Will Labour Endorse the TPPA?

64 comments on “Will Labour Endorse the TPPA? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. barry 1

   7 May 2016 at 11:45 am

   But will Labour commit to reversing any enabling legislation?
   • The Fairy Godmother 1.1

     7 May 2016 at 12:21 pm

     I guess that will depend on the consequences and how much the public are prepared to accept them. For instance would we be prepared to hunker down and accept the sort of trade embargo that Cuba has? I wonder what our TPPA partners could do to us in retaliation if we walked away? And can you imagine the media outcry about the government being to blame for it.
     • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1

       7 May 2016 at 12:41 pm

       For instance would we be prepared to hunker down and accept the sort of trade embargo that Cuba has?

       We actually have the resources to continue a good living standard without trade. In fact, as far as I can make out, trade is actually preventing us from developing those resources and the full capabilities that we have available to us.

       I wonder what our TPPA partners could do to us in retaliation if we walked away?

       Not a hell of a lot really considering that we do have all those resources. In fact, they probably want those resources and we shouldn’t be letting them have them as doing so makes us poorer. The real economy really is a zero sum game.

       And can you imagine the media outcry about the government being to blame for it.

       Yes, the government will be to blame for making us a better society.
       • McFlock 1.1.1.1

         7 May 2016 at 2:47 pm

         two points:

         Firstly, a lot of NZers will still be pissed that they can’t buy a new iphone or whatever. Unless you’re planning on ditching democracy alongside becoming self sufficient, that sort of thing will be an issue.

         Secondly, if we’re short of one essential resource like rare earths for electronics or fertiliser or something, your plan collapses because we’d still be under embargo.
         • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1.1

           7 May 2016 at 5:04 pm

           1. Possibly but then it would actually be the other countries making that happen not the government and the government will be making the factories to make them. Ideally, they should already be making those factories. Labour and the rest of the opposition would do well to have a plan to actually do so.

           2. We’re not. Sure, there’d be a lot of work to extract and process them and then put them into the devices but we do have them.

           Despite their name, the REE are in fact not especially rare. Each is more common in the earth’s crust than silver, gold or platinum, while cerium, yttrium, neodymium and lanthanum are more common than lead.

           Hell, that Waihi open cast gold mine probably has them as a by-product.

           This is what I mean when I say that we don’t develop our economy. We should be extracting this stuff, processing it and then producing high tech products with them. As things go what will happen is that the rest of the world will run out for some reason or another and then they will be extracted simply to be sold offshore. Exactly what’s happening with a growing amount of our iron sands.

           And when that happens we’ll continue with low paid, low skill jobs.
           • McFlock 1.1.1.1.1.1

             7 May 2016 at 5:53 pm

             1: so people will have their desire for iphones satiated by iphone knockoffs?

             2: ok, so REEs are fine. Phosphates for fertilisers? That shit that goes into concrete? Rubber? Rubidium crystals for lasers of a particularly useful wavelength? Cobalt? Like I say, if we’re running short of one critical thing, then we need international trade.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               7 May 2016 at 7:24 pm

               Phosphates for fertilisers?

               http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11168130

               Chatham Rock Phosphate has been granted a 20-year mining permit to extract phosphate nodules from an 820 square kilometre area of the Chatham Rise, the first key step in its approvals to strip the sea floor of the fertiliser chemical.

               That shit that goes into concrete?

               https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete

               It is widely acknowledged that Roman concrete is the most durable type of cement of its kind due to its use of volcanic ash.

               Rubidium crystals for lasers of a particularly useful wavelength? Cobalt?

               http://www.oryanresources.co.nz/currentprojects/

               Oryan Ltd has a prospecting permit for minerals within a recognized volcanic andesite deposit in the central North Island. Sampling and testing to identify the minerals has taken place in easily accessible areas within the River and on the large placer plateau. Testing of samples was completed by Genalysis Laboratory Perth, Western Australia, ALS Queensland, Canada and CRL Lower Hutt, Wellington. All samples show a positive result for the following elements:

               Silver(Ag), Cerium(Ce), Chromium(Cr), Copper(Cu), Dysprosium(Dy), Iron(Fe), Erbium(Er), Europium(Eu), Gadolinium(Gd), Holmium(Ho), Lanthanum(La), Lithium(Li), Lutetium(Lu), Magnesium(Mg),Tungstun(W), Manganese(Mn), Molybdenum(Mo), Niobium(Nb), Neodymium(Nd), Nickel(Ni), Praseodymium(Pr), Rubidium(Rb), Scandium(Sc), Samarium(Sm), Terbium(Tb), Titanium(Ti), Thulium(Tm), Vanadium(V), Yttrium(Y), Ytterbium(Yb), Zirconium(Zr), (18 elements mentioned above are collectively known as lanthanides or Rear Earth Elements(REE)); trace amounts of Platinum-Group Elements (PGE) and Gold (Au) have also been identified in most samples. Positive identification of minerals that are associated with noble metals has been observed when viewing through the microscope. Quartz, Beryl, Perodot, Olivine, Chromite, Magnetite,Clinopyroxene are common crystal structure throughout all samples. Other elements have been identified in previous analysis. Samples selected are good examples of the general consistency of alluvial deposits located throughout the river system. Rock samples taken have been consistent with the alluvial samples, all have shown positive results for the elements and minerals. A limited number of samples have been taken from the large placer deposit and has also proven to contain all the elements and minerals. Many rocks show considerable mineralization. Gossans on the placer plateau and around the scarping and erosion are common occurrences. This leads us to believe we have a third mining system because of the irondised deposits are evidence of epithermal systems that lay within the plateau.

               Any other bloody stupid questions?
               • McFlock …

                 7 May 2016 at 10:36 pm

                 Yeah.
                 Had you thought about rubidium before I mentioned it?

                 Because unless you had and had confirmed that the quanitities available would meet all current and future need, the point remains that you’re statement “We actually have the resources to continue a good living standard without trade” is an article of faith.

                 And faith can be wrong. Maybe there’s something that neither of us have thought about which turns out to be critical. Just because you say something doesn’t mean it’s true.
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   7 May 2016 at 11:40 pm

                   I had, as a matter of fact, checked. Did it years ago.

                   But it’s not about ‘ current and all future need’ in the way that you think it is. It’s about living within the resources that we have and trade doesn’t allow that as it sells all the resources we have for worthless money.

                   The only way we can be sustainable is through recycling. Same as Mother Earth.
                   • McFlock …

                     8 May 2016 at 12:11 am

                     with worthless money, which we use to buy other resources that we need more than the resources we sold.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     8 May 2016 at 1:17 am

                     Thus decreasing the ability of both nations to support themselves. And, as you’ve just pointed out, we actually need all those resources.

                     Contrary to what the economists, politicians and RWNJs believe, trade really doesn’t make any more resources available.
                   • McFlock …

                     8 May 2016 at 3:09 pm

                     I disagree, trade helps the humanity, as a whole, use the resources it needs to the best effect. As well as letting NZ turn the resources it has an excess of into resources that we might be a bit short of.

                     Even if NZ were able to be self sufficient (still a big if), what about Japan or Singapore? Or Andorra? Or Croatia? Or are they not our problem?
             • Colonial Viper …

               7 May 2016 at 7:31 pm

               Like I say, if we’re running short of one critical thing, then we need international trade.

               Time we move briskly towards autarky.
     • Gosman 1.1.2

       7 May 2016 at 3:31 pm

       There are no penalties for leaving the TPPA. You just lose the benefits that are set out. But as you lot don’t think there are any benefits then there should be no downside to you.

       Funny you think the US embargo against Cuba actually makes a difference.
       • AmaKiwi 1.1.2.1

         7 May 2016 at 10:15 pm

         The purpose of TPPA is to create a uni-polar world controlled by US corporations. But the world is multi-polar.

         The UN might impose a trade embargo for building nuclear weapons, but not for cancelling a trade agreement. The Europeans are refusing to accept a TPPA style agreement with the US. The Europeans understand this is about the American Empire trying to control their world.

         Is it possible to make a nuclear weapon out of powdered milk?
       • leftie 1.1.2.2

         9 May 2016 at 8:17 pm

         Aside from the spin, what benefits are you speaking of Gosman?
     • Paul Campbell 1.1.3

       8 May 2016 at 12:34 pm

       what a lot of BS – we already have a perfectly good trade deal with China, we can buy almost anything there, and at prices cheaper than the US

       Besides, read the TPPA, there’s a perfectly good way to leave it without being subject to an embargo

       You are crying wolf, arguing from little real-world knowledge, you need to get out more
2. Sigh 2

   7 May 2016 at 11:50 am

   This has been on Labour’s website for months:
   http://www.labour.org.nz/tppa
3. ianmac 3

   7 May 2016 at 12:17 pm

   If Government decided to impose a royalty on exported water they would do so knowing that the country would get sued by water companies for loss of earnings, added costs and loss of future earnings under TPPA.
   So even if they wanted to they would avoid the action for fear of costs. Clever eh!
   • Jenny Kirk 3.1

     7 May 2016 at 1:31 pm

     Well – in answer Barry at 1, and ianmac at 3 – Andrew Little has said quite clearly he’s prepared to take action to change aspects of the TPPA Labour does not agree with.

     Some time a bit earlier this year, he said : “We will continue to oppose and fight those things that cut across New Zealanders’ sovereign rights…we will take on the fight with the other TPPA partners.”
     Stuff, 9 Feb – I can find the link if I have to, but its easily available via google.

     So I think Andrew Little is being consistent on this matter. Labour might be in agreement with free trade, but the TPPA is is not a REAL free trade deal by any means, and Little knows that, and has been consistent in opposing it.
     • Gosman 3.1.1

       7 May 2016 at 3:34 pm

       Then he’s as stupid as Donald Trump is. You can’t unilaterally renegotiate trade agreements.
     • Jenny 3.1.2

       7 May 2016 at 4:12 pm

       “…..the TPPA is is not a REAL free trade deal by any means, and Little knows that, and has been consistent in opposing it.”
       JENNY KIRK

       Radio Live’s Mark Sainsbury interviews Andrew Little about Labour’s support, (or not), of the TPPA.

       http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Labour-wont-pull-out-of-the-TPP—Little/tabid/506/articleID/112603/Default.aspx

       M.S.@03:45 minutes
       “Can I just get something straight from you. You are opposed to us signing it. Does that mean that if you became Prime Minister.., Labour was in power.., you would either, pull out of the treaty if it exists, or refuse to ratify it.” [if it doesn’t]

       A.L.@03:58 minutes
       “Well, um. No.”

       “Well hold on, we signed it long ago, it was a clerical exercise, it was.., it didn’t create the agreement, the agreement was already created.”
       “Secondly, ratification will happen over the next two years, our argument is, [National] has the numbers regardless….,”

       M.S.@04:11 Minutes
       “But, in two years time you could be Prime Minister Andrew Little.”

       A.L.@04:15 minutes
       “And so the question then is; Would we pull out of it, if it was ratified, all the other countries have ratified it….,”

       “We won’t.”

       Pretty clear really.

       If the TPPA hasn’t been ratified when Labour is in government, Labour will ratify it.

       If the TPPA has already been ratified, Labour will not pull out of it.
       • Jenny Kirk 3.1.2.1

         7 May 2016 at 5:10 pm

         Its very easy to only listen to what you want to hear, Jenny @ 3.1.2 Its also easy from the sidelines to shout and carry on, but not so easy when you are actually on the field to do what you would like to do.

         Andrew Little has said all along that Labour won’t ratify the TPPA agreement as it stands – and as National has presented it to Parliament, currently as it stands. This means that Labour will NOT be supporting the legislation the Nats put up to enable this ratification to happen.

         BUT if the TPPA IS ratified before Labour becomes government, then Labour in government will engage with the various (international) parties again to CHANGE those aspects of the TPPA with which it disagrees. He doesn’t think they can pull out of it entirely, but he does think they can change the obnoxious parts of it – going to Court if need be.

         http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/76703408/TPPA-Labour-will-not-pull-out-of-trade-deal-if-Govt-Andrew-Little
         On 9 Feb 2016, Little said if in Government, Labour would fight “tooth and nail” to win changes on aspects of the deal it did not support, such as the prohibition on banning foreign property buyers.
         “We will continue to oppose and fight those things that cut across New Zealanders’ sovereign rights…we will take on the fight with the other TPPA partners”.
         • Jenny 3.1.2.1.1

           7 May 2016 at 10:41 pm

           “Its very easy to only listen to what you want to hear, Jenny @ 3.1.2 Its also easy from the sidelines to shout and carry on, but not so easy when you are actually on the field to do what you would like to do.” JENNY KIRK

           I made no critical comment Jenny, I just transcribed Andrew Little’s words as accurately as I could.

           And it is very clear what he said;

           Labour will ratify the TPPA if it has not been ratified.

           Labour will not leave the TPPA if it has been ratified.

           To your knowledge Jenny, has Labour’s position changed?

           If Labour’s position has changed, since Andrew Little made these comments, then it is all due to the good work of activists like you.

           Good on you.
           • McFlock 3.1.2.1.1.1

             7 May 2016 at 11:06 pm

             Except you only transcribed the bit that suited you.

             Not the bit where he said that if the tppa was already ratified, a lab govt would attmept to renegotiate the objectionable bits of it, such as the sovereignty issues. And you also skipped the bit where he said that Labour would oppose any tpp related legislation that compromised NZs sovereignty.

             so yeah but nah.
             • Jenny …

               12 May 2016 at 12:21 am

               It’s as clear as mud

               McFlock, I am well aware of the added qualifiers. It is why I included the link. So you could judge for yourself. I was not trying to hide them as you seem to infer, (rather ungraciously in my opinion.)

               I did not include them in the text, because I think it needs to be made crystal clear that the Labour leader intends to, at least he did then, to ratify the agreement if it has not been ratified. Or retain it if it had been.

               Has this position been changed?

               I would really like to know.

               I hope so.

               I might add to this, that it took some effort by the interviewer to cut through the waffle to get a straight answer. And it took me some effort to try and transcribe as accurately as possible despite all the evasions, and ignoring all the waffle, Andrew Little’s answer to the question that was asked.

               I mean I could include the whole the whole transcript and you could see for yourself the waffling and hedgeing and attempted evasion of the straight question; Will your government ratify the TPPA, or pull out of it?

               The answer to the first is Yes. The answer to the second is No.

               Do you deny this?

               And I think this is a fair question to ask as the title of this post is; “Will Labour endorse the TPPA?”

               Unless Labour has changed their position since Andrew Little made these comments the answer to the question raised in this post is Yes.
               • McFlock …

                 12 May 2016 at 12:01 pm

                 The “straight” question is a crap question.

                 News flash: Labour is pro-free trade. TPP has free trade components, as well as the sovreignty components.
                 Little doesn’t like the sovreignty components, but Labour likes the free trade bits.

                 So Little’s answer was that Labour’s first step was to try to renegotiate the sovreignty components without losing the free trade components, which is different to “endorsing the TPPA”. It wasn’t waffling or hedging, it was a slightly more complex answer than a binary “everything or nothing”.
   • AmaKiwi 3.2

     7 May 2016 at 10:17 pm

     The Ashburton water is going to China, which is not part of the TPPA.
4. Colonial Viper 4

   7 May 2016 at 1:10 pm

   Ship has sailed on this. Labour could have made hay out of this issue over the last 18 months.

   Labour are fundamentally pro-free trade and pro-free trade deals.
   • Pat 4.1

     7 May 2016 at 1:22 pm

     “Labour are fundamentally pro-free trade and pro-free trade deals.”

     except we know these are neither “trade” nor “free” deals…..think it would be more accurate to say, Labour (since Douglas’ time) see no operating alternative to the current neoliberal philosophy and seek merely to knock off some of the rough edges….events around the world would appear to indicate that is not what the masses want.
     • Colonial Viper 4.1.1

       7 May 2016 at 1:29 pm

       We’re fast heading down a dead end road to planetary crisis and Labour would prefer we kept to the speed limit while doing so.
       • Pat 4.1.1.1

         7 May 2016 at 1:30 pm

         pretty much…..to be honest i don’t think there is the ability or talent within to provide an alternative, but then they are hardly alone in that respect.
         That is not to in anyway promote/endorse the status quo…indeed the direct opposite
       • Gristle 4.1.1.2

         8 May 2016 at 8:26 am

         Good line CV.

         How about extending the basis for objection to the TPP on the basis that it doesn’t cover tax obligations for the opportunities created for all those corporates and individuals in globalised economy.
   • Paul 4.2

     7 May 2016 at 5:24 pm

     The TPP is not a free trade deal.
5. save nz 5

   7 May 2016 at 1:16 pm

   Thank god a clear message. Labour do not endorse TPPA – and it looks like none of the US parties campaigning do either!

   I guess the TPP for the .1%, John Key and Whitney types is starting to falter.
   • Colonial Viper 5.1

     7 May 2016 at 1:31 pm

     Nah mate it ain’t nothing until Goff and Shearer and Little and Robertson publicly and unequivocally come out and say that they will vote against all TPP legislation.
6. weka 6

   7 May 2016 at 2:32 pm

   Link is blank.

   TRP, when you put up guest posts can you phrase state at the top of the post that that’s what it is? I read this post as being written by you.
   • te reo putake 6.1

     7 May 2016 at 8:11 pm

     Link fixed, thanks, weka. Not sure what went wrong with it. I’ve added ‘Guest Post’ to the top of the post.
     • weka 6.1.1

       7 May 2016 at 8:43 pm

       Nice one, thanks.
7. adam 7

   7 May 2016 at 3:46 pm

   Interesting that the word “apparently” was used by Jenny Kirk.

   Is that because like the rest of us, we know labour do a wonderful job in double speak?

   Or was it becasue like many of us, you are dubious that the labour party has really got the spine to actually change tack, and oppose neoliberalism?

   “ For their sake, we should not so lightly enter into an agreement which may exacerbate long-term challenges for our economy, workforce, and society.” This line gave me shivers, and made me think labour will support the deal, because for them being inside the tent is more important. Even if the tent is hell for the people who traditional support them.
   • Colonial Viper 7.1

     7 May 2016 at 4:55 pm

     Here’s the irony. The NATs and others have long said, and very snidely said, that Winston’s voter base is ‘dying out.’

     When it is actually the people who “traditionally support” Labour who are gradually disappearing.

     Once upon a time entire households voted Labour, their grandparents voted Labour, and Mum and Dad raised kids who then went on to vote Labour.

     That simply doesn’t happen any more.

     And that is the disappearing core base of voters that Labour relies upon for the success of its long time strategy of targetting the few percent of middle class swing voters.
8. Jenny Kirk 8

   7 May 2016 at 4:13 pm

   Weka – here’s the link again. Try it from here – http://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-nz/51DBSCH_SCR68965_1/017c7d1eedfaa46cda74da3faa83982cee1ab4d3

   And to Adam – I’m not dubious at all. Labour HAS the spine to change tack under Andrew Little and oppose neoliberalism, and the TPPA.

   The word “apparently” is to reflect the (admittedly remote) possibility that Labour might manage to persuade the Nats to back down on some of the TPPA legislation that they propose,

   Labour ends its minority report by saying the TPPA will have ramifications for generations of New Zealanders. “ For their sake, we should not so lightly enter into an agreement which may exacerbate long-term challenges for our economy, workforce, and society.”

   I don’t see why this last line gives you the shivers, Adam – given that it refers to the potentially hugely adverse ramifications of the TPPA for us, and those going into the future. It should do just the opposite : Labour is saying it CARES about our future generations and does not want to bind them to just oppressive legislation.
   • adam 8.1

     7 May 2016 at 4:38 pm

     Thanks Jenny Kirk, your post was a good read, thanks for posting it.

     I won’t hold my breath personally though, labour have a long way to go to prove to me they will oppose neo-liberalism. But opposing the TTPA would be a good first step in restoring some trust.
     • Colonial Viper 8.1.1

       7 May 2016 at 4:58 pm

       That line gives you the shivers because it demonstrates an opaque Thorndon Bubble mindset trying to wordsmith things which sound one way, while keeping a foot firmly pointing the other way.
   • weka 8.2

     7 May 2016 at 8:44 pm

     Thanks Jenny 🙂
9. Tautoko Mangō Mata 9

   7 May 2016 at 4:39 pm

   Labour has confirmed that it will vote against the TPP legislation the Government will introduce into Parliament next week.

   Finance spokesperson, Grant Robertson, confirmed this to POLITIK last night.
   ……
   While it is enough to persuade Labour not to vote with the Government next week, it is not enough to persuade the TPP’s most persistent critic, Professor Jane Kelsey, that the party is serious in its opposition.

   In a statement, she said: “Labour has said they will vote against ratifying the TPPA ‘as it stands’.

   “But their minority report addresses only two narrow issues: foreclosing the right to ban foreign purchasers of residential housing and the economic modelling.

   “Anything that was critical of previous agreements that Labour negotiated was ignored, including investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), despite clear evidence that is highly problematic.”

   And this underlines the tightrope Labour has been walking — between a large percentage of its supporters on the left and its own history as a trade agreement negotiating Government.

   There is also the need for Labour to connect with middle New Zealand and that means being seen to be at least partly business friendly.
   However, the party may vote for some parts of the legislation when the original Omnibus Bill has to be split into parts during the Parliamentary process.

   http://politik.co.nz/en/content/politics/833/Labour-confirms-it-will-vote-against-TPP-Labour-TPP-Grant-Robertson.htm

   Just some points about embargoes and penalties for leaving TPP.
   1. Remember that NZ has existing FTAs with several TPP members:NZ-Australia CER, NZ-Malaysia FTA, NZ-Singapore CEP, P4 NZ-Brunei -Chile -Singapore, plus FTAs with China, Hong Kong-China and NZ-Thailand CEP.
   2. Remember that the 0.9%increase in GDP by 2030 is the predicted benefit
   3. Remember a loss of 5000-6000 jobs is also predicted

   Outside the tent under our own rule is better than inside the tent under corporate rule. If Labour would campaign on that, I am convinced they would thrive.
   • Tautoko Mangō Mata 9.1

     7 May 2016 at 5:04 pm

     I commend the members of the select committee from the Greens, NZ First and Labour for their thoughtful minor reports which deserve to be widely read.
     link
   • Colonial Viper 9.2

     7 May 2016 at 5:05 pm

     I do not think that Labour will want to leave the fold of the transnational Anglo Institutional Empire. To do so would be to ‘lose credibility’ with the Deep State as an acceptable ‘government in waiting.’

     They cannot see a future where NZ can be an independent regional power helping to bring together the major Pacific players of the 21st Century: China, Russia, USA.
   • Jenny Kirk 9.3

     7 May 2016 at 5:21 pm

     I hate to say it, TTT @ 9, but Jane Kelsey is also only reading what she wants to read into Labour’s minority report when she dismissively says – “But their minority report addresses only two narrow issues: foreclosing the right to ban foreign purchasers of residential housing and the economic modelling.”

     Goodness – the ban on foreign purchasers goes right to the heart of our sovreignty, and the economic modelling is many-faceted and deals with benefits to the country, our trade, farming, jobs, our economy – its not just one “narrow issue” – and Labour has already raised Pharmac, the investor issue, and others as serious matters of concern in the TPPA.
     • Tautoko Mangō Mata 9.3.1

       7 May 2016 at 5:39 pm

       If it goes to the heart of our sovereignty, then why not commit to LEAVING the TPP should it be ratified and should Labour be elected- leave the TPP to re-establish NZ’s sovereignty?
     • Rosemary McDonald 9.3.2

       7 May 2016 at 8:23 pm

       @Jenny Kirk. Well written post and I respect both your work (in many areas) and your optimism.

       But, we doubters have a valid point.

       Nothing Labour has said on the TPPA has been emphatic.

       Ever.

       How many thousands of us marched against the TPPA?

       There is so much that is very wrong with the whole deal that “in its current form” statements don’t allay our very real fears.

       Tweaking the TPPA won’t fix what is intrinsically wrong with it.

       Maybe some definitive and definite statements from Labour might help?
     • Korero Pono 9.3.3

       7 May 2016 at 9:15 pm

       @ Jenny Kirk 9.3 – yet Labour have not come out and said they, if in Government, will either oppose or not ratify the TPPA ! I am reasonably sure that Jane Kelsey has done her homework on this and so if she has concerns about Labour’s position then the rest of us ought to be questioning what exactly that position is.

       When Labour allowed Goff dispensation to support the TPPA, and allowed a pro-TPPA goon on the select committee, then we need to question what that actually means. Labour have sent so many mixed messages on the TPPA, it is difficult to know where they stand. Jenny’s post at 3.1.2 highlights this very issue.

       The TPPA is not in any way shape or form a ‘free trade’ deal and it is not beneficial to New Zealanders – see http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/16-01Capaldo-IzurietaTPP.pdf or any number of the “Expert” papers published on this deal and you quickly realise that Labour’s five bottom lines (are they really bottom lines), do not even begin to address the enormity or the complexity of the issues. If I am going to trust anyone on this, it isn’t Labour and I am inclined to agree with Kelsey’s criticism of Labour when it comes to the TPPA. I will not support a political party that can’t be straight with potential voters, they may be opposed to ratifying it in its current form, but that does not mean they are opposed to ratification full stop! If Labour haven’t learned by now, the reason they are copping so much flak from their usual and fast disappearing voter base is because we are frustrated that Labour continue to play stupid games. They continue, in their arrogance, to believe that we will flock to them to save us from a Nat Government, when in fact, we see that Labour are not much different from the Nats.
       • Jenny Kirk 9.3.3.1

         7 May 2016 at 9:29 pm

         Okay Korero Pono – you, and others, have your doubts. And I have to say Jane Kelsey has always doubted Labour – sometimes not without cause.

         BUT Labour – under Andrew Little – is a very different kettle of fish from previous Labour Oppositions. He’s comes from a totally different background to previous Labour Leaders, and this is starting to show. He has had to pull people from extremely different beliefs to come together for a united cause – and this has not been easy. It has also had its falls-by-the-wayside (Goff is going, Cosgrove is going, Shearer has been shut-up, others will happen – sometimes in a subtle way, sometimes even less obviously).

         Labour’s statement is careful on its minority position on the TPPA. It HAS to be. We’re talking international politics here and a bit of compromise there, and a bit of diplomacy here, and some unyielding on really important matters. Its not a simple case of black and white, its more varying shades of black merging into grey before it becomes clearer.

         I am not going to convince anyone who has made their minds up.

         But I would ask others who are doubtful to stop comparing Labour with the Nats. And start looking for the clues which show you that Labour is a political party that cares about NZ people – and that we’re going back to our roots (originally a political movement supporting low paid workers and unemployed people and helping them).

         This minority statement from Labour on the TPPA is one of those clues.
         • Rosemary McDonald 9.3.3.1.1

           7 May 2016 at 10:00 pm

           Labour may be preferable to National…no…WILL/MUST be better than National, but I don’t trust them.

           What is to stop them almost being definite “we’ll ditch the TPPA” for the next year, then renege once warming the government benches?

           I am looking back over the 15 year history of a particular issue, and Labour’s attitudes and actions in respect to this Human Rights case were way less than acceptable.

           Closer to reprehensible.

           So they are going to have to work a whole lot harder to get my vote.

           I understand that unifying a bunch of egoistic MPs must be like herding cats and Little has his work cut out, but he needs to maybe not say anything until he can say something in such a way that he sounds like he means it.

           And write it down in the manifesto.
10. Nick 10

    7 May 2016 at 6:35 pm

    Hillary Clinton will endorse the TPPA if she gets in. She won’t even blink an eye.
11. whispering kate 11

    7 May 2016 at 8:43 pm

    It seems Japan is getting shitty with the USA and won’t accept amendments or add ons from the US now that the Agreement has been ratified. Also the US itself is struggling to take on board its heartland with the terms etc. The US seems to have taken on the role of the bully boy and are insisting that the signatories accept terms that they, the US are still working on and wanting for themselves even after the signatories have ratified. I don’t think Labour will have a problem insisting on removing the odious terms which obviously will harm this country. We have a right to do this. The Agreement is just a rort and a ploy for power by the US and its Corporates and in an ideal world should be axed.
12. Wayne 12

    8 May 2016 at 7:38 am

    This whole item is a bit odd. The issue is straight forward.

    If TPP is in force Labour will accept it, they will not withdraw and they cannot renegotiate.

    If it is not in force they will try to renegotiate, and may even succeed given that would imply Obama did not get it through on his watch.
    • reason 12.1

      8 May 2016 at 11:54 am

      wayne who I suspect is co-joined to Ansell via the anus should be known by his past deeds ……….. and his trolls opion/advice taken in the context of knowledge about this racist warmonger

      “Then Foreign Affairs spokesperson Wayne Mapp complained that we had questioned US intelligence on WMDs (I bet he feels stupid now) ”

      ” So when Wayne Mapp says he doesn’t want our foreign policy to be subject to a UN veto, what he is really saying is that he wants to wage war in contravention of international law and the UN charter – in other words, he wants us to be a rogue nation”

      http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/search?q=mapp%2Bwar

      Your a bad mapp wayne ………. the only things I’d like to hear you talking about are things you would never talk of honestly, in public……….. I suspect you’d be “up the nixon without a paddle”, just like Key, Collins, Brash and the rest of your rich white trash club brethren would be.

      I suppose I could ask our bad mapp boring stuff ….. like our military ties if any to the gangster nation Indonesia, where mass murderers walk free with impunity ….. any joint exercises/training under your watch waynnne ? http://www.actofkilling.com/

      The trailer to the act of killing shows some REAL number 8 fencing wire ingenuity …. I hope we made some money on that somehow …….NewZealand intellectual property being stolen and all that

      Anyway, waynes wayward opinion on ‘trade deals’ is as honest as a fraudulent Ukrainian carbon credit…. the ones that new zealand under national is presently trying to cheat the world with. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1604/S00398/greens-support-move-to-cancel-fraudulent-carbon-credits.htm

      Mr bad mapp, on his journey taking our country to bad places with him , liked to play ‘hard ball’ in being a divisive ‘anti pc’, racist warmonger ….. for the good of don brash, key, collins etc ………I suspect ” cheating is winning” is tattooed to their scrotum s.

      I say its time to bounce his own hard ball on his own fat head and recollect his past …. for those who do not know it or may have forgotten.

      I hope he posts a lot because there is so much to share about him ….

      Context of a bloodhound : http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2008/11/war-party.html
    • Lanthanide 12.2

      8 May 2016 at 11:54 am

      I’m pretty sure that this is about Labour voting to oppose any enabling legislation that the government may attempt to pass. Which has nothing to do with Obama.
13. Jenny Kirk 13

    8 May 2016 at 8:12 am

    Andrew Little has said that if necessary they WILL renegotiate the obnoxious parts of the TPPA IF it is ratified BEFORE Labour becomes government, Wayne. He’s very clear on that. Said it several times.
    • Wayne 13.1

      8 May 2016 at 9:17 am

      Jenny,
      Andrew Little may well have said that, but he won’t be able to do it. The other states will not allow any one of them to renegotiate, otherwise it would never end. Once the deal is done and ratified it is done.
      The only way it will happen is in the context of a general review of TPP by all the parties which no doubt will occur in a few years.
      • Lanthanide 13.1.1

        8 May 2016 at 11:56 am

        “Andrew Little may well have said that, but he won’t be able to do it.”

        “The only way it will happen is in the context of a general review of TPP by all the parties which no doubt will occur in a few years.”

        So he will, in fact, be able to do it, by your own admission.

        Weird.
14. Paul 14

    8 May 2016 at 4:50 pm

    Trade Minister disappointed at Labour’s TPP vote

    Diddums.

    ‘Trade Minister Todd McClay has expressed disappointment at Labour’s confirmation it will vote against the Trans Pacific Partnership legislation.
    A report on the TPP was last week presented to Parliament after public hearings around the country.
    In its minority report, the Labour Party expressed strong opposition to the TPP, saying the Government had failed to effectively represent the long-term interests of New Zealanders.
    “As it stands, we cannot support the ratification of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement,” the Labour Party said.
    New Zealand had “weakened” its sovereignty for relatively small gains, Labour said.’

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11635635
15. save nz 15

    8 May 2016 at 5:09 pm

    I think when Lawyers start having their own Kangaroo courts under TPP then we need to remember John Doe’s manifesto in the panama papers in particular…

    “But most of all, the legal profession has failed. Democratic governance depends upon responsible individuals throughout the entire system who understand and uphold the law, not who understand and exploit it. On average, lawyers have become so deeply corrupt that it is imperative for major changes in the profession to take place, far beyond the meek proposals already on the table. To start, the term “legal ethics,” upon which codes of conduct and licensure are nominally based, has become an oxymoron. Mossack Fonseca did not work in a vacuum—despite repeated fines and documented regulatory violations, it found allies and clients at major law firms in virtually every nation. If the industry’s shattered economics were not already evidence enough, there is now no denying that lawyers can no longer be permitted to regulate one another. It simply doesn’t work. Those able to pay the most can always find a lawyer to serve their ends, whether that lawyer is at Mossack Fonseca or another firm of which we remain unaware. What about the rest of society?

    The collective impact of these failures has been a complete erosion of ethical standards, ultimately leading to a novel system we still call Capitalism, but which is tantamount to economic slavery. In this system—our system—the slaves are unaware both of their status and of their masters, who exist in a world apart where the intangible shackles are carefully hidden amongst reams of unreachable legalese. The horrific magnitude of detriment to the world should shock us all awake. But when it takes a whistleblower to sound the alarm, it is cause for even greater concern. It signals that democracy’s checks and balances have all failed, that the breakdown is systemic, and that severe instability could be just around the corner. So now is the time for real action, and that starts with asking questions.”

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS