Tag Archives: NZ First

New Zealand First wants quarantine shifted to military facilities, a long-term alternative to lockdowns – totalitarian tip toe?

Totalitarian tip-toe.. (a description used by David Icke of the incremental way the new draconian laws and restrictions are being introduced to us as a society). The ‘new norm’ so to speak, particularly for NZers who are proving to be willing participants. (Guns/protection gone, freedom of movement, speech & so on gone, freedom of choice of medical interventions going fast). And so we have the military now managing our health with strict quarantine now pretty much mandatory, and now the suggestion by Peters that we we be detained in a military facility is IMO ominous indeed. EWR

RELATED: Government boosts Defence staff at managed isolation and quarantine facilities, maritime border

From newshub.co.nz

“New Zealand First wants quarantine shifted to military facilities to reduce costs and is calling for a long-term alternative to lockdowns. 

The political party released its new quarantine policy on Wednesday outlining how it wants to prepare New Zealand for future pandemics, emphasising the need to consider investment in alternative managed isolation facilities. 

“Continuing to shut down Auckland due to COVID-19 breaching quarantine is a risk to community’s health and the wider economy,” the policy says. 

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/08/new-zealand-first-wants-quarantine-shifted-to-military-facilities-long-term-alternative-to-lockdowns.html?fbclid=IwAR1q92t6J7GhMkX02ZrBgYviYmQkEUsuqFep_eTiPZ2QA-OfKyksZUVnAHc

Note in this link, the increase of defense staff at the detention centers (commentaries are now calling them detention rather than quarantine centers … you’re not allowed to leave them until they say so. ‘If it looks like a duck’ etc applies here). Remember, the case for lockdowns, masks, school closures, ‘distancing’ etc is collapsing.

Further related, remember the Katipo exercises by the military just a few years back? We always said then, and were called conspiracy theorists for it, that we were being acclimatized to seeing the military on our streets. Read the article, it’s quite disturbing really. An assault on a NZ citizen occurred it transpires).

How to plunder the New Zealand Economy 101

From Bryan Bruce

How to plunder the New Zealand Economy 101
1.Develop “free “trade deals that allow foreign companies the same access to local resources that New Zealanders enjoy
2.Buy a property that sits above an aquifer and drill for water virtually for free and sell it at a price than is more than we pay for petrol.
3.Perpetuate the myth that “no one owns the water”
4. Makes sure that local and national politicians are elected who either do not have the will to change the economic order or a vested interest in keeping things just the way they are.

A timely legal challenge reported on TV3 Newshub last night ( source of the graphic)

My question for David Parker Trade Minister as well as the Environment Minister – How will the signing of the CPTPP
affect the kind of exploitation of our fresh water resources we are seeing in Christchurch?

 

Image may contain: drink and text

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

A Horowhenua Group has presented 2,300+ signatures to HDC opposing the community housing sale & raise many unanswered questions about this secret deal

Further to our previous article on this topic, this information is quoted with permission from the Facebook page of the Horowhenua District Ratepayers’ and Residents’ Association. It speaks to some of the questions people have been asking in the past few days since the sale of Horowhenua’s community housing, and raises many more. I find it concerning there was only ONE councillor on a publicly excluded council panel evaluating pensioner housing proposals. Read the other concerns they raise.
A
link to the fb page is at the end of the article. Any emphases in the article are mine.
NOTE: further updates on this issue, unless they warrant a further article, will be added as an update at the end of the article at this link.
EnvirowatchHorowhenua

Horowhenua District Council mayor Michael Feyen accepts the petition from one of the organisers Christine Moriarty and petition supporters in council chambers.

“The sale must be halted and HUG will fight to the end to stop this sale from proceeding. Watch this space” Andrea Smyth, spokesperson

A Horowhenua group that presented a petition to district mayor Michael Feyen signed by 2300 in ten days by people objecting to the sale of their dedicated pensioner housing vows to fight on to prevent what they call the stripping out of a significant asset in a questionable land deal.

As well as 115 units spread throughout the district the pensioner housing portfolio also includes one point one hectare of land in Levin and is estimated to be worth in real terms at least $26 million.

The petition was organised by a group against the pensioner housing sale called Horowhenua United Group (HUG) which includes Horowhenua District Ratepayers and Residents Assoc Inc, the MuaUpoko Co-operative Society, Labour Party and NZ First.

Councillor Jo Mason who chairs council’s wellbeing committee, and was the only councillor on a publicly excluded council panel evaluating pensioner housing proposals, was invited to accept the petition too but her only response to HUG was a text that said, “Got your message-will call when I am free.” She never did call back.

HUG spokesperson Andrea Smythe said further action may include legal action to argue in favour of setting up a Trust, instead of selling, one of the options which seventy people who attended a community organised public meeting recently voted in favour of.

Details of the sale of the pensioner housing have been leaking like a sieve ever since land developer and Cr Wayne Bishop emerged from a publicly excluded council meeting on the sale last Tuesday to announce the pensioner housing asset had been sold.

Since then questions and speculations have been running rife including that a community housing provider will lease the land and the land has been sold separately. But the most damaging claim of all is that certain unnamed council officers and councillors have set up a company to buy the land.

Ms Smythe, “We have a right to know whether this is true and if it is true is it even legal? Can council officers and councillors set up a company arrangement to benefit financially and personally from the sale of a significant publicly owned asset?

“Can the title to an asset we have been told by chief executive David Clapperton all along will be bought by a stage one community housing provider be split up like this? If this is all true we are feeling greatly deceived by our own council especially if it eventuates that some council officers and councillors will be financially benefiting by millions of dollars from the sale.

“Especially when shareholders are very angry about the proposed sale and furthermore have been denied access to the details of the sale agreement partly by the very same council officers and councillors who are said to be involved in setting up a business structure to buy the land the pensioner housing is built on.

Also, if this is all true [and it’s bad enough if it is] does this therefore questionable sale still fall within the mandate of being considered a community housing provider in a legal and statutory sense if the community provider leases the land and doesn’t own it?”

“Community housing providers are eligible for tax and Government financial benefits but will the landowners, if they are a separate entity, also be eligible for Government discounts? Or will the new landowners charge leases based on indirectly financially benefiting from Government tax and other financial incentives provided by the Government to the community housing provider?

“All this does is raise further concerns about what kind of deal has been done and whether it is true the land will be leased to a community housing provider already publicly named as the Sisters of Compassion.

“We have grave concerns whether this sale agreement conforms with expected practice in the provision of community housing services. What would happen if the leases go up and then these increases are passed on to the tenants? How would that be fulfilling the community housing contract?

“And if it is true the Sisters of Compassion will be leasing the land to provide the community housing services how long will the terms of the lease be? Is this a thinly disguised attempt to landbank a valuable housing portfolio so the landowners can make a profit at a later date? Who is the person or company who are buying a significant amount of land locally if the land is being sold as a separate entity? Do the new owners include council representatives?

“Perhaps the plan is to landbank the asset until further down the legislative track when land developers may be able to register as community housing providers to secure financial benefits through tax and other Government incentives. There are far more questions than answers though surrounding this significant ratepayer and resident asset that houses our most vulnerable elderly residents which makes this sale untenable. And we want answers to these serious concerns,” she said.

If attempts at stopping the sale fails HUG would also like to know what plans council has for the money from the sale of the pensioner housing portfolio as, “I am sure the ratepayers and residents would like to know whether there is any profits from the sale and what will happen with the profits. Will the money be set aside in a separate account?” said Ms Smythe.

One of the criticisms leveled at council by internationally recognised financial organisation Standard and Poor’s in a recent credit rating report was the council did not have enough “cash assets” so HUG wants to know what will happen with cash assets from this sale?

“Will the cash assets from the fire sale of this valuable asset, that will never be able to be replaced, just be absorbed into council’s general income stream to disappear forever from public scrutiny? Will our rates decrease so the ratepayers and residents, the shareholders of this significant asset, see a real return too on their asset? Is council even proposing they do this? No, they are not, but the shareholders should get to financially benefit too if the sale does proceed. So, what will happen to any cash profits from the sale,” Ms Smythe said.

The group says the way decisions have been made on this important local matter contravenes at least council’s own draft significance and engagement policy and the spirit and intention of the Local Official Government and Meetings Act to behave with openess and transparency not to mention perceived claims of fraudulent behaviour in the event it is true council officers and councillors are involved in the land sale.

“We have seen this council hold secret meetings under the cloak of ‘commercial confidentiality’ far too frequently and with little cause which is why we don’t trust this sale process or even recognise council’s mandate to sell this significant taonga on our behalf,” said Ms Smythe

“The sale must be halted and HUG will fight to the end to stop this sale from proceeding. Watch this space,” she said.

HUG spokesperson Andrea Smythe
contact: media contact 027 2443211 for more information

Image: Horowhenua District Council mayor Michael Feyen accepts the petition from one of the organisers Christine Moriarty and petition supporters in council chambers.

Horowhenua District Ratepayers and Residents Association Inc

 

For further information regarding HDC visit our Horowhenua page under ‘Local Govt Watch’ at the main menu.

TPPA EXCLUSIVE: An open invitation from Professor Jane Kelsey

maxresdefault-768x576(The Daily Blog) Ever heard Lori Wallach talk about the stark realities of US politics on the TPPA? If you have, you won’t want to miss her again! If you haven’t, this is a once in a lifetime chance to hear her on how the US and its corporate lobby stitched us up, and sold out ordinary Americans as well. (for Lori’s bio – see here)

Can the US Congress stop the deal? Will the US Congress stop the deal?

What happens if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency? Or Donald Trump (assuming that is worse … which it has to be)

Are US politicians serious that they will rewrite the deal after it is signed by setting rules for ‘implementation’? What would that mean for Kiwis?

Lori is arriving Tuesday morning for a speaking tour starting Tuesday night 7pm at the Auckland Town Hall in the lead-up to the planned signing in Auckland on 4 February. Then off around the country to Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin in a whirlwind tour. Sponsors (so far) are Its Our Future, ActionStation, and New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, as well as great local anti-TPPA groups.

– See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/01/23/exclusive-an-open-invitation-from-professor-jane-kelsey/#sthash.pOtZciOo.dpuf

EnvirowatchRangitikei

Important TPPA Updates

From itsourfuture website’s bulletin

fce11444-8958-4634-a0da-1c5bb5853835

Bulletin #82
20 January 2016

TPPA signing Auckland, 4 February

The secrecy-obsessed New Zealand government finally admitted that the signing would take place in Auckland but still hasn’t confirmed the date (although Chile and Peru governments did) or a location, although it almost certainly won’t be at Sky City as previously rumoured. Apparently the delay in confirming a date is because some governments (possibly Canada, Japan, Malaysia) haven’t fulfilled their pre-signing procedures – neither has New Zealand. The lack of a democratic mandate isn’t holding our government back. Hopefully several TPPA nations may decide not to sign.

The signing is largely symbolic but governments will try to use it as an opportunity to talk up the TPPA in the media. It will be signed by Trade Ministers (Todd McClay has replaced Tim Groser – we don’t yet know whether Groser will be there). Whatever happens the campaign is not over! This is not the final step by any means. The TPPA still needs to be ratified in NZ and opposition is growing in the US. There is more campaigning coming up. See TPPA campaign overview, democracy vs TPPA blog.

Lori Wallach and Jane Kelsey: Don’t sign speaking tour 26-29 January

In the lead-up to the signing, leading US critic of the TPPA and the most knowledgeable person about what’s happening in Washington, Lori Wallach the Director of Public Citizen Global Trade Watch, will join TPPA expert Jane Kelsey for a short speakers’ tour. See It’s Our Future website for downloadable posters. Lori and Jane Kelsey will speak at:
·       Auckland Town Hall on 26th January at 7pm – with a political panel including Andrew Little (Labour) tbc, Metiria Turei (Greens), Fletcher Tabuteau (NZ First) and Marama Fox (Maori Party).
·       Wellington, St Andrews Centre on the Terrace on 27th at 7pm
·       Christchurch Cardboard Cathedral on 28th at 7pm
·       Dunedin at Burns Hall, Moray Place on 29th at 7pm

These events will be free, with a donation requested. Arrive early, because it’s first come, first in the door, and we are going to try to fill these venues!!

Funding the campaign
Our Give a Little page to help fund the TPPA campaign page is now live. Please donate generously  because we have no money at present and we are incurring big costs for the campaign (around $10,000 for the Auckland Town Hall meeting alone). This account will support the costs of these events and ongoing campaign actions over the next few months. If you have other fundraising suggestions, contact Barry Coates at itsourfuturenz@gmail.com. We acknowledge the generous support of individuals and organisations and will include a list of those in the next Bulletin. So please let them know that now’s a good time to donate!

Events coming up

A round up of events over the next few weeks follows. This isn’t all of them because many are still being planned. The list will be updated in the next Bulletin. Send details to Chantelle Campbell at itsourfuturenz@gmail.com.

Dunedin

29 January at 7pm: Don’t Sign Tour: Lori Wallach and Jane Kelsey at Burns Hall, Moray Place. Free event, donations please.

30 January at 12=2.30pm: Rally to declare the Octagon a TPP Free Zone with a range of different groups joining together in activities, speakers and music.

More info on events at TPPA Action Dunedin FB page.

Christchurch

20 January 12-1.30pm: Save City Care, Keep Our Assets Picket at City Council Building, Worcester Boulevard Entrance.

28 January at 7pm: Don’t sign tour at Christchurch cardboard cathedral.

30 January at 2pm: Reject the TPPA rally at Cathedral square.

4 February at 12.30pm: Declare ChCh TPP Free at Christchurch City Council, 53 Hereford St
More info on events at TPPA Christchurch FB page.

Wellington

19-28 January: There are a series of local meetings coming up:

·       19/1 Newtown
·       20/1 Johnsonville
·       21/1 Lower Hutt
·       23/1 Otaki
·       26/1 Wainuiomata
·       28/1 Upper Hutt

27 January at 7pm: Don’t sign tour – Lori Wallach and Jane Kelsey at St Andrews Centre, The Terrace. Free event, donations please.

30 January at 1pm: assemble at the Governor-General’s residence for a handover of the petition. Details to come.

4 February lunchtime: assemble at the Cenotaph outside Parliament with banners, cardboard heads of government Ministers and speeches. Details to come.

More info on Wellington actions at TPPA Wellington FB page.

New Plymouth
30 January at 1pm: Puke Ariki Landing, 1 Ariki St. TPPA picnic to launch a week of action with speakers and petitions.

Tauranga

See car protest below, and other actions will be at TPPA Tauranga FB page.

Raglan
1 Feb at 4pm: Raglan footbridge at Raglan beach, join the ‪#TPPAfreeZoneChallenge.

Hamilton
23 January at 12-2pm: Rally at Base Shopping Centre, Te Rapa Rd.

Auckland
26 January at 7pm: Don’t sign tour at Auckland Town Hall. As well as our keynote speakers there will be a political panel with Andrew Little (Labour) tbc, Metiria Turei (Greens), Fletcher Tabuteau (NZ First) and Marama Fox (Maori Party).

31 January all day (tbc): There will be a Protestival all day in an Auckland park. This will be a peaceful, family friendly event with music, speeches (not too many), stalls, workshops, NVDA training and event planning. Details to be advised in the next Bulletin. All welcome.

3 February: We welcome visitors from outside Auckland and will hold a meeting to discuss plans for the events coming up. Time and venue to be advised.

3 February: There will be an Unwelcome to Auckland protest at Auckland airport for the Trade Ministers and their entourages arriving in Auckland, with banners, chants and a message that we don’t want them to sign the TPPA.

4 February at 12pm: Join the TPPA Don’t Sign march down Queen St. Lunchtime campaigners can then peel off and the rest of us will join others at our campaign base in nearby Victoria Park for music, speeches and campaign news.

4 February: We don’t know the venue for the meeting but there may be people who will want to go there to occupy the venue or block access. There may also be other civil disobedience happening around the signing. We request that any group who does so respects the principles of non-violence and does not damage the property of citizens. We have huge support from the public for the campaign and the media will be looking for photos and stories to discredit our movement.

We will try to organise billets for visitors in homes and on a marae. Please Email itsourfuturenz@gmail.com if you want accommodation.

Waitangi

There will be actions against the TPPA in Waitangi and it is clear that the government is not welcome at Waitangi if they sign.

Nationwide

30 January at 10pm: Check out the fantastic Cars against the TPPA protests that are happening in Christchurch, Wellington, Auckland, Palmerston North, Hamilton, Tauranga, Auckland and Whangarei.

Local Action
Take action in your community. Declare your community or workplace a TPPA Free Zone.

Call on Councils to take action through the TPPA Policy Solution based on Auckland and Wellington District Council resolutions.

‘Don’t sign’ Petition
The Don’t sign petition is up to 33,000 signatures after one week. Thanks to our friends at ActionStation for hosting. Spread it far and wide. We need to let the government (and the media) know that the is no democratic mandate to sign the TPPA. Let’s aim for 100,000 signatures by the time of signing.

Petition to the Governor General
The petition to the Governor General to exercise his powers to prevent the government from signing the TPPA is getting out there. Please volunteer to collect signatures. The petition has gained visibility and support from a Bryan Gould article showing the tight government control of public accountability mechanisms.

Research and Fact sheets
This is going to be a big week for our research information. The expert peer-reviewed research papers are being launched this week for the Environment, te Tiriti and Economics of the TPPA. There’s lots of good info in there so please visit the TPP Legal website. The latest information across all the issues in the final TPPA text is in the Key Issues paper.

Media Articles:
Updates in the next Bulletin.

Who’s checking the promises as Kiwi land ownership is lost? – Winston Peters

Certainly NZ is being sold lock, stock and barrel. The National Government seems indeed set on disposing of land hand over fist, along with our State Housing and other assets. This is the way of corporations … remember, our government is a corporation. The face of our country is truly changing in a very disturbing way. Watch this space.     EnvirowatchRangitikei

From Radio Live 31 Aug 2015

court-510750_1280“New Zealand land continues to go under the hammer to foreign buyers but no one is holding buyers to their promises of job and wealth creation for New Zealanders.

Strange, given the approvals are based on those promises. Oddly, no applications get rejected. In the last two years they have all been approved.

The promises, which give them the go ahead, include job creation, investment, protection of indigenous plants, donations to local organisations or schools, etc.

The Overseas Investment Office, the apparent guardian of our precious land, is letting us down. But the fault lies with the government which should be staffing it adequately and giving it the correct mandate…”

Winston Peters is NZ First leader 


Read more: http://www.radiolive.co.nz/WINSTON-PETERS-Whos-checking-the-promises-as-Kiwi-land-ownership-is-lost/tabid/615/articleID/95724/Default.aspx