TPP circus rolls on

Written By: - Date published: 7:01 am, January 14th, 2016 - 203 comments
Categories: capitalism, class war, International, trade - Tags: , , ,

One issue that hasn’t died down over the Christmas break is controversy over the TPP. News that it is to be “signed into existence” in NZ in February was leaked by South American media, denied by the Nats, and then confirmed. The date mentioned in the leaks is 4th February, NZ coverage so far says only “early: February.

The Nats have often said that our Parliament will have to ratify the TPP, but this is not true, it will be done by Cabinet. Another entry to add to Key’s long-list-o-lies. (At The Daily Blog, Frank Macskasy does an excellent job of documenting much of the above, but he appears to be confused though about the difference between signing the document and ratifying it.)

Bryan Gould sums up the extent to which our democracy is being shafted in the service of the TPP:

It is one of the peculiarities of a Westminster-style constitution that the power to conclude international treaties rests exclusively with the executive – in our case, with the Cabinet. The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is no exception. While a National Interest Analysis will be prepared by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and will most likely be considered by a Select Committee, our elected representatives can – if the government wishes – be totally ignored.

This constitutes not only a potentially damaging side-lining of parliament but also a denial of democracy itself; it continues a process that has been throughout characterised by secrecy and the contemptuous refusal to take any account of public opinion.
…
Not content with conducting negotiations in secret, and with excluding any consideration of public opinion, the attempt has been made to close down even a scintilla of publicity that might indicate a degree of public concern. Even the public signing of the TPP in New Zealand on 4 February is being so carefully managed that we know about it only because the news was leaked in Chile.

Democracy is necessarily at times a messy and discomfiting business. But when such care is taken to deny it, we should be truly worried.

In other current TPP related news, let’s see…

Right wingers are over-stimulated by the World Bank estimate of a 10 per cent boost to NZ exports by 2030 – this compares to our own MFAT estimate of a 6.8% increase in exports and only a 0.9% increase in GDP over all by 2030. Most other TPP economies benefit even less. As has frequently been pointed out, the TPP is less of a free trade deal than it is a deal for extending the power of (largely American) corporations (I/S at No Right Turn adds another angle, arguing that the TPP is also a power play against China).

More cautious observers have consistently argued that the TPP costs are going to outweigh the benefits. More costs are coming to light all the time, like the estimated $55m cost of new copyright charges (originally from The Herald but seems to have disappeared). Much more worrisome is the prospect of NZ getting sued under Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses – this week for example TransCanada went after the US for $15 billion (as a result of Obama’s rejection of the Keystone pipeline).

Not that it will do any good of course, but now days even All Blacks are speaking out against the TPP. Not that it will do any good of course, but here’s another petition – We do not consent to the TPPA.

Happy New Year.

203 comments on “TPP circus rolls on ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Paul 1
    14 January 2016 at 7:54 am

    TPPA Don’t Sign Tour

    International TPPA experts Lori Wallach, from Public Citizen and Professor Jane Kelsey from University of Auckland will talk about the latest research, politics, analysis and actions.

    Auckland
    Auckland Town Hall 7pm Tuesday 26th January

    Wellington
    Wellington St Andrews Church, The Terrace 7pm Wednesday 27th January

    Christchurch
    Christchurch Cardboard Cathedral, 7pm Thursday 28th January

    Dunedin
    Dunedin Friday 29th January, venue and time TBA

    These are free events. Donations to cover costs would be appreciated.

    http://itsourfuture.org.nz/tppa-dont-sign-tour/

  2. millsy 2
    14 January 2016 at 7:55 am

    I have been doing some thinking about this, and it seems that it is highly likely that had something like the TPPA had been in force in the 19th Century, The Lincoln administration’s ending of slavery in US states of the south would have left it open to lawsuits under ISDS.

    • Paul 2.1
      14 January 2016 at 7:57 am

      William Wilberforce would have had to pay the slave owners of Liverpool for loss of future profits.

    • Kelly-Ned 2.2
      14 January 2016 at 12:03 pm

      You are absolutely right. Many of the investors in the cotton industry were from the UK and would have been very upset to see their cheap work force set free.

  3. Pat 3
    14 January 2016 at 8:15 am

    “Their fears were fed by the secrecy of negotiations between governments, but the full text of the agreement was made public in New Zealand two months ago. Though it runs to 6000 pages, those who have been anxious about it for so long have had summer holidays to study the chapters of most concern to them. The PRECISE TERMS SEEM TO HAVE SURVIVED SCRUTINY SO FAR.”…(my caps)

    who is this delusional clown?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11573339

    • acrophobic 3.1
      14 January 2016 at 10:30 am

      The simple truth, Pat, is that the opponents of the TPP have have had 2 months now to provided some hard evidence for their concerns, and they have failed. We have reams of opinion piece and hysteria, but no hard evidence for the dire warnings. This is chicken little rerun.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1
        14 January 2016 at 10:50 am

        Are you still pretending that there can be “hard evidence” of the long term effects of something that hasn’t happened yet?

        You fail at logic as well as honesty.

        • acrophobic 3.1.1.1
          14 January 2016 at 12:11 pm

          No, it’s quite simple really. There are claims being made that the TPP will cause, for example, the loss of NZ’s sovereignty. That is a particular concern that the actual text should be able to support, if true. So my challenge is simple. Explain, from the actual text, how that is even possible, let alone probable.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1.1.1
            14 January 2016 at 4:59 pm

            I already linked you to an RNZ piece that quotes both opponents and proponents as saying it’ll affect sovereignty to a greater or lesser degree.

            You seized upon the proponents’ arguments as proof of your position, despite that one of them has a massive conflict of interest, and that even they acknowledge that there’ll be a “chilling” effect, despite it being negligible in their opinion.

            Does any of this ring any bells? After all it all happened just today.

            The other proponent pointed out that the US government has won every ISDS it’s been involved in. That it had to seek permission from a not-court made of not-lawyers whose decisions are final doesn’t strike you as affecting sovereignty at all, and that says something about you.

            • acrophobic 3.1.1.1.1.1
              14 January 2016 at 5:47 pm

              The RNZ piece? Come on OAB, on the sovereignty issue you’ve got nothing. And this discussion is about the TPP hysteria generally. You’re still hiding under Kelsey et al and crying the sky is falling. It isn’t.

              Two months. You’ve had two months and still nothing.

              • acrophobic …
                14 January 2016 at 5:51 pm

                Here’s one example.

                Remember the hysteria about how the TPP was going to steal NZ’s sovereignty by undermining the OIA?

                I quote from Annex 9-H, paragraph 4″

                “4. A decision under New Zealand’s Overseas Investment Act 2005 to grant consent, or to decline to grant consent, to an overseas investment transaction that requires prior consent under that Act shall not be subject to the dispute settlement provisions under Section B (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) or Chapter 28 (Dispute Settlement).”

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  14 January 2016 at 7:34 pm

                  No, I don’t remember how it was going to do that. Nor do I remember the “hysteria”. I do remember that you have a conflict of interest about anything where propaganda can make a difference though. It’s “perilously” close to idle speculation, and I simply can’t shake the impression that you are an unproductive member of society, bludging your living in the propaganda business, like that Rylands character.

                  • acrophobic …
                    15 January 2016 at 12:14 pm

                    “No, I don’t remember how it was going to do that. Nor do I remember the “hysteria”. ”

                    Here’s an article that touches on it, including Labour’s contorted position(s). http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11526651

                    “I do remember that you have a conflict of interest about anything where propaganda can make a difference though. ”

                    Huh? I am a businessman. I run an international kiwi based group of companies. I am pro-trade, because I believe it is one of the best ways to increase the standard of living for all citizens of the world. I have no ‘conflict of interest’, just strong and informed opinions, and a desire to call out bs.

                    • tracey …
                      15 January 2016 at 12:38 pm

                      “I am pro-trade, because I believe it is one of the best ways to increase the standard of living for all citizens of the world. I have no ‘conflict of interest’, just strong and informed opinions, and a desire to call out bs.”

                      Good for you.

                      And Kelsey is an academic charged statutorily with being “critic and conscience” of our society (Education Act) and has chosen Trade Deals and Globalisation as her specialties. She has indeed read the entire agreement, every leak and so forth. She has no conflict of interest, just strong and informed opinions and a desire to call out bs. far from being “paid| as you suggest she has used her own money to fund her travel and other aspects of her fact finding

                    • acrophobic …
                      15 January 2016 at 1:11 pm

                      Sorry to burst your bubble Tracey, but Kelsey is what more uncharitable people would call a ‘trougher’. As an example, she received $600,000 from the Marsden Fund to study “Transcending embedded neoliberalism in international economic regulation: options and strategies”. That buys an awful lot of international travel eh?

                      Equally of concern is that her critique of the TPP came before the text was even released, and at times was bordering on hysteria. Her approach has undermined her academic integrity, not enhanced it.

                    • Tracey …
                      15 January 2016 at 1:16 pm

                      You are not bursting my bubble, but you are twisting facts. Receiving money for research is not the same as “paid activist”.

                      Well, as someone who runs NZ based businesses and relies to whatever extent on free trade, you have also just “troughed” on the back of millions spent on the TPP from one perspective. But because you like it, you don’t see yourself as a trougher.

                      “paid activist” “hysteria” “trougher” “nonsense”. You are the one attacking the messenger not the message just because you hold a contrary view

                    • acrophobic …
                      15 January 2016 at 2:06 pm

                      “Receiving money for research is not the same as “paid activist”.”

                      It’s not research, its propaganda, and it’s a disgrace it’s even available

                      “…you have also just “troughed” on the back of millions spent on the TPP from one perspective.”

                      No. The business I run has little if anything to gain from the TPP.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      15 January 2016 at 3:37 pm

                      I pick you for someone who makes a living coming up with sophisticated arguments in favour of pre-determined outcomes, for right wing political parties. In short, propaganda.

                      I am also pro trade. It is the TPP’s restraint of trade clauses ($55M annual IP costs, for example) that bother me.

                      Oh, and there’s no “hysteria” in your link.

                    • Incognito …
                      16 January 2016 at 12:22 am

                      @ acrophobic at 15 January 2016 at 1:11 pm and 15 January 2016 at 2:06 pm.

                      You do realise that you have discarded one of the most prestigious research funds in NZ, don’t you? Does it mean anything to you that the Marsden Fund is administered by the Royal Society of New Zealand on behalf of the Marsden Fund Council and that it operates under the Terms of Reference issued by the Minister of Science and Innovation? In fact, it is a show pony trotted out each year by Steven Joyce to show how much (extra) money the Government is spending on academic research and excellence in particular.

                      It is probably the most hotly contested research fund in NZ with an overall success rate of only (!) 7.7% in the year that Prof. Kelsey was awarded her grant; in 2015 almost $54 million was awarded to a total of 92 research projects, which puts Prof. Kelsey well and truly in the top of NZ academic researchers. But according to you she is a “trougher”!?

                      There is no way that the Marsden Fund would fund political activists or “propaganda”; the review process is far too rigorous for that to happen. It funds ”excellent fundamental research”. Your assertions are an insult to so many reputable people, institutions, and funding organisations in NZ and an affront to pretty much all academia in NZ – no mean feat, I must admit. Does that bother you?

                      Lastly, most of the $600k of Prof. Kelsey’s Project Grant will be spend on salaries plus overheads and likely only a small portion of the total reviewed and approved research budget will be allocated to international travel.

                    • acrophobic …
                      16 January 2016 at 12:06 pm

                      “It is the TPP’s restraint of trade clauses ($55M annual IP costs, for example) that bother me.”

                      People claim the GDP increase is a drop in the bucket at billions. I would suggest your concerns are a drop in the bucket.

                    • acrophobic …
                      16 January 2016 at 12:09 pm

                      “You do realise that you have discarded one of the most prestigious research funds in NZ, don’t you? ”

                      I haven’t ‘discarded’ anything. I was responding to the suggestion that Kelsey pays her own way. She doesn’t. She is in receipt of substantial public funds.

                    • Incognito …
                      16 January 2016 at 10:28 pm

                      @ acrophobic at 16 January 2016 at 12:09 pm:

                      Yes, you have and either you are delusional or in denial about the implications of what you wrote in those two comments I referred to. You picked one word, and one word only, to rebut my whole comment. Unfortunately, this appears to be one of your modus operandi.

                      I respect your intelligence but I am deeply disappointed in how you apply it here on TS.

                    • McFlock …
                      16 January 2016 at 10:44 pm

                      Just FYI, incognito (or anyone else bored with acrophobic’s routine) – if one itemises a list of what leads one to believe that acrophobic has (wilfully or not) misunderstood or ignored something of importance when acro makes their sermons from the mount, acrophobic abandons the thread for an entire day even while making two dozen comments in other threads.

                      Our little acrophobic seems to be a cowardly wee lion, but only if you spell it out in teeny tiny words for them…

                    • Incognito …
                      16 January 2016 at 11:26 pm

                      @ McFlock at 16 January 2016 at 10:44 pm:

                      Yes, I had noticed this too. I ‘admire’ his ‘productivity’ here on TS, i.e. his prolific (!) commenting and I have to admit that I found the style & contents almost morbidly fascinating at first but it is rapidly wearing off!

                    • acrophobic …
                      17 January 2016 at 6:08 pm

                      “Yes, you have and either you are delusional or in denial about the implications of what you wrote in those two comments I referred to. ”

                      The problem is you did not read the post I was responding to. Now you seek to deflect by saying I’m somehow criticising Marsden. I’m not. I am refuting the claim that Kelsey pays her own way. She doesn’t. She lives off the public teet.

                    • acrophobic …
                      17 January 2016 at 6:11 pm

                      “Our little acrophobic seems to be a cowardly wee lion, but only if you spell it out in teeny tiny words for them…”

                      One thing I am not is a coward. I post frequently here, and don’t always see all of the replies. If I has missed responding to you, I will try to correct that, but it would be rare and an oversight.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      17 January 2016 at 6:19 pm

                      Acrophobic: Kelsey has been delivering massive value to NZ citizens for years, around the issue of economic sovereignty and democratic independence.

                      Shills for the oligarchy greatly dislike that, of course.

                    • acrophobic …
                      17 January 2016 at 6:34 pm

                      “Kelsey has been delivering massive value to NZ citizens for years, around the issue of economic sovereignty and democratic independence.”

                      You’re redefining the word ‘value’ there! All I see is a person on my payroll who opposes globalisation, something that is engaged in by virtually every nation on the planet.

                    • Incognito …
                      17 January 2016 at 9:33 pm

                      @ acrophobic at 17 January 2016 at 6:08 pm:

                      I was not “deflecting” anything; I simply picked up on you criticising the Marsden Fund, which indeed you did in your comments at 15 January 2016 at 1:11 pm and 15 January 2016 at 2:06 pm. You see, I even linked to your comments so that we have no confusion about that or about what exactly you wrote 😉

                      In any case, your come-back is a specious one because Prof. Kelsey is funded by the Marsden Fund to undertake her high-quality research, which includes travel (e.g. to overseas conferences and meetings). This is part of her research project so it makes no sense whatsoever to argue that she should pay her own way. Ergo you directly and indirectly criticise her funding and the funding agency.

                    • acrophobic …
                      17 January 2016 at 10:05 pm

                      “This is part of her research project so it makes no sense whatsoever to argue that she should pay her own way. Ergo you directly and indirectly criticise her funding and the funding agency.”

                      1. Neither of the posts you cite criticise Marsden.
                      2. My posts on this matter have been to refute Tracey’s comment of 15 January at 2.38 “far from being “paid| as you suggest she has used her own money to fund her travel and other aspects of her fact finding”. Clearly she has used a great deal of taxpayers money.

                      Is that clear enough for you?

                    • Incognito …
                      17 January 2016 at 10:20 pm

                      @ acrophobic at 17 January 2016 at 10:05 pm:

                      Very clear, thank you.

                      Ad 1) Yes, they were clearly and unambiguously critical and negative of the funding and funder for stuff that you regarded as “propaganda” and “not research” [your own words]. Please mean what you write and write what you mean, next time.

                      Ad 2) Has it occurred to you that Prof. Kelsey may have used both her own money as well as travel allocations of her awarded research projects?

                    • acrophobic …
                      17 January 2016 at 10:41 pm

                      “Ad 1) Yes, they were clearly and unambiguously critical and negative of the funding and funder for stuff that you regarded as “propaganda” and “not research” [your own words]. Please mean what you write and write what you mean, next time.”

                      1. The words you quote were not in one of the posts you cited.
                      2. Where do I apply those words to the Marsden, as opposed to Kelsey’s work?

                      You seem to be unable to conceive of the idea that it is possible to seperate the work from the funder of the work.

                      “Ad 2) Has it occurred to you that Prof. Kelsey may have used both her own money as well as travel allocations of her awarded research projects?”

                      Oh quite possibly, but that’s not what Tracey claimed. “…far from being “paid| as you suggest she has used her own money to fund her travel and other aspects of her fact finding”. Emphasis “Far from being paid…”. Kelsey was most certainly ‘paid’.

                    • Incognito …
                      17 January 2016 at 11:53 pm

                      Maybe I overestimated you?? It seems I wasted my time 🙁

                      In your comment dated 15 January 2016 at 2:06 pm you wrote:

                      It’s not research, its propaganda, and it’s a disgrace it’s even available

                    • acrophobic …
                      18 January 2016 at 10:29 am

                      “In your comment dated 15 January 2016 at 2:06 pm you wrote:

                      It’s not research, its propaganda, and it’s a disgrace it’s even available”

                      Yep. That’s referring to Kelsey, not the funder. Anything else?

                • Tracey …
                  15 January 2016 at 12:06 pm

                  Perhaps the OIA they meant was the Official Information Act 😉

                • tracey …
                  15 January 2016 at 12:27 pm

                  Have you read the entire document? (genuine question)

                  • acrophobic …
                    15 January 2016 at 1:14 pm

                    No. I am content with the analysis I read (on both sides) to inform my opinion.

                    [lprent: On this site, it hasn’t been notable to me (and I read most of the site’s comments) that you can read anything except mindless propaganda dribble from National party supporters.

                    Certainly you show no signs to me of having any real idea of the advantages or disadvantages of the TPPA or any other trade deal. Certainly you show no signs of ever having understood the arguments against it. Instead you make foolish unsubstantiated assertions like the one above. I suspect that you are simply too stupid to be able to read and comphrehend the arguments by opponents.

                    But I’d suggest that until you can display actual competence with the arguments, then you refrain from claiming such nonsense. It makes me start to view you as just another simpleminded astroturfing troll. This is your warning, if you want to argue, then do so. If you want to make claims of balance as a position you aspire to, then you’ll have to demonstrate it. Merely claiming it, is just lying. ]

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      15 January 2016 at 3:40 pm

                      Bollocks. Your opinion is entirely pre-conceived.

                    • acrophobic …
                      16 January 2016 at 12:08 pm

                      lprent…well that’s a bit rich! You have permitted frequent trolling behaviour from a number of posters here as they have posted personal attacks against me. You have also ignored the substantial amount of citations I have referenced to support my position. Show some balance.

          • Murray Simmonds 3.1.1.1.2
            15 January 2016 at 11:22 am

            “. . . actual text should be able to support, if true. So my challenge is simple. Explain, from the actual text, how that is even possible, let alone probable.”

            Yeah right acrophobic. like it actually states somewhere in the “agreement” that (something like) “. . . the mutinationals who have pushed most of the agenda for this agreement are out to kill those parts of sovereign state democracy that might conceivably interfere with their freedom to make a buck for their shareholders,, unfettered by any reasonable sovereign state interests or rights that might happen to get in their way . . . (or words to that effect)”.

            For Gawd’s sake, get some imagination, or intelligence, or whatever you are lacking in order to enable yourself to read between the lines before posting your drivel here.

            • acrophobic 3.1.1.1.2.1
              15 January 2016 at 12:06 pm

              Opponents of the TPPA are making claims. I’m asking you to substantiate them. If you can’t do so from the text, then you are simply scaremongering.

      • Tautoko Mangō Mata 3.1.2
        14 January 2016 at 11:14 am

        @veritaphobic acrophobic: re TPP
        It seems that the so-called tobacco carveout from using ISDS only applies to one specific instance of tobacco control measures.

        Vetter Says U.S. ‘Proud’ Of TPP Tobacco Tariff Cuts, Downplays Carveout
        A senior U.S. trade official this week touted the fact that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will remove tariffs on U.S. tobacco products in partner countries and downplayed the impact of language carving out tobacco control measures from being challenged under the deal’s investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism.
        http://insidetrade.com/

        For Darci Vetter’s actual words, link: http://annualconvention.fb.org/videos/
        Scroll down to
        News Conference, Chief Agricultural Negotiator, USTR, Ambassador Darci Vetter, 2:30 p.m.
        The relevant audio is from 7.30min to 9min
        Plenty of other ways for the baccy companies to sue.

        • acrophobic 3.1.2.1
          14 January 2016 at 12:16 pm

          Corporations have been suing Governments for years without the benefit of ISDS clauses.

      • adam 3.1.3
        14 January 2016 at 11:41 am

        Or, you could do some research yourself. Try nafter for starters. Or spend two minutes looking at Mexico. As this is what happens with these type of agreements.

        • acrophobic 3.1.4.1
          14 January 2016 at 12:28 pm

          Yep, hysteria. You do know that only part of TransCanada’s action is under NAFTA provisions?

          “TransCanada said it has also filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Federal Court in Texas asserting that President Barack Obama’s decision in November to deny construction of Keystone XL exceeded his power under the U.S. Constitution.”

          http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/01/06/transcanada-nafta-lawsuit-keystone_n_8925014.html

          • Paul 3.1.4.1.1
            14 January 2016 at 2:53 pm

            I realise that.
            Are you aware that the provisions regarding the investor state clause are remarkably similar in both ‘free trade’ deals?

            • acrophobic 3.1.4.1.1.1
              14 January 2016 at 5:32 pm

              Are you aware that corporations have been taking action against Governments with and without trade deals?

              • Paul …
                14 January 2016 at 6:08 pm

                You should attend the meetings around the country at the end of the month.
                Lori Wallach is highly informed on the subject.
                You might want to become more informed yourself.

                • acrophobic …
                  14 January 2016 at 6:33 pm

                  I doubt I could stomach the lies. Wallach is just another paid activist…just like Kelsey. Good work if you can get it.

                  • Tracey …
                    15 January 2016 at 12:17 pm

                    Are you sad that you are not being paid for your propaganda?

                    Read the Education Act, THAT is what is driving Kelsey not activist money.

                    • acrophobic …
                      15 January 2016 at 1:19 pm

                      Nonsense. What drives Jane is an irrational hatred of the free market and trade. She is an ideologue, and her premature and flawed analysis of the TPP is the evidence.

                    • Tracey …
                      15 January 2016 at 1:43 pm

                      And that is when you break your mask of the non conflicted businessman who just reads the facts and has an opinion and wants to root out bs.

                      You clearly have skin in the game (even if it is ego) and it is seriously clouding your ability to view this and the players rationally. Of course you are entitled to believe it is the best thing since sliced bread, and I sincerely hope you are right. But you have to wait, and so do we all, to find out if you are.

                      And even knowing if you were “right” to believe is vague cos no one has put up a solid criteria/measurement by which we can judge it, so success or failure will be purely a political call.

                      And Prof Kelsey went to Court to get the cost/benefit analysis and measurements of success or failure made public, but this Government staunchly refuses. They have got them, right acrophobic? No Government would sign without such analysis and measuring scales?

      • Neil 3.1.5
        14 January 2016 at 2:52 pm

        Professor Jane Kelsey & several others have written several papers that are well documented on why the TPPA is no good for NZ, but no doubt in your mind you will claim that what they have written is not true, maybe its time to pull your head out of the sand & wake up to the truth.

        • Paul 3.1.5.1
          14 January 2016 at 3:00 pm

          He is a troll – probably paid to stir things up here.

          • Tc 3.1.5.1.1
            14 January 2016 at 4:23 pm

            There are plenty of them here now that the natz have successfully removed campbell, neutered RNZ, screwed freeview (stratos etc) and ensured TVNZ and granny toe their line.

            Shows how much they rate TS as an influencer, they combine the subtle with the overt and take delight in derailing posts….DNFTT

        • acrophobic 3.1.5.2
          14 January 2016 at 5:30 pm

          Most of Jane Kelsey’s work was before the TPP text was released, at which time her hysteria was exposed. There is also mountains of material that show what a good deal the TPPA will be for NZ.

          • Neil 3.1.5.2.1
            14 January 2016 at 6:58 pm

            Where is the material that shows what a good thing the TPPA is then? you cant provide it because there isn’t any.
            Some of Professor Jane Kelsey’s work was published before the TPPA text was released but has been proven to be true & you probably cant produce anything to say otherwise because there isn’t anything.
            I reckon acrophobic should change your name to “Lace’s” as you’re that far up Key’s arse, as all one can see is your shoe laces.

            • Scott M 3.1.5.2.1.1
              14 January 2016 at 7:30 pm

              Acrophobic – one example is foreign investment. The TPPA raises the threshold at which NZ can control investment under the OIA to $200m. This is locked in and would prevent future governments passing more strigent laws even if that is what NZ voters wanted.

              Another – the TPPA prevents the government from restricting foreign investment in certain asset categories, such as housing in Auckland.

              Putting aside what you may or may not think about foreign investment – these measures are a direct limitation on the government and therefore soveriegnty.

              • acrophobic …
                15 January 2016 at 9:44 am

                Hi Scott

                Any agreement made by a Govt limits it in some way. Any agreement on limiting Co2 emmissions potentially does the same thing. So do UN conventions. I don’t consider those to be limiting our soveriegnty, because just as we signed up voluntarily, we can also leave voluntarily. Indeed that would be Andrew Little’s position if he had an ounce of integrity.

                But I’m interested in your specific examples.

                On the OIA investment control, can you provide a cite please, becasue the text of the TPPA seems to contradict what you claim:

                Annex 9-H, paragraph 4″

                “4. A decision under New Zealand’s Overseas Investment Act 2005 to grant consent, or to decline to grant consent, to an overseas investment transaction that requires prior consent under that Act shall not be subject to the dispute settlement provisions under Section B (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) or Chapter 28 (Dispute Settlement).”

            • acrophobic 3.1.5.2.1.2
              15 January 2016 at 9:20 am

              “Where is the material that shows what a good thing the TPPA is then? you cant provide it because there isn’t any.”

              Of course I can, and already have. But if you want it again, here goes:

              http://www.tradeworks.org.nz/free-info/
              https://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/
              http://www.nzuscouncil.com/images/uploads/deRaad2.pdf

              “Some of Professor Jane Kelsey’s work was published before the TPPA text was released but has been proven to be true…”
              It’s actually hard to find ANY analysis Kelsey has done since the release of the text, simply because she’s been caught out. Now she’s been relegated to pathetic opinion pieces trying to justify her over reaching. Mind you, taxpayer funded travel is hard to come by these days.

              • Tracey …
                15 January 2016 at 12:18 pm

                Bottom line 3: Corporations cannot sue the government for regulating in the public interest. This is THE most unbelievable and ignores the compelling international evidence and analysis of a crisis in the investor-state dispute settlement system.

                Of course investor-state dispute settlement will be used to sue the government for such measures. That’s what indirect expropriation, minimum standard of treatment, and non-discrimination rules are about.

                The general exception rule (which itself has only succeeded as a defence in 1 of 44 disputes in the WTO) does not apply to the investment chapter. In some cases, the special ‘protections’ for public policy in the chapter are weaker than existing NZ agreements and will become available to other countries with which we have FTAs (such as China, Korea and Taiwan). Even the special tobacco exception from ISDS is an opt-out, making it a prime target for industry lobbying (and doesn’t apply to disputes brought by TPPA states to enforce this and other chapters of the TPPA).

                The real doozy is Article 9.15 on ‘Environmental, Health and other Regulatory Objectives’ – it says nothing in the chapter stops a government from doing what the chapter allows it to do anyway!

                The TPPA text tries to limit the scope of such claims, but the words are vague and investment tribunals have a proved track record of giving them whatever meaning they like, even if they are supposedly bound by the parties’ own interpretation. And that doesn’t stop an investor from threatening to, or bringing, a dispute with the goal of getting government to back off.

                In addition, the investment chapter gives investors from TPPA countries a raft of new rights and protections not available to local firms and not in existing NZ agreements. For example, even if a PPP toll road, a privatised water contract, an agreement that allows oil exploration or a damn project requires a dispute to be settled in New Zealand’s courts, the investor can take it through ISDS instead.

                There are a few procedural changes that try to give the investment tribunals some more credibility. But the ‘judges’ are still largely practising investment lawyers with no conflict of interest rules (just a promise to develop a code of conduct before the agreement comes into force). The hearings are still ad hoc hearings with no predictable rules or precedents and no right of appeal. Amicus briefs require permission. Hearings will be public, but documents can still be withheld as confidential. Punitive damages can’t be awarded, but there is no limit on compound interest (which at times comprises half the amount awarded). And more …
                – See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/11/07/exclusive-open-letter-from-jane-kelsey-to-labour-party-conference/#sthash.qF84QZvq.dpuf.

                • acrophobic …
                  15 January 2016 at 1:21 pm

                  What date did Jane write that? What date was the text of the TPP released?

                  • Tracey …
                    15 January 2016 at 1:34 pm

                    Just look at the link acrophobic. Can you post the articles/clauses from the TPP which prove her wrong? I’m surprised you haven’t read it given you have been relying on extensive analysis from “both sides”.

                    • acrophobic …
                      15 January 2016 at 2:17 pm

                      Why won’t you answer the question?
                      November 7 2015.
                      November 5 2015.

                      So Jane had the time to analyse the full 6,000 pages in 48 hours?

                    • Tracey …
                      27 January 2016 at 8:04 am

                      I see you didn’t read the link. If you had you would know she made no claim to have read the entire thing in 48 hours. But then, you are shifting goal posts. First claiming nothing from her post release. Now claiming, not enough from her post release and couldn’t have read 6000 pages in 48 hours.

                      Can you post the articles/clauses from the TPP which prove her wrong?

                      “What date did Jane write that? What date was the text of the TPP released?”

                      “Why won’t you answer the question?”

                      The answer was in the link. I am sorry that you were not able to see the date of the article (which was clear when I loaded the page) nor able to find the date the Text as released.

                      Keep digging of rational non ideological one… soon we won’t be able to hear you.

                  • Tracey …
                    15 January 2016 at 1:37 pm

                    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/nov/10/tpps-clauses-that-let-australia-be-sued-are-weapons-of-legal-destruction-says-lawyer

                    “Kahale’s criticisms have been echoed by Robert French, the chief justice of Australia’s high court. In a speech last July, he said: “Arbitral tribunals set up under ISDS provisions are not courts, nor are they required to act like courts, yet their decisions may include awards which significantly impact on national economies and on regulatory systems within nation states.”

                    Just more hsyterical nonsense talking paid activists acrophobic?

                    • acrophobic …
                      15 January 2016 at 2:18 pm

                      Where does Jane Kelsey feature in that cite?

                    • Tracey …
                      27 January 2016 at 8:24 am

                      Ah so it is just Kelsey who must be dismissed for being against it because she is a hysterical nonsense talking paid activist? You accept the criticisms of those who are not Kelsey/ (as above)

          • Korero Pono 3.1.5.2.2
            15 January 2016 at 8:06 am

            Sad Acro, I noticed you have not produced the “mountains of material that show what a good deal the TPPA will be for NZ”. Yet there is plenty of evidence to show that it is not a good deal. For example the GDEA have released a working paper on this very issue. They certainly do not believe it is a good deal:

            “Economic gains will be negligible…less than one percent over ten years for developed countries and less than three percent for developing ones. These projections are similar to previous findings that TPP gains would be small for many countries”.

            “TPP would lead to employment losses in all countries, with a total of 771,000 lost jobs. The United States would be the hardest hit, with a loss of 448,000 jobs. Developing economies participating in the agreement would also suffer employment losses, as higher competitive pressures force them to curtail labor incomes and increase production for export”.

            “TPP would lead to higher inequality, as measured by changes in the labor share of national income. The authors foresee competitive pressures on labor income combining with employment losses to push labor shares lower, redistributing income from labor to capital in all countries. In the United States, this would exacerbate a multi-decade downward trend”.

            “TPP would lead to losses in GDP and employment in non-TPP countries. In large part, the loss in GDP (3.77 percent) and employment (879,000) among non-TPP developed countries would be driven by losses in Europe, while developing country losses in GDP (5.24%) and employment (4.45 million) reflect projected losses in China and India”.

            http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/policy_research/TPP_simulations.html

            http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/16-01Capaldo-IzurietaTPP.pdf

            • acrophobic 3.1.5.2.2.1
              15 January 2016 at 9:25 am

              I have provided a number of cites to support the benefits of the TPP to NZ.

              As to the Tufts study, it’s hard to take the material seriously when they are predicting an overall loss of jobs across all participants (a nonsense), and when one of the reasons they give against the TPP is that “TPP would lead to losses in GDP and employment in non-TPP countries.” Surely that’s an argument for joining in?

              • crashcart …
                15 January 2016 at 10:22 am

                Your arguing that European countries should join the Trans Pacific Partnership?

                I think that sort of shoots a hole in your understanding of the TPP.

                • acrophobic …
                  15 January 2016 at 11:01 am

                  No. Where did I say that? The Tufts article uses disadvantage to non-TPP countries as an argument against the TPP. That sounds like an incentive to join to me.

          • tracey 3.1.5.2.3
            15 January 2016 at 12:40 pm

            Can you please cite examples of her “hysteria”.

            These mountains of material come from those who have been privvy to the entire process and got quite the jump on Kelsey in terms of selecting aspects to highlight, yes?

            • acrophobic 3.1.5.2.3.1
              15 January 2016 at 2:24 pm

              The material is produced by people such as http://asiapacifictrade.org/. This is quality research that looks at the benefits of a deal such as the TPP, without the ideological fanfare associated with Kelsey et al.

              • Tracey …
                27 January 2016 at 8:25 am

                Yea acrophobic, only the left are ideologically driven. No propaganda or hysteria from the right, ever.

          • Tracey 3.1.5.2.4
            15 January 2016 at 1:45 pm

            Well of course most of her work was pre-release, she has a few years of it. But she has produced post release work. It seems odd that you haven’t read it because you said you have been reading analysis from “both sides”.

            • acrophobic 3.1.5.2.4.1
              15 January 2016 at 2:19 pm

              I have read it, or at least a great deal of it. It is telling that Kelsey’s analysis has dried up post release. On one hand she bleated about the secrecy, and on the other she moaned about the content. Hilarious. And dishonest.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                15 January 2016 at 4:02 pm

                Bleating and moaning, eh. It sounds personal. People who deal with facts (academics like Kelsey, for example) are inconvenient to the propaganda market?

                • acrophobic …
                  16 January 2016 at 12:13 pm

                  How can you argue Kelsey deals in the ‘facts’ when virtually all of her opinion pieces were written pre release of the TPP?

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    16 January 2016 at 1:26 pm

                    Is that what I argued? Nah. My argument is that your pejorative flailing is quite revealing.

                    • acrophobic …
                      16 January 2016 at 2:07 pm

                      “People who deal with facts (academics like Kelsey, for example)…”

                      I’m still curious to know why Kelsey has been so quiet.

                      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11574580

                    • Tracey …
                      27 January 2016 at 7:55 am

                      She hasn’t, you keep claiming this, and yet she has put out several analysis (all of which you reject without having read them), including the day after the release of the full text and many thereafter. You masquerade as this person seeking rationality and logic but don’t even read or look for (it’s not hard to find) the very analysis you claim is lacking, and use that fake lack to support your view.

                  • Tracey …
                    27 January 2016 at 8:01 am

                    because she has released post text analysis, which is not going to be numerically as high in number as her releases since 2012 but they exist. You constant desire to attack the messenger (Kelsey) is telling. But then she has studied the 6000 page text while you rely on MFAT releases (see above).

              • Tracey …
                27 January 2016 at 7:59 am

                It hasn’t dried up post release and you contradict yourself.

                You say you have read her post release work when answering my post bt then lament it has dried up post release. If it has dried up post release, you can’t have read ot, or even “a great deal of it”. If you have read ” a great deal of it” then it hasn’t dried up.

                By all means disagree with her analysis but don’t do a version of Gosman’s “I am the rational person fighting to correct wrong-headedness” when you are being revealed as every bit as biased as you accuse people like Prof Kelsey.

                As you quaintly put it below when I asked you for evidence, I am not going to do all your work for you. Suffice to say there is post text release analysis. Unlike MFAT she hasn’t had years of aspects of the 6000 pages.

      • Pat 3.1.6
        14 January 2016 at 9:21 pm

        http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1601/S00066/the-tpp-why-rush-in-where-angels-fear-to-tread.htm

        and no one with half a brain needs any more analysis of ISDS to know its a bad idea…thats a given and is reason enough its own not to join

        • acrophobic 3.1.6.1
          15 January 2016 at 9:34 am

          I’m curious to know if you read the Scoop article. If so, you will see it contains not a shred of evidence, or even sound reasoning, to justify the opposition. It says ““We’re most concerned with the health implications, such as the cost and accessibility of pharmaceuticals…” but what are these implications? No-where does the release even point to other evidence based studies to confirm their concerns.

          This is the problem for the opponents of the TPP. There is much bluster, but no real substance to their opposition. There are hundreds of trade deals operating across the planet. NZ is signatory or in negotiations over dozens of such agreements. We continue to become amore prosperous nation as a result. We have access to the worlds produce and products at competitive prices, and we are able to sell our products on the world stage with reducing barriers. Bring it on.

          • Pat 3.1.6.1.1
            15 January 2016 at 9:45 am

            indeed i did read the article and just as you assert that there is no evidence or sound reasoning to justify opposition there is equally no evidence or sound reasoning to support the claims made by the pro camp…..one thing however that cannot be disputed are the increasing actions of corporations since the introduction of ISDS into trade agreements and the impact it has (and is having) had on the ability of governments to frame policy.

            This is not a pro -anti trade argument and anyone who tries to frame so is either disingenuous or stupid.

            It is simply a bad deal.

            • acrophobic 3.1.6.1.1.1
              15 January 2016 at 11:00 am

              “…there is equally no evidence or sound reasoning to support the claims made by the pro camp…”

              Actually that’s incorrect. The benefits of the TPP have been quantified in a number of studies, and the benefits of other trade agreements can easily be researched.

              “…the increasing actions of corporations since the introduction of ISDS into trade agreements and the impact it has (and is having) had on the ability of governments to frame policy.”

              Such actions are a part of international trade, with or without trade agreements. ISDS arrangements protect investors from rogue action by signatories to trade agreements, something which is eminently sensible. ISDS have been part of trade agreements since the 1980’s, and the sun still comes up in the morning.

              “It is simply a bad deal.”
              …another unsubstantiated assertion.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                15 January 2016 at 4:08 pm

                Such actions are a part of international trade, with or without trade agreements. ISDS arrangements protect investors from rogue action by signatories to trade agreements, something which is eminently sensible.

                Why? The government does things that cost me money all the time (increasing ACC levies for political purposes, for example). When do I get to sue? Obviously never, just like the victims of “morbidity with a social gradient” that right wing policies kill.

                Seriously, you’d think someone could bring a class action lawsuit for all the needlessly dead babies since 1984 before some investor has a look in.

                Nah, dead babies don’t buy tables at Cabinet Club, nor can they offer directorships and other bribes. We’ll have to wait for a government that isn’t bought.

                • acrophobic …
                  16 January 2016 at 12:15 pm

                  Needless dead babies? Are you referring to the country’s abortion rate?

                  “Why? The government does things that cost me money all the time (increasing ACC levies for political purposes, for example). When do I get to sue? ”

                  When you sign an agreement with the Govt enabling you to.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    16 January 2016 at 1:23 pm

                    No, I’m referring to “morbidity with a social gradient”, which is what your beloved Treasury department says when it means infant mortality and so-forth.

                    Also cf: The Lancet, Baker et al 2012.

              • Pat …
                15 January 2016 at 10:09 pm

                well you have established that you are happy for foreign corporates to write NZ gov policy (and by extension law) by de facto.

                and for this what do we get? an estimated gross increase in GDP of 0.9% by 2030…gross, not net ….and 0.9% is margin of error or currency fluctuation territory.

                “We are confident that the CGE modelling reported on here is of the highest standard possible. This modelling does not, however, capture the full potential economic consequences of TPP – for example, the impact of increasing copyright term from 50 to 70 years in New Zealand. These other impacts have been addressed separately (see http://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz for example).”

                Yep no doubt about it, you’re as sharp as a tack….you can negotiate my deals for me anytime……on the other side.

                • acrophobic …
                  16 January 2016 at 12:26 pm

                  “well you have established that you are happy for foreign corporates to write NZ gov policy (and by extension law) by de facto.”

                  No, and this won’t ever happen. NZ can voluntarily leave the TPP, you do know that don’t you?

                  “an estimated gross increase in GDP of 0.9% by 2030…gross, not net ….and 0.9% is margin of error or currency fluctuation territory.”

                  You do realise that is a ‘minimum’, and represents almost 3bn per annum? Yes I know it sounds less when you say ‘0.9%’, but what could 3bn buy? A 20% increase in the Health or Education budgets as an example.

                  • Pat …
                    16 January 2016 at 8:09 pm

                    “No, and this won’t ever happen. NZ can voluntarily leave the TPP, you do know that don’t you?”

                    If you think our best defense is to leave , why join?

                    “You do realise that is a ‘minimum’, and represents almost 3bn per annum? Yes I know it sounds less when you say ‘0.9%’, but what could 3bn buy? A 20% increase in the Health or Education budgets as an example.”

                    well I guess an estimated 2.7 billion (by 2030) could be called almost 3 billion…
                    and doesn’t include increased costs incurred by membership.

                    but you missed your best chance…

                    • acrophobic …
                      16 January 2016 at 8:53 pm

                      “If you think our best defense is to leave , why join?”

                      Because I highly doubt we’ll even need any such defence.

                      “well I guess an estimated 2.7 billion (by 2030) could be called almost 3 billion…and doesn’t include increased costs incurred by membership.”

                      …which are not substantial.

                      And a more recent estimate says 2%, which would be how much? Hitting 6bn??http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/agribusiness/69913667/tpp-will-add-two-per-cent-to-nz-economy–us-economist

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      17 January 2016 at 12:07 am

                      Fuck off acrophobic.

                      Giving up our sovereignty and democratic independence isn’t worth the shonky promise of beads and whisky your kind are offering.

                    • acrophobic …
                      17 January 2016 at 6:04 pm

                      “Giving up our sovereignty and democratic independence isn’t worth the shonky promise of beads and whisky your kind are offering.”

                      We’re not giving up our sovereignty. We’re not giving up our democratic independence. The benefits of the TPP are significant. Haven’t you been reading?

                  • Pat …
                    16 January 2016 at 11:44 pm

                    “His economic modelling, which has been criticised for including only the benefits and not also the costs of a potential TPP deal, estimates New Zealand could enjoy a 2% economic boost from increased investment and market access. About a quarter of that would come in agriculture.”

                    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/tpp-too-big-fail-says-visiting-us-trade-deal-specialist-petri-b-175060

                    and hardly an impartial source

                    • Pat …
                      17 January 2016 at 12:16 am

                      beads and whisky may end up a better deal, provided the whisky is a single malt and the beads of a suitable size.

          • Tracey 3.1.6.1.2
            15 January 2016 at 1:19 pm

            Could you post 10 evidence based studies relied upon by the Government when signing the TPP to back up their claim it will be of benefit to NZ. Given the Government is going so far as to disobey the Courts to avoid releasing such documents, where do you get your evidence from?

            “The benefits of the TPP have been quantified in a number of studies”

            Please list them all with clear citations of who funded the studies included. Please also asterix which ones were relied upon by the NZ Government to decide to sign this TPP

            • acrophobic 3.1.6.1.2.1
              15 January 2016 at 2:13 pm

              “…where do you get your evidence from?”

              “Please list them all with clear citations of who funded the studies included. ”

              No, I’m not doing your work for you, Tracey. But I’ll point you in the right direction. http://asiapacifictrade.org/ contains a number of studies on the TPP, including the original ‘Petri’ study, which is a highly regarded study on the impacts of the TPP.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                15 January 2016 at 4:15 pm

                highly regarded according to whom? I mean, seriously: the man’s an economist for fucks’ sake: one of the most political “academic” disciplines in town.

                The whole field is still at the level of competing opinions.

                I note the twisted hypocrisy of bagging Kelsey for being an academic and lauding Petri for exactly the same activity. When are you going to stop flashing your bias around?

                • acrophobic …
                  16 January 2016 at 12:16 pm

                  “I mean, seriously: the man’s an economist for fucks’ sake: one of the most political “academic” disciplines in town.”

                  OH MY GOODNESS!!! You mean an economist, commenting on a trade deal! How dare they!!

                  “I note the twisted hypocrisy of bagging Kelsey for being an academic and lauding Petri for exactly the same activity.”

                  I don;t bag Kelsey for being an academic. I bag her for being wrong.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    16 January 2016 at 1:21 pm

                    More English comprehension lessons?

                    I didn’t say he’s wrong to comment, I’m saying his opinion is an opinion. You only give his more weight because you happen to agree with it.

                    • acrophobic …
                      16 January 2016 at 2:04 pm

                      No, you said his was “one of the most political “academic” disciplines in town.” And I give the work on asiapacifictrade more weight because it is more robust. It deals in research and, not hyperbole.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      16 January 2016 at 2:25 pm

                      No, you tiresome sponge, I know what point I’m trying to make, and it is that economics is still at the level of competing opinions.

                      This, by the way, in response to yet another example of your flailing toothless hyperbole – “OH MY GOODNESS!!! You mean an economist, commenting on a trade deal! How dare they!!”

                      McFlock skewered you nicely when they pointed out that your rhetoric is peppered with these distortions, which you clutch at, I guess to delude yourself of victory.

                      Back to economics. Being opinion based, treating its predictions as though they were facts is unwise.

                    • Scott M []
                      16 January 2016 at 6:09 pm

                      +100

              • Korero Pono …
                15 January 2016 at 9:21 pm

                LOL – highly regarded it may be for those who choose to believe the highly flawed analysis produced aka those who do not want the truth about the TPP told. Acro you are really defensive about the TPP, why?

                http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/16-01Capaldo-IzurietaTPP.pdf – discusses how and why the Petri analysis is flawed.

                • acrophobic …
                  16 January 2016 at 12:18 pm

                  “Acro you are really defensive about the TPP, why?”

                  Defensive? Huh? I’m here defending the TPP, yes. Isn’t that obvious?

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    16 January 2016 at 2:30 pm

                    😆

                    …like Don Quixote defended Dulcinea del Toboso.

                  • Korero Pono …
                    16 January 2016 at 2:32 pm

                    It was a question of you defending it, it was more a ‘why’ question (again only reading what you want to read). You ignore the substantive issue that Petri study is flawed but go on clinging to it anyway.

                    • acrophobic …
                      16 January 2016 at 2:39 pm

                      The Petri study is not flawed. There has been criticism (e.g. from the Sustainability Council), which is entirely healthy, but no critique that undermines it. It remains definitive.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      16 January 2016 at 2:43 pm

                      A definitive opinion 🙄

                    • acrophobic …
                      16 January 2016 at 3:04 pm

                      “A definitive opinion ”

                      I believe it was you (??) who commented that at the moment this is all opinion, and to some extent I agree with that. But some opinion is based on sound research. Then some is based on an ideological hatred of market economics.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      16 January 2016 at 5:37 pm

                      …and some (like you) are pretending (for ideological motives) that all the opposition is ideological, despite the issues raised by KP below.

                    • Macro …
                      16 January 2016 at 7:52 pm

                      The IMF recognizes that their projections for countries economic growth may be inaccurate by as much as 0.4% per annum for a variety of reasons. The projected increase of 2.2% by 2025 lies well within this error range. In other words, the projections are merely crap.
                      Economists have NFI actually as to what may be the outcome of certain Trade Deals – their projections are about as reliant, as a piece of wet sea weed was for weather forecasting.

                  • Korero Pono …
                    16 January 2016 at 5:08 pm

                    Yes, the Petri study is flawed:

                    “Petri, Plummer and Zhai (2012) is based on the GTAP model,
                    a standard CGE model that has been used for decades to project the effects of trade liberalization. Although the study provides a lot of interesting detail on many sectors of the economies involved in the TPP, it faces two critical limitations.

                    First, the CGE model used excludes, by assumption, TPP effects on employment and income distribution, thereby ruling out the major risks of trade liberalization. Negative outcomes after several trade liberalization experiences in the 1990s have been associated precisely with failure to appreciate these risks.

                    Secondly, the projections are based on data available in 2007, prior to the financial and economic crisis that began in 2008. The crisis showed that some long standing patterns of the world economy – – including the persistence of trade deficits in the United States and of trade surpluses in East Asia – – were unsustainable. Projections based on pre-crisis data miss this critical, more recent information”.

                    http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/16-01Capaldo-IzurietaTPP.pdf

                    Seems like a flawed analysis to me. Of course the WP does go on to show the how and why of the flaws in the Petri study.

                  • Korero Pono …
                    16 January 2016 at 7:38 pm

                    You haven’t really read the Tuft WP, have you? You just read the little bit I quoted and went from there…of course you have also disregarded other factors highlighted in the Tuft paper, but I would expect that to be so when it does not fit with your ideological preferences.

                    You might need to read this again:

                    “Secondly, the projections are based on data available in 2007, prior to the financial and economic crisis that began in 2008. The crisis showed that some long standing patterns of the world economy – – including the persistence of trade deficits in the United States and of trade surpluses in East Asia – – were unsustainable. Projections based on pre-crisis data miss this critical, more recent information”.

                    I wonder what the authors mean when they say “The crisis showed that some long standing patterns of the world economy – – including the persistence of trade deficits in the United States and of trade surpluses in East Asia – – were unsustainable” and I wonder how that may impact on an analysis that relies on the 2007 data? Could it be that the Petri analysis missed something vital?

                    • acrophobic …
                      16 January 2016 at 7:45 pm

                      “Could it be that the Petri analysis missed something vital?”

                      Possibly. The study was, after all, conducted before the agreement was finalised. As, by the way, was much of the criticism. But whatever was missed seems not to affected the conclusions of the authors. The consensus seems to be that the Petri study remains unscathed. That is borne out by the fact that it is still be cited as one of the definitive studies on the TPP and it’s benefits.

                      “Many citizens and politicians made up their minds about TPP long ago, based on seemingly devastating critiques of what might emerge from the negotiations. They should now look at the outcome with an open mind. They just might find that their worst night-time fears have vanished by the light of day.”

                      http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/11/why-support-tpp-critics-read-agreement-keep-open-mind

              • Sacha …
                15 January 2016 at 9:31 pm

                please ponder the difference between ‘predictions’ and ‘impacts’.

  4. JP up North 4
    14 January 2016 at 9:45 am

    Total whitewash by the NZ media in keeping this govt honest and the public up to date with the tsunami the TPPA is proving to be.

    No right turn http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2016/01/no-benefit-from-tppa.html mentions a process where trade with other nations outside the agreement will incur costs/loss of privileges of the party concerned.

    Quote
    [The TPPA] opens up trade between members but makes trade more difficult with non-members through a process known as “cumulative rules of origin” where members lose privileges if they source inputs from countries outside the TPP.

    So what does this mean for NZ if our main trading partner, China is outside the agreement and is the target for US financial/trade constraint that the TPPA is designed to bring about?

  5. Sacha 5
    14 January 2016 at 10:09 am

    “Frank Macskasy does an excellent job of documenting much of the above, but he appears to be confused though about the difference between signing the document and ratifying it.”

    I reckon he has inadvertently discovered that Key’s quotes deliberately conflated the agreement with the enabling NZ legislative changes. Only the latter face any parliamentary scrutiny.

  6. vto 6
    14 January 2016 at 10:34 am

    If business gets to sue government for lost profit when laws change which detrimentally affect that business…

    Then do government get to sue business for increased profit when laws change which beneficially affect that business…?

    Eh?

  7. Manuka AOR 7
    14 January 2016 at 11:35 am

    Environmental Nightmares of the future:

    “The TPP and other global trade pacts take away the power of governments to protect the environment.”

    “Here’s one example: In 2009, the Canadian-based Pacific Rim mining company (now owned by Australian-based OceanaGold) sued El Salvador for refusing to allow the company to mine for gold. El Salvador had banned the project due to widespread water contamination. The lawsuit demands $300 million from the small, impoverished country. Even if El Salvador prevails, it will be out millions of dollars in legal costs, according to Pérez-Rocha. “
    http://www.alternet.org/environment/look-future-how-tpp-could-create-environmental-nightmares

  8. Paul 8
    14 January 2016 at 12:10 pm

    BREAKING: TPPA Don’t Sign campaign January 26th Auckland Town Hall

    Despite its ‘neither confirm nor deny’ the government will host the signing of the TPPA on 4 Feb. The Herald this morning ran the absurd banner for its editorial: ‘TPP signing an honour, let’s respect it’.
    Well, let’s not!!!!
    If you live near or in Auckland – or are pissed off enough to travel a bit – the TPPA Don’t Sign campaign will kick off with a public meeting at the Auckland Town Hall on Tuesday 26 January at 7pm.

    The star of the show will be Lori Wallach, the Director of Public Citizen Global Trade Watch, who knows more about what’s happening in Washington on the TPPA than Obama does! Professor Jane Kelsey will also talk about implications for New Zealand, drawing on the expert papers progressively being posted here.
    Then we have a political panel of parties who have been critical of the agreement, albeit to varying degrees. So far Andrew Little (Labour) and Metiria Turie (Greens) have said yes, and New Zealand First and Maori Party are working on schedules. Offers will also be made to the Government. The meeting will be live streamed on TDB.

    Finally, there will be some suggestions of what YOU can do.
    Please bring your cash and eftpos cards too – this is not a cheap exercise!

    The Auckland meeting is followed by meetings in Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin
    27 January, Wellington, St Andrews on the Terrace, 7pm
    28 January, Christchurch, Cardboard Cathedral, 7pm
    29 January, Dunedin, Burns Hall (Moray Place), 7pm

    There’s also a Don’t Sign petition launched by ActionStation, Itsourfuture and ShoutOut.
    A givealittle page has also been set up to help fund the next part of the campaign.
    Barry Coates, who has taken over from Ed Miller at the national spokesperson for the itsourfuture coalition will post more shortly.

    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/01/14/breaking-tppa-dont-sign-campaign-january-26th-auckland-town-hall/

  9. katipo 9
    14 January 2016 at 12:55 pm

    from Obamas ‘State of the Union Address’ yesterday…

    “With TPP, China does not set the rules in that region; we do. You want to show our strength in this new century? Approve this agreement. Give us the tools to enforce it. It’s the right thing to do. “

  10. fisiani 10
    14 January 2016 at 1:29 pm

    So the Luddites will moan and claim that the sky is falling whilst all the objective evidence points to major gains for New Zealanders and that the sky is not falling. Enjoy your various evenings of self righteous indignation and chant your slogans from a 3 kilometre distance in February. No matter. You will still gain the benefits of the TPPA. The public cannot abide scaremongering when no awfulness results. You cannot keep crying Wolf every time you see a Dog. Who will be talking about the TPPA in Sept 2017? The public?????

    • Paul 10.1
      14 January 2016 at 1:34 pm

      yawn
      Remember people, fisiani wants you to burn a lot of energy reacting to his comments.

    • Stuart Munro 10.2
      14 January 2016 at 2:33 pm

      There is no objective evidence for or against Fisi – because our treacherous lying government is too ashamed to put the specifics of the TPPA out in public.

      But we are taking names – so that justice can be done to the traitors who sell out New Zealand.

    • Scott M 10.3
      14 January 2016 at 7:35 pm

      So I take it in your world the sole purpose of life is economic growth? What a moron.

      • Grantoc 10.3.1
        15 January 2016 at 9:09 am

        Well economic growth produces wealth. That wealth can be then be used to, amongst other things, alleviate poverty.

        Allieviating poverty is a cause celebrate for the left, isn’t it?

        Isn’t it either contradictory or even hypocritical to on the one hand advocate closing the poverty gap, while on the other hand denying the poor in our society to access to the economic benefits that a trade agreement such as the TTP will enable?

        Its worth noting that the World Bank has released a report in the last few days indicating that NZ will gain significant economic benefits from the TTP.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 10.3.1.1
          15 January 2016 at 9:12 am

          Lab5 reduced unemployment to (from memory) ~2.6% in 2007, without either the TPPA or the Chinafta. The value of wages increased too, especially for women.

          Why did you even attempt such a flaccid attack? Are you inadequate a lot?

        • Colonial Viper 10.3.1.2
          15 January 2016 at 11:55 am

          Well economic growth produces wealth.

          Meh, most of the “growth”of the last 10 years has been either uneconomic growth, or illusory gamed debt generated growth.

        • Tracey 10.3.1.3
          15 January 2016 at 1:24 pm

          It is because Growth is not the panacea that many have to say “even if we have poor people, they are not as badly off as India’s poor”.

          NZ growth has been pretty good over the last 30 to 40 years and yet people still have to sue our government for equal pay, money to care for people over night and so on.

          there is more than one way to do things and to rely on something that has not resolved a particular issue after 40 years is not just lazy but downright backward.

        • Macro 10.3.1.4
          16 January 2016 at 2:59 pm

          Its worth noting that the World Bank has released a report in the last few days indicating that NZ will gain significant economic benefits from the TTP.

          🙄
          You are Joking ?
          The projected 3% growth of GDP by 2030 – that’s 14 years away moron – represents an actual annual growth rate of around 0.2%!
          This is significant?
          And that excludes the costs of, loss of sovereignty, increased pharmaceutical costs (yes they will increase), increased pollution from increased dairying, to say nothing of the costs of ISDS disputes.

    • The Other Mike 10.4
      14 January 2016 at 9:11 pm

      ” major gains for New Zealanders”

      LOL Fisi did not even read the OP.

      As usual.

    • left for deadshark 10.5
      15 January 2016 at 9:11 am

      You cannot keep crying Wolf every time you see a Dog.

      That, fisiani is the truth. TPPA is a dog. not my boarder collie of coarse, she is beautiful creature, or for that matter, most other peoples pet(s).

      As you are aware, this government wont even tell the populace when they intent too sign.
      This current Prime Minister, isn’t worth your time of day.

  11. Rosemary McDonald 11
    14 January 2016 at 2:43 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11573810

    Scary shit from Brian Gould….Gov Gen being treated like mushroom by former PM lackey.

    RIP democracy.

    • Paul 11.1
      14 January 2016 at 3:06 pm

      This article by Brian Gould is a worth a post in its own right.

      Highlights…

      ‘Yet it is clear that the TPP is not just a run-of-the-mill trade agreement but a major concession of the powers of self-government to large, international (mainly US) corporations. The treaty provides those corporations with the power to over-ride elected governments and to re-write the laws of this country in their own interests.
      There can be no set of issues that should more importantly require the consent of parliament and people.’

      ‘As Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, pointed out in these pages, the TPP is just about the worst “trade agreement” that can be imagined.’

      ‘Not content with conducting negotiations in secret, and with excluding any consideration of public opinion, the attempt has been made to close down even a scintilla of publicity that might indicate a degree of public concern. Even the public signing of the TPP in New Zealand on February 4 is being so carefully managed that we know about it only because the news was leaked in Chile.

      Democracy is necessarily at times a messy and discomfiting business. But when such care is taken to deny it, we should be truly worried.’

      • Rosemary McDonald 11.1.1
        14 January 2016 at 3:50 pm

        Don’t you just love counter narrative?

        Real question…had BG got this on the ‘spike’ in anticipation of the editorial by A Nonny Mouse?

        He was pretty quick off the mark….

        Good work, Brian Gould.

      • savenz 11.1.2
        15 January 2016 at 7:47 am

        @ Paul +1

      • Tracey 11.1.3
        15 January 2016 at 1:25 pm

        Joseph is probably just a hysterical nonsense spouting paid activist, right acrophobic

    • Neil 11.2
      14 January 2016 at 7:04 pm

      Yes it is a brilliant assessment by Bryan Gould, to me it looks like its the thin edge of the wedge being driven in on the way to a dictatorship.

      • Scott M 11.2.1
        14 January 2016 at 7:37 pm

        Why doesnt Bryan Gould stand for Parliament? He always makes a lot of sense.

      • tc 11.2.2
        14 January 2016 at 7:45 pm

        It is the wedge in its entirety being stuffed down ours and future gobs to further entrench the real power holders on the planet under the current system.

        corporations fronting uber wealthy individuals conducting their global business via politicians they own.

        • ropata 11.2.2.2
          15 January 2016 at 12:05 am

          The uber wealthy generally accumulate their pile by:
          – ruthless exploitation of labor by paying impoverishing wages
          – committing massive amounts of fraud

          The rare few who came by their wealth “honestly” always benefited from wealthy parents, good connections, and extreme luck by being in the right place at the right time, and having been blessed with innate ability.

          Then they come on TV and tell everyone they got their wealth by grit and hard work and anyone can do it too, if they really try!!!

  12. Manuka AOR 12
    14 January 2016 at 6:30 pm

    This from Jane Kelsey today, – Like Gould, she refers to Stiglitz:
    “Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz lamented in the Guardian last week how the US had “concluded secret negotiations on what may turn out to be the worst trade agreement in decades”, and suggested that “in 2016, we should hope for the TPP’s defeat and the beginning of a new era of trade agreements that don’t reward the powerful and punish the weak”.

    Also this: “TransCanada is now claiming US$15 billion compensation for lost investment and future profits under the investment chapter of the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta).

    “This latest investor-state case comes on top of Nafta challenges by US corporates against a Canadian court’s decision to refuse a medicine patent, Quebec’s moratorium on fracking, and an environmental panel’s rejection of a quarry permit in response to community concerns, among others. ” http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11573385

    (The comments at the link are worth a look too)

  14. Tautoko Mangō Mata 14
    15 January 2016 at 8:21 am

    TPP “The Deeper, Uglier Side of TPP”
    ISDS – more fishhooks

    ST. LOUIS: And what that means is that a government has to provide the same treatment to an investor from, from a TPP country as they provide to any other country in any other treaty that they have. And so through that mechanism it’s actually possible for investors to sue through one treaty, but say we actually want the protections that were included in a third treaty that we’re not even, that our government isn’t even a part of.
    HEDGES: The 12 member countries of the Trans-Pacific Partnership already have a total of 35 investment treaties between themselves. But if the TPP goes through, that number could close to double the number of options multinationals have to sue foreign governments.

    ST. LOUIS: Because just the mere threat of these types of cases can for, especially for a small country, can mean millions of dollars just in legal fees, and so it will make them think twice about enacting a policy that a corporation doesn’t like.

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=15454

    • Tautoko Mangō Mata 14.1
      15 January 2016 at 9:47 am

      ISDS and the use of Forum shopping to enable corporations to sue states.
      The TPP will greatly increase the opportunities for this type of action.

      (a) situations in which multinationals brought an ISDS claim from a jurisdiction within their network of corporate nationalities that was not their historical base of operations and
      (b) situations in which a super wealthy individual acquired the nationality of the opposite state by incorporating in that state.

      As will be seen, the clearest finding on forum-shopping that is directly relevant to financial transfers involves U.S. large or extra-large parent companies or U.S. super wealthy individuals that benefited from ISDS claims made by corporate claimants in the Netherlands.

      Link to academic paper

      • Tracey 14.1.1
        15 January 2016 at 1:26 pm

        Thanks as always TMM.

      • RedBaronCV 14.1.2
        15 January 2016 at 10:46 pm

        Which is a good reason for unions and beneficiary groups to incorporate overseas with each union member holding a .01 cent share. Then when the labour laws are changed to remove say sick leave or WFF is changed then they sue the government. Ditto benefits.

        Should have the entire economic system in lawsuit gridlock within a very short space of time.

  15. fisiani 15
    15 January 2016 at 9:32 am

    I find it amazing to read through all the comments and find only speculations and old allegations from before the deal was concluded that the TPPA will be disastrous for NZ. Not a single scrap of evidence. Does anyone really think that our excellent trade negotiators were incompetent? When the US complains that the NZ and Australian negotiators were too good do you not believe them? Is it as good as we hoped for? Of course not. Is is it as bad as we fear? Certainly not. Will it ever be fully ratified? Who knows. Will other countries want to join? Of course.
    We are a small trading nation in the South Pacific. We need to trade with the rest of the world. The TPPA covers 40% of the World’s GDP. We need to be a part of that. Or we can be an isolationist country like Albania or North Korea. I for one want our nation to continue to do well and prosper. We are making progress on multiple fronts and need to be able to respond to external events beyond our control. I appreciate that if you listen to people who have constantly been shown to be wrong you will reach an erroneous conclusion. Go along and fill your boots listening to the Apocalyptic Wallach and Kelsey. They will confirm your own bias. I wonder when you will realise that they are wrong?

    • Tracey 15.1
      15 January 2016 at 1:30 pm

      How will we know we are wrong? Please post the criteria and measurements our Government relied upon before entering the TPP and will use post signing, so we can all see how we will know if it was a “success” and for who.

      We may all be in PlLato’s Cave, including you.

    • Tracey 15.2
      27 January 2016 at 8:27 am

      Please post the criteria and measurements our Government relied upon before entering the TPP and will use post signing, so we can all see how we will know if it was a “success” and for who.

  16. mike 16
    15 January 2016 at 12:33 pm

    OMG, you`re saying Kelsey is an activist, that`s like saying John Key actually cares about the people of New Zealand, Kelsey is the professor of law at Auckland University, I would sooner believe her than the tripe that I`m reading here from you Neo Liberal Right wing Trolls, Tell me what qualifications do you trolls have? So you`ve read a 6000 page document and you`re still of the opinion that it`s going to be good for the people of New Zealand, if it is so good, why then has the document only been released, why was it drafted in secrecy over a period of 2 or more years. Why are we the voters not allowed to have a say in the decision of such a “ground breaking” treaty, Would you sign up for a mortgage with your bank if they turned around to you and said, “look we can`t show you the mortgage contract, but trust us it`s going to be good for you?” But hey we`re allowed to vote for a change in the flag, hey we`re allowed to vote to not sell our assets, but this government didn`t listen to the people then either, even though the vote to sell assets was a resounding NO, That twit Grosser even admitted on National TV that there were clauses in the treaty that he thought weren`t as good as he expected. John Key and his cronies have added 120 billion dollars plus to our deficit since they`ve been in power, but hey that`s good business for Donkey, because he has shares in the bank we owe that money to. Oh that`s right our economy is in surplus isn`t it? NOT.

  17. Sacha 17
    15 January 2016 at 1:27 pm

    “No evidence” is clearly the prepared line this time. Good little pups spreading it about. #arf

    • Tracey 17.1
      15 January 2016 at 1:32 pm

      no evidence that it is bad and Kelsey and Wallach are hysterical paid activists.

      It’s like being asked to prove God doesn’t exist. the resolution is actually simple. All the supporters of it being a great deal have to do is post the cost/benefit anaylsis prepared for/by the government and the measurement process for post TPP to determine its success. They have got those documents, right?

  19. Doug 19
    16 January 2016 at 5:46 am

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11574580

    If the Trans-Pacific Partnership can be signed here with due ceremony Helen Clark deserves a place of honour. So does Phil Goff, trade minister when a comprehensive agreement embracing the United States and the rest of the Pacific rim was just a gleam in the eye of New Zealand, Singapore, Chile and Brunei.

  20. Scott M 20
    16 January 2016 at 6:21 pm

    So in effect, John Roughan hasnt read anything on the agreement, but he’s still sure its a great deal. That’s because “Obama wants to do it”. THIS is the standard of journalism in this country. Appalling!

    • acrophobic 20.1
      16 January 2016 at 7:42 pm

      No, Scott, that’s not what John Roughan said at all. As you appear not to have read the piece, here is an extract. Read the last line with particular care; Roughan absolutely nails it:

      “…professional bodies in this country ought to acknowledge it is not the spectre they had been given to expect. Pharmac is going to be okay. The US has not got its way on pharmaceutical protection periods. Our IT innovation appears to be under no more pressure from US patent law than it was before.

      Their only remaining concern may be investors’ rights to sue for compensation in independent international tribunals if a government’s action unreasonably reduces the value of an investment. But that is not new, disputes tribunals were part of post-war international trade rules, and the principle is perfectly reasonable.

      It is unlikely any government New Zealanders would elect, whether led by National or Labour, would need to be taken to a tribunal. They would expect to compensate an investor for a policy change the investor could not reasonably have foreseen. I don’t know what kind of government protesters have in mind when they call the TPP’s dispute provisions a threat to “democracy”. Or maybe I do.”

      • Tracey 20.1.1
        27 January 2016 at 8:28 am

        Please post the criteria and measurements our Government relied upon before entering the TPP and will use post signing, so we can all see how we will know if it was a “success” and for who.

        • Paul 20.1.1.1
          27 January 2016 at 8:32 am

          You are wasting your time engaging with acrophobic.

          • Tracey 20.1.1.1.1
            27 January 2016 at 8:50 am

            I am not engaging with acrophobic I am dismantling the memes being perpetuated in case impartials or open minded folks drop by.

            For example

            Jane Kelsey must be dismissed as lacking credibility cos she has never supported a FTA

            BUT

            Wayne Mapp is credible despite never opposing a single FTA

            It’s nonsense, on both counts.

            • weka 20.1.1.1.1.1
              27 January 2016 at 11:35 am

              Good point. Kelsey is too an easy target as a looney leftie. Not only is the argument nonsense, it’s lazy.

      • weka 20.1.2
        27 January 2016 at 11:34 am

        “Our IT innovation appears to be under no more pressure from US patent law than it was before.”

        Right wing, pro-TPP journalist who is not an IT expert and who uses the word ‘appears’ in his article, vs actual IT experts who are also political commentators. I know which I’ll trust thanks.

  22. Tautoko Mangō Mata 22
    16 January 2016 at 9:54 pm

    “Read the TPP” with annotations/

    3. The Parties further recognise that it is inappropriate to establish or use their environmental laws or other measures in a manner which would constitute a disguised restriction on trade or investment between the Parties.
    5030b7b8a83864e7574ac32b541bb3e7 JeffLyon
    2d
    TPP prohibits environmental laws that create a “restriction on trade.”

    UpvoteDownvote

    http://dusk.ga/u9OH#https://www.readthetpp.com/