead rats to conclude the original agreement. A number of those rats are in hibernation under the TPPA-11, but none have been euthanised.

      To be fair, the Labour-led government was handed a poison chalice. National excluded the opposition parties from information about the negotiations, leaving them dependent on leaks like everyone else. It expected – and senior Labour officials had hoped – the agreement would have been in force before the 2017 election.

      What should a Labour-led government have done differently? First, it should have commissioned the revised independent economic assessment and health impact analyses it called for in opposition. Second, it should have shown a political backbone, like the Canadian government that also inherited the deal. Canada played hardball and successful demanded side-letters to alter its obligations relating to investment and auto-parts. Not great, but something. New Zealand should have demanded similar side-letters excluding it from ISDS as a pre-requisite for continued participation. Third, it should have sought the suspension of the UPOV 1991 obligation, which has serious Treaty implications, and engaged with Māori to strengthen the Treaty of Waitangi exception, as the Waitangi Tribunal advised. Fourth, it should have withdrawn its agreement to the secrecy pact.

      None of that happened. So what now? The government could still do all the above, but both Labour and NZ First lack the political will. Instead, we’ll have domestic political fight with two parties that previously opposed ratification.

      The priority for me is to break through the information deficit and reiterate the long-term costs of the deal, versus the minimal gains for low quality exports of beef and dairy.

      The most crucial area of the TPPA that has not received enough attention is the novel chapter on electronic commerce – basically, a set of rules that will cement the oligopoly of Big Tech for the indefinite future, allowing them to hold data offshore subject to the privacy and security laws of the country hosting the server, or not to disclose source codes, preventing effective scrutiny of anti-competitive or discriminatory practices.

      Labour knows it has to do better, but I don’t think it knows how, especially if it has to get other negotiating partners on board. It also knows that it can’t expect people to take the promise of a progressive new model for New Zealand’s international trading relations seriously if it signs and ratifies the TPPA-11.

  24. cleangreen 24
    25 January 2018 at 7:53 pm

    true Carolyn,

    Why has the deal been subject to tight secrecy that even the parties have yet to see the final agreement only after they have signed up to it firstly!!!!!!!l

    Anyone with half a brain can see this is a setup to nobble all the participants only after they have already signed up to the agreement still unseen.

    Am I mad to be disillusioned at this crooked “deal” of crap?

    It is like swallowing a dead rotting rat before looking at the object firstly.

    I don’t buy this crap period, we’ve been had here.

  25. Michelle 25
    24 February 2018 at 1:33 am

    These misguided free trade fetishists push and apologize for their ideology like the religious push and apologize their religion. How much longer will the human race be held back by rubbish capitalist ideology that sacrifices the many for the few.