TPPA deal close?

Written By: - Date published: 7:35 am, October 5th, 2015 - 288 comments
Categories: Economy, Globalisation, International, john key, national, Politics, same old national, slippery, trade - Tags:

TPPA

There are media reports suggesting that the signing of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement may be imminent.

Vehicle issues have been resolved.  Issues concerning pharmaceuticals still remain with New Zealand being strangely silent.

From Jo Moir in Stuff:

The issue has pitted the United States, which has argued for longer protections, against Australia and five other delegations who say such measures would strain national healthcare budgets and keep life-saving medicines from patients who cannot afford them.

Australia was happy with a compromise that would preserve its existing five-year protection period coupled with a buffer of extra time, a source close to the negotiations said.

But the source cautioned that other countries still had to agree. “There’s an 80 to 90 per cent chance” of a final deal, the person said.

A second source said that the position of Chile and Peru on the compromise was still unclear but the source was optimistic of success.

“Everything suggests that we can close” the agreement, the second person close to the closed-door negotiations said.

The United States offers 12 years of exclusivity for the clinical data used in developing drugs like cancer therapy Avastin, developed by Genentech, a division of Roche in order to encourage innovation.

Australia has insisted on five years of protection to bring down drug prices more quickly.

“We could live with some extension, but not, we don’t think a dramatic one,” Key told The Nation.

Thankfully the Australians are standing up to the Americans on the issue.  New Zealand seems to be strangely silent, perhaps a result of all of those golf games.

As for dairy I can do no better than quote the words of our beloved leader who says that the TPPA isn’t “a very good deal for dairy”.

If dairy is the last issue waiting to be resolved I am sure New Zealand will buckle.  Its lap dog approach to the negotiations preclude it from growing a spine now.

So limited market increase for a product that most farmers can’t currently produce economically, increased costs of pharmaceuticals and the introduction of a far reaching investor state dispute resolution procedure.  You have to question why we are even thinking of signing this agreement.  And our Prime Minister insists that no one knows what they are talking about because he has kept the terms of the agreement confidential.

This is one trade deal I believe we do not need to be in on the action with and a deal our Government should refuse to sign.

288 comments on “TPPA deal close? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Paul 1
    5 October 2015 at 7:37 am

    In less than 2 hours our sovereignty will be gutted.
    Key will have done his job and sold us to his banking and financier masters in the US.

  2. millsy 2
    5 October 2015 at 7:56 am

    Higher power prices
    Higher healthcare costs
    No clean air
    No clean water
    privatised water reticulation
    no sick leave
    privatisation of national parks
    more user pays

    A whole of people broke.

    As for the new jobs, migrants will take them all so no luck there.

    • Chooky 2.1
      5 October 2015 at 8:39 am

      terrible and terrifying if it happens…no more New Zealand as we know it and knew it

    • northshoredoc 2.2
      5 October 2015 at 8:52 am

      Should a TPPA be entered into I have an alternate view Millsy.

      -Power prices will still fluctuate as per now there will be no increases or decreases over and above those seen over the last couple of decades
      -Healthcare costs and PHARMAC will remain unchanged
      -Air quality will remain on the same track it has been
      -Water quality will remain on the same track it has been
      -Water reticulation will remain as it has been
      -Sick leave will remain as it has been
      -National parks will remain as they have bee
      -The same amount of user pays as now

      No new people “broke”

      New jobs will not all be taken by migrants but will remain contested as they are now with the vast majority going to NZ citizens/residents

    • Amy 2.3
      5 October 2015 at 9:20 am

      Most of these things untouched by tppa. And as a migrant myself I take strong offence to your comment. Many friends and work friends of mine are migrants also. They have contributed much capital and skills to this country. Not take jobs of kiwis. Half nz universities would close without migrants.

      But anyway a global economy is a fact. The key issue is that nz leverage as much advantage as possible. As we don’t know details of tppa not easy to judge this yet.

      I would hope that Dairy access to Japan Canada and US be sufficient to outweigh any costs to NZ. It really is a cost benefits argument. If not get these concessions, then probably not good for nz.

      • crashcart 2.3.1
        5 October 2015 at 10:19 am

        Normally I would agree that is the case. However I am concerned by some of the restrictions that will be imposed via the ISDT should it be signed. I honestly think there is no valid price at which we should sell our ability to liegislate in the best interest of our country.

        • Amy 2.3.1.1
          5 October 2015 at 10:23 am

          On this point I am in agreement with you. Our freedom MUST be paramount above all else. Otherwise it is a short term advantage for long term loss. This is, for me, a major concern.

          I think if we lose this, National will be under huge pressure next election time.

      • savenz 2.3.2
        5 October 2015 at 4:29 pm

        @Amy

        You probably don’t realise immigration is a way to keep wages down in this country. Immigration hides the lack of investment and diversity in our economy. Instead of creating value the government is just selling off assets to mostly foreign corporations.

        You are right 50% of people in Uni are migrants but just shows how wrong that is, when 50% of locals can’t afford to go and NZ taxpayers are paying for a glorified English speaking finishing school popping out degrees for migrants who go on to work overseas, rather than enriching our country.

        I was talking to a friends of mine – a family from Korea. They came to NZ, they split up, the husband left and the wife goes on social welfare even thought they have more than 1 million of property -she is ‘abandoned’. The kids do their secondary and uni degrees here, having become NZ citizens it is free. Then they get jobs in Australia and China and have never repaid their student loans. When asked why they are not detected coming into the country (obviously they get free welfare and medical care here) they just change to their other passport. The now adult kids have got their education here, work overseas and just use NZ as a social welfare when they visit their mother who is on welfare (Kiwi pension). She has now met an elderly Kiwi guy so now gets part of his pension. And now their other kids from their Dads side have come over and have had a baby here (free maternity, and their Dad from Korea also works in Australia while she and the Mother live in NZ on welfare. The various property holding are all in different names.

        While surely there must be some positive immigration in this country, unfortunately this sort of scenario is what is actually happening in many cases.

        Why NZ don’t have immigration rules that actually encourage real jobs?(presumably this is not possible in Australia as they have real rules to encourage migrants that contribute taxes and benefit Australia).

        Why is their not some sort of penalty if migrants don’t actually produce any taxes but just live off Kiwi welfare I do not know.

        In addition to get around money rules apparently you just go to Sky City and get a game where you have a 99% change of winning. Therefore if Winz ask why you are driving a BMW on welfare and have millions in property, you just say , I won it, my husband abandoned me with this property, and here is the cheque from Sky City. What can WINZ do?

        • Amy 2.3.2.1
          5 October 2015 at 4:52 pm

          I know much of what you say is very true. I can only speak of immigrants from China, and have little knowledge other. I am ashamed to say that there are two groups of immigrants from China. The good, skilled hard working who contribute much human and financial capital. I do not believe these replace kiwi workers. These are the ones i refer to in my post.

          Sadly there are another group who come here with false qualifications, pay no tax at all, have no respect for kiwi laws or culture. Part of this is language, part ignorance. China has 1.4 billion people. I am always disappointed and surprised nz allows so many poor quality people in when there so many who can contribute.

          • savenz 2.3.2.1.1
            5 October 2015 at 6:19 pm

            @ Amy

            Totally agree. I’m pro immigration but not the type of immigration they are allowing in NZ, where some immigrants are just rorting the system. NZ is a fantastic place to live and we could get fantastic immigrants to come here that DO help the economy and DO create business growth (outside of property and non pollluting) and DO want to live permanently here, and Do pay local taxes, BUT immigration NZ rules seem to make zero distinction.

        • Chooky 2.3.2.2
          5 October 2015 at 8:25 pm

          +100 savenz …. “You are right 50% of people in Uni are migrants but just shows how wrong that is, when 50% of locals can’t afford to go and NZ taxpayers are paying for a glorified English speaking finishing school popping out degrees for migrants who go on to work overseas, rather than enriching our country.”…

          …many of New Zealand’s top ‘A’ …’A+’ achieving graduates can not afford to go further with their university education….despite being asked to by their lecturers

          this is Jonkey Nactional’s SHAME…it is a betrayal of New Zealand’s best and brightest youth and a betrayal of New Zealand education

      • Mike S 2.3.3
        5 October 2015 at 8:40 pm

        So what does “Dairy access to Japan Canada and US…” do for the vast majority of New Zealanders who are not farmers, their bankers or farming investors? (Other than give us higher dairy prices and keeping in mind that we had to cut supply in order to try and raise the global milk powder price)

        If you believe John Key (hehe) the price of pharmaceuticals won’t go up for consumers. But even if Key isn’t bullshitting, which is a stretch, then regardless, taxpayers will have to pay more to top up Pharmac, who will have to pay more.

        Investor / state disputes – Offer no benefits to New Zealanders, other than potentially a tiny few companies who invest overseas should they get involved in such a dispute with another country and win the hearing.

        And so on…

    • Amanda Atkinson 2.4
      5 October 2015 at 10:57 am

      What a drama queen. If our country is so bad, and so horrible and so corrupt, where would you prefer to live? Whatever the answer is, move there, and do us all a favour. Get a grip people. We have issues, and can always get better. But lay off the end of the world rubbish, it’s pathetic and mindless. People complained for years about the brain drain. Now we have the opposite and still people whinge. By the way, if our country is so horrible, why do so many people want to live here? We cannot get all we want from the TPPA, no country can. Every country begins the negotiations with their ideal, all of them knowing, and accepting that no one will end up with that, because it’s simply not possible. Get a brain. Key is not going to sell our sovereignty down the river. That’s just stupid … Chem trails and George Bush killed 3,000 of his own people in the twin towers come to mind.

      • One Two 2.4.1
        5 October 2015 at 11:23 am

        Corporations export and import among other things, misery on an epidemic scale

        Many of those corporations cause death and injury beyond comprehension though waging and sponsoring warfare using physicsl and intangiable weapons

        Chasing revenue profits and control at the expense of all else is old school mentality clearly holding appeal in some quarters with aspirational cheerleaders , Amanda

        • Amy 2.4.1.1
          5 October 2015 at 11:46 am

          And these corporations, which you seem to universally condemn, have also created a standard of living and quality of life unimaginable 100 year ago, all because they were chasing profits, which you seem to consider a universal evil. And yes, the likes of Halliburton have done enormous harm through their support of war, but please do not judge all similarly. The non capitalist regime in my country of birth was responsible for around 30 million dead in the 1950s and 1960s alone. And still pursuers a policy that kiwis would consider pure evil.

          Both Amanda and your post seem to entirely miss the point of this particular thread. Let’s look at tppa on its own merits or lack of, without this nonsense comment.

          • maui 2.4.1.1.1
            5 October 2015 at 12:20 pm

            Those corporations have also enslaved many more millions in developing countries across Asia as opposed to lifting westerners into wealth, as well as trashing the land base of those countries. How are those Malaysian rainforests looking now? How clean are their rivers? How safe are their water supplies? What is their quality of life like? etc.

          • One Two 2.4.1.1.2
            5 October 2015 at 12:55 pm

            Let’s look at tppa on its own merits or lack of, without this nonsense comment

            Claiming to be a migrant is no excuse for ignorance, Amy

            • Amy 2.4.1.1.2.1
              5 October 2015 at 1:26 pm

              First of all, I am not ‘claiming’ this. It is truth.
              Second, if you think everyone who has a differing opinion to you is ignorant, then without doubt it is YOU who are ignorant.
              In fact, not ignorant, maybe just not very intelligent as abuse is first sign of stupid people.

              • One Two …
                5 October 2015 at 1:46 pm

                * Usury
                * Profit
                * Shareholders
                * Investment
                * Markets / equities / commodities / exotics / instruments
                * Free trade
                * Monopolies
                * Regulation
                * Finance
                * Money / Currency – what is it
                * Debt – what is it
                * Charity
                * NGO
                * Think Tank
                * Economics
                * Finance
                * Insurance
                * Lobbyists
                * Greed
                * Fraud
                * Corruption
                * Exploitation
                * Sweat shops
                * Child Labour
                * Law / LORE
                * Human trafficking
                * War(s) – People, drugs, terror et al
                * Public Private Partnerships
                * History
                * etc

                If one other human being suffers and the environment polluted in the name of [any of the above list], the path we have been put on, and endorse as a species, has failed

                Debating the merits of ‘lifestyle and quality of life’ while war, misery, inequality, suffering and environmental degradation exists and escalates, is absurd

                • Amy …
                  5 October 2015 at 3:46 pm

                  So what exactly do you propose as an economic system? All of these things have been there since the beginning of civilisation, and always will be. Capitalist, communist, socialist, theocracy. It’s inherent to humans and civilisations and development.

                  The only differing thing is the degree of the badness and the mitigation that government makes to soften human nature.

          • millsy 2.4.1.1.3
            6 October 2015 at 10:16 am

            The communist regieme in China also reduced infant mortality, improved literacy (especially among the rural pesantry), and also stamped out archaic traditions such as foot binding.

            Moreover it all but eliminated opium addiction, which was crippling in many Chinese communities.

        • Amanda Atkinson 2.4.1.2
          5 October 2015 at 5:39 pm

          Many, some, most or all of those corporations cause death and injury beyond comprehension?

          • McFlock 2.4.1.2.1
            5 October 2015 at 5:47 pm

            The word used was “many”.

            Did you miss it in the comment you replied to?

            • Amanda Atkinson 2.4.1.2.1.1
              5 October 2015 at 5:48 pm

              It’s rather vague don’t you think? How many? what proportion?

              • McFlock …
                5 October 2015 at 6:04 pm

                lol

                “what is this thing you hu-mons call ‘many'” 🙄

                Why do you need a precise proportion or number? How many corporations causing “death and injury beyond comprehension” is too many to be more than a few? Or is a few enough to be called many? How many instances of “death and injury beyond comprehension” do you need to see before you decide that it’s “too many” and the system is broken?

                For goodness’ sake upgrade your fuzzy logic chip, there’s a good automaton.

                • Amanda Atkinson …
                  5 October 2015 at 6:15 pm

                  sarcasm for deflection = lack of substance and an epic fail … vague generalisations also = no argument and laziness. Your fuzzy logic is that if 1 company causes death and injury beyond comprehension, that means they all do. Right, of course that is highly intelligent conclusion. If you had another brain cell, it would be lonely.

                  • McFlock …
                    5 October 2015 at 8:17 pm

                    Your fuzzy logic is that if 1 company causes death and injury beyond comprehension, that means they all do.

                    See, you failed to compute again.

                    If one company causes death and injury beyond comprehension, then that is one company too many and any system that allows it has failed.

                    But it’s not just one corporation, is it: vehicle companies have been exposed from the sixties. Oil companies denied AGW when they knew it was true, still do. Finance companies rig markets and rates. Food corporations deny water is a basic right, and employ people at below-poverty rates. Tobacco companies and asbestos companies have done stirling work in the field of human misery. And that’s without even going into the military-industrial complex. The entire system is corrupt and sociopathic.

                    So where’s your limit of tolerance? Capitalism is broken, and corporations need restraint, if they’re allowed to exist at all.

                    If you had another brain cell, it would be lonely.

                    Why? “Another” necessarily requires one to be there in the first place, so the second would have company. As in “another failure to parse basic English”.

                    • Amanda Atkinson …
                      5 October 2015 at 8:30 pm

                      Sweeping generalisations about the corporate world based on “many” which could mean 2, or could mean 2,000 is not a conclusion. Yes 1 killer corporation is 1 too many, of course it is. But how many killer corporations do we need before we move from …”there are some rouges in an imperfect system (which can never be perfect because there will always be some rogues), to the whole system is rouge? I don’t know where the line is, but it’s not 1.

                    • McFlock …
                      5 October 2015 at 9:10 pm

                      lol no, it’s not just one.

                      That’s what I said.

                      Are you genuinely unfamilar with all of the situations I listed after I said “But it’s not just one corporation, is it:”?

                      It’s not just one. It’s dozens and dozens, even thousands, of examples from many different corporations. It’s children locked in a burning sweatshop. It’s hazardous chemicals left to poison the populace, it’s thousands dying because emergency cooling tanks were taken offline to save money, it’s safety decisions based entirely on cash profit versus the cost of settlements paid to the families of people burned to death. All real cases from a variety of industries. If you haven’t heard any of this, then leave planet key and come down to earth with the rest of us.

                      The system is broken.

      • Paul 2.4.2
        5 October 2015 at 11:26 am

        What an interesting rant.
        So amazingly devoid of any informed content.

        • Amanda Atkinson 2.4.2.1
          5 October 2015 at 5:52 pm

          Please do inform us with the content I am missing? oh wait … we don’t know what’s in it, that’s the whole problem….

      • Macro 2.4.3
        5 October 2015 at 8:42 pm

        Key is not going to sell our sovereignty down the river. That’s just stupid

        Tell that to Andrew Geddis:
        http://pundit.co.nz/content/of-tpps-isdss-and-the-constitution

        Here is his concluding statement:

        Which means that if we sign up to the TPPA (assuming the “A” becomes a reality), we are going to change how our country is run into something else. Maybe that change really won’t be a big deal – maybe ExportNZ and John Key are right to say that ISDS’s are not a problem for us. Or maybe it will be a big deal – maybe we will find ourselves reasonably frequently hanging on the decision of three private individuals who are deciding if we are allowed to have a policy in place without having to pay many millions of dollars to an overseas company.

        But you know what? I don’t think anyone – and that includes the people currently negotiating the TPP – really knows either. Which worries me. Quite a bit.

        To which I and many others agree entirely.

  3. Liam 3
    5 October 2015 at 7:59 am

    Ask Helen Clark, I guess.

    • mickysavage 3.1
      5 October 2015 at 8:00 am

      How about you debate the merits?

      • Liam 3.1.1
        5 October 2015 at 4:50 pm

        Well, according to Helen Clark, whose bona fides as a non-neo-liberal seem to be unchallenged, New Zealand’s profile as an export nation means we simply cannot afford to be left outside such a major trading bloc.

        I confess that I never voted for Clark’s Labour, but the effectiveness of her administration was that she never let the perfect be the enemy of good.

        • lprent 3.1.1.1
          5 October 2015 at 7:28 pm

          I guess that you missed the article giving the missing sentence on the weekend where Tim Groser pointed out the bit that the original Herald article somehow (!) managed to miss.

          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11522953

          On the issue of Helen Clark’s comments about the TPP – she said it was unthinkable New Zealand wouldn’t be part of the deal – he said she had added a crucial rider – “provided the deal was good“.

          It is also the bit that Labour is querying, and that I’m querying.

          So far there has been nothing that indicates that the TPPA will be a good deal for NZ. Everything that this free trade advocate has seen indicates that it will be a bad deal. Rather than being a deal that will free up trade, for NZ it appears highly likely that it will be a deal that provides a major restraint of trade.

          Perhaps you should engage your reading skills and your brain before being an idiot emulating a dumb parrot…

  4. Ad 4
    5 October 2015 at 8:01 am

    Looking forward to Key selling this back here.
    Dead Rat Meter Will be high.

    Announcement in 1 hour according to news.

    • Paul 4.1
      5 October 2015 at 9:23 am

      They have their lines prepared, don’t worry.

      • The Chairman 4.1.1
        5 October 2015 at 11:57 am

        Indeed.

        It is understood Key’s team are ready to launch a charm offensive on the agreement, in response to outspoken TPP critics such as University of Auckland’s Professor Jane Kelsey.

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/72667521/tppa-nz-talks-push-back-deal-deadline

        • lprent 4.1.1.1
          5 October 2015 at 12:50 pm

          The problem for them doing that is that they’d have to release virtually all of the details of the agreement and wait for them to be digested to get any acceptance.

          One of the primary objections to the way that this “agreement” (which has increasing sounded more like an assault than a negotiation) has been reached is the secrecy that it has been reached in. The government has talked to some carefully selected “stakeholders”, and from what I have heard in my industry that means only those most sympathetic to them, and then ignored their advice anyway.

          Multiply that across the economy and society, and it is going to take some time to figure out consequences – because MFAT are bloody useless at that.

          If the deal does nothing for us apart from cost us dearly over the next decade – which is what it looks like at present, then we should stay out of it.

          • The Chairman 4.1.1.1.1
            5 October 2015 at 1:09 pm

            They’ll spin it. Highlighting the benefits and downplaying (or concealing) the negatives.

            Yes, the secrecy has many suspicious. And yes, if the benefits don’t weigh up we should walk away.
             

  5. BM 5
    5 October 2015 at 8:10 am

    I thought you guys were anti dairy?, you know climate change and all that

    • mickysavage 5.1
      5 October 2015 at 8:14 am

      It has been presented as the reason for entering into the TPPA. Without it you have to wonder why the Government is doing it.

      • BM 5.1.1
        5 October 2015 at 8:17 am

        What about developing new markets so our economy can transition away from a reliance on dairy.

        • Paul 5.1.1.1
          5 October 2015 at 8:24 am

          By having longer patents on medicines?
          By allowing overseas tribunals to sue our government?

        • Tracey 5.1.1.2
          5 October 2015 at 11:20 am

          good idea, so why vote for National if it is important to you?

        • The Chairman 5.1.1.3
          5 October 2015 at 12:09 pm

          @ BM

          If the TPP prevents us from setting up new SOEs, that will leave us reliant on the local private sector to enter into these new markets.

          However, for numerous reasons, our local private sector isn’t up to the task.

          Most NZ businesses have no intention to enter into exporting.

      • Paul 5.1.2
        5 October 2015 at 10:07 am

        There are no merits.
        Just catch phrases.

    • Paul 5.2
      5 October 2015 at 8:14 am

      I’m anti deals that favour massive global corporations, BM.
      What about you?

      • BM 5.2.1
        5 October 2015 at 8:34 am

        I’m pro deals that develop trade and jobs.

        • Paul 5.2.1.1
          5 October 2015 at 9:24 am

          Then you’d have to be against the TPP.

          • Amanda Atkinson 5.2.1.1.1
            5 October 2015 at 11:03 am

            what do you know about it? i thought the problem is that is all secret and no one knows the details? you obviously know things no one else does. Seems any potential positive things about the TPPA are not real because we don’t know the detials, but all the bad things, are, well Paul knows all those things, and their details in locked and loaded and Paul has the proof. What a joke.

            • maui 5.2.1.1.1.1
              5 October 2015 at 11:11 am

              Anything Paul knows is publicly available documented information. The “positive things” are mostly all hairsay.

              • Amanda Atkinson …
                5 October 2015 at 11:17 am

                oh I see. All the bad is a given, and all the good is not a given. Right.

                • McFlock …
                  5 October 2015 at 4:54 pm

                  Almost: the bad is pretty well documented by the leaks, but there’s fuck all good in the leaks.

                  So the bad has evidence, the good has has speculation.

            • thatguynz 5.2.1.1.1.2
              5 October 2015 at 11:12 am

              You do know there is a quantity of detail that has been leaked right Amanda?

            • Paul 5.2.1.1.1.3
              5 October 2015 at 11:13 am

              Amanda you are aware of all the non trade issues.
              Stop being so disingenuous.

              Just another supporter of the corporate elite.

              • Amanda Atkinson …
                5 October 2015 at 6:00 pm

                So we are to assume that leaks were not filtered? I’m open to the possibility that the leaks were filtered and only the the bad stuff was leaked. If you think that is impossible, that says more about you, than it does about me.

            • Tracey 5.2.1.1.1.4
              5 October 2015 at 11:22 am

              Some stuff has been leaked. Presumably the Government has got some projections about benefits but for some reason didn’t want to share those.

            • Macro 5.2.1.1.1.5
              5 October 2015 at 7:44 pm

              Show us a FTA that has actually promoted jobs in NZ.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                5 October 2015 at 7:47 pm

                Consider the cushioning impact of the CER and Chinafta on the GFC…

                • Macro …
                  5 October 2015 at 10:52 pm

                  You are aware that before the China FTA NZ actually manufactured its own wine bottles.
                  You are aware that China does NOT allow the importation of sawn logs – NZ saw millers once the most efficient and advanced in the world are now being made redundant by the hundreds.
                  We used to manufacture quality yachts in this country – now its cheaper to have them built in China.
                  How many NZ clothes are “designed in NZ” made from crap in China?
                  I could list other numerous “restructurings” or “job losses” as a result of these FTAs – frankly the cushioning has been for those at the top of the income spectrum not for those at the bottom.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    5 October 2015 at 11:11 pm

                    Presumably apart from saw mill owners, bottle factory owners, and quality yacht manufacturers.

                    An increase in exports from NZ to China of 260% over five years had no effect on the NZ labour market. If you say so.

                    • Macro …
                      6 October 2015 at 11:07 am

                      The exports – as you are well aware – were mostly primary product. Unsawn logs, milk powder, meat carcasses – that sort of thing. The returns went to the minority at the top of the tree and those at the bottom were pissed upon as per usual.
                      I did say that there were many other sectors – not just the 3 I mentioned- that were equally badly affected by the FTA – the fact that there are now thousands more unemployed and 25% of our children live in poverty speaks for itself.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 October 2015 at 11:16 am

                      That’s entirely disingenuous – The massive increase in inequality and consequent morbidity statistics happened over the 1980s and ’90s. By the time Chinafta was concluded the damage had already been done.

                      The National Party causes far more downward pressure on wages than anything our exporters do.

        • Tony Veitch 5.2.1.2
          5 October 2015 at 4:41 pm

          Only five out of 29 sections of TPPA are about freeing up trade – the other 24, as far as we can tell, from Wikileaks, are about imposing restrictions to IP and patent rules, which favour the big corporations rather than the consumer. So you should be against the TPPA!

  6. dv 6
    5 October 2015 at 8:18 am

    Key is saying we have never been sued under investor state provisions.
    I didn’t think that any of the free trade deals we have have such a provision.

    Can any one clarify please?

    • Puddleglum 6.1
      5 October 2015 at 9:48 am

      If that’s the case did he say that, therefore, we would never be sued as a result of signing the TPP? That’s certainly the inference he is inviting.

      I wonder what his rationale might be for such an implication?

      (a) In some way NZ is exempting itself from any such provisions?
      (b) Multinational corporates would be too scared of NZ’s response to try it on (despite having done so against far bigger countries)?
      (c) Multinational corporates feel so fond of NZ that, even if they thought they had a good case, they’d never do that to us?
      (d) No future NZ government is ever likely to do anything to upset any major multinational corporate?

      There must be some reason relevant to signing the TPP to explain why he thought it useful to raise this historical fact (assuming it is a fact) – so what is his rationale?

    • Melb 6.2
      5 October 2015 at 10:06 am

      The Chinese FTA – signed by Labour under Helen Clark, and where current deputy leader Annette King was a cabinet minister – has ISDS provisions.

      http://www.chinafta.govt.nz/1-The-agreement/2-Text-of-the-agreement/12-Chapt-11-Investment/0-section11-part2.php

      This page notes a number of our trade agreements with ISDS clauses.

      http://www.bellgully.co.nz/resources/resource.04037.asp

      • Pat 6.2.1
        5 October 2015 at 10:32 am

        apparently all trade agreements have disputes clauses, however the concerns being raised are that the ISDS has been steadily weighted in favour of the corporates in recent agreements…in other words they aint what they used to be.

    • Tracey 6.3
      5 October 2015 at 11:22 am

      Yes there are BUT we are not in FTA’s with the most litigious nations/companies… and some FTA’s use the WTO dispute process, not the former International Trade lawyers making decisions behind close doors which cannot be challenged… yet

    • Macro 6.4
      5 October 2015 at 7:48 pm

      Andrew Geddis has a very good post on the matter of ISDS’s here:
      http://pundit.co.nz/content/of-tpps-isdss-and-the-constitution

  7. Chooky 7
    5 October 2015 at 8:34 am

    …all very depressing if it is signed …jonkey nactional will go down in the history of New Zealand

    New corporate designed Red Peak flag anyone?… New flag for new overseas corporate run New Zealand culture?

    Now where are those Greens?…new corporate Greens?

    • Paul 7.1
      5 October 2015 at 8:39 am

      Yup. where are the Greens?
      Just another neoliberal party under Shaw I fear.

      • Tracey 7.1.1
        5 October 2015 at 11:25 am

        what would you like them to do Paul? Please be specific.

      • weka 7.1.2
        5 October 2015 at 11:45 am

        “Yup. where are the Greens?
        Just another neoliberal party under Shaw I fear.”

        You’re playing a dangerous game ther Paul. Why are you repeating right wing memes designed to undermine the GP?

        Even if Shaw is a neoliberal trojan horse (would love to see some evidence btw), he can’t just run the party the way he wants. The party is made up of many people and structures and they can’t be controlled by one co-leader.

        edit,

        “The Green Party has been calling for the National Government to walk away from the TPPA because it restricts the right of democratic governments to regulate to protect human health and the environment,” said Mr Shaw.

        http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/even-tppa-supporters-want-more-transparency-greens/5/232939

        Either Shaw is a liar or you are wrong Paul. Which is it?

  8. Jenny Kirk 8
    5 October 2015 at 8:46 am

    Yeah – we’re just awaiting ShonKey’s finale : sell off NZ to his USA-dominated corporate mates, and there’s not one little thing we can do to stop him. A dismal future.

    I sometimes wonder what he’s going to do with the rest of his life. Continue to make money of course. and play golf. But how will he exercise his little mind, and what sort of other interests will he take up – because surely money-making and golf will pall after a while ? and he’s never shown an interest in anything else.

  9. Puckish Rogue 9
    5 October 2015 at 8:48 am

    Good

    Then the details will come out, it’ll be good for NZ as a whole and, once again, the left will seen to be crying wolf

    • northshoredoc 9.1
      5 October 2015 at 8:54 am

      @PR I think it’s unfair to suggest that the ‘chicken littles and loons’ on this site are representative of ‘the left”

      • Puckish Rogue 9.1.1
        5 October 2015 at 9:15 am

        Thats a fair call

        Some of the left will be made to look chicken littles and some will know they’ve helped make a positive difference to NZ

        • Paul 9.1.1.1
          5 October 2015 at 10:17 am

          Is ‘chicken little’ the new meme you were taught to spout?

          • Puckish Rogue 9.1.1.1.1
            5 October 2015 at 11:01 am

            Chicken little and the Boy who cried wolf are basically interchangable terms when it comes to describing some on the left

            • Tracey 9.1.1.1.1.1
              5 October 2015 at 3:12 pm

              and some on the righf when the left speaks or are in power. also pointing out potential putfalls/drawbacks is nof the same as unsubstantiated squeals that the sky is falling.

              remember the dcono y was going to collapse if we went nuclear free. it didnt. the society would collapse if homosexual kaw reform passed. it didnt.

              so to suggest chicken littlisms are the sole bastion of the left is just obtuse.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                5 October 2015 at 4:13 pm

                Thats why its only describing some on the left, not all lefties are negative of course

                although its amusing to see that virtually everytime Labour declares a crisis in some industry that industry improves almost overnight

    • Lanthanide 9.2
      5 October 2015 at 8:58 am

      When is “then”, exactly?

      I thought that even once it was signed into law, it was going to be secret, and remain so for something stupid like 4 years?

      • northshoredoc 9.2.1
        5 October 2015 at 9:10 am

        I believe the details of the negotiation will stay secret, the final TPPA itself will be available for review and ratification within a month or two.

      • Matthew Hooton 9.2.2
        5 October 2015 at 9:25 am

        Of course it can’t be signed into law and then remain secret. Who on earth told you that? Kelsey?

        • dv 9.2.2.1
          5 October 2015 at 9:31 am

          When will the detail of the TPPA be released then Matthew?

          • Paul 9.2.2.1.1
            5 October 2015 at 10:08 am

            Right wing strategies
            #2.
            No real arguments.
            Just ad hominem attacks on Kelsey

            • Amanda Atkinson 9.2.2.1.1.1
              5 October 2015 at 11:11 am

              She’s talking crap … how can she know about all the impending corruption scandals and disasters, and selling our sovereignty and the end of NZ as we know it … if the details of the deals are not known to anyone, in any country, at this stage?

              • Paul …
                5 October 2015 at 11:14 am

                Because she is much more informed on the TPP this neither you or I.

              • Tracey …
                5 October 2015 at 11:29 am

                No, she is talking about the sections she has read, which are limited to the ones that have been leaked. She is pointing out potential pitfalls. Please don’t confuse people who point out potential pitfalls with people promising certain things will happen.

                By all means disagree but the ad hominems just distract people from potential legitimate arguments.

          • Melb 9.2.2.1.2
            5 October 2015 at 10:09 am

            I think it’s 30 days that the final text is released.

          • Matthew Hooton 9.2.2.1.3
            5 October 2015 at 2:28 pm

            Within a month of signing; years before ratification

            • lprent 9.2.2.1.3.1
              5 October 2015 at 3:53 pm

              Oh? That sounds like complete bullshit to me.

              The ratification is done by the executive council and is essentially whatever is required by the treaty. It could be as few as 15 sitting days of a select committee for NZ.

              It could be longer. The detail of *when* a binding action like ratification is usually inside the treaty itself. Since we don’t know what has been negotiated in secret for that, you can’t say with any certainty

              Bearing in mind the way that the TPPA negotiation has proceeded and that the fast track has been done in major holdup places like the US congress, and the elections in various places, I’d be surprised if the period to ratification is more than a 2-3 months. 6 months at the outside if Obama wants to make a thing of it before the US presidential election clamor drowns it out.

              http://mfat.govt.nz/Treaties-and-International-Law/03-Treaty-making-process/index.php

              • Matthew Hooton …
                5 October 2015 at 5:00 pm

                You think Obama can get this ratified before the presidential election? I seriously doubt that. But certainly the text will be public for many months before ratification by anyone. I can’t see the Key government rushing ratification. That step currently seems reserved for important issues like rugby bar negotiating hours and flag ballot papers.

          • leftie 9.2.2.1.4
            6 October 2015 at 7:53 am

            Really surprised that Hooton doesn’t know that the full text will remain secret until 4 years AFTER it is signed, or maybe he does but doesn’t want to admit it.

        • Lanthanide 9.2.2.2
          5 October 2015 at 9:35 am

          I’ve picked up along the way somewhere, that the executive council (not the cabinet, not the National caucus, not Parliament) would choose to ratify the TPP agreement, and that it would not be made publically available for debate before that ratification occurred.

          Also I picked up somewhere that the government would be changing laws to fit with the TPP, again without the details of the agreement being made public.

          Perhaps i’m mistaken.

          • Wayne 9.2.2.2.1
            5 October 2015 at 10:16 am

            Lanthanide

            The Executive Council essentially implements decisions of Cabinet. It would be inconceivable that the Cabinet could be bypassed in respect of ratification of TPP. On his return Mr Groser will be making a full report to Cabinet.

            But in reality Groser’s approval of TPP, assuming it occurs today, will have been subject to the closest attention of the Cabinet members most involved.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 9.2.2.2.1.1
              5 October 2015 at 10:19 am

              It seems inconceivable that a New Zealand government would be reported to the UN by the Law Society for degrading human rights and the rule of law, and yet here we are.

            • dukeofurl 9.2.2.2.1.2
              5 October 2015 at 10:34 am

              The executive council is merely the Cabinet with the Governor General in attendance. Thats how they get the ‘Hon” part to their titles, as members of the executive Council
              In reality its the same as cabinet with a different letterhead.

              • Lanthanide …
                5 October 2015 at 11:17 am

                Except that a quorum of the executive council is 3 people.

                • Matthew Hooton …
                  5 October 2015 at 5:02 pm

                  Yes, but I don’t think anything goes to the Exec Council until signed off by Cabinet – and if a PM tried to put something through the EC that the GG thought did not have the support of Cabinet, I suspect we would be into territory where the reserve powers would come into play.

                  • Chris …
                    5 October 2015 at 5:20 pm

                    “…if a PM tried to put something through the EC that the GG thought did not have the support of Cabinet, I suspect we would be into territory where the reserve powers would come into play.”

                    That’s rubbish. The convention is that the GG’s reserve powers are never used. And do you really think the current Key toady GG would use them? He’d first have to know cabinet hadn’t seen something he was signing off on, which he wouldn’t have a clue about anyway; and even if he did know Key would tell him everything’s fine and he’d do it anyway.

                    • Matthew Hooton …
                      5 October 2015 at 5:24 pm

                      As I say, it is just unimaginable something like this would ever be put to the EC without going through Cabinet yet. You’re talking about a world where Key thinks he can’t get TPP through his Cabinet so he sneaks it to EC and GG. I don’t think that is a real scenario.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      5 October 2015 at 5:38 pm

                      @ Matthew –
                      No, a world where the cabinet rejects the TPPA, but he takes it to the EC and GG anyway.

            • Tracey 9.2.2.2.1.3
              5 October 2015 at 11:30 am

              Wouldn’t he have reported before he went on where our bottom lines were and what we would or would not compromise and obtained agreement?

          • Matthew Hooton 9.2.2.2.2
            5 October 2015 at 12:47 pm

            Yes, you are mistaken on laws getting changed before text made public. See
            http://mfat.govt.nz/Treaties-and-International-Law/03-Treaty-making-process/index.php

        • maui 9.2.2.3
          5 October 2015 at 9:47 am

          It looks like anyone who has sighted the tpp paperwork can’t speak about it for 4 years. This must be an awesome deal then, it’s so good it’s free from review, it’s untouchable, unseeable. I wonder if it’s almost a religious document.

          http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/02/australian-mps-allowed-to-see-top-secret-trade-deal-text-on-condition-of-confidentiality

          • Melb 9.2.2.3.1
            5 October 2015 at 10:10 am

            Only the negotiating documents are confidential for four years. The final text is released soon after negotiations are finished.

          • Puddleglum 9.2.2.3.2
            5 October 2015 at 11:10 am

            I have no expertise to answer this question but it occurred to me that the answer to it may have importance:

            Do the documents that have been involved in the negotiation process have any legal standing or standing in a future ISDS procedure – e.g., to interpret the meaning of the ‘final text’ that will be publically available?

            If so, then that would be an argument for them not being kept secret as they could affect the de facto meaning of the final text (e.g., what the undertakings mean, or were agreed to mean).

            Language, after all, is a strange beast and words do not necessarily mean what they might appear to mean given quite a different context of understanding.

          • whateva next? 9.2.2.3.3
            5 October 2015 at 2:30 pm

            “…..can’t speak about it for 4 years.” and will be in Hawaii by then anyway

        • Tracey 9.2.2.4
          5 October 2015 at 11:26 am

          Not much point in knowing the details when it can no longer be changed.

          It still has to get past the US Confress, so not quite time to be a smarmy arsehole yet Matthew

        • Tracey 9.2.2.5
          5 October 2015 at 3:13 pm

          can you post a quote from professor kelsey stating that? If not have the courage to withdraw the statement

    • crashcart 9.4
      5 October 2015 at 10:26 am

      Just wondering what you are basing “Good for NZ as a whole” on being that you have zero idea of what is in the deal. Even the PM has said it isn’t going to be completely good so you would seem to know more about it than he does.

  10. Ffloyd 10
    5 October 2015 at 8:53 am

    If tppa is signed can it be revoked by subsequent change of Gov’t?

    • Lanthanide 10.1
      5 October 2015 at 8:59 am

      The government is sovereign, so yes, anything in principle can be revoked.

      In practice, pissing off your international trading partners can be a very bad idea.

      • Matthew Hooton 10.1.1
        5 October 2015 at 9:22 am

        The existing TPP has a six month withdrawal clause – see article 20.8 at http://mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/main-agreement.pdf
        It would be unthinkable for there not to be a similar withdrawal provision in any wider TPP. If there were not, NZ should not ratify.

        • Lanthanide 10.1.1.1
          5 October 2015 at 9:32 am

          Ffloyd specifically asked “subsequent change of Gov’t”. Unless you have the inside running that there’s going to be an early election in 2016 Matthew, you haven’t really addressed Ffloyd’s point.

          • weka 10.1.1.1.1
            5 October 2015 at 11:57 am

            Lolz, maybe it’s the Collins effect.

          • Matthew Hooton 10.1.1.1.2
            5 October 2015 at 12:55 pm

            A country can pull out at any time in the future, with six months notice ( under 2005 clause anyway).

            • Lanthanide 10.1.1.1.2.1
              5 October 2015 at 1:16 pm

              Ok, that’s very encouraging, then.

              Still, taking advantage of those provisions is likely to upset trading partners.

              Also in practical terms, if law changes were made in order to accomodate the TPP, they would need to be reversed. That may be as simple as repealing those acts, but if there were additional changes added on top, then it becomes less straight forward as the legislation would need to re-written.

            • Pat 10.1.1.1.2.2
              5 October 2015 at 1:34 pm

              like Greece can pull out of the Euro Matthew?

              • Matthew Hooton …
                5 October 2015 at 2:07 pm

                No, the treaty setting up the Euro did not provide for any withdrawal mechanism – deliberately so; membership was meant to be irrevocable

                • Pat …
                  5 October 2015 at 2:27 pm

                  but does not preclude it…as evidenced by Mr Schlaube’s proposal.
                  Ask your legal advisors whether it is better to sign a poor agreement and try and extract oneself or not sign in the first place…if they plump for the former, get some new advisors.

        • Paul 10.1.1.2
          5 October 2015 at 10:16 am

          So speaks a spin merchant for the neoliberal order.

        • Tracey 10.1.1.3
          5 October 2015 at 11:31 am

          That is dated 2005 Matthew. Genuine question, do ou know if the clause is still in there?

          • Matthew Hooton 10.1.1.3.1
            5 October 2015 at 12:52 pm

            I have been told that there is a similar or identical withdrawal clause. If it, we should not sign and certainly not ratify.

            • Tracey 10.1.1.3.1.1
              5 October 2015 at 3:17 pm

              so someone has breached the confidentiality that is apparently so crucial to the success of the tpp by telling you what is in it? Interesting.

              • Matthew Hooton …
                5 October 2015 at 5:25 pm

                It’s not totally confidential. The negotiating text hasn’t been released is the main complaint – but negotiating texts are never released. The negotiating text for the Paris COP is not available (as far as I know).

            • Puddleglum 10.1.1.3.1.2
              5 October 2015 at 8:21 pm

              “I have been told that there is a similar or identical withdrawal clause.”

              Who told you? I thought these negotiations were meant to be kept secret from the general public.

        • Morrissey 10.1.1.4
          5 October 2015 at 12:57 pm

          Your bland assurances are not very convincing in the light of your hissy fit this morning after Kathryn Ryan contradicted you and pointed out that tobacco corporations are suing the Australian government.

          You were fortunate that it was only Mike Williams beside you instead of someone like Laila Harré or Matthew Campbell.

      • Lanthanide 10.1.2
        5 October 2015 at 12:00 pm

        Sorry, should have said Parliament is sovereign. There is a difference.

        • Chris 10.1.2.1
          5 October 2015 at 8:55 pm

          Key thinks his government is sovereign. So does the current speaker. Many in MSM do, too. The effect is the same so you’re not too far off, really.

  11. Reddelusion 11
    5 October 2015 at 8:59 am

    Unfortunately we can’t isolate ourselves from the world, the rules of the game are not set by us we simply need to play the game the best we can As Helen our dear ex leader said there is no option not to sign this agreement This arguement re dairy vs pharmac is also silly if we become wealthier because of this deal the more we have to pay for social expenditure. Likewise a short, medium and long term perspective is also required The chicken little arguement about corporates suing governments is also a red herring. The fact is corporates not the state are now by far the greatest generators of wealth, jobs and innovation globally, we have distribution equity issues we need to deal with under capitalism but don’t cloud the two by thinking adopting statist, isolationist 19th century policy will make us better off

    • Paul 11.1
      5 October 2015 at 10:10 am

      Extreme right wing strategy #3.
      Don’t present an argument.
      Find a meme.

      I see the ‘chicken little’ meme is being developed by our resident trolls.

    • Tracey 11.2
      5 October 2015 at 11:33 am

      But I thought we were a rock star economy already while others had to resort to QE and other loony stuff to survive?

      • Tony Veitch 11.2.1
        5 October 2015 at 2:40 pm

        I’m sorry Tracey, not really a criticism, but whenever I hear that term ‘rock star’ economy, I think of that Rudd creature from some band or other, who more and more seems to me to be the living embodiment of Key’s ‘rock star economy.

        • Tracey 11.2.1.1
          5 October 2015 at 3:18 pm

          dont be sorry. rock star sconomg was another empty term swallowed by the masses to make them feel good

  12. Penny Bright 12
    5 October 2015 at 9:03 am

    Anyone got any details on the purported deal reached between Australia and the USA on biologics?

    Penny Bright

  13. AmaKiwi 13
    5 October 2015 at 9:10 am

    If they sign a deal today, our next step is “How we stop it.” I see the following:

    Our dictators have the power to make it NZ law at any time, but doing so would be politically disastrous if the US congress ultimately rejects it. American rejection is a huge possibility. (60% is needed to approve. Only 41% to reject.) If agreement is announced today, the earliest congress could vote would be mid-February. That will be in the midst of the US presidential primaries and TPPA will be a major issue.

    Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are both firmly opposed to TPPA. Hillary Clinton is sitting on the fence. But allies she must have to become president (unions, environmentalists) are opposed.

    This game is far from over.

  14. esoteric pineapples 14
    5 October 2015 at 9:11 am

    I’m no conspiracy theorist, but this pretty much locks in a new world order that will be hard to budge but I don’t recall any world order, no matter how permanent it looks, surviving for ever. I think it will be challenged from the very get go as I don’t think it is up to coping to the future problems of the world that will arise in the next 50 years or so, and in fact is more likely to contribute to them. However, it will be able to call on vast technological resources to repress any alternative movements, most notably mass surveillance.

    • Puckish Rogue 14.1
      5 October 2015 at 9:19 am

      I’m no conspiracy theorist

      ahh dude at the very least you made me laugh out loud on that one 🙂

  15. rawshark-yeshe 15
    5 October 2015 at 9:51 am

    and Monsanto will finally gets its avaricious way to flood us with genetically modified foods.

    bye bye any environmental protection.

    • Melb 15.1
      5 October 2015 at 10:13 am

      What, how?

      The TPPA ISDS clauses don’t apply to laws made for public health reasons.

      • Tracey 15.1.1
        5 October 2015 at 11:38 am

        Careful, Amanda (higher up) is adamant that no one has seen anything (cos it’s secret) so can’t have an authority on its content.

    • Paul 15.2
      5 October 2015 at 10:14 am

      And just by coincidence this was a topic of conversation on RNZ this morning.
      Not online yet.

      http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon

      09:05
      Biotechnology sector wants GM restrictions eased
      NZBIO says the The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act hasn’t kept pace with rapid developments in GM technology. It says the current legislation fails to take into account relative risk and puts undue hardship on local businesses and researchers. However others say further releases of GM plants and animals puts New Zealand’s clean green brand at risk.

      • Psycho Milt 15.2.1
        5 October 2015 at 10:26 am

        Yes, a coincidence. HSNO Act is outdated and the biotech sector isn’t happy with it because the act is a millstone around the neck of that sector and NZ science in general. This isn’t the first and won’t be the last time they tell the government that.

        As to “others say further releases of GM plants and animals puts New Zealand’s clean green brand at risk,” it isn’t obvious why we should knacker an entire branch of science for the sake of an advertising slogan that’s been bullshit from the first day it was used.

        • maui 15.2.1.1
          5 October 2015 at 10:42 am

          Our national brand may be compromised but risking it’s massive value to experiment with a new unproven science seems a tad illogical. It’s a bit like the flag debate.

          • Psycho Milt 15.2.1.1.1
            5 October 2015 at 11:36 am

            There are two issues with that from the biotech perspective. The first is that we’re wrecking the NZ branch of an entire field of science that we have a lot of skills in to protect an advertising slogan that is quite simply a lie. The second is that there is no genuine conflict between “clean, green” and biotechnology, only a bullshit ideological one in which hippies equate “clean, green” with “low-tech.” Trying to hold back tecnnological advancement because there’s money in appealing to neurotic middle-class types’ enthusiasm for “natural” things is a really bad strategy.

            • One Two 15.2.1.1.1.1
              5 October 2015 at 1:05 pm

              The second is that there is no genuine conflict between “clean, green” and biotechnology, only a bullshit ideological one in which hippies equate “clean, green” with “low-tech.” Trying to hold back tecnnological advancement because there’s money in appealing to neurotic middle-class types’ enthusiasm for “natural” things is a really bad strategy.

              The ‘bullshit’ is flowing through your comments so I have highlighted the standouts for you to ponder on

              The name calling ad-homs and false dichotomy represent themselves, while expanding the ‘bullshit’ pile you manage to excrete

              • Psycho Milt …
                5 October 2015 at 1:42 pm

                It’s true I don’t hold hippies or organic food enthusiasts in high regard.

                I’ve been wrong plenty of times before and it’s always possible this is a further instance – are you able to point to some genuine conflict between love for the natural environment and biotechnology as practiced by NZ scientists?

                The view that the customer base for organic food consists of “neurotic middle-class types [with an] enthusiasm for ‘natural’ things” is what is technically referred to as an “opinion.” As such, it’s not based on any carefully-formulated definitions of the terms “neurotic,” “middle-class,” “enthusiasm” or “natural,” nor on any survey of organic food purchasers to test how many meet these definitions. As with any other opinion, feel free to disagree.

          • Matthew Hooton 15.2.1.1.2
            5 October 2015 at 2:33 pm

            Generic science is “unproven”??? E

            • maui 15.2.1.1.2.1
              5 October 2015 at 5:36 pm

              Ok, the application of the science is unproven, there are now multiple countries around the world suffering from significant health problems due to GM food that is now capable of being drenched in herbicide/pesticide.

              If there was a good case for GM food there wouldn’t be so much caution from most countries on it’s use. And it wouldn’t be the morally corrupt companies like Monsanto and Dow behind their introduction and use.

        • One Two 15.2.1.2
          5 October 2015 at 10:59 am

          Look, a coincidence theorist. …

          Much of the world understands and is learning rapidly, that ‘the science’ is corporate quakery and the neagitive consequences too high risk

          Simpletons are still impressed by bling bling as it appeals to their ‘intellect ‘

        • Rosemary McDonald 15.2.1.3
          5 October 2015 at 11:29 am

          “….HSNO Act is outdated…”

          Theoretically, approval for the release of a hazardous substance or new organism is conditional on certain safeguards being in place.

          Like folk who don’t want their land, crops and water supply contaminated by agrichemicals being able to assume that their Territorial Authority will protect their rights.

          That the Courts will protect their rights.

          Under the Crimes Act…http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM330768.html

          “298B Contaminating food, crops, water, or other products
          Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who contaminates food, crops, water, or any other products, without lawful justification or reasonable excuse, and either knowing or being reckless as to whether the food, crops, water, or products are intended for human consumption, and—
          (a)
          intending to harm a person or reckless as to whether any person is harmed; or
          (b)
          intending to cause major economic loss to a person or reckless as to whether major economic loss is caused to any person; or
          (c)
          intending to cause major damage to the national economy of New Zealand or reckless as to whether major damage is caused to the national economy of New Zealand.”

          How many times has that section of the Crimes Act been tried in an NZ Court?

          Despite hundreds of complaints from folk who have been the victims of Agrichemical Trespass?

          As for GE….
          (the email I fired of to Natrad this morning…)

          “Can GE and Organics cohabit successfully?

          A tale related in this article from the Waikato Times suggests that
          when challenged….the rights of the GE farmer to conduct his business
          as he sees fit outweigh the rights of the organic farmer to do
          likewise.

          http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/72430808/neighbour-disputes-an-ageold-problem%E2%80%A6

          “Organic farming is another activity that can clash with the
          neighbours. Spray drift and fertilizer can be carried by the wind
          across boundary fences and who is responsible?

          It was interesting to read the court decision in Western Australia
          recently where an organic farmer sued his neighbour for damages when
          some sheaves of genetically modified canola blew onto his property.

          As a consequence the organic farmer lost his certification and he
          asked the court to prevent his neighbour from growing GM crops.

          The case went to the Supreme Court and on to the Court of Appeal.

          The Court ruled against the organic farmer, and said “that the farmer
          could not, by putting their land to an abnormally sensitive use
          thereby unilaterally enlarge their own rights and impose limitations
          on the operations of their neighbours to an extent greater than would
          otherwise be the case”.

          Interesting, and while we do not grow GM crops here in NZ yet, this
          case will set a precedent by which claims in this country will be
          decided by our New Zealand Courts.” ”

          This is seriously scary shit.

          • Psycho Milt 15.2.1.3.1
            5 October 2015 at 11:49 am

            …this case will set a precedent by which claims in this country will be
            decided by our New Zealand Courts.”

            Well, good. Unless an organic farmer can demonstrate actual harm resulting from genetically-modified organisms crossing to their farm, they should be laughed out of court. Losing their organic certification isn’t actual harm – if that’s the “harm” claimed, their issue is with the people responsible for the certification, not their neighbours. Let them take the certifying authority to court. The fact that some new technology interferes with your special woo in some undefinable and unquantifiable way isn’t an argument for banning that new technology.

            • Rosemary McDonald 15.2.1.3.1.1
              5 October 2015 at 2:52 pm

              “The fact that some new technology interferes with your special woo in some undefinable and unquantifiable way isn’t an argument for banning that new technology.”

              Woo, sorry, who is talking about “banning”.

              Surely your preferred expression of ‘science’ can co exist with the ‘middle class neurotic hippy organic farmers version of ‘science’.

              Because the stringent standards required for organic certification, and the resultant profits that ensue from that certification (because they would not go to the effort and expense demanded for certification were it not profitable) do not allow for contamination from agrichemicals, non approved fertilisers and GMOs.

              In a just world, the GE farmer would be expected to keep the shit from his farming activities on his side of the fence.

              In fact, any farmer should be compelled to keep harmful materials used or produced in their operation within the confines of their legal boundaries.

              If I, for instance, hurled poison over the fence onto my neighbour’s paddock and one of his valuable cows, aka ‘profit producing stock units’ got sick or died…I could, and should, be held liable.

              However, if my neighbour chucks something over the fence of my residential property that made one of my family, aka ‘non profit making units’ gets sick, I have absolutely no recourse. In fact, despite my protests, the Crimes Act, the HSNO Act, the RMA, (and about 20 other Acts that control the use of agrichemicals) there is no agency able/willing to protect my rights.

              This is because the rights of those conducting commercial activities outweigh the rights of mere private citizens.

              This is the situation now, in NZ.

              And under a TPPA regime, this is very like to get much, much worse.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                5 October 2015 at 3:14 pm

                …there is no agency able/willing to protect my rights.

                The courts dismissed the charges against you,

                “I consider that it could very well be reasonable to point a bow (without an arrow) at a helicopter that you believed was in danger of crashing into your house … there was no chance of Ms McDonald firing anything at the helicopter as the bow was unloaded. It is hard to think of what other action a person on the ground might take to stop an aircraft flying dangerously low around their property.”

                Justice Connell.

                Is there no lawyer who can make something of that? If it’s reasonable to defend yourself against someone’s actions it follows that said actions are an assault.

                • Rosemary McDonald …
                  5 October 2015 at 7:58 pm

                  “The courts dismissed the charges against you, ”

                  There was only the one charge.

                  “Is there no lawyer who can make something of that? If it’s reasonable to defend yourself against someone’s actions it follows that said actions are an assault.”

                  No.

                  That is what we thought, back in the days when we were idling under the illusion that proper investigation and enforcement actually happens.

                  Before we realised that our rights to fair and equitable treatment were overridden by the interests of the influential, high- profile neighbour.

                  Back in the days when we foolishly believed that the value we placed on the truth was universal.

                  Have I decided whether the Police are corrupt or incompetent?

                  No, but it is likely to be a combination of both.

                  Do I have a shitload of documentation, evidence of ‘irregularities’ in the investigations done by the Police and the Regional Council?

                  Hell yes.

                  Oh, OAB, for the record, here’s the link to the article in the local rag…
                  http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/5450970/Hunting-bow-charge-dismissed you quoted from.

                  You missed out the best quote, Justice Connell again, who found the pilot’s evidence to be “…”unreliable” and laden with “inconsistencies and prevarication”…”.

                  You have a nice evening.

              • Psycho Milt …
                5 October 2015 at 4:07 pm

                In a just world, the GE farmer would be expected to keep the shit from his farming activities on his side of the fence.

                It would be “just” to expect a farmer to prevent wind, water etc carrying plant material from his property onto a neighbouring one? Seriously? What preventive measures are you picturing the nation’s farmers taking to ensure that organic material respects property boundaries?

                You seem to be conflating the reasonable demand that farmers keep agricultural spraying confined to their own property with the unreasonable demand that they enforce a sterile boundary which no organic material can cross. They’re two different things.

                • Rosemary McDonald …
                  5 October 2015 at 5:38 pm

                  And back we come to the HSNO Act. Which conflates the two.

                  I.e. Agrichemicals and GE organisms BOTH come under the Act.

                  At the moment.

                  Until EPA are convinced by Those Who Would Profit that GE is somehow ‘naturally occuring’.

                  Mr Vercoe
                  (http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/72430808/neighbour-disputes-an-ageold-problem%E2%80%A6)

                  …also seems to see organic farming as somehow more problematic in terms of neighbourhood disputes, when in actual fact, since organic farming usually adds nothing hazardous or unnatural into the environment it usually attracts little or no attention from HSNO Act enforcers.

                  Not that, when it comes down to the wire, the HSNO Act gets much in the way of enforcement anyway.

                  • Psycho Milt …
                    5 October 2015 at 7:22 pm

                    Until EPA are convinced by Those Who Would Profit that GE is somehow ‘naturally occuring’.

                    Can you point to any organism involved in NZ agriculture that hasn’t been modified by humans? As an example of what I mean, check out Ray ‘Banana Man’ Comfort’s video on the “naturally-occurring-because-God” banana. View from 0:30 to 1:27. Ray explains how the fact the banana is so cleared designed for human consumption proves the existence of God, while unkind scientists overlay a shot of an actual wild banana and point out the modern yellow one is the product of thousands of years’ worth of modification by humans. This banana, like pretty much everything else we eat, including the animals, isn’t “naturally-occurring,” it’s “heavily modified.”

                    • Macro …
                      5 October 2015 at 8:29 pm

                      You have no idea have you! So you come along with a crap argument like that… Of course everything we grow and breed is “modified”, but not in the way GE modifies. There is a natural hybridisation and sometimes even that is not very clever – or ethical. Especially when the hybridisation is done to ensure the seed company holds the power over farmers.
                      Most GE modification of seed today is to produce:
                      a. seeds that cannot be stored for replanting by the farmer (and get the same product), and
                      b. crops that are resistant to weed sprays.
                      Roundup Ready GM crops have become the mainstay of Agribusiness in the US. These include soy, beet sugar, and corn—which supply the bulk of the processed food industry. Roundup use has doubled in the US in 6 years mainly as a result of the emergence of “super weeds”.
                      The two objectives above, ensure that Monsanto makes a killing – in more ways than one.

                    • Rosemary McDonald …
                      5 October 2015 at 8:33 pm

                      “This banana, like pretty much everything else we eat, including the animals, isn’t “naturally-occurring,” it’s “heavily modified.””

                      And yet, after thousands of years of selective breeding and attempted cross-breeding the banana is not producing Bt toxin or glowing in the dark.

                      No matter how many times the jellyfish humps the banana tree.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      5 October 2015 at 9:28 pm

                      The two objectives above, ensure that Monsanto makes a killing – in more ways than one.

                      “Monsanto the Bogeyman is coming! Somebody round up some flaming torches and pitchforks!”

                      GE in New Zealand is mostly of interest to crown research institutes and universities, none of which focus on the two applications you apparently consider the main applications of GE.

                      And yet, after thousands of years of selective breeding and attempted cross-breeding the banana is not producing Bt toxin or glowing in the dark.

                      The depressing thing is that this is the level of thought the anti-GE lobby brings to the issue.

                • maui …
                  5 October 2015 at 6:07 pm

                  So it’s reasonable to ask for sprays, nutrients, pollution to stay on a property but not for seeds/plants?

                  I would think if you had pine forest on your property in the tussock McKenzie country that was a source of wilding pines, and was spreading onto your neighbour’s properties, that you should be paying your neighbours for their removal as it’s affecting their land. This is a similar case. But I guess some live in a world where they can do whatever they want on their land and don’t care about the consequences on others.

                  • Psycho Milt …
                    5 October 2015 at 7:00 pm

                    Good luck getting seeds to respect fences. In the case of wilding pines, there’s a case to be made that the neighbour is turning your property into a pine forest against your will. That’s actual harm. In the organics-vs-GE case, the case is that someone won’t sign your magic woo certificate if your neighbour is growing plants that make the woo-people angry. In that case, your issue is with the woo-people, not your neighbour. Take them to court and force them to make a case for not signing your magic woo certificate – it’s really none of your neighbour’s business.

                    • maui …
                      5 October 2015 at 7:32 pm

                      Strange, two species of plants in two scenarios that significantly impact on people’s lives, yet you have polar opposite reactions to each. I could say that you’re being biased…

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      5 October 2015 at 9:35 pm

                      Well, shit, far be it from me to be biased. I withdraw. Let’s agree the two scenarios are equivalent, and we can then agree that GE in this country should face a similar level of controls on it to the planting of pine trees…

  16. Murray Simmonds 16
    5 October 2015 at 10:23 am

    Speaking from a USA perspective, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research:

    “This really is a deal that’s being negotiated by corporations for corporations and any benefit it provides to the bulk of the population of this country will be purely incidental.”

    Yves Smith, an investment banking expert who runs the Naked Capitalism blog adds: “There would be no reason to keep it so secret if it was in the interest of the public.”

    http://americablog.com/2013/11/bill-moyers-trans-pacific-partnership-free-trade-agreement-death-democracy.html

    Barker and Smith, in the half-hour long video debate available on the above link note that the deal is actually ANTI-free trade. That is, FTA’s usually lower the cost of products to the consumer, whereas this one raises them . . .

    • Chooky 16.1
      5 October 2015 at 11:21 am

      +100 Murray Simmonds ….good to see American fight back against the TPPA

      …lets unite with our fellow Americans in the fight against the corporates trying to seize anti- democratic control …the war is not over yet

    • Tracey 16.2
      5 October 2015 at 11:47 am

      I agree, the secrecy is, imo, NOT about trade positions, because everyone is spying on each other. THAT is what Mr Key said, remember? We spy on our allies for commercial purposes. So the secrets are all known through the spying. That only leaves the public to be kept in the dark…

  18. infused 18
    5 October 2015 at 10:50 am

    “It’s not a good deal for dairy”

    But it’s better than what we have now.

    • Paul 18.1
      5 October 2015 at 10:52 am

      Well, in all honesty, we don’t know yet, as the deal is secret.
      But, according to leaks, there will be a tiny improvement.

      This is completely dwarfed by the extra costs we’ll wear to pay for new medicines and the cost to our environment, health and labour laws.

      But, as you’re a shill for the 0.001%, I guess you don’t care about ordinary people.

    • Tracey 18.2
      5 October 2015 at 11:48 am

      and given negotiations are give and take, if it is better for dairy than it was yesterday, something must be worse for someone than it was yesterday.

    • Lanthanide 18.3
      5 October 2015 at 12:09 pm

      “But it’s better than what we have now.”

      It may be better than what we have now, for diary, but that doesn’t mean the deal overall is better than what we have now, as a country.

      • infused 18.3.1
        5 October 2015 at 12:22 pm

        It will be, or we wont sign it.

        • Lanthanide 18.3.1.1
          5 October 2015 at 12:40 pm

          In whose opinion will it be better? National’s?

          In their opinion, it made sense to stop contributing to the superannuation fund. In their opinion it made sense to sell off 49% of our electricity companies. In their opinion it made sense to include SCF in the deposit guarantee scheme even though a cursory amount of due-diligence would have shown them to be in breach of the terms and conditions of the deposit guarantee scheme.

          I’m not sure I agree with their opinions.

        • Tracey 18.3.1.2
          5 October 2015 at 3:22 pm

          we?!?

  19. dv 19
    5 October 2015 at 11:18 am

    Thank god these negotiators are well organised!!!

    Oops, Oh look the press conference is cancelled?????!

    A press conference was initially scheduled to be held at 9am NZT. That was delayed to 11am NZT, and has now been delayed until further notice.

  20. AmaKiwi 20
    5 October 2015 at 11:48 am

    No Deal!

    TPPA not signed.

    How do I know?

    As of 11:45 am NZT, there is no announcement of a TPPA press conference.

    It is now 1:45 am Monday morning in Istanbul. In 8 hours the G20 Trade Ministers meeting begins in Istanbul. You cannot fly from Atlanta to Istanbul in eight hours, which leads me to conclude that most or all of the trade ministers have now left Atlanta.

    They did NOT sign an agreement!

  21. Rolf 21
    5 October 2015 at 11:50 am

    It is just that, it is a form of annexation. For instance, when Austria was annexed some 80 years ago, the troops just moved in and took control. The modern way is to have agreements like ANZUS and TPP and all important decisions will be made by the New Zealand future masters in Wellington and the marionette New Zealand government, irrespectively of political colour, will have to agree. If they don’t, the Washington masters can take them to court in out own country and force them. Get ysed to it, you voted in the Key Club to take control.

  22. veutoviper 22
    5 October 2015 at 11:55 am

    Latest from Atlanta seems to be that Australia is still playing hard ball on pharmaceuticals – hence the further delays in the press conference (now delayed until 3pm NZT or later). Seems talks are still deadlocked on this issue, according to Aust Trade Minister.

    Richard Madan, CTV correspondent in Atlanta, is worth watching on Twitter as he is tweeting constantly – and has a sense of humour (see my 17.1 above). Here is a link to his Twitter feed.

    https://twitter.com/RichardMadan

    Snap! Also see 19.3.

    • rawshark-yeshe 22.1
      5 October 2015 at 1:01 pm

      He is doing as report here at 8 pm atlanta time … very soon.

      Interesting on this news page where the Canadian Liberals are not agreeing to be bound by any Tory signed TPPA after their coming general election !

      http://www.ctvnews.ca/

  23. Antony Cotton 23
    5 October 2015 at 12:13 pm

    Watch All Key Media Friends Gower Garner Du Plessis Allan Corin Dann Simon Dallow Petrie Street Hosking and Christine to put there spin on it she will be right Mate. The Media tell as the economy when it not. Like the TPPA is right.

    • maui 23.1
      5 October 2015 at 12:35 pm

      That’s probably what Gower & Hosking are more likely to do. The likely thing will be the questions that aren’t asked and the points that aren’t raised.

    • Paul 23.2
      5 October 2015 at 3:04 pm

      Yes, their lines have already been written for them.

  24. Draco T Bastard 24
    5 October 2015 at 1:42 pm

    This is one trade deal I believe we do not need to be in on the action with and a deal our Government should refuse to sign.

    One which Labour should say that they will be un-signing it as soon as they get into power in 2017.

    • Wayne 24.1
      5 October 2015 at 2:49 pm

      Draco,

      You know that won’t happen.

    • Srylands 24.2
      5 October 2015 at 3:26 pm

      If they said such a stupid thing whatever chance labour had of winning the 2017 election would vanish. Is that what you want?

      • Paul 24.2.1
        5 October 2015 at 3:28 pm

        Most people are against the undermining of their sovereignty.
        Neoliberalism is deeply unpopular.

        • Reddelusion 24.2.1.1
          5 October 2015 at 3:44 pm

          In the spirit of Muldoon Paul most people would not know or care what Neo liberal means or the ins and outs of a trade deal even if they tripped up over one. Don’t confuse a bunch of outraged lunatic left wingers nodding and agreeing as the general consensus of the populace. nz labour learnt that and now also will the uk in a big way

        • Puckish Rogue 24.2.1.2
          5 October 2015 at 3:54 pm

          Which explains Nationals election victories

          • Draco T Bastard 24.2.1.2.1
            5 October 2015 at 10:24 pm

            Well, at least you admit that National purposefully undermines our sovereignty.

      • Draco T Bastard 24.2.2
        5 October 2015 at 3:48 pm

        Actually, I’m pretty sure that it would pretty much guarantee them winning. The majority of people have been seriously hurt by the neo-liberal BS that the governments of the last thirty years have forced upon us.

        • srylands 24.2.2.1
          5 October 2015 at 11:08 pm

          “The majority of people have been seriously hurt by the neo-liberal BS that the governments of the last thirty years have forced upon us.”
          __________________

          I recall that you were stating this crap 18 months ago when you were confidently predicting a David Cunliffe victory. When 2023 comes around and National have been in government for 15 years, will you still be chanting this?

          • One Anonymous Bloke 24.2.2.1.1
            5 October 2015 at 11:19 pm

            1. The Lancet reports on the increase in infectious disease admissions.

            2. Coroner’s verdict on infant mortality.

            3. Law Society report to the UN re: human rights and the rule of law.

            How much money have you made from misery and disease, S Rylands? It takes a very special sort of scum to keep on the way you do.

    • Matthew Hooton 24.3
      5 October 2015 at 9:36 pm

      That is their right if they want. TPP will allow it. NZers could then vote accordingly.

  25. veutoviper 25
    5 October 2015 at 2:19 pm

    Excellent detailed post by Gordon Campbell is now up on Scoop on the TPP negotiations, and probable reasons for the delays etc. Campbell has obviously got good contacts etc on what has been/is going on re Auto provisions, dairy etc.

    http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2015/10/05/gordon-campbell-on-the-tpp-countdown-mary-margaret-ohara/

    EDIT – latest from Richard Madan, CTV, is that the press conference is now off until ‘sometime tomorrow morning’ Atlanta time; and the talks are continuing.

    https://twitter.com/RichardMadan/status/650844101529739265

  26. Neil 26
    5 October 2015 at 2:36 pm

    Key & Groser will have signed it already even if it’s not in the best interests of New Zealand. Key & Groser don’t give a shit about the people of New Zealand, they only care about themselves.

  27. Barbara Moore 27
    5 October 2015 at 4:01 pm

    Have just gone into the Herald to see if there are any updates about the TPPA. I key worded TPPA and the only stuff to come up is a Steve Braunias Secret Diary of Gerry Brownlie dated Oct 3, an earlier entry dated 28 Sept and another entry dated 24 Sept. Lord lover duck is that all they can do. Here we are on the “cusp of something great” and all there is is rugby and the WC games, Prince Harry and a TV personality with a threatening illlness (serious I know but give us a break). The Herald needs seriously to up its game, this rag is now nothing but a trash rag and seriously is insulting to the citizens of this country. Here we are on the verge of selling our soul to the devil and we should be informed on this. I have chucked the Herald a year ago but thought it might give us something on what is happening. I give up.

    • Matthew Hooton 27.1
      5 October 2015 at 5:12 pm

      While I disagree with your view that TPP is “selling our soul to the devil” – I’d call it “greatest diplomatic breakthrough for NZ since Uruguay Round” – I totally agree with you re Herald. Whichever one of us is right, this should be overwhelming the media, with reporters outlining basic facts, and with all sorts of perspectives being put forward and debated.

      • AmaKiwi 27.1.1
        5 October 2015 at 6:05 pm

        No, Matthew. The greatest diplomatic breakthrough for NZ since we landed on Gallipoli.

    • Paul 27.2
      5 October 2015 at 7:55 pm

      Say this every day!!

  28. veutoviper 28
    5 October 2015 at 4:39 pm

    Latest from Atlanta is that the press conference has now been set tentatively for 0930 tomorrow morning (Mon) Atlanta time. Think that is 0230am Tuesday NZ time.

    https://twitter.com/RichardMadan/status/650872651708297216

  29. Philj 29
    5 October 2015 at 5:13 pm

    I can hear the dead rats being swallowed from here.

  30. Tautoko Mangō Mata 30
    5 October 2015 at 7:52 pm

    Latest TPP News
    USTR Schedules TPP Closing Press Conference For 9 A.M. Monday Morning
    http://insidetrade.com/

    2:51 AM
    Monday, 5 October 2015 (EDT)
    Current Time in Atlanta, GA, USA

  31. Penny Bright 31
    5 October 2015 at 8:05 pm

    The members of the G20 are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union.

    So – are the Trade Ministers from Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico and the USA going to the G20 Trade Ministers’ meeting tomorrow – YES or NO?

    Penny Bright

  32. Tautoko Mangō Mata 32
    5 October 2015 at 8:38 pm

    If this does get signed, then we will need mass demonstrations. This TPPA process has kept all information from the MAJOR stakeholders,the general public of each country,
    I will not accept this abuse of process, the deception and blatant disregard of those who have been elected to serve us, the citizens, not the corporations.

  33. ianmac 33
    5 October 2015 at 10:02 pm

    Andrew Geddis examines the implications of “Investor State Dispute Settlement” procedures, should the TPP become an agreement. For those who say that NZ will be OK under ISDS because we are the good guys, you had better take a look.
    http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/of-tpps-isdss-and-the-constitution
    “…For one thing, it is misleading to imply that existing ISDS provisions haven’t had any impact on NZ’s laws and policies….”
    …”challenges to regulatory action by the Czech Republic and Spain affecting the interests of the providers of renewable energy…”
    …” Lone Pine Resources Inc instituted a claim against Canada last year in response to a moratorium imposed by Quebec on hydraulic fracturing (fracking)…”
    “…a claim against Canada on the basis of a moratorium imposed by Ontario on offshore wind farms. …”
    “…The Swedish company, Vattenfall, is suing Germany under the Energy Charter Treaty over Germany’s decision to phase out nuclear energy power plants.””

    • RedLogix 33.1
      5 October 2015 at 10:47 pm

      What has long intrigued me – and unlike Andrew Geddis I’ll claim zero expertise in this area – is that this ISDS process appears to enormously privilege foreign investors over domestic ones.

  34. Puddleglum 34
    5 October 2015 at 10:13 pm

    Doctors Without Borders (aka Medecins Sans Frontieres) have had a long running campaign against the TPP.

    Then again, they’re obviously no longer on the U.S. Christmas card list so probably won’t have had much influence.

  35. Pasupial 35
    6 October 2015 at 4:41 am

    Looks like a done deal, the only real hope now is that it’ll be scuppered in the US due to election year posturing:

    The deal – in the works since 2008 – is a major victory for US president Barack Obama… still faces major hurdles, not least in Congress…

    It is expected to… become a new flashpoint for the 2016 presidential campaign…

    The Biotechnology Industry Association, in Washington DC, said it was “very disappointed” by reports that US negotiators had not been able to convince Australia and other TPP members to adopt the 12-year standard approved by Congress.

    “We will carefully review the entire TPP agreement once the text is released by the ministers,” the industry lobby said in a statement.

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/05/trans-pacific-partnership-deal-reached-pacific-countries-international-trade

    Interesting that the biotech lobbyists expect to see the full text while it is denied to the general public. But if they withhold their campaign contributions (not to say; bribes), then a republican dominated congress is less likely to vote for something that makes a democratic president look good.

    Plus there’s the upcoming Canadian election; which may throw a spanner in the works if they kick Harper to the curb.

  36. Tautoko Mangō Mata 36
    6 October 2015 at 5:33 am

    Latest TPP News
    U.S. Secures Tariff Phaseouts Of 25 Years For Japanese Autos, 30 For Trucks
    ATLANTA — Under the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal announced on Monday (Oct. 5), the United States will eliminate its 25 percent tariff on trucks after 30 years, and get rid of the 2.5 percent tariff on automobiles after 25 years.

    TPP Countries Declare Deal, As Lawmakers And Industry Express Caution
    The United States and 11 other Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) countries announced Monday (Oct. 5) they have resolved all outstanding issues in their talks but that work to finalize the text of the deal is still continuing, as key U.S. lawmakers reacted with caution or even outright disappointment at the compromises U.S. negotiators have made.

    More News:
    Tentative U.S.-Vietnam ‘Consistency Plan’ Links Tariff Benefits To Labor Compliance
    U.S., Australia Float Joint Biologics Text To Other TPP Countries For Vetting
    U.S. Seeking Enforceable Labor Consistency Plans With Select TPP Nations
    Peru Pursues TPP As Route To Secure Apparel Cumulation With Colombia
    Documents and Reactions:
    TPP Governments Announce Final TPP Deal Reached; Release Statements, Fact Sheets
    TPP Countries Pledge To Strengthen Cooperation On Exchange Rate Issues ‘In Appropriate Fora’
    Hatch Says TPP Deal Appears To Fall ‘Woefully Short’ Of Expectations; Other Members Of Congress Offer Ranging Assessments
    Stay tuned for continuing coverage … Complete TPP News
    http://insidetrade.com/

  37. Tautoko Mangō Mata 37
    6 October 2015 at 6:05 am

    From US perpective
    President Obama will have to convince his own party to support the deal, after most congressional Democrats opposed handing him fast-track authority on trade. The power — ultimately granted to Obama, in large part thanks to GOP backing of the deal — means Congress won’t have a chance to amend the deal before voting on it.

    Republicans, meanwhile, warned during the talks that they would oppose the TPP if the Obama administration came back with language that targets certain sectors of the U.S. economy.

    The deal will arrive on Capitol Hill for a vote early next year, a few months after a leadership shake-up in the GOP-controlled House, which could further complicate the deal’s passage.

    Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) sent up a warning flare saying from what he has learned, the TPP deal “falls woefully short” of what can pass Congress.

    “Over the next several days and months, I will carefully examine the agreement to determine whether our trade negotiators have diligently followed the law so that this trade agreement meets Congress’s criteria and increases opportunity for American businesses and workers,” Hatch said in a statement.

    “The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a once in a lifetime opportunity and the United States should not settle for a mediocre deal that fails to set high-standard trade rules in the Asia-Pacific region for years to come.”
    http://thehill.com/policy/finance/255889-negotiators-reach-major-trade-deal