The TPPA could blight public education

Written By: - Date published: 8:03 am, February 9th, 2016 - 178 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, capitalism, class war, education, Globalisation, trade - Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The TPPA can get its long fingers into just about anything. Even a public service such as education. This piece by New Zealand Educational Institute national secretary Paul Goulter should be compulsory reading:

TPP puts profit ahead of quality education

Imagine an education system where multi-national corporations could set up a school alongside your local public school, and then demand equal access to the taxpayer purse to fund that school.

Charter schools on steroids.

It’s a likely scenario because global businesses are on the hunt for new ways of getting their fingers into nations’ multi-billion dollar public education purses. And here in New Zealand, the TPPA could provide that opportunity.

Even Singapore, which our education minister has hailed as one of the high performing education systems that we should look towards, has taken the precaution of carving education out of the TPPA deal.

Our negotiators either didn’t manage, or more likely didn’t even try, to get a similar “out” clause for education in New Zealand. As a consequence, they have put at risk the rights of future governments to protect our public education system against any “level-playing field” changes that would disadvantage global edu-businesses.

Sheer incompetence.

This is because the TPPA aims to further liberalise trade and investment in ways that have very little to do with trade in its original sense of reducing tariffs and limiting the use of import quotas. In reality, the agreement encourages government to adopt education policies that pursue trade and investment “opportunities”.
…
Back in the US where the private sector has been allowed to effectively “compete” with the public sector, public schools have been undermined to the point of collapse.
…
This is the future under a system that supports big global companies gaining a slice of public education funding. Our government needs to be reminded that quality public education is the right of every child and must never become a taxpayer-funded opportunity for global corporate profit.

Much more in the full article, a compelling read. The Tertiary Education Union has also spoken up:

TPPA threatens free education
…
TEU’s national president Sandra Grey says the secret agreement will undermine public education. … Grey says the agreement will allow corporations to sue New Zealand when the government acts in its people’s interest but interferes with corporations’ property rights and profitability.

“The TPPA will limit current and future governments’ abilities to make decisions that are the best for our kids’ education,” says Grey.

“The TPPA should explicitly exclude crucial public services like education but it does not”, says Grey. “This means it threatens things like the Labour Party’s promise to introduce free public tertiary education.”

“Future governments should have the right to give our kids a free education without fearing they will need to compensate a private foreign university that has lost an opportunity to make a profit off our kids.”

(For a longer analysis from Grey see here.)

The TPPA is a way of locking in a permanent, international right-wing governance which can limit and constrain the kind of social policies that any future NZ left-wing government might want to enact. Clever, isn’t it.

178 comments on “The TPPA could blight public education ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 1
    9 February 2016 at 8:26 am

    And parents will be forced to send their children to these schools against their will. Disgraceful.

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 1.1
      9 February 2016 at 8:48 am

      Who knows?

      But the funding going to students could fall, because of the chunk now not delivering anything to students, but instead earmarked for shareholder profits.

      And don’t start that crap about the increased efficiency of private operations more than compensating for the money lost to private profit…it just ain’t so.

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 1.1.1
        9 February 2016 at 9:02 am

        Will parents want to send their children to the school that delivers the best education to their children and, if so, why do we have anything to worry about?

        • Lanthanide 1.1.1.1
          9 February 2016 at 9:40 am

          Because in some areas, parents may not have any choice about sending their children to a school that delivers the best education.

          This is pretty obvious, if a community with a small number of schools has all of those schools replaced by private for-profit schools, where the quality of education ends up being lower than what had previously been provided by the state schools.

          Such an outcome *is* possible (if potentially unlikely). Without this TPPA treaty, it would not be possible.

          • Hanswurst 1.1.1.1.1
            9 February 2016 at 10:45 am

            What on Earth does “potentially unlikely” mean?

            • Lanthanide 1.1.1.1.1.1
              9 February 2016 at 11:00 am

              How likely do you think it is that all state schools in a particular area would be *replaced* by private ones?

              I think it’s potentially (because we haven’t ratified the TPPA yet) unlikely.

          • burt 1.1.1.1.2
            9 February 2016 at 4:37 pm

            Because in some areas, parents may not have any choice about sending their children to a school that delivers the best education.

            Are they going to introduce zoning or some other such system that arbitrarily controls the choice of schools ?

            I hope not, imagine how elite some schools would become. Somewhere like Auckland Grammar might have it’s Pacific Island student role drop from 16% to 3% … Oh, hang on – zoning has already done that. As you were… head back up your own ass pretending life is good in state owned la la land.

            • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1.2.1
              10 February 2016 at 10:20 am

              Somewhere like Auckland Grammar might have it’s Pacific Island student role drop from 16% to 3% … Oh, hang on – zoning has already done that.

              It’s not zoning that’s done that but the stupidity of rich people.

        • just saying 1.1.1.2
          9 February 2016 at 10:03 am

          Also, because they siphon off the kids that need the least help and (further) ghettoise education for children with special educational, health, behavioural, or other socio-economic related needs.

        • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.3
          9 February 2016 at 12:35 pm

          Schools, like dairies, are natural monopolies. One school per area to get the most efficient distribution. This is why we have school zoning.

          If someone then comes along and drops a second school next to the first we now have competition. That competition has doubled the cost of schooling in that area through use of more land, resources to build the school and bureaucracy to run it. All that added cost won’t actually improve schooling. In fact, due to the limited funding to schools, it would seriously decrease school performance across both schools compared to the single school that was there before hand.

          Best practice for schooling should be determined by research rather than by ideological experimentation on children.

          • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 1.1.1.3.1
            9 February 2016 at 12:38 pm

            I think we should increase steel production.

          • tinfoilhat 1.1.1.3.2
            9 February 2016 at 2:45 pm

            Hold on weren’t you arguing for multiple medical schools just last week ?

            • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.3.2.1
              9 February 2016 at 4:02 pm

              Not within a cities unless a particularly large city. In other words, not servicing the same area.

              And I also said that they’d be working together making a single network and thus a monopoly but not one dominated by a single school of thought.

          • burt 1.1.1.3.3
            9 February 2016 at 4:49 pm

            Best practice for schooling should be determined by research rather than by ideological experimentation on children.

            Right, but schools must be state owned and zoned – wow, thank god that’s not an ideological experiment on children.

            • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.3.3.1
              10 February 2016 at 10:18 am

              Fuck you’re a moronic dickhead. If you have an actual argument how about you actually try to explain it rather than just reaching for the ignorant sarcasm and proving your stupidity.

          • David 1.1.1.3.4
            10 February 2016 at 8:17 am

            “Schools, like dairies, are natural monopolies. One school per area to get the most efficient distribution. This is why we have school zoning.”

            It’s not in anyway a natural monopoly, you have just decided it’s more ‘efficient’ for it to be made an artificial monopoly through zoning.

            • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.3.4.1
              10 February 2016 at 10:15 am

              Can you explain how having two or more schools servicing the same area and thus doubling or more the bureaucracy and the costs without any further benefit is more efficient?

              • David …
                10 February 2016 at 1:10 pm

                Your using an efficiency argument to justify a monopoly. Why don’t we do this with the whole economy? One car manufacturer, one brand of washing up liquid, one airline, one choice for government, one kind of coffee.

                It would all be so much more efficient……

                • framu …
                  10 February 2016 at 3:50 pm

                  wow david – sterling effort in not seeing that education and the sale of goods and services arent remotely the same thing

                  • David …
                    10 February 2016 at 7:51 pm

                    Please explain how they are not ‘remotely the same thing’. While your at it, can you also explain how a monopoly is desirable in education, but not in anything else.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  10 February 2016 at 9:24 pm

                  Your using an efficiency argument to justify a monopoly.

                  And the neo-classicals and libertarians use the efficiency argument to justify competition. The problem being that competition costs more than a monopoly.

                  I’m not surprised to find that you can’t actually answer my question.

                  You make the usual mistake of confusing competition in the market place as proof that there’s a surfeit of ideas being implemented. This isn’t true. In fact, most ideas are lost because our system only allows ideas from the rich to succeed. One manufacturer could be a great improvement as the costs saved from having more than one could go towards getting more ideas implemented.

                  Why do you want more than one washing up liquid available? Wouldn’t it be better to just have the best that current knowledge can produce?

                  The branding on the coffee is meaningless. What you really need to know is what type of beans they are and where they were grown. The actual determinants of the flavour of the coffee.

                  • David …
                    11 February 2016 at 8:02 am

                    It’s not an efficiency argument that favours competition, but a wider adaptability and responsiveness one. Without competition you have no outlet for change or progress, one of the primary reasons that the Soviet Union was such a failure. The drive for efficient tractor production meant SFA against an adaptive economy like the western nations had.

                    The branding of coffee is far from meaningless, Starbucks is valued at $70bn almost entirely on branding. That is the democracy of the market telling you that your ideas are very wrong indeed.

                    ” One manufacturer could be a great improvement as the costs saved from having more than one could go towards getting more ideas implemented.”

                    This is clearly untrue, if it really did work this way then the Soviet Union would not have been such an economic disaster.

  2. Tautoko Mangō Mata 2
    9 February 2016 at 8:44 am

    “Canadian educators join global teacher unions’ call to carve out education from Trans-Pacific Partnership”

    http://www.caut.ca/news/2016/02/02/canadian-educators-join-global-teacher-unions-call-to-carve-out-education-from-trans-pacific-partnership

  3. Gosman 3
    9 February 2016 at 9:25 am

    And yet andrew Little still refuses to commit to pulling out of the deal if Labour becomes the largest party in the next government.

    • Lanthanide 3.1
      9 February 2016 at 9:41 am

      He was clear on RNZ this morning, that Labour will re-negotiate or ignore parts of the deal they don’t like.

      Bit of an odd position, but that’s their position.

      • Colonial Viper 3.1.1
        9 February 2016 at 11:32 am

        It’s an unrealistic position. Little has no hope of forcing huge countries like Japan and the USA back to the negotiating table when it is their corporates who wrote and are benefiting from the TPP.

        Little might be able to get these countries to sit down for a cuppa and some cakes, as a photo op. But it’s not going to be for any actual negotiating.

        Further I reckon he already knows this, so IMO his position is insincere.

      • Bill 3.1.2
        9 February 2016 at 11:43 am

        A Labour led government can ignore any parts of the ‘agreement’ it chooses. And sometimes that will ‘slide on by’ and other times it will result in an ISDS. The average cost of an ISDS is US$8 million (costs are not generally awarded). Then there is the potential for compensation on top of that if the decision goes against the government.

        Labour’s positioning has it standing on top of a high building saying ‘We are not in favour of jumping, we are now jumping’. Fucking pointless and potentially damaging to any genuine resistance insofar as they will inevitably seek to convince people that TINA and it ain’t really quite as bad as some very worst case scenario they dream up.

        (eg – “Oh look! We got to put restrictions around individual house sales!!”)

        • Colonial Viper 3.1.2.1
          9 February 2016 at 11:47 am

          Little knows all this stuff. So he’s clearly not in control of the pro-TPP faction of his own caucus which keeps pushing Labour in a certain way, and making disingenuous, insincere statements as a result.

          I also note that David Shearer kept all his portfolios and his position in caucus.

          In contrast, if it had been David Cunliffe speaking out against the Leader’s position, Cunliffe would have been sent to mine coal in Northern Siberia the next day.

          • Bill 3.1.2.1.1
            9 February 2016 at 12:04 pm

            I’d assume Little knows all this. I mean, he has access to people and resources that I, allegedly hunched at a keyboard behind drawn curtains, don’t have.

            So…

            Either he’s an idiot ( and so shouldn’t be allowed to say fuck all about anything) or he’s lying. I can’t see any room for a third option.

            As for what Labour does within its caucus in relation to individual members – yeah, it can be indicative of where power lies. But honestly? I don’t give a shit any more.

            Labour’s a busted flush (or whatever) and all the post-mortems and what not are energy draining irrelevances.

            • weka 3.1.2.1.1.1
              9 February 2016 at 12:09 pm

              I can see a third option. He’s had legal opinion that the closed curtain brigade doesn’t have access to. I know you’ve read bits of the TPPA and you have your intepretation of them which you are certain of, but lots of people are reading it and thinking shit this is complex, what does this mean?

              So who is right?

              Just pointing out that there is at least one other potential way of interpreting Little/Labour’s behaviour (albeit as always at the risk of having to bang one’s head on the desk though).

              • Bill …
                9 February 2016 at 2:32 pm

                Can I suggest you move the coffee off to the side before that head to desk maneuver? Coffee and keyboards. Bad combination.

                No legal opinion based on precedent will work out, because the SDSI don’t have to give any acknowledgement to any precedents from, or take into account, any principles or whatever from any field of law.

                Essentially, the 3 people who preside on an SDSI panel are judge, jury and executioner…a bit like when the peasants of lore went before a King or whatever to seek judgement or redress. You don’t like the decision that’s been handed down? Tough. No appeal and not even a right to read the deliberations that resulted in a given decision.

                But okay. Let’s say Labour have discovered some remarkable ‘work-around’. Andrew Little can tell us all about what that is and how it will work. See, it’s not as though he needs to be secretive about it to ensure its effectiveness. The TPP is signed and can’t be altered without the consent of all the signatories.

                You want to be holding your breathe in anticipation of some imminent announcement from Labour?

                • weka …
                  9 February 2016 at 2:49 pm

                  Of course not. But I do think that if we want to have a conversation about pulling out of the TPPA it needs to include getting a truer picture of what the hell Labour are on about.

                  “No legal opinion based on precedent will work out, ”

                  But your rationale is based on a non-legal opinion. And for every scenario you put up like the one just now, I can put up a counter (eg maybe it’s not about precedents). Hence my wanting to understand more about what Labour are thinking before discussing it (because at the moment we’re guessing).

                  • Bill …
                    9 February 2016 at 3:07 pm

                    I think you’ve missed the point on why I mentioned legal precedents …they’re about the strongest weapon in any legal armoury. And my point is that even legal precedents -from whatever international field of law – have no impact on ISDS decisions or deliberations.

                    That aside, and like I say. Let’s imagine Labour have ‘a work-around’. Well, what is it? They can tell us, safe in the knowledge that the TPP can’t be tweaked by one party or another in an effort to pre-empt their cunning ploy.

                    • weka …
                      9 February 2016 at 3:15 pm

                      Fair enough, but I think my point was being lost too. Which was that while CV sees one option to explain Labour’s actions (Little is lying), and you see two (Little is either lying or stupid), I was suggesting that there is at least one other (that they are thinking of something we don’t know about). I agree that Labour need to explain what they’re thinking.

                    • just saying …
                      9 February 2016 at 3:16 pm

                      Yeah Labour’s a bitter disappointment – what’s new?
                      But they’ve been moved by public pressure and they can be moved more by public pressure.

                      And the management aren’t the only ones who were noticably late to this particular party. Pity it was just some women talking and organising about the TPP until it gained momentum.

                    • weka …
                      9 February 2016 at 3:20 pm

                      +1 js, on all counts.

                    • Bill …
                      9 February 2016 at 3:41 pm

                      Pity it was just some women talking and organising about the TPP until it gained momentum.

                      That would indeed have been piteous . Just as well it wasn’t the case then, eh?

                    • Bill …
                      9 February 2016 at 4:47 pm

                      Yeah, but option three doesn’t stack up when any logic is applied to it…not if the third option is to be seen as something either viable or effective.

                      Via a number of comments, I’ve stepped through the reasoning as to why that’s the case.

                      At least part of your objection seems to have been that I’m not a lawyer and to suggest it’s guesswork on my part which, well, lawyers don’t have exclusive rights or abilities when it comes to applying logic to written text. It’s not guesswork on my part – it’s been a case of taking what’s there and working through it to possible logical conclusions. (Option three, as proposed by yourself, if it has to be a viable or workable possibility then becomes excluded)

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      9 February 2016 at 4:53 pm

                      I can see a third option. He’s had legal opinion that the closed curtain brigade doesn’t have access to.

                      I’d be quite happy for Labour to share with us that legal opinion.

                      Or is it a secret legal opinion that no one else other than Andrew Little can see?

                      Anyways, just remember that the transnationals have access to much more expensive lawyers and far larger legal teams and significantly more comprehensive legal opinions than Andrew Little does.

                    • weka …
                      9 February 2016 at 5:17 pm

                      @Bill, I don’t think you’re guessing about the TPPA (your work on this is obvious), but most of the bits you’ve quoted to me have come across as ambiguous. And I’m not saying that Labour have a lawyer’s opinion that outweighs yours, I’m saying that it’s possible. Or it’s possible that they have something that you and CV havne’t thought of. It’s a basic argument in logic., and I do think you’re guessing about Labour (we all are). At that level, no, sorry, I don’t take you as an ultimate expert on the TPPA and all the possible things that could happen, despite you being one of the better informed commenters here. I’m saying there is room for doubt in your argument, and that I want to know what Labour are actually doing (as opposed to our speculations).

                      @CV, pity then that you’ve burnt your bridges there or otherwise you could have gathered some information for us.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      9 February 2016 at 5:57 pm

                      Nah fuck it, Labour aren’t worth it. I got tired of polishing policy turds, just like this one on the TPP, for them.

                    • weka …
                      9 February 2016 at 6:33 pm

                      I wasn’t suggesting you could have done it for Labour CV. Honest to god, why is it so hard to see the bigger picture here?

          • AmaKiwi 3.1.2.1.2
            9 February 2016 at 1:41 pm

            I puke at the prospect of Shearer representing Labour on the select committee which will discuss TPPA.

            If the Labour caucus has any principles I’d like them published so we can laugh at the caucus.

            • weka 3.1.2.1.2.1
              9 February 2016 at 2:51 pm

              Is Shearer going to be on the select committee?

              • Savenz …
                9 February 2016 at 3:52 pm

                As well as losing important votes for labour if shearer keeps his pro tppa stance maybe he will lose his electorate seat. He’s getting 2 be a liability. As for the surveillance bill…. Didn’t he have involvement with that?

                Why can’t labour work out that they nat lite is not working!

                Every troll likes 2 point out labour did it 2. Stop doing it or lightly supporting any policy!

                • just saying …
                  9 February 2016 at 4:05 pm

                  Replying to Bill above

                  No not piteous, just a fact in one little corner of the world, at least. That comment was directed much more at CV than, than you Bill. But if the cap fits…

                  • Bill …
                    9 February 2016 at 4:33 pm

                    Dunno why you’d direct the comment at anyone to be honest.

                    If women were prominent in organising protest, then good. If the numbers have swollen and diversity (representating different ages, genders, ethnicities, class etc) has increased, then good.

                    But claiming that it was just some women talking and organising about the TPP…Nah.

                    • just saying …
                      9 February 2016 at 5:25 pm

                      You do a nice line in disingenuous, Bill.
                      But you’re not the star of disingenuous in this particular thread

                      To Weka
                      Your senses are very acute.
                      I don’t know how you have the energy to chase this though.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      9 February 2016 at 6:01 pm

                      Yes Labour are a bitter disappointment

                      Some are still enamoured with them though

                      Maybe the ship can be turned around and the Titanic un-holed?

                      I doubt it however.

                      Meanwhile, more revelations about how nasty the TPP is will doubtless be revealed, along with more details on how shit a negotiating job National has done (was it really that shit though? At least one of our negotiators got a diplomatic post out of it)

                      But Little and Labour will still stick with the TPP because as you know, they are a party of the establishment, just like National are.

                    • weka …
                      9 February 2016 at 6:30 pm

                      I’m sick of the binary thinking CV and if you are referring to me there I’ll just point out you’re wrong about my views and politics (and it’s apparently beyond you to get past your own politics to see what I am talking about. Either that or you’re intentionally misleading).

                      And I note you still don’t have a plan or any kind of useful suggestion on what to do. Criticism is cheap mate, it’s the solutions that are harder to come by.

                      @js, a big part of it is being homebound and bored but without the energy to do anything more constructive 😉

                    • Korero Pono …
                      9 February 2016 at 6:45 pm

                      + 1 Bill, not sure which women JS is referring to but I think it was a couple of high profile men that grabbed my attention on the issue…before that I’d barely heard a thing on the issue!

                  • Bill …
                    9 February 2016 at 6:03 pm

                    You told a blatant lie js.

                    I just called the momentum on the TPP the same as I would for anything else…ie, measuring against growing diversity and inclusion. But if all you want to do is take pot shots, shoot away. I’m gone.

              • AmaKiwi …
                9 February 2016 at 4:58 pm

                His “punishment” for speaking against the caucus position on TPPA was that he had to apologize to the caucus. (Cunliffe was drawn and quartered for much less!)

                Shearer is presently the Labour representative on foreign affairs select committee. Unless he has the integrity to say, “I can’t properly represent the majority of the caucus” (doubtful) or gets removed, Labour’s pro-TPPA MP will be representing Labour on TPPA.

                • weka …
                  9 February 2016 at 5:21 pm

                  thanks.

                • Incognito …
                  9 February 2016 at 10:50 pm

                  The NIA has been tabled only today so let’s just see what the Select Committee will do with it and how Shearer performs. In some ways Shearer could be the ideal man to represent the Labour Caucus on the Committee.

          • The Chairman 3.1.2.1.3
            10 February 2016 at 11:36 am

            Key rubbed Little’s nose in his two party position (TPP)

            https://youtu.be/LE2E_y4cOHk

  4. Kevin 4
    9 February 2016 at 9:37 am

    Our negotiators either didn’t manage, or more likely didn’t even try, to get a similar “out” clause for education in New Zealand.

    Because they had nothing to bargain with. When you hold no cards, ‘bargaining’ is just going through the motions.

    • Lanthanide 4.1
      9 February 2016 at 9:43 am

      And we get very little out of the TPPA anyway.

      Seems like if we had carved out education, we’d be unlikely to have gotten even less than we have.

      • Kevin 4.1.1
        9 February 2016 at 9:47 am

        Shouldn’t that be ‘likely’ Lanth?

        • Lanthanide 4.1.1.1
          9 February 2016 at 10:59 am

          No.

          We already hardly got anything, because we don’t have anything to bargain with.

          If we carved some extra things out, because we are already getting so little, it’s hard for them to punish us much more.

          • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1.1
            9 February 2016 at 11:33 am

            We already hardly got anything, because we don’t have anything to bargain with.

            I disagree. We could have shitloads to negotiate with; but our negotiators and our leaders couldn’t be bothered to do anything lie supine for our international “friends”.

            It’s like Andrew Little. Former union negotiator.

            He’s already told the whole world and all the existing TPP partner countries that Labour won’t pull out of the TPP.

            So he’s already fucked all future negotiation leverage for NZ before he’s even started.

            Not fit to be PM; Labour not fit to rule.

            • b waghorn 4.1.1.1.1.1
              9 February 2016 at 12:01 pm

              Any one would think Little was the one who signed us up to the tpp .
              I’m interested to know are you on any of the right wing blogs attacking key in this way? And if not why not?

              • Colonial Viper …
                9 February 2016 at 12:11 pm

                Because Key and National are doing their job serving the interests of their backers.

                I’m attacking Little and Labour because they clearly aren’t doing their job, trying instead to hedge each way.

                Labour is a party of the establishment, no doubt about that.

                By the way, you made no comment about Little having fucked NZ’s leverage in any future TPP negotiations by saying to one and all that Labour is going to stay in the TPP anyway.

                What a joke.

                Not fit to be PM.

                • te reo putake …
                  9 February 2016 at 3:18 pm

                  Then why do you support him, CV? Are you some kind of hypocrite? *

                  *Yes

                • b waghorn …
                  9 February 2016 at 7:46 pm

                  I don’t buy into the key as a deep state plant for the yanks. A grubby little trader who thinks business solves all is what he is, and that’s about the only honest part to him
                  As for Little I have not seen him categorically rule out pulling out, my opinion on his actions mean fuck all as I’m no insider . I just want key gone.
                  Can I ask what you think will happen if you convince labours core support to desert to the political wilderness where you dwell.?

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    9 February 2016 at 7:54 pm

                    I don’t buy into the key as a deep state plant for the yanks. A grubby little trader who thinks business solves all is what he is

                    ?

                    John Key was a senior executive of Merill Lynch and was selected for an important committee of the Federal Reserve.

                    How much more “deep state” do you want before he qualifies?

                    PS the Left continue to wildly underestimate Key.

                  • greywarshark …
                    9 February 2016 at 8:50 pm

                    Do you want Col Viper to do a political reading with chicken entrails
                    or a crystal ball b waghorn? You say
                    “As for Little I have not seen him categorically rule out pulling out, my opinion on his actions mean fuck all as I’m no insider. I just want key gone.”

                    So you don’t want to apply your mind to following Little’s promises and his thinking, you don’t know what is going to happen if and when Key is gone. You act like a RW spending your time bagging CV because he is trying his night time goggles to see beyond the dark mist brought about by N Zs incredible apathy and lack of interest in the health and wealth pf NZ citizens. All our concerns and analysis are just met by guffaws and a belch.

                    It’s not an option for NZ left to keep assisting a lack-lustre Labour caucus to play ball with an election again. They have to be match fit, keen, and with a good coach and Whip that is prepared to keep those talking heads in line. And they need to be kept in training, there is an important match ahead.

                    • b waghorn …
                      9 February 2016 at 9:10 pm

                      I’m actually globalist at heart , and pro free trade , so the deals been done by an inept or evil bunch of barstards ( depending on your view of national) so its up to thee next lot in charge to renegotiate where they can in my view.
                      Guilty as charged for baiting CV .
                      I’m willing to give Little the benefit of the doubt that he wants to make the world a better place for all , he can only go where his party will let him this is a democracy after all.
                      Am I right wing? Could be if national actually stood someone who didn’t make me want to shoot the TV as shipley brash and key do. Especially brash don’t get me started on fucking brash.
                      Capitalism socialism its all the same people are the problem.

                    • weka …
                      9 February 2016 at 9:51 pm

                      It’s not an option for NZ left to keep assisting a lack-lustre Labour caucus to play ball with an election again.

                      True. However as a leftie I also don’t support other lefties running round giving Labour a bash on the basis of their own crystal ball gazing (yes, CV has been playing with the chicken entrails).

                      They have to be match fit, keen, and with a good coach and Whip that is prepared to keep those talking heads in line. And they need to be kept in training, there is an important match ahead.

                      True again, but consider this. What happens if they can’t? What if the internal conflict in Labour prevents them getting their shit together in the way that we need? CV isn’t bashing Labour because he thinks it will improve them. He thinks they are beyond redemption (good luck with finding out why he does what he does then). My own view is that the only hope for parlimmentary politics is if Labour can resolve its internal conflict, and in that sense Little and Labour should be supported where they get things right. Not right according to how we want them to be, but right according to what is actually possible.

                    • mickysavage []
                      9 February 2016 at 9:54 pm

                      You should develop this into a guest post. A few very intuitive senior lefty political activists have said this to me recently.

                    • weka …
                      9 February 2016 at 11:47 pm

                      was that to me micky? I’ll give it some thought.

                    • greywarshark …
                      10 February 2016 at 10:23 am

                      Thanks for reply b waghorn. You adopt brave sweeping labels like I am a globalist. I don’t know where you live, I think you said you are a shepherd. So you are very tied to a piece of land, raising animals, in this country. So think wider, but concentrate your view on what is happening here, and watch globally to see how other countries’ people do well or badly, and learn from them.

                      It is what happens to us through our trade and political system that we are concerned about. Global happenings are interesting and should be informative. But if people don’t look to their own living and future, someone else will remove it while their attention is distracted, like luggage snatched at an airport.

                      It’s lucky for you that some people are taking note of what is happening here and trying to defend, protect what we have and enable sustainable growth and better living conditions than those being experienced, so like our early colonial conditions. Is that something to be pleased, satisfied and complacent about? Just looking globally is not participating in your own country but standing alongside the mass of the people is. We are being squeezed out of every dollar left by the present and the past neo lib governments.
                      edited

                    • greywarshark …
                      10 February 2016 at 10:46 am

                      weka
                      My own view is that the only hope for parlimmentary politics is if Labour can resolve its internal conflict, and in that sense Little and Labour should be supported where they get things right.

                      How long oh Lord, how long? You don’t seem to realise that Col Viper is looking beyond the next election. He’s not seeing it as a sporting match where Labour has hopes to be a winning team. It is essential to not only have a winning team, but one that will plungs into a new agenda for today’s Labour. One that is more extensive than Michael Savage’s. Strangely we are again in a depression with poor housing, how is that for applying lessons and learning from past experience?? Now we also have climate change and a clump of really rich robbers who have used the neo lib political system and the tinfoil hat acolytes of neo liberalism to enrich themselves and wedge themselves unassailably apparently into positions of power and patronage.

                      This is not about being fair to Labour. They need to be harried and harrassed by sheepdogs nipping at their heels to get them moving. Their leaders turn round and face their opponents like recalcitrant wild sheep, but we must pen them and get them in the races so they go to the policy areas where they are needed.
                      Without an active, smart and citizen-responsible Labour party we can’t get anything done in this country.

                      National are so complacent – they have the mood of the country -keep most with good credit lines, keep things ticking over and she’ll be right. Credit and promises to make up for lower wages, give them some circuses and feeble jokes about the PM peeing in the shower and the young males accept him as one of their own. The comfortable wealthy just want to enjoy their money and opportunities for pleasure. But there is a saying about being a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Ordinary people don’t realise what National is and may not until there is no where left to run to.

                    • weka …
                      10 February 2016 at 12:24 pm


                      Without an active, smart and citizen-responsible Labour party we can’t get anything done in this country.

                      Well duh. I’m being rude because I’ve already responded to this and you’ve completely ignored what I’ve said, and ranted instead.

                      Of course CV is looking past the next election. So am I.

                    • greywarshark …
                      10 February 2016 at 1:53 pm

                      weka
                      Do you mean by Labour resolving its internal conflict? I think that would be great but there have been calls for that for ages. Anyway I won’t say more because I have missed your points apparently.
                      And I haven’t time to sift though to see what exactly.

                      How do you get Labour to move on their conflict – free market v interventionist social democratic action, with them always having free market grabbing their shirt tails?

            • AmaKiwi 4.1.1.1.1.2
              9 February 2016 at 1:47 pm

              With the revelations about the Singapore education opt out and a variety of other better terms for other TPPA parties, a whole new line of attack on the TPPA is now emerging:

              “This government did a piss poor job of negotiating.

              Get us the same best terms others got or trash the TPPA treaty.”

              • Colonial Viper …
                9 February 2016 at 4:59 pm

                Little could then come in and claim to be a superior negotiator on the TPP?

                Except he’s already told the whole wide world that a Labour Govt will stay in the TPP regardless, wiping out our leverage in discussions.

                Smart negotiating strategy there, Little.

            • red-blooded 4.1.1.1.1.3
              9 February 2016 at 6:31 pm

              “We could have shitloads to negotiate with; but our negotiators and our leaders couldn’t be bothered to do anything lie supine for our international “friends”.

              It’s like Andrew Little. Former union negotiator.”

              Reply to CV:
              1) What are you basing your opinion that our negotiators had “shitloads” to negotiate with? We have almost no tariffs or restrictions on trade since the Rogernomic days. Other countries could offer reductions or threaten to retain barriers that NZ simply doesn’t have.
              2) How the heck do you make the “it’s like Andrew Little” link? Little has had nothing to do with the TTPA and would certainly have handled things differently if he’d been in the driving seat. He wasn’t. He was kept in the dark and fed shit like the rest of us. He has had to struggle to form a considered policy because of this. That policy couldn’t just be based on gut feeling; Labour needed to know what was being won and what was being lost. Now that they know, they’ve defined their position.

              The more I find out about the damn agreement, the more scared I am of the possible consequences and the more I hope that it falls over in the US. If it doesn’t, then Labour will have to stick by their word when next in government. There’ll be immense pressure to back down; we need to provide immense pressure not to. One of the ways to do that is to work within the party. It’s not everyone’s way, but someone has to do it.

              • weka …
                9 February 2016 at 6:35 pm

                “It’s all Labour’s fault”

                “Labour did it too”

                Lines usually run by right wing trolls and the Dirty Politics crew, so there’s another question for CV 😉

              • Colonial Viper …
                9 February 2016 at 8:03 pm

                My point on Little being a useless negotiator comes from this:

                1) He says to the NZ public that a Labour Government will seek to renegotiate the TPP
                2) But he has told the world’s media that a Labour Government will stay in the TPP anyway.

                1) What are you basing your opinion that our negotiators had “shitloads” to negotiate with?

                It’s how my negotiating and political team would have run things.

                Weka:

                The Right are sometimes right. Labour did fuck up NZ manufacturing just like National, Labour are fine with globalisation and free trade just like National, and in power Labour will stay with the TPP just like National.

                Labour will keep regressive taxes like GST, Labour will continue to force student loan repayments off those below the minimum wage, Labour kept benefits at a poverty level. Pretty much like National.

                Labour let the country run up a massive debt just like National (but private debt, not public debt).

                BTW Labour also voted for National’s spying and terror legislation, just like National did.

                • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                  9 February 2016 at 8:14 pm

                  So, you’re saying they’re not all bad?

                • weka …
                  9 February 2016 at 9:53 pm

                  You missed my point CV. We already know what Labour’s faults are.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    9 February 2016 at 10:05 pm

                    Yes we certainly do, I agree with you. Yet some people are still treating Little’s comments and Labour’s comments as if they are credible, well meaning and sincere.

                    My position is that they are not and that they should not be given the benefit of the doubt.

                    • weka …
                      10 February 2016 at 12:33 pm

                      Which is an understandable view. I don’t have a problem with what you think (despite disagreeing somewhat with it). I have a problem with how you are behaving.

  5. Bill 5
    9 February 2016 at 10:01 am

    There’s no mechanism whereby some corporation could (just) set up a school alongside your local public school, and then demand equal access to the taxpayer purse to fund that school.

    The problem would be in any tendering out process (ie, a deliberate privatisation programme being pursued by a government), insofar as any foreign corporate could appeal the tendering process if their bid failed, not to the education authority or the government, but in an ISDS tribunal.

    That’s bad enough and should be shouted from rooftops, but it’s not the case (as Goulter would seem to suggest) that a corporation can just build a school and demand funding.

    • savenz 5.1
      9 February 2016 at 10:44 am

      In NZ and the US they don’t build a school and still get to keep the public money for their charter school they never built!

    • Wayne 5.2
      9 February 2016 at 10:46 am

      Bill

      At least this is a thoughtful contribution to the debate. If the NZ govt, say in furtherance of charter schools said there was full funding for a further 5 charter schools then an overseas investor or education provider from a TPP nation could participate. Whether it would be worth their while is another matter.

      But wholesale privatization of the school system is not going to happen (unless ACT becomes the largest party of the govt) so this is “crying wolf”. And if NZer’s vote ACT to be the largest party of govt, well we will have seen a rather radical shift by the voters.

      • Bill 5.2.1
        9 February 2016 at 10:54 am

        And elements of the health service, or broadcasting, or any other instance where society’s needs are provisioned for by the state Wayne.

        Was it just yesterday i was reading a link on how GATTS had snookered policy aimed at having media provide a percentage of NZ only content? (Essentially the threat of an ISDS seeking compensation for limiting trade)

        Anyway. The point is that we don’t need an ACT led government before TPP provisions cause strife.

      • pat 5.2.2
        9 February 2016 at 10:57 am

        of course under TPP if even 5 charter schools (or prisons, or health facilities) are privatized the opportunity to reverse that decision is severely restricted due to the risk of compensation sought under ISDS…..so effectively a one way ratcheting of public services to private interests

        • Wayne 5.2.2.1
          9 February 2016 at 12:45 pm

          Pat,

          A govt can reverse the decision provided it compensates for the loss of property rights. For instance if there is an agreement for a prison to be run by a private provider for 15 years and they are not in breach of the agreement, then if a government then cancels at the end of ten years, then there is an obligation to compensate.

          Labour understands that, which is why they accept contractual undertakings of previous governments. Their approach in govt has been to not renew contracts when they come up.

          I suppose in exceptional circumstances it might be better to cancel earlier and pay compensation.

          • pat 5.2.2.1.1
            9 February 2016 at 12:47 pm

            or better yet….. not put yourself in a position where compensation is required to be paid

          • Bill 5.2.2.1.2
            9 February 2016 at 1:39 pm

            Nicely over-looking (claims for) loss of potential future profits there Wayne.

            Y’know, had the contract come up again, the private provider would have won that contract too. Since there was no further tendering, it can’t be said for sure that they wouldn’t have won the contract. So now the compensation claim goes out for the 15 years beyond the 5 years of cancelled contract.

            Putting aside retendering and cancelling, what about legislative changes pertaining to procedures or standards that impact on potential profit? Forgot that one too Wayne.

            The ISDS is not just about compensation for property loss, or for obvious direct financial loss. If it was just that, there wouldn’t be too much argument over them. But they are far more ridiculous and onerous.

            Further. If it was just that (straight up compensation on common notions of loss), there’d be no reason not to use the NZ court system, would there?

          • AmaKiwi 5.2.2.1.3
            9 February 2016 at 1:56 pm

            Labour’s “approach in govt has been to not renew contracts when they come up.”

            National gave Sky City Casino a 25 or 30 year renewal of their casino license. National made sure neither Labour nor a binding referendum can curb or outlaw private casinos.

            Loss of sovereignty.

      • Gristle 5.2.3
        9 February 2016 at 12:55 pm

        Wayne, you are having a failure of imagination.

        At some point in not to distant past it would have been unimaginable that State Housing would be sold off. Today we have a line of foreign buyers looking to make some easy money here buying marked down State assets.

        Buying NZ state assets has always yielded fantastic returns and I have witnessed Treasury actively engage in supressing any regulation that would limit returns (and thus the attractiveness of selling off state assets.)

        Why would this not happen to education under National?

    • greywarshark 5.3
      9 February 2016 at 1:07 pm

      There must be avenues through charter schools and double-dealing in the tender process if called for some aspect. Tenders sound so fair – but already there are examples of not following the procedures properly, even having paid government-connected officials such as hospital management, skewing things towards companies that they are shareholders in. You just can’t afford to relax with any procedure today. The old political rorts, have been intensified, and the aggressiveness of big business that exceeds our national finances added to what are left of our nation’s assets, mean we are kneehigh to a grasshopper measured on the Wealth graph.

  6. savenz 6
    9 February 2016 at 10:07 am

    TPPA should be scraped. It is just a bogus deal by any standard.

    Of course the point of it is to create more profits for the companies lobbying for it!

    Of course it is there to destroy public education.
    Of course it is there to destroy the public health system.
    Of course it is there to corporaratise copywrite further and block public good.
    Of course it is there to lower wages.
    Of course it is there to take land away from local people.
    Of course it is there to take government decisions away and be less effective.

    TPPA is there to steal from the taxpayers and to deprive the next generation of the same freedoms and rights that those bloodsucking leeches politicians who have sold the next and current generation the rights they enjoyed!

    • Colonial Viper 6.1
      9 February 2016 at 11:38 am

      I agree. The more we learn about the deal the shittier it seems. And it was pretty bad to start with.

      Yet some people still apologise for Labour and Little broadcasting loud and clear that they will stick with the TPP even though it will be a bugbear on the back of our democracy.

      • Muttonbird 6.1.1
        9 February 2016 at 11:53 am

        Yet your primary concern is never with the contents of the TTP at all, rather it is with the Labour party’s reaction to it while in opposition.

        Indeed you first energy is always devoted to attacking the Labour Party rather than defending New Zealanders.

        No wonder they kicked you out!

        • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1
          9 February 2016 at 12:08 pm

          ?

          Think logically man.

          I am attacking the Opposition for not doing their job.

          I am not attacking National because National at least are doing their job.

          The more bad stuff is revealed about the TPP, the more obvious it is that Labour is compromised.

          Labour is supposed to be the pro-education party, with their latest tertiary fees announcements etc.

          Seems like under the TPP, a lot of that money is going straight to corporate providers.

          And still Little says we will stay the course with the TPP.

          So of course I am attacking him and Labour.

          You better get over your cognitive dissonance, supporting a party which says it will keep NZ in the TPP.

          • Muttonbird 6.1.1.1.1
            9 February 2016 at 12:22 pm

            You should be attacking National for doing their job and that should be your prime objective. Their job after all is to dismiss the welfare of our society for the enrichment of individuals.

            • AmaKiwi 6.1.1.1.1.1
              9 February 2016 at 5:06 pm

              “You should be . . . ”

              If CV is not your employee or elected representative, what entitles you to tell him what he should or should not be doing?

            • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1.1.2
              9 February 2016 at 5:06 pm

              Nah mate, you don’t understand my job.

              Which is to make it crystal clear that as an Opposition, Labour is no longer fit for purpose.

              And that as an example, when it comes to the TPP Labour will still stick with National’s bad deal even in the face of increasingly negative revelations (like this one on education).

              • te reo putake …
                9 February 2016 at 10:01 pm

                Well, why don’t you fuck off out of Labour, CV? Because everything you say is credibility free while you remain a member. You’re bordering on sad, and it’s not a nice neighbourhood.

              • weka …
                9 February 2016 at 10:14 pm

                “Which is to make it crystal clear that as an Opposition, Labour is no longer fit for purpose.”

                Once you’ve made that crystal clear, then what? What’s the point exactly?

                • Colonial Viper …
                  9 February 2016 at 11:28 pm

                  There are quite a few people who still reflexively apologise for Labour.

                  For instance, the more damning the news on the TPP gets, the more they hope that Little and Labour have some kind of super secret save that they are holding in reserve.

                  That somehow, somewhere, Labour are only playing nice with the TPP for the cameras while behind the scenes they are actually hatching a genius plan to torpedo the TPP.

                  Once you’ve made that crystal clear, then what? What’s the point exactly?

                  If we want fresh new undergrowth to develop it will need clear sunlight, so the dead old Kauri casting shadows all over the fertile ground must be felled.

                  • weka …
                    9 February 2016 at 11:45 pm

                    “There are quite a few people who still reflexively apologise for Labour.

                    For instance, the more damning the news on the TPP gets, the more they hope that Little and Labour have some kind of super secret save that they are holding in reserve.”

                    Who are you talking about? What makes you think slagging off Labour will change their minds?

                    “If we want fresh new undergrowth to develop it will need clear sunlight, so the dead old Kauri casting shadows all over the fertile ground must be felled.”

                    Care to be more specific? Even if we all agreed with your assessment of Labour and decided to join you in slagging them off, how would that bring them down?

      • greywarshark 6.1.2
        9 February 2016 at 1:16 pm

        Yet some people still apologise for Labour and Little broadcasting loud and clear that they will stick with the TPP even though it will be a bugbear on the back of our democracy.

        Such people backing Labour are still trying to have a foot in the Labour camp and a foot on NZ’s national land (small n) where we try to run the country so it serves and belongs to the people living here.

        Unfortunately Labour are drifting off-shore and their supporters are having to stretch their legs ever further. Eventually they will fall, and there is hope that they will be fished up shocked, wet and dripping and not left to sink like so many of the abandoned, hopeless refugees around the world. Time to jump ship you rats.
        edited

        • Colonial Viper 6.1.2.1
          9 February 2016 at 5:08 pm

          tbh I was never any good at doing the splitz, hence I am no longer supporting Labour.

    • Gosman 6.2
      9 February 2016 at 11:49 am

      Yet Andrew Little won’t commit to leaving it. How bizarre.

      • Colonial Viper 6.2.1
        9 February 2016 at 11:52 am

        Little is compromised by a few things: a strong pro TPP faction in his own caucus that he can’t control. Also a desire for power which is leading him to compromise easily and quickly with the elite ruling establishment.

        • AmaKiwi 6.2.1.1
          9 February 2016 at 2:09 pm

          David Clark yesterday proudly said Labour’s TPPA poistion is NOT populist based.

          Yes, David, that’s why you are NOT the de facto opposition to National.

          God save us from do-gooder left wing elitists who delude themselves into thinking they represent “the people.”

          • Savenz 6.2.1.1.1
            9 February 2016 at 3:58 pm

            Maybe labour should try 2 be more popular! Ha ha

            Frankly they have come late 2 the tppa debacle & have a weird & clumsy position. At least they seemed 2 have signaled they r against tppa.

            Yes natz did it, but the weakness of labour on the issue of tppa helps the natz & muddies the water.

            • red-blooded 6.2.1.1.1.1
              9 February 2016 at 7:03 pm

              There’s a difference between being “popular” and “populist”. Labour should definitely aim to be popular, but a populist party is one with no defining principles; one that simply chases and tries to mirror public opinion rather than helping to shape it. That’s not what I want the Labour Party to be.

          • Colonial Viper 6.2.1.1.2
            9 February 2016 at 5:09 pm

            David Clark got that nice Eisenhower Scholarship all expenses paid for trip to hangout and hobnob with all the notable establishment types in the US.

          • greywarshark 6.2.1.1.3
            9 February 2016 at 5:27 pm

            Amakiwi The trouble is that you can leave the do-gooder out and then we are left with left wing elitists of the middle class representing all the people, but looking for a future in the upper class, to which they incline. Labour MPs and electorate organisers can be quite superior, and authoritarian. Not so much mateiness there.

            • Colonial Viper 6.2.1.1.3.1
              9 February 2016 at 6:03 pm

              Labour MPs and electorate organisers can be quite superior, and authoritarian. Not so much mateiness there.

              Down here in Dunedin North and Dunedin South approx a dozen people have got the lock on all major party decision making. The other hundreds of members don’t count for fuck all, and generally are not even asked.

              • red-blooded …
                9 February 2016 at 7:15 pm

                Sorry, CV, but that’s simply not true. If you want to have an input into policy and decision-making, go to branch meetings, get involved in the local electorate council, participate in one of the special branches (like the environment group). Of course, you’ll have to follow a group process; you can’t just expect to ram your ideas through and have them all embraced without question. Guess what? That’s how democracy works.

                I don’t agree with all of the policy platforms of the Labour Party, but there is no one party that represents all of my beliefs. Fine – I choose to work within a party that I see as the most likely core of any left-leaning government, and by doing so I have an input (however small) into its policies. I don’t get to ram home all of my priorities because it’s a mass party and it uses democratic processes. I find some of those processes arcane and frustrating, but I don’t throw my toys out of the cot, I make suggestions and try to be constructive. Sometimes I have to accept that others don’t share my views and that’s the way the world works.

                You might see it as “polishing turds” (to use a phrase from one of your earlier comments). I see it as mature and constructive.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  9 February 2016 at 11:32 pm

                  Sorry, CV, but that’s simply not true. If you want to have an input into policy and decision-making, go to branch meetings, get involved in the local electorate council, participate in one of the special branches (like the environment group). Of course, you’ll have to follow a group process; you can’t just expect to ram your ideas through and have them all embraced without question. Guess what? That’s how democracy works.

                  Did all that through the Labour Party bureaucracy and concluded it was a time and effort sink which is designed to divert, strangle and waste activist energy.

                  And I was in a team who knew the ins and outs of how to operate the Labour Party bureaucratic machinery, knew MPs, knew the staff in head office, knew all the local LEC officials, had worked with the local MPs on projects, etc.

                  Ordinary Labour Party members who didn’t have these advantages and contacts would have been even more stuffed than us.

                  So let me ask you a simple question – which branches, electorate committees or regions did Andrew Little ask to vote on the matter before he decided on behalf of Labour that NZ was staying in the TPP?

                  Of course, the answer is, none of them.

                  That’s the state of Labour Party democracy for you.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  9 February 2016 at 11:41 pm

                  I see it as mature and constructive.

                  I wanted to respond to this point specifically.

                  No, what is happening in Labour now is not mature and constructive.

                  At every level of the organisation, party grandees are holding on to power and influence as tightly as they can, while too many of the MPs are willing to keep compromising their principles as long as it feels it helps their chances of getting power.

                  Then there are the MPs staffers who are mainly there to ingratiate and try for their own shot of getting on the Party List and become Labour MPs themselves.

                  The party pretends that it is offering a true alternative to National. But fewer and fewer Kiwis believe that is the case.

                  Who is right and who is wrong?

  7. Brendon Harre -Left wing Liberal 7
    9 February 2016 at 12:41 pm

    This is not just an education problem. Corporations could gain control of our billion dollar healthcare spending pot too -once a right-wing government opens the door for them. Making it very hard/impossible for a left-wing government to remove corporates from public provision. The corporate culture, its value system (or lack of one) will dominate. How do we the people fight back?

    Check out our government’s plans for Social Bonds because it looks like the door is opening…..

    http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/preventative-health-wellness/social-bonds-new-zealand-pilot

    “Social bonds are an innovative way for Government to contract for social outcomes. Social bonds see private and not-for-profit organisations partner to fund and deliver services to improve social outcomes. If they achieve agreed results Government will pay the investors back their investment plus a return. Investor returns depend on the level of results, up to an agreed maximum.”

    If those investors are foreign investors then they can use ISDS procedures once the TPPA is ratified to settle any disputes between themselves and the government.

    This could be Serco -prisons on steroids, with Serco and its new buddies being able to run away to a foreign corporate court if they feel hard done by and our Parliament, our democracy, being powerless in response.

    • Rosemary McDonald 7.1
      9 February 2016 at 2:46 pm

      At the risk of banging away on the same drum….just about every dollar budgeted through the Ministry of Health for Disability Support Services goes through the account of a Contracted Provider. This has been the case for well over a decade with less than optimal outcomes for a large number of New Zealanders with disabilities.

      A Contracted Provider can be the subject of numerous complaints of neglect and assaults and not only retain their contract…but bizarrely extract even more $$$ from the MOH for more “resources” to enable them to perform to the standard they should have been performing to in the first place.

      And I’m talking about from the access point for disability supports…the NASC’s, through to home and community support, residential services, IF funding support and ‘advocacy’ for both disabled people and carers…usually family members.

      There is, as a consequence, no real independent advocacy for some of the most vulnerable New Zealanders.

      NONE.

      Soon, all core government responsibilities will be contracted out in the name of fiscal efficiency.

      Then welcome to our world.

    • BlueSky 7.2
      9 February 2016 at 4:53 pm

      “Corporations could gain control of our billion dollar healthcare spending pot too -once a right-wing government opens the door for them.”

      What door? It was removed a while ago. Just straw men left for burning. The corporate barbarians are inside the gates.

      • greywarshark 7.2.1
        9 February 2016 at 5:33 pm

        They march through the gates with a trojan horse labelled efficiency and better services. Then the doors to the bowels of the beast open and out pour the computer programmers and their expensive doo dahs, and the change agents, often the chosen position of a female university graduate who knows her stuff and how to play the game and talk nicely. They are there to ensure that the government doesn’t have to think about the people more than necessary, hopefully once a year on election time, 29 February when people are told to go and leap in the lake!

    • AmaKiwi 7.3
      9 February 2016 at 5:11 pm

      Bredon-Harre

      + 1

      Frightening but true. Private healthcare is where big money can be made, especially as budget cuts make the public health system worse and worse.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 7.3.1
        9 February 2016 at 7:43 pm

        You can only get on the waiting list if you meet certain criteria. Needing immediate surgical intervention isn’t enough anymore.

        Just like the cake, the brighter future was always a lie.

  8. plumington 8
    9 February 2016 at 1:35 pm

    Collectivism of the neo librals of the left and right is a serious problem for democracy
    Left or right we get the same policy delivered to us ,thinking we may get change no real change occurs (the past governments of the day are a proof to this )
    Our democratic process is well manipulated by these individuals left or right
    Perhaps a citizen initiated referendum that must be binding on parliament is long overdue
    But that also requires a public that is ready to be accountable for thier democracy

  9. One Anonymous Bloke 9
    9 February 2016 at 7:19 pm

    Article 26 of the UDoHR, (and the UDoHR in general) I hope, provides a significant defence against corporate predation.

    (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
    (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
    (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

    That’s a slam dunk against notional standards and charter vandalism too. Notional standards degrade the development of human personality, for example…

  10. Tautuhi 10
    9 February 2016 at 8:49 pm

    We are definitely heading back towards the old Victorian Era with the overlords and the serfs which serve them.

  11. Et Tu Brute 11
    10 February 2016 at 1:34 pm

    Canada’s outclause:

    “Canada reserves the right to adopt or maintain a measure for … public education…”

    New Zealand’s [not a] outclause:

    “New Zealand reserves the right to adopt or maintain any measure with respect to: … public education.”

    “for” and “respect to” must change everything.

    • tinfoilhat 11.1
      10 February 2016 at 1:41 pm

      Is that included in the final text ?

        • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 11.1.1.1
          10 February 2016 at 2:06 pm

          Hush now with your facts.

          • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 11.1.1.1.1
            10 February 2016 at 2:15 pm

            R0b,

            Might call for a correction of this:

            Our negotiators either didn’t manage, or more likely didn’t even try, to get a similar “out” clause for education in New Zealand.

            • Et Tu Brute 11.1.1.1.1.1
              10 February 2016 at 3:18 pm

              Sorry I misread Singapore as Canada (I am having a bad day it seems.)

              Singapore’s Out Clause:

              “Singapore reserves the right to adopt or maintain any measure affecting the supply of primary, general secondary and higher secondary (only applies to junior colleges and pre-university centres under the Singapore educational system) education services for Singapore citizens, including Sports Education Services.”

              So yes basically the same thing. Though while New Zealand reserves the right to control public education, it could be argued that Singapore has only given the state the power to ‘supply’.

              • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                11 February 2016 at 8:14 am

                Tumbleweed.

              • dv …
                11 February 2016 at 8:24 am

                AND there are ONLY another 5999 pages of this stuff.

                • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                  11 February 2016 at 8:58 am

                  Hey, dv, what do you do when you accuse someone of “sheer incompetence” for failing to do something, and then discover they did, in fact, do it?

                  Would you apologise?

                  Or would you carry on ignoring your error because spreading mis-information on the subject suited your ends?

                  I guess we know what r0b would do. And we know what the Tertiary Education Union would do, as they have removed comments pointing their error out to them.

                  • dv …
                    11 February 2016 at 2:12 pm

                    Sorry, GF, what I was meaning is that there in one misinterpretation on 1 page.
                    There are still 5999 to go.
                    It wasn’t a dig at you- Sorry.

              • r0b …
                11 February 2016 at 12:44 pm

                Dear ETB and OOB

                Two things are not the same because you found a sentence in them that is similar (read the fine print, devil in the detail etc).

                The NZ schedule is here:
                https://www.mfat.govt.nz/assets/_securedfiles/trans-pacific-partnership/annexes/annex-ii.-new-zealand.pdf

                It contains the word “education” 4 times. Three of those mentions are irrelevant to the current discussion. The one mention of public education is under the proviso “to the extent that they are social services established for a public purpose” whatever that means.

                The Singapore schedule is here:
                https://www.mfat.govt.nz/assets/_securedfiles/trans-pacific-partnership/annexes/annex-ii.-singapore.pdf

                It is more complex. It contains the word “education” 13 times. It refers to specific acts of Singapore law – “existing measures” – with respect to education (the NZ schedule does not).

                I Am Not A Lawyer, but it’s obvious even to an idiot that that the two schedules are very different. You will have to do a lot better than “I found a sentence that is similar” if you want to disprove the claim quoted in the post.

                It’s been fun folks, but I really do have to go…

                • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                  11 February 2016 at 3:46 pm

                  How is this not an “out” clause:

                  New Zealand reserves the right to adopt or maintain any measure with respect to…public education…to the extent that [it is a] social service established for a public purpose.?

                  All this fact-light fear mongering is going to backfire badly.

                • Et Tu Brute …
                  11 February 2016 at 8:02 pm

                  The Gormless Fool is right. How is this not an “out” clause:

                  New Zealand reserves the right to adopt or maintain any measure with respect to…public education…to the extent that [it is a] social service established for a public purpose.?

                  Further to that just counting the number of words does not a legal argument make. For example while New Zealand broadly has the right to maintain ANY measure with respect to public education for a public purpose, Singapore has only exempted certain levels of education and even then it is only for the ‘supply’ thereof.

                  So New Zealand actually is more permissive than Singapore. Public education could cover all public education including university and trades training (training is also mentioned) whereas Singapore doesn’t cover university.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    14 February 2016 at 1:44 pm

                    To the extent that they are social services maintained for a public purpose.

                    For example, could enable foreign corporations to claim the same subsidies that are given to local not-for-profit organisations. The daycare market springs to mind.

                    When a future government notices that public services are far more efficient and far less massively corrupt (cf: the National Party, SERCO, etc.) when not being delivered by private companies, presto, ISDS!

                    It’s a policy ratchet: it needs to be destroyed, and the perpetrators hunted down.

  12. Matthew Hooton 12
    14 February 2016 at 10:19 am

    Everything in this post is a total lie, and I suspect the author must have known that when he wrote it.

    • vto 12.1
      14 February 2016 at 10:23 am

      Absolutely everything John Key says is a total lie, and I know you know it, not to mention the liar-in-chief himself.

      Bullshit bullshit bullshit

      • Chuck 12.1.1
        14 February 2016 at 2:14 pm

        In that case vto you should have no issue in holding John Key to account…he is after all the devil in disguise. Hand over all your notes to Andrew Little, it will then be a cake walk for Labour come 2017.

    • dv 12.2
      14 February 2016 at 10:31 am

      So Matthew Has Singapore NOT carved out education.

    • Ross 12.3
      14 February 2016 at 1:15 pm

      So, Matthew, you’re saying that foreign corporations cannot interfere with decisions made here where it might affect the bottom line? Now that’s a relief!

      But for the avoidance of any doubt, can you please point to where in the agreement it says exactly that?

  13. Enough is Enough 13
    14 February 2016 at 12:09 pm

    r0b

    There is clearly an out clause as noted above. Probably best to correct the post in my view to avoid any potential RWNJ attacking your credibility in the future.

  14. ropata 14
    14 February 2016 at 1:56 pm

    We can see how a corporation operates prisons, so why not let them also f*ck up public education, health, and welfare? Surely the profit model has proven to work gloriously in the last 40 years of corporate takeover?

    • vto 14.1
      14 February 2016 at 2:01 pm

      Yes it has worked well with house building and weather tightness…..

      Yes it has worked well in the finance sector …….

      ….

      The buffoons would also like to use it with heavy trucking ffs…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

  15. AndyW 15
    14 February 2016 at 9:02 pm

    Hold on. What about this clause in the TPPA: “New Zealand reserves the right to adopt or maintain any measure with respect to…public education.” Seems pretty clear.