TPPA text released

Written By: - Date published: 10:24 pm, November 5th, 2015 - 99 comments
Categories: accountability, capitalism, Globalisation, trade - Tags: , , ,

The text of the TPPA has finally been released to the plebs – i.e. we the people. RNZ:

New Zealand releases TPP text

The government has released the legal text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership on behalf of the deal’s 12 member countries.

The government has said the trade agreement will boost New Zealand’s economy by $2.7 billion a year by 2030 but, until now, the public had been kept in the dark as to what the agreement entailed.

Trade Minister Tim Groser released a statement this evening including a link to the text.
He said he was pleased the public would now finally be able to thoroughly review the full text of the TPP before it was signed by governments.

Work on the legal verification of the text would continue in coming weeks, he said. “This is a complex agreement, with 30 chapters and associated annexes. The large number of documents released today amount to over 6000 pages of text and market access schedules. …

The full text can be found here. But we already know that we have given up a lot for a little.

Update: From Evening Report:

Jane Kelsey & Tim Groser on TPPA text finally being released

‘Today’s release of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement text ends the farcical situation where governments were touting the benefits for the nation with no prospect of any independent assessment to contradict them,’ said University of Auckland law Professor Jane Kelsey.

It is not clear whether this will also start the 90-day countdown before President Obama is allowed to sign the agreement under US law, or whether any of the other countries would sign unilaterally before the US does.

But, Professor Kelsey points out, ‘the legal text is not enough on its own. We need to see the background documents that help make sense of the text, but the parties have vowed to keep secret for effectively another six years.’

‘We also need the various analyses the New Zealand government has relied on when talking up the benefits and playing down the costs.

“They have been coy about who has done this work, especially the projections of $2.7b benefits for the economy, and stalled on Official Information Act requests to release them, despite the High Court’s rebuke last month,” Jane Kelsey said. …

tpp-not-worth-much

Update:  The Washington Post has provided a tool to allow the text of the TPP to be searched.  The word “climate” does not appear in the text …

99 comments on “TPPA text released ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tautoko Mangō Mata 1
    5 November 2015 at 10:42 pm

    Climate change missing from full Trans-Pacific Partnership text
    “Matthew Rimmer, Professor of Intellectual Property and Innovation Law at the Queensland University of Technology, told Fairfax Media it looks like US trade officials have been “green-washing” the agreement.
    Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, pictured with Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, last month called the deal “a gigantic foundation stone” for the economy.
    Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, pictured with Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, last month called the deal “a gigantic foundation stone” for the economy. Photo: Andrew Meares
    “The environment chapter confirms some of the worst nightmares of environmental groups and climate activists,” Dr Rimmer said.
    “The agreement has poor coverage of environmental issues, and weak enforcement mechanisms. There is only limited coverage of biodiversity, conservation, marine capture fisheries, and trade in environmental services. The final text of the chapter does not even mention ‘climate change’ – the most pressing global environmental issue in the world.”

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/details-of-transpacific-partnership-finally-released-20151105-gkrivo.html#ixzz3qbnQRaD0
    Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

    • marty mars 1.1
      5 November 2015 at 11:31 pm

      my gods how long can this total idiocy go on!!! Why can’t they wake up to reality???

      • savenz 1.1.1
        6 November 2015 at 9:13 am

        +100 Marty Mars and TMM.

      • Magisterium 1.1.2
        7 November 2015 at 2:09 am

        Because when we look to the Leader of the Opposition for some.. well… leadership of opposition to this idiocy, it turns out he’s pretty much cool with it.

    • Matthew Hooton 1.2
      6 November 2015 at 7:46 am

      How could the TPP “confirm some of the worst nightmares of environmental groups and climate activists”? Surely it is at best irrelevant to climate change? Did he expect it to address climate change?

      • mpledger 1.2.1
        6 November 2015 at 8:41 am

        If it didn’t then it’s not “fit for purpose”. Climate change is going to be the biggest “disrupter” this planet has seen in human’s lifetime.

        • Matthew Hooton 1.2.1.1
          6 November 2015 at 9:02 am

          Yes but if the lack of mention of CC in TPP is a “worst nightmare” then the world environment must be in great shape.

          • marty mars 1.2.1.1.1
            6 November 2015 at 10:07 am

            “The agreement has poor coverage of environmental issues, and weak enforcement mechanisms. There is only limited coverage of biodiversity, conservation, marine capture fisheries, and trade in environmental services. The final text of the chapter does not even mention ‘climate change’ – the most pressing global environmental issue in the world.”

            What part of that quote is causing confusion for you – come on, it is pretty basic unless you are a denier, or spinner I spose.

            • Matthew Hooton 1.2.1.1.1.1
              6 November 2015 at 12:54 pm

              My point is, an insufficiently strong reference to climate change in the TPP can hardly be the guy’s “worst nightmare”. Surely the probable failure of Paris is that? Or a temperature increase above 3 degrees? Or the seas rising more than a metre? But the TPP environmental chapter? Really?

              • Sacha …
                6 November 2015 at 1:45 pm

                When ISDS allows big oil companies to sue governments for acting on climate change, believe me it’s a problem. Because such action is essential.

              • Mike the Savage One …
                6 November 2015 at 9:56 pm

                We have now had decades of economic wet dreamers talk us into believing more trade, more consumption and production, more this and that, all based on exploiting supposedly endless resources, are the recipe for endless bliss and fortune for the planet and the people living on it.

                They have wet dreams every night the economists that support ever more trade and less regulation and they want us to fall for their fallacy.

                As a matter of fact the planet and humanity have very finite resources, and the rich and poor gap has hardly been reduced globally, nor has the poverty in most places. Free trade is the entertainment of a few nations, that do think by giving liberty and favours to corporations will solve their employment and social and economic problems.

                Let us wait and see, nothing of the many promises may come true, and more will end up as casual and low paid part time workers, getting their jobs replaced by cheap imports from countries who d o not care much about pollution, climate change and the likes.

                All verbal vows are usually not kept and honoured, and Paris will be yet another disappointment, and we are heading into total disaster, because the blinkered, blinded and brainwashed selfish lot continue polluting and destroying as they have for decades. Fuck the world and the future seems the idea, me first and screw the future.

                Sorry Mathew, you are a loser with your stupid comments here, have another beer and take a night off and get some needed sleep.

      • Raf 1.2.2
        6 November 2015 at 6:49 pm

        What is wrong with you? Any major ‘trade’* agreement that doesn’t include climate change as a relevant issue is like a diet plan that doesn’t mention portion size – it’s clearly inadequate and ineffective, rendering everything else about either document completely unreliable.
        (* I’m aware this definition is debatable.)

    • savenz 1.3
      6 November 2015 at 9:12 am

      +100

  2. Ovid 2
    5 November 2015 at 11:08 pm

    I’ve got to say that the labour rights provision is a pleasant surprise and from my brief look at the dispute settlement provisions, I can’t see an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, just a party-to-party (i.e. state-to-state) one, as all trade agreements have.

    The intellectual property chapter is a mixed bag. I don’t like the expansion of copyright to 70 years and there’s nothing there about orphan works. I can’t see anything that requires us to instate software patents, but I may be wrong on that. It’s gratifying that it recognises traditional forms of knowledge. I suspect this was inserted to keep Wai 262 alive.

    Somebody smarter than me will have to parse the sections on pharmaceuticals. I don’t know what it means for Pharmac.

  3. Melb 3
    6 November 2015 at 4:23 am

    If any country wishes to withdraw then the process is to give six months notice.

    So then if the TPPA is such a dastardly power grab I expect Labour to campaign to using this clause, and be swept to 2017 electoral victory on the back of widespread anti-TPPA sentiment.

    What a choice coincidence that the party will be debating its stance this wknd behind closed doors. Yes, Labour called for more openness for TPPA discussion, yet will hold it’s own TPPA discussion in secret. Good work guys!

    [lprent: Please provide a credible link about your last paragraph. As far as I am aware the TPPA isn’t a topic at the Labour Conference, let alone being one behind closed doors. You have six months to locate that link, I will unban you if you do.

    In other words. Provide a damn link if you want to troll here. ]

  4. Steve 4
    6 November 2015 at 6:52 am

    There’s also a six month withdrawal notice with no penalties.

    Running out of things to hang your hat on now. Too far down the proverbial road to change the narrative now.

    Perhaps, like all the other crisis Labour has announced, if you stop talking about it, the general public might forget the unnecessary, irrational ranting.

    Hey, you can always fall back on ponytail gags.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1
      6 November 2015 at 7:06 am

      When did Labour announce a TPP crisis? They’ve signaled their willingness to fix the housing market whether or not it will result in a breach.

      You wouldn’t by any chance be flailing around with the dishonest pretence that they are on the same page as Jane Kelsey, for example, would you?

      Or just running your mouth with anti-Labour bile without regard to facts?

      Or perhaps you’re a Left wing plant designed to make the National Party look stupid and mendacious…

      Who can tell?

      • Nessalt 4.1.1
        6 November 2015 at 12:06 pm

        i sometimes think you are the right wing plant designed to make the left look frothing mad at everything and with nothing logical to day beyond accusations and taunts

    • Tracey 4.2
      6 November 2015 at 12:50 pm

      Good to see Hooton’s hard work over the week following the signing has paid off…. and it has halted individual thinking and review by some (as planned)

  5. Tautoko Mangō Mata 5
    6 November 2015 at 6:58 am

    Fight for the future- analysis:Final text of the #TPP confirms worst fears; poses grave threat to the Internet
    Analysis of IP chapter on
    18.26 Trademarks
    18.37 Patentable subject matter- new methods of using a known product
    18.28 Govt keeping data base of names and addresses assoc with domain names
    18.63 Copyright-extended to 70 yrs after death
    18.68 and more
    http://tumblr.fightforthefuture.org/post/132605875893/final-tpp-text-confirms-worst-fears-shadowy

    • northshoredoc 5.1
      6 November 2015 at 8:02 am

      I followed you link and after looking at the first two ‘analyses’ which with completely bizarre assumptions and ignoring the existing trademark and patent situation in relation to pharmaceutical products in NZ, I gave up on the rest.

      if posts such as that are designed to get the uniformed frothing all well in good but they can have the effect amongst the rest of the population of making you appear rather silly.

    • northshoredoc 5.2
      6 November 2015 at 8:34 am

      I followed your link and after looking at the first two ‘analyses’ which contained somewhat bizarre assumptions and ignored the existing trademark and patent situation in relation to pharmaceutical products in NZ, I gave up on the rest.

      if posts such as the one you linked to are designed to get the uniformed frothing, all well in good but they can have the effect amongst the rest of the population of making you appear rather silly.

      • Tautoko Mangō Mata 5.2.1
        6 November 2015 at 9:28 am

        Thank you for pointing out the deficiencies in my links in relation to the NZ situation. Although my main concerns with the tpp are associated with how it affects NZ, I am also interested in the wider implications and how the TPP is being received in other countries. I realise that you have a particular area of expertise and I welcome your positive input. If the rest of the population consider me rather silly, then so be it.

      • One Two 5.2.2
        6 November 2015 at 12:32 pm

        Despite the rhetoric, or your claims of authority, it is not possible for you to know consequences of the TPPA, or to predict the eventual outcomes

  6. Steve 6
    6 November 2015 at 7:13 am

    I said like, as in, handling a situation in a similar way, the only way they know how, oppose at all costs, then just drop it when it doesn’t get the populist attention they were hoping for.

    You managed to get all that from one comment. I’m all of those things mate, yup, I’m just as clueless as your illustrious leader

  7. Matthew Hooton 7
    6 November 2015 at 7:43 am

    Article 30.6: Withdrawal
    1. Any Party may withdraw from this Agreement by providing written notice of withdrawal to the Depositary. A withdrawing Party shall simultaneously notify the other Parties of its withdrawal through the contact points.
    2. A withdrawal shall take effect six months after a Party provides written notice to the Depositary under paragraph 1, unless the Parties agree on a different period. If a Party withdraws, this Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1
      6 November 2015 at 7:51 am

      What’s the point of discussing this red herring when the far more likely scenario is legislation (to fix the Auckland property speculator problem for example) that results in a breach not a withdrawal?

      Hooton would rather distract I guess.

      • Matthew Hooton 7.1.1
        6 November 2015 at 7:56 am

        What type of legislation would “fix the Auckland property speculator problem”?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1.1.1
          6 November 2015 at 8:04 am

          My understanding is that here are a range of legislative measures being mulled. For example, a bill to restrict sales of existing residential property to residents might well fall foul of the TPP. It certainly isn’t the only measure being considered though.

          I’m surprised you hadn’t heard about this. Too busy constructing false narratives were we?

          • Matthew Hooton 7.1.1.1.1
            6 November 2015 at 8:38 am

            The TPP allows the NZ govt to impose a 1000% stamp duty on foreign buyers of NZ property. So a foreigner buying a $2m house would have to pay a $20m tax to NZ govt. So they wouldn’t (and if they did, I think anyone would agree NZ would be the winner). So I don’t see your point.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1.1.1.1.1
              6 November 2015 at 8:48 am

              [citation needed]

              As I said, there are a range of legislative measures being considered, from blithering incompetence and venality – the status quo – to the housing WoF and Kiwibuild, to name but two.

              If any of these policy commitments breach the TPP, I’d ask a lawyer rather than a spin-doctor.

        • RedLogix 7.1.1.2
          6 November 2015 at 8:06 am

          The TPPA is a bit of a cross between a curate’s egg and a poisoned chalice. No party is going to ‘withdraw’ because it would look like a repudiation of the commitment to freedom of trade.

          But it is the global extension of the broken American model of intellectual property rights, and the awful ISDS provisions, which are the components everyone has objected to. Address that.

        • Mike the Savage One 7.1.1.3
          6 November 2015 at 10:01 pm

          A fricking land tax on properties owned and occupied by land owners and speculators perhaps, who hang onto unused land for tool long? Some other new regulatory measures, incl. a capital gains tax, and also a clear mandatory set of rules to force developers to perhaps deliver a percentage of new dwellings at affordable prices? And then central government has the ability to provide for more social housing and build it, simple.

    • Tracey 7.2
      6 November 2015 at 12:53 pm

      yes Matthew, if you scroll up, your chosen meme planned and executed during the first week (post signing) )has taken quite beautifully with some who don’t like to read and decide for themselves.

      Tim Groser was a bit disingenuous today suggesting now NZers could rad for themselves, when he knows the majority won’t and those that do will get tangled up in the legalese.

  8. Steve 8
    6 November 2015 at 7:47 am

    Exactly. He couldn’t lead a dog up a garden path. This weekend will be hilarious. Lucky it’s a lock in, it’s gonna get ugly in there now, he’ll have to address the tpp whether he likes it or not.

    OAB. “What the fuck are you dribbling about?” You need a good long look in the mirror. I’m not the serial commentholic, I’m not the one that seems to have an opinion on everything. Every third comment seems to be from you, perhaps if you channeled your energies into something real and tangible you might actually make the world a slightly better place. I look forward to your opinion on this, no doubt it’ll be as inspiring as always.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1
      6 November 2015 at 8:08 am

      Is that the sort of handicap you have to live with? Where commenting on a blog prevents you from doing anything else?

      You poor thing. I’m glad I’m not similarly afflicted.

      Delusional too, since you appear to believe I have a leader and you know their identity 😆

  9. Tautoko Mangō Mata 9
    6 November 2015 at 7:48 am

    This analysis makes an important point about the effect of the TPP in inhibiting government from making policy choices to deal with unemployment issues- the sort that Bill English should be looking out now!

    “Trade commitments that require the federal government to treat foreign bidders as if they were U.S.bidders undermine one of most important job creation tools: fiscal policy. Governments should be able to use stimulus funds to create jobs within their borders, and not be required to spend those funds to create jobs elsewhere—nor should developing countries be prevented from using their limited funds on domestic stimulus.”
    http://www.citizen.org/documents/analysis-tpp-text-november-2015.pdf

  10. Steve 10
    6 November 2015 at 8:15 am

    Ignorance is bliss OAB. Keep up those comments, you might get better with all that practice

    • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1
      6 November 2015 at 8:32 am

      Ignorance is a condition we all share, Steve.

      I’m glad I was able to clue you in on a few things – such as the fact that Labour have signaled a willingness to breach the TPP to fix the Auckland property speculator problem, rather than announcing a crisis the way you pretended.

      Similarly your opinion of what might happen at their conference is based on malice and wishful thinking, and can be discounted.

      You have a lovely day, Steve, I’m off to enjoy the sunshine and make some cash.

    • Tracey 10.2
      6 November 2015 at 12:55 pm

      Ignorance is bliss indeed. How long did it take you to read through the 6000 pages this morning/today?

  11. Ad 11
    6 November 2015 at 8:52 am

    There is no longer any political capital to be gained by any current opposition party about TPPA. What there was, was scant apart from The Usual Suspects.

    Labour made a complete hash of their response.

    None of the Opposition parties even attempted to look coherent across the issue.

    The Opposition need to shift to fresh issues completely.

    The Labour Conference this weekend is going to be very, very slow burn because Rugby World Cup sucked almost all the political oxygen out, and now we are already straight on to Royal Watching.

    Insofar as there was anything to play with, the Opposition have been outplayed.

    Move along people.

    • RedLogix 11.1
      6 November 2015 at 10:03 am

      This ‘complete hash’ business, seems to have become par for the course. Sure Little may have ‘unified’ his caucus – but to what purpose?

      I can well imagine Little is busy being a politician. I’m sure his dairy is full and he’s flat-out doing things that he and his staff believe are important and valuable. I don’t want to sneer at what is a difficult, demanding and largely unrewarding job.

      But at the same time, I’m struggling to recall anything much past the ‘cut the crap’ moment from almost a year ago now.

      Yes National has screwed the media scrum; we’ve known this for ages. So what is the plan? Is there one? Because until the left figures a way around this, NZ will be a one party state for the indefinite future.

    • Ross 11.2
      6 November 2015 at 12:24 pm

      “we are already straight on to Royal Watching.”

      What are you doing here when you could be watching your parasitic mates Charles and Camilla?

    • Raf 11.3
      6 November 2015 at 6:59 pm

      “Move along”?? Jeez, you’re in a hurry to distract everyone before we’ve even had a chance to look! Or to listen to the analyses and commentary that’s going to come from around the world for months, at least, now! Why? What is it you’re afraid were going to see if we don’t “move along”? Bugger ya, I’m hanging around; the party hasn’t even started yet!

  12. Chch_chiquita 12
    6 November 2015 at 9:39 am

    Tim Groser, the Trade Minister who doesn’t know the details of the South Korean FTA. I would take anything and everything he says with a huge grain of salt.

    • Matthew Hooton 12.1
      6 November 2015 at 10:24 am

      No individual human being “knows the detail” of a trade deal. See for example this tariff schedule from the TPP agreement, for just the US: http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/TPP-text/2-D.%20US%20Tariff%20Elimination%20Schedule.pdf
      Literally no one in the world could remember all this.

      • Chch_chiquita 12.1.1
        6 November 2015 at 12:49 pm

        I would say that an important bit like this – “Under the free-trade agreement with South Korea, has South Korea reserved for itself the right to adopt a ban on New Zealand people—not being corporates—buying South Korean residential land or homes?” he should be able to remember.

        http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/business/qoa/51HansQ_20151105_00000011/11-free-trade-agreements%E2%80%94new-zealand-south-korea

      • Raf 12.1.2
        6 November 2015 at 7:00 pm

        Oh, OK. So we should just give up trying and “move along”, should we? Sorry mate I’m sticking this one out!

      • Ennui 12.1.3
        6 November 2015 at 9:15 pm

        So Matthew is no individual human being able to remember everything a good thing?
        Does it mean a whole pile of bureaucrats put together something unintelligible?
        Do we need a team of lawyers on the state payroll merely for audit and adherence?
        Is it going to be a big boom for the likes of Ernst Young to clip the ticket with inneffectual audits a la Sarbains Oxbury?
        Does the sheer volume of the text represent multiple one off agreements that contradict one another and /or any uniformity of purpose in the agreement?
        Did the $2. whatever billion gain include deductions for administration?
        Did we already spend $2 billion agreeing to something which as you Matthew state cannot be understood by any individual?
        As a % of GDP how much will $2.4 billion be in 2030? (I will give you a hint…..less than a single digit i.e point something).
        For fuck sake Matthew even if you support this thing cant you see this whole thing is not even a dogs breakfast? A carrion crow would turn up its beak and seek less rotten carcasses.

  13. Sabine 13
    6 November 2015 at 9:40 am

    this may be fun,

    nothing on climate, but then what else is new.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/05/we-made-president-obamas-big-tpp-trade-deal-searchable/?postshare=5371446749920151

    ”
    The problem, though, is that it was released as a series of posts on Medium — and, worse, a collection of PDFs — making it hard to search for topics across the entire document.

    Allow us.

    We created the tool below to allow you to search the full agreement (except annexes) and to link back to the original to read more. There’s a lot in there, we’ll note, and spellings are internationalized. (Labor becomes “labour,” for example.) So it’s still not a perfect system.”

  14. savenz 14
    6 November 2015 at 9:50 am

    So amazing that Hooton and NorthShoreDoc and others have been able to digest the over 6,000 pages of text and market access schedules from yesterday and say how positive it all is and how wrong everyone else is including the opposition!

    Even Drunken Grosser has stated that understanding the legal obligations of the TPP will require careful analysis of all documents, given the inter-relationship between many provisions in the Agreement.

    oh to be a troll so fun

    • marty mars 14.1
      6 November 2015 at 10:12 am

      they have their missions and they will complete them impossible or not

      • northshoredoc 14.1.1
        6 November 2015 at 12:54 pm

        I don’t know which comment is more suitable for a 🙄 yours or savenz’s so please accept this on behalf of him/her 🙄

    • Tracey 14.2
      6 November 2015 at 12:57 pm

      exactly, while calling people ignorant.
      You might notice that Hooton has refined his PR strtaegy from the post signature week. Back then it was;

      1. pull out with six months notice; and
      2. No sovereignty issue

      He now is only focussing on 1.

    • Daniel Cale 14.3
      6 November 2015 at 5:26 pm

      You could say the same about Jane Kelsey. After all she’s spent months/years opposing something she has admitted herself she doesn’t know the details of.

      • Raf 14.3.1
        6 November 2015 at 7:37 pm

        Well, she SAID she didn’t know the details anyway … I suspect she’s been knowing all along a great deal more than it was wise to admit to.

  15. Malconz 15
    6 November 2015 at 10:23 am

    I see on Crooks & Liars that Obama is saying the TPPA will mean that the US gets to “write the rules for trade in the 21st Century.” Nuff said!

  16. Bill 16
    6 November 2015 at 10:35 am

    ‘We also need the various analyses the New Zealand government has relied on when talking up the benefits and playing down the costs.

    “They have been coy about who has done this work, especially the projections of $2.7b benefits for the economy, and stalled on Official Information Act requests to release them, despite the High Court’s rebuke last month,” Jane Kelsey said. …

    Okay, I’m assuming she suspects that the same modeling that was thrown at the TTIP was thrown at the TPPA. A reasonable suggestion given that these agreements essentially mirror one another and are negotiated by the same charlatans and arse-holes.

    When TTIP data was thrown through a fairly well respected UN model, (I commented previously with links etc) all the merest of positives (awfully like the TPPA claims) turned into screaming negatives. No country ‘won’ gains from the deal. Only the US managed to salvage a mixed bag of consequences. And all those negatives – for states and workers and smaller companies – translated as big positives for the largest of corporations and the financial sector.

  17. Michael 17
    6 November 2015 at 11:09 am

    I wonder if it will pass US Congress.

    Hillary Clinton has come out against it, and much of the Democratic party is supporting her for the Presidency. If they’re not supporting her, they’re supporting Bernie Sanders, who is also against it. So that could influence how Democrats vote.

    And with the Republicans so disoriented, with some opposed to free trade and some simply opposed to anything Obama does, this could face roadblocks in Congress.

  18. JP up North 18
    6 November 2015 at 11:34 am

    Much as I dislike the guy…………. at least Professor Jane Kelsey is getting the airtime to vocalize for the opposition to this toxic “agreement”

    http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/scrutiny-of-tppa-details-to-begin-2015110605#axzz3qetZZGVN

    • Michael 19.1
      6 November 2015 at 12:46 pm

      Looks like it has an exclusion for the Treaty of Waitangi. many of the links don’t work though

  20. Grim 20
    6 November 2015 at 12:12 pm

    just the one letter regarding nz… good on ya Tim, was this the only issue that required clarification?

    https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/TPP-Final-Text-US-NZ-Letter-Exchange-on-Distinctive-Products.pdf

  21. Grim 21
    6 November 2015 at 1:32 pm

    Treaty of Waitangi clause basically allows NZ to address claims so long as they don’t interfere with foreign entities making a profit,

    Article
    29.6: Treaty of Waitangi
    https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/TPP-Final-Text-Exceptions-and-General-Provisions.pdf

    • One Anonymous Bloke 21.1
      6 November 2015 at 1:42 pm

      Please quote the text directly and demonstrate how it means that.

      • Tracey 21.1.1
        6 November 2015 at 4:01 pm

        Article 29.6: Treaty of Waitangi
        1. Provided that such measures are not used as a means of arbitrary or unjustified
        discrimination against persons of the other Parties or as a disguised restriction on trade in
        goods, trade in services and investment, nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the
        adoption by New Zealand of measures it deems necessary to accord more favourable
        treatment to Maori in respect of matters covered by this Agreement, including in fulfilment of
        its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.
        2. The Parties agree that the interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, including as to the
        nature of the rights and obligations arising under it, shall not be subject to the dispute
        settlement provisions of this Agreement. Chapter 28 (Dispute Settlement) shall otherwise
        apply to this Article. A panel established under Article 28.7 (Establishment of a Panel) may
        be requested to determine only whether any measure referred to in paragraph 1 is inconsistent
        with a Party’s rights under this Agreement

        • Tracey 21.1.1.1
          6 November 2015 at 4:02 pm

          Who decides what a “disguised” restriction on trade is? Cue the dispute resolution process…

      • Matthew Hooton 21.1.2
        6 November 2015 at 9:46 pm

        It doesn’t mean that at all.

    • Ross 22.1
      6 November 2015 at 6:37 pm

      Hooton should stick to what he does best – smearing the Left.

    • AmaKiwi 22.2
      6 November 2015 at 7:52 pm

      Penny Bright

      That link is pay walled (National Business Review, subscribers only).

      Are there any juicy bits you want to tell us about?

  23. AmaKiwi 23
    6 November 2015 at 8:27 pm

    News just out: Little says Labour (caucus) will oppose TPPA because it does not meet their bottom line on foreigners buying NZ houses. “Mr Little said four of the party’s (read: “caucus’s”) other bottom lines had been met.”

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/289068/labour-promises-to-fight-tpp-provision

    So the Labour caucus is having it both ways. They’ve done well with the housing issue so they’ll run with that but ignore everything else in TPPA that is a disaster.

    When the Labour caucus issued the “5 bottom line TPPA issues,” people on The Standard pointed out they were so loosely worded you could drive a truck through them. The caucus drove 4 trucks through but not the fifth. . . yet.

    Little may be speaking for the 30 odd members of the Labour caucus but how many party members does he speak for? Neither I nor my LEC was ever polled or consulted. That’s the Labour caucus’s version of democracy.

    I hope those of you in the Auckland region will join me next Saturday (Nov. 14) at the anti-TPPA rally, Myers Park, 1 pm.

    Are there other rallies on?

  24. AmaKiwi 24
    6 November 2015 at 8:47 pm

    The Herald has a different spin than Radio NZ.

    Hey msm folks, this is not a complicated story to write. What did Andrew Little say? It was a press conference and two news outlets have opposite versions!

    Herald: “But he (Andrew Little) could not say whether Labour would oppose other aspects of the 12-party deal – a deal begun by Phil Goff in 2008 when he was Trade Minister – such as improved tariff schedules. (Radio NZ said the opposite: Little would not oppose anything else in TPPA.)

    He said he would fight “tooth and nail” over what he said was an issue of sovereignty.

    “We will not support anything that takes away the right of New Zealand politicians in our democracy to make laws in the interests of New Zealand,” he told reporters.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11541301