Tag Archives: Fascist

The New Zealand Government Reaches for Total Medical Control

From hatchardreport.com

For millions of years, humans and animals have maintained their health by eating the fruits of the earth.

The necessity and benefits of a broad natural diet are evident from Egyptian skeletal remains from 6000 years ago, which suggest scurvy—a disease resulting from a lack of vitamin C. In 1753 a Scottish surgeon, James Lind demonstrated that scurvy could be treated with citrus fruit. The New Zealand government seems intent on changing history.

Just before Christmas, our Government introduced the Therapeutic Products Bill for its first reading. Public consultation is being rushed through the summer holidays here in the southern hemisphere and closes on February 15th. The Bill contains 423 pages of dense provisions with countless cross references. I am not sure whether any MPs actually read it before voting for its acceptance or whether the public could stand to do so. You can view my video summary of its draconian provisions here.

You might be interested in the kind of nation we will end up inhabiting:

Reverse Patenting

If a Natural Health Product is found to benefit a serious illness (such as lemons which benefit scurvy), according to the Bill it should be classed as a medicine. Consequently, according to the letter of the new law, only doctors will be allowed to prescribe lemons. Joking apart, most foods benefit serious illness. You might think there is no need to pass a law classifying them as medicines, but according to the government you would be wrong.

80% of drugs are in fact derived from the properties of plants. For years pharmaceutical companies have been trying to patent medicinal plants and secure a monopoly of their supply and use. But this effort largely failed in the patent courts. The remedy for pharmaceutical companies is contained in the Bill being introduced by our Labour government. If a plant is used to make a medicine or the molecular structure of any of its compounds is mimicked by a medicine, then the use of the actual plant should be restricted.

For this reason, in 2016, a bevy of well-paid Ministry of Health experts (???) produced an idiotic list of common plants that they envisioned should be restricted. Natural products in this list included cinnamon, eggplant, almond, mustard, tea (yes you did read that correctly), coconut, and many many others. The present Bill (the third attempt over the years to get this past Parliament) sets up the same conditions that prompted the 2016 list of restricted plants. A sort of frenzied desire to control the minutia of individual life driven by a mad instinct that the government always knows best.

More than 50% of NZ citizens use natural products, so you might think their availability should not be controlled by the government. Wrong again. The Bill requires the appointment of a regulator who will decide for us what among what we have eaten for millennia can be sold openly and what should be restricted. The idea that one person can decide for all of us what plants that grow in the earth, can be sold, eaten, or used puts New Zealand in a unique class among tin pot kingdoms. We can imagine as we gather around the family breakfast table a swarm of well-paid government experts with pens and questionnaires hovering close by for a final check.

The situation at the border is very similar. If a herb benefits health, it will be a medicine and therefore cannot be imported except with a permit. Border officials will be very busy examining packages and if they find anything healthy, tossing it in the bin. Am I exaggerating? No. Rauwolfia Serpentina is an Indian herb that reduces blood pressure. Studies such this one published in 2015 show it is a safe and effective treatment for high blood pressure, but it is banned here in New Zealand because some hypertension drugs contain synthetic copies of one of the many alkaloids found in the whole plant—reverse patenting at its best.

Why is the Government Intending to Regulate Natural Health Products?

A rational answer to this question is hard to find. A recent EU study found that natural health products are 45,000 times safer than pharmaceutical drugs. The government, however, apparently believes they are unsafe, but where is the evidence? It doesn’t exist. An imaginary NZ doctor explains to their teenage patient:

“Years ago, before you were born, dearly beloved, a person whose name is lost in the mists of time might have felt a little off colour after taking a vitamin tablet and then recovered quickly. Ever since then, the New Zealand government has quite rightly been very suspicious of vitamins and plants grown in soil. So they are introducing a new and very honest law for us all.” or words to that effect.

There are many continuous traditions of natural approaches to health that have been followed by cultures on every continent for thousands of years and still are. There are more modern ones too that have attracted followers guided by trained practitioners. These include Indian Ayurveda, Chinese medicine, Chiropractic, Homeopathy, etc. The idea that a regulator who is unfamiliar with these traditions should control their practice and availability is inherently flawed.

This Bill represents an attempt to impose a modern medical/pharmaceutical straight jacket on the process of medical choice. A straight jacket that will no doubt be administered by people who are unfamiliar with and even opposed to natural medicine. The apparent intention is to drive people towards pharmaceutical-based medicine. It is worth noting that modern medical misadventure and misprescription is the third leading cause of death—hardly a direction that deserves a monopoly.

The logic of insisting on total government control of medical choice escapes me. It fits with a perspective that has been steadily growing throughout the pandemic: the government is seeking to control every aspect of life and impose a kind of uniformity on the nation. This originates from a distorted one size fits all view of reality. Diversity is actually a great source of progress and happiness, not something to be stamped out—a discredited communistic perspective.

It is rather curious that for two years the government has been denying there is any connection between serious illness and mRNA vaccination despite tens of thousands of instances of illness proximate to inoculation and studies showing a statistical connection, as well as plausible biomolecular mechanisms. In contrast, on account of a very, very small handful of unproven historical complaints about natural health products, despite widespread safe use, they wish to control what we eat and what health choices we can make.

Whichever side of the vaccine debate you are on, it should be clear that the government cannot have it both ways. They can’t apply different and incompatible logic as it suits their agenda. All the more curious when many vaccine injured and long Covid sufferers are relying on natural health products to help get them through conditions which many of our medical professionals deny exist.

Last night I spoke to a medical doctor who described how his comments on the benefits of Vitamin C and D have been censored by his colleagues and officials. No surprise really, doctors only spend an hour or two learning about the principles of nutrition during the entire course of their long training. One of his colleagues told him the only benefit of vitamins is to change the colour of urine. That just about says it all. James Lind, who found that lemons cure scurvy, must be turning in his grave.

There is in fact no reasonable rationale for introducing restrictions on Natural Health Products, they are not harming anyone and studies show that many of them have significant benefits for health. The introduction of the new law will cost a lot and it will be paid for by financial levies on manufacturers, importers, suppliers, practitioners, and retailers. A single company selling 300 products, each making two health claims, will be liable for as much as $3 million in government charges. Ultimately these costs will be passed onto the public making natural health products unaffordable.

What the Bill Doesn’t Do

Gradually over the last few years, synthetic flavours and additives have been turning up in processed supermarket items. If you are buying vanilla ice cream, it is now usually labelled as containing natural vanilla flavour. This is not in fact made from natural vanilla beans, it is a synthetic flavour. The use of the term “natural” is intended to disguise this fact. In 2016 our Ministry of Health approved over 3,000 synthetic ingredients, many of them without safety testing. The Therapeutic Products Bill will do nothing to correct the sleight of hand that is describing synthetic additives with an unknown safety profile as ‘natural’. I discuss many of the ways synthetic additives are affecting health in my book Your DNA Diet.

Nor will the Bill encourage the distribution of information about natural approaches to health that studies show are very beneficial in controlling common serious health conditions. Advice for example about diet, exercise, and the curbing of unhealthy habits such as smoking, excessive drinking, or ultra processed foods. Changes in lifestyle can be very influential in reducing cardiac problems as this BBC interview reports. Many other serious health condition outcomes could be improved in this way including cancer, obesity, diabetes, blood pressure, etc.

If the government wishes to encourage improvements in health and longevity, it would do well to launch a public education programme about natural health products and approaches rather than seek to limit their use.

What You Can Do

If we wish to be able to continue to freely choose natural health options, herbal medicines and supplements without government interference, we will need to speak up. Go to this link to make a submission before February 15th. Write to your MP and complain that the appointment of a regulator amounts to an open ended blank cheque to control the sale and use of products used by more than 50% of our population without fully specifying the principles he should use. Moreover, it will put many NZ businesses out of action. I could say a lot more but now is the time for all of us to have a go and hold up our hands. If we don’t, we will only have ourselves to blame. Given the short submission time available, we have to take a scattershot approach, contact as many people as you can and explain how this is going to seriously affect their health options now and down the line.

Press release Therapeutic Products Bill introduced.
The Therapeutic Products Bill
Related Documents and Downloads


Guy Hatchard, Ph.D., was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID, a food testing and certification company (now known as FoodChain ID).

Guy is the author of Your DNA Diet: Leveraging the Power of Consciousness To Heal Ourselves and Our World. An Ayurvedic Blueprint For Health and Wellness.

Image by endri yana yana from Pixabay
and OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay

Is The Globalist “Reset” Failing? The Elites May Have Overplayed Their Hand

By Brandon Smith | Alt-MArket

I have been writing about the threats of globalism and the “reset” for many years now, and I have noted for some time two separate quandaries; one affecting the liberty movement and the other affecting the globalists:

1) First, criminals tend to brag about their crimes when they think that it’s too late for anyone to do anything about them. I predicted the globalists would be very open in revealing their agenda the moment they believed themselves “untouchable”. For the freedom loving public this suggests that in 2020 going into 2021 that the elites must think there is nothing that can be done to stop the machine; they are so blatant in their calls for the global “reset”, a cashless society, totalitarian lockdowns and a surveillance state that no one in their right mind can claim these notions are “conspiracy theory” anymore.

The fact is, the “conspiracy theorists” were RIGHT ALL ALONG, and now there is nothing anyone can say about it.

READ MORE

LINK: https://themadtruther.com/2020/12/10/is-the-globalist-reset-failing-the-elites-may-have-overplayed-their-hand/

Image by jacqueline macou from Pixabay

Global Govt aka Agenda 21/30 in NZ & how to resist it! – Rosa Koire with Vinny Eastwood

Rosa Koire offers advice for action to resist the global plan for world government known as Agenda 21 (now 2030). Advice also included in her book Behind the Green Mask. It is not conspiracy folks. Get involved. See our Agenda 21/30 in NZ page. EWR

Vinny Eastwood 7.65K subscribers Call in to skype: https://join.skype.com/LWL9bhtcel5o Sponsored by Billy Te Kahika (TK) The New Zealand Public Party NZPP Online: https://www.nzpublicparty.org.nz/ Sign up here: https://www.nzpublicparty.org.nz/nzpp… Subscribe to the NZPP Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLAZ… Like NZPP on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NewZealandPu… Follow NZPP on Twitter: https://twitter.com/NZPP_Official YOU CAN ALSO HELP BY SHARING! LIKING! COMMENTING! SUBSCRIBING & CLICKING THE LITTLE BELL FOR NOTIFICATIONS! The Vinny Eastwood Show, Helping The Truth Be Heard Since 2008! SUPPORT: http://www.patreon.com/vinnyeastwood DONATE Drop-down Paypal buttons at: http://www.thevinnyeastwoodshow.com KIWIBANK: VMAN COMPANIES LIMITED 38-9010-0455296-00 The Vinny Eastwood Show Official Website: http://www.thevinnyeastwoodshow.com/ Official Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/c/vinnyeastwoodnz Backup Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/vinnyeastwood Official Twitter: http://twitter.com/guerillamedia Official Facebook Group: http://www.facebook.com/groups/141053… Official Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/VinnyEastwood… Official LBRY Channel: https://lbry.tv/@VinnyEastwood:0 Official Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/vinn… Vinny & The Vendettas Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/vinnyandthev… Web: https://www.thevinnyeastwoodshow.com/… Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCx9T… Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/user-815491437 Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/vinnyandtheve… American Freedom Radio Official Website: http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/ Official Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCM2y… Official Twitter: https://twitter.com/AFRadioTV Official Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/95279… Official Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/americanfree…

The implications for NZ of the globalist agenda aka Agenda 21 now 2030

A comprehensive in depth coverage of this UN Agenda that’s been consigned by many to the conspiracy basket. If you hear ‘conspiracy’ if nothing else research it for yourself because this term is the convenient cover up go-to. This site is very well documented. I’ve not cited their articles mainly because it is difficult to link to specific articles. EWR


United Nations, John Key’s New Zealand Cycle Way And Fascist Globalist Government In New Zealand – Agenda 21

“The vast majority of New Zealanders and the world in general are so distracted by day to day busy-ness, reality television and sports that most are oblivious to the socialism creeping in at the local level through Agenda 21.

Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources.

This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level. ”

– excerpt, UN Agenda 21

New Zealanders need to know that although the information presented and documents revealed are mostly originating from the United States, this is a GLOBAL plan that is already starting to be implemented here in NZ. Hamilton City has been chosen as an experimental model city for the Agenda 21 program. RushFM.com

READ MORE:

http://www.cwakeupkiwi.com/agenda-21-new-zealand.shtml

Photo Credit: pixabay.com (with wording added)

What you need to know about the ‘new’ & still secret TPPA that isn’t new & doesn’t bode well for Maori, or anybody else really except of course the corporations

Ah… this is good for you but we can’t tell you how good because it’s all been negotiated in secret and we aren’t allowed to tell you what it says but trust us Kiwis … it’s good for you … Tui anyone?

 

12417586_836629499776564_6975834990288359606_n

Posted by Jenese James

This is a trade deal NZ should NOT SIGN – The TPPA is a corporate passport to exploit the natural wealth of a nation by ‘legally’ robbing its citizens and the environment of that natural wealth

I want to point out the reason why so many politicians promise this and that before they get elected but once in power reneg on that promise – its because of the T&C of various trade deals done through membership of various organisations often in secret – to give an example …”…..Trade Minister David Parker says NZ First’s policy of taxing bottled water exports would breach various international agreements because it is discriminatory. But there is a much bigger risk that foreign investors could threaten to bring an ISDS dispute if moves to resolve water claims affect their commercial interests….”

here is another example

“…….The new government is rushing through changes to the Overseas Investment Act to restrict foreign purchases of residential housing. They admit that the law would breach the TPPA if it was passed after the agreement came into force….”

Its vital to grasp this because this is the key to understanding how policies are now made via these agreements and why voting really doesn’t make much difference once deals are done and always these deals are not done in public view but behind closed doors in secret as this trade deal reveals it – the secrecy behind it is tantamount to a betrayal of the people because it will allow corporations to steal the wealth of the people of the nation for private profit,

example … “…….The separation of cutting rights from the land was a device used by the Labour government in 1988 to allow corporatisation of the forests and separation of the land from the trees so the forests could be privatised…..”  …. this was the Roger Douglas’ cabinet.

Another example …  “…Labour and NZ First want to restore the right of NZ, and Maori, ownership of the forests. They have to change the foreign investment law before the TPPA comes into force because they can’t do so afterwards…..”…

so when you protest you are protesting against a much bigger force than you realize – politicians’ hands are tied once deals are signed.

Read it all below

27541044_10213377763015840_6200269177576196284_n

This is about the TTPA and Te Tiriti o Waitangi..

Written By Jane Kelsey

The state of play with TPPA

Ø The original Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement was signed by the 12 negotiating parties in Auckland on 4 February 2016, in the face of a massive protest led by tangata whenua.

Ø Japan and NZ completed their domestic processes to ratify (adopt) the original agreement during 2016.

Ø In January 2017 US President Trump withdrew the US’s participation from the TPPA.

Ø The 11 remaining countries met 7 times in 2017 to rescue the TPPA minus the US.

Each country tabled a list of provisions in the TPPA that it wanted removed or suspended.

Apparently, NZ under the National government did table a list of requests, but that remains secret.

The new Labour-NZ First government, supported by Greens, only had input into these negotiations at the very end.

Labour asked other TPPA countries to suspend the right of foreign investors to sue the NZ government in offshore tribunals over new laws and policies (investor-state dispute settlement/ISDS), but it failed.

Labour did not seek to make other changes or even suspend other provisions of concern to Maori.

Ø In December 2017 in Vietnam, the TPPA-11 agreed to suspend 20 items from the original text, pending the US’s re-entry; 4 matters remained to be finalized.

Ø In January 2018 in Tokyo the TPPA 11 announced a new deal, one year to the day from Trump’s withdrawal.

Ø Canada insisted that it needed changes to protect its culture sector. Reports say it also achieved changes on automobiles, although that was not on the list. These were done through side letters that remain secret.

Ø The TPPA-11 will contain the entire old agreement. 22 of the 1000+ original provisions have been suspended, pending US re-entry, but they have not been removed.

Ø The TPPA has been rebranded the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement on Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP or TPPA-11) even though the substance is the same as the old TPPA.

Ø They intend to sign the TPPA-11 agreement in Chile on 8 March 2018.

Ø The text of what they agreed remains secret. Japanese officials say the text will not be released until after it has been signed. The National Opposition, which ran the secretive negotiations, wants the text released.

Ø In January 2018 President Trump said he would consider re-entering the TPPA, but the terms would have to be more favourable to the US than the original agreement.

Ø The process for US re-entry will require consensus. Labour says some suspended items may never be re-activated. But the US domestic political processes mean any US re-entry will inevitably require more benefits to the US, not less.

Ø The TPPA-11 will reportedly come into force after 6 of the 11 parties have ratified it by completing their domestic processes. Again, the actual text of this provision has not been released.

The new government and the TPPA

Ø Labour, New Zealand First and the Greens all wrote dissents to the majority select committee report on the TPPA and said they would not support its ratification.

Ø Labour said the economic modelling was flawed and there must be a robust cost-benefit analysis that includes impacts on jobs and on distribution, as well as a health impact assessment. Neither report has been done for the TPPA-11.

Ø Labour now claims the new TPPA-11 meets Labour’s 5 pre-conditions for change, but it does not: it provides market access for exporters (but it has no new economic analysis of net costs and benefits); it protects the Pharmac model for buying medicines (but the provisions are suspended not removed); the Treaty of Waitangi, the sovereign right to regulate and restrictions on foreign ownership of property are all protected (which they are not, see below).

Ø Winston Peters says the TPPA-11 is a very different deal from the one NZ First opposed and they will now support it. That is not true. The ISDS provisions and core protections for foreign investors that NZ First so staunchly opposed remain the same and have not even been suspended.

Ø New Zealand’s ratification of the TPPA-11 requires another round of submissions to the parliamentary select committee on which National has 4 of the 8 members, including the chair and deputy chair.

Ø If legislation is needed to implement the agreement, National has said it will vote with Labour and NZ First. The Greens remain opposed.

Ø So the parliamentary process is a foregone conclusion.

MAORI A

The Treaty of Waitangi Exception

The Treaty of Waitangi exception in the TPPA is a copy of one that was drafted in 2000 for the Singapore free trade agreement (FTA).

The same exception has been rolled over in agreements since then, without any consultation with Māori, even though today’s agreements impose much greater restrictions on what governments can do.

Prime Minister Ardern says NZ ‘has an exemption that says it is always able to legislate and act to protect its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi and that can’t be challenged by other nations’. That is not true.

Ø The Waitangi Tribunal in the TPPA claim (Wai 2522) said the Treaty exception ‘may not encompass the full extent of the Treaty relationship’ because it only covers Crown actions that give preferences to Māori, not laws or policies that apply generally but are at least partly for Treaty compliance (water, mining, fisheries).

Ø The PM said the Tribunal found the ‘exemption provides protections for the Treaty’. That is also not true. The Tribunal found no breach of Treaty principles because the exception was ‘likely’ to offer a ‘reasonable degree’ of protection for Māori. But it did not accept the Crown’s claim that ‘nothing in the TPPA will prevent the Crown from meeting its Treaty obligations to Māori’.

Ø The Tribunal was not convinced that the exception protects Crown actions from a dispute by a foreign investor, for example on water or mining.

Ø The Wai 2522 claimants made proposals for more effective protection. These have been ignored. There has been no consultation on any stronger protection.

Ø The wording of the exception hasn’t changed in other negotiations since the TPPA. Officials say that they can’t change the wording because they tell other countries they must have this wording because it’s in all NZ’s agreements. New wording would open the text for negotiation.

Ø But New Zealand got additional new wording on UPOV 1991 at the last minute in the TPPA (see below), so it’s not true the Crown can’t demand and win different wording.

Ø Labour seems to be accepting the Crown’s advice and accepting an ‘imperfect’ Treaty protection as a trade-off for other commercial benefits it sees in these deals.

The Waitangi Tribunal claim is ongoing

Ø The Waitangi Tribunal granted urgency to the TPPA (Wai-2522) claim, but limited its scope to whether the wording in the Treaty exception provided effective protection for Māori interests. It didn’t address other parts of the claim (eg water, mining, health).

Ø The Tribunal’s time for preparing its report was cut back because the National government pushed through the legislation to implement the TPPA; once the Bill was introduced the Tribunal had no jurisdiction.

Ø The Tribunal found there was a reasonable level of active protection in the Treaty exception, but suggested there should be consultation on better protection, and it kept oversight of the UPOV 1991 issue (below).

Ø The Crown wants the Tribunal process terminated. The claimants point to a lack of good faith consultation over TPPA-11 negotiations since the Tribunal’s report and issues not addressed in the urgent hearing remain.

Ø On 30 January 2018 the Tribunal asked the parties (basically the Crown) to say by mid-February (a) when the text of the new agreement would be available, (b) what its effect would be on the Crown’s engagement with Maori on the Plant Varieties regime and adopting UPOV 1991, (c) what issues in the TPPA claim remain live, and (d) ‘when would be the appropriate time for the Tribunal to commence inquiry into the remaining substantive claims that have been filed with respect of the TPPA?

WAI 262 and the UPOV 1991 convention

Ø The TPPA required NZ to adopt the UPOV 1991 Convention that creates rights to claim intellectual property rights on plant varieties, which Wai 262 report and the Cabinet have recognized is inconsistent with te Tiriti.

Ø Legal arguments from the Wai-2522 claimants showed the Treaty exception would not protect a Crown decision not to adopt UPOV 1991, because the decision only applies to a ‘preference’ to Maori. Not adopting UPOV 1991 is not a preference to Maori.

Ø The Crown convinced the other TPPA countries to adopt an annex that allows NZ to either adopt UPOV 1991 or pass a domestic law equivalent to UPOV 1991 that complies with te Tiriti. But it has to do one or the other within 3 years of the TPPA coming into force.

Ø That obligation hasn’t changed in the TPPA-11. National and Labour didn’t try to have it suspended.

Ø The Waitangi Tribunal has retained oversight of this matter and is actively monitoring it.

Ø The claimants say MBIE’s consultation process is unacceptable and have set in train their own process for expert advice and consultation.

Foreign investors’ rights

Ø The TPPA (and earlier NZ agreements) allows foreign investors from the countries involved to challenge laws, policies and decisions of a NZ government in controversial ad hoc offshore investment tribunals (known as investor-state dispute settlement or ISDS). An ISDS tribunal can award massive damages against a government for breaching special protections the agreements give to foreign investors.
PM Ardern has called ISDS a ‘dog’.

Ø The new government tried to protect NZ from ISDS in the TPPA-11, but failed.

Ø Australia signed a side-letter with NZ not to allow their investors to use ISDS against each other. But that side-letter was in the original TPPA and in other agreements. It’s not new to Labour.

Ø The new government says some other countries will sign a similar side letter, but won’t say who. Unless all the other ten countries sign side-letters, they don’t protect NZ from the risk of ISDS disputes.

Ø A provision that allowed investors to use ISDS to enforce infrastructure contracts has been suspended (not removed); but that is marginal and doesn’t change the TPPA’s special protections to foreign investors or the ISDS process through which they can enforce them.

Ø The Treaty of Waitangi exception is unlikely to protect NZ from an ISDS case over new laws to promote compliance with te Titiri.

Ø The Waitangi Tribunal noted ‘uncertainty about the extent to which ISDS may have a chilling effect on the Crown’s willingness or ability to meet particular Treaty obligations in the future or to adopt or pursue otherwise Treaty-consistent measures.’(p.50

Ø The government points to other protections for public policy measures, but those protections don’t apply to the main rules that investors rely on in ISDS disputes.

Ø The new government has instructed officials to oppose ISDS in future agreements, which is a positive move. But that doesn’t mean it will walk away if other parties insist on it. Officials are likely to advise that any new market access for agriculture is an acceptable trade-off.

Water

Ø Trade Minister David Parker says NZ First’s policy of taxing bottled water exports would breach various international agreements because it is discriminatory. But there is a much bigger risk that foreign investors could threaten to bring an ISDS dispute if moves to resolve water claims affect their commercial interests.

Ø NZ has protected the right to adopt discriminatory measures in the TPPA-11 ‘with respect to water, including the allocation, collection, treatment and distribution of drinking water’. But it says: ‘This reservation does not apply to the wholesale trade and retail of bottled mineral, aerated and natural water.’

Ø That reservation of the right to regulate on water does not apply to the main rules that investors rely on when they bring ISDS disputes against governments.

Ø The Treaty of Waitangi exception would not stop investors challenging such measures.

Ø There is a serious risk that the government would back away from a proposed solution to Māori rights over water if MFAT or an investor from a TPPA country, says the solution would breach NZ’s obligations.

Land and forestry

Ø The new government is rushing through changes to the Overseas Investment Act to restrict foreign purchases of residential housing. They admit that the law would breach the TPPA if it was passed after the agreement came into force.

Ø In January 2018 the government also sought consultation with Maori over proposals to redefine sensitive land under the Overseas Investment Act to include forestry cutting rights.

Ø The separation of cutting rights from the land was a device used by the Labour government in 1988 to allow corporatisation of the forests and separation of the land from the trees so the forests could be privatised.

Ø Labour and NZ First want to restore the right of NZ, and Maori, ownership of the forests. They have to change the foreign investment law before the TPPA comes into force, because they can’t do so afterwards.

Ø The TPPA only allows the government to keep the categories that are subject to foreign investment vetting which exists when the TPPA comes into force.

Ø The TPPA text says the vetting applies to ‘sensitive land’. If the government wants to implement its election policy, it has to rush through these changes to the law.

Ø But if the TPPA enters into force the government won’t be able to change the investment law to address other failed treaty settlements, such as fisheries quotas, or policies like carbon credits for forests.

Ø Even if changes are made to allow restrictions on future foreign investors, any existing investors from TPPA countries could still bring an ISDS dispute claiming their rights have been breached by the new laws because they can’t get as much for selling their assets as they had expected.

‘Consultation’ and tino rangatiratanga

Claimants in Te Paparahi o te Raki (Wai 1040) have challenged the Crown’s right to negotiate international treaties without the full and equal participation of nga iwi me nga hapu.

Ø The original TPPA was negotiated in total secrecy, aside from leaks. So were the meetings after the US withdrew. National was not interested in genuine consultation with anyone, let alone recognising te tino rangatiratanga o nga iwi me nga hapu. The same secrecy continues under the new government.

Ø The Waitangi Tribunal advised the Crown to consult with Māori to make the Treaty of Waitangi exception stronger. That hasn’t happened.

Labour has kept the same exception. Labour held meetings in various cities in early December and January. But this is not a good faith dialogue: they say the TPPA-11 is the best deal they can get, no further changes can be made, and they are prepared to sign it. The ‘consultation’ can’t change anything. That’s not a Treaty partnership.

The new government says it wants to develop a ‘new and inclusive trade agenda’ that makes trade and investment work for Māori, small business, women, and address climate change, environment and regional development.

That sounds positive. But the examples it gives are clip-ons to existing agreements that don’t address, let alone override, the problems the agreements create. And they are usually unenforceable.

Labour and NZ First’s positions on TPPA and te Tiriti show that it’s businesses as usual for the Crown.

They will try to shut down the Waitangi Tribunal process, while they run consultations around the motu (eg Wellington, 12 February) to promote an agreement the majority of parliamentary parties say they will support.

Other processes to advance Titiri-based continue over UPOV 1991.

Public meetings will be held in February in

Auckland on 12th,
Wellington on 14th,
Nelson on 20th,
Christchurch on 21st
and Dunedin on 22nd.

The arguments being used to promote the agreement don’t stack up for Maori or for Aotearoa/New Zealand.

The parties that make up new government promised change. If they are going to deliver, their positions on TPPA have to change.

Professor Jane Kelsey, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland, 1 February 2018
Prof Jane Kelsey
Faculty of Law
The University of Auckland
New Zealand
J.kelsey@auckland.ac.nz

 

Click HERE for further details of the meetings