TPPA? - “No thanks”, as many on the street respond, when I speak to them on the subject. That is the very response we need to take to our Government. However, in December 2012, negotiators from all 11 TPPA countries were warmly welcomed to Auckland by senior Government officials to participate in the 15th round of this complex and potentially very far-reaching negotiation. Though massive in scope, few have heard of it, our elected representatives know very little about it and the media barely reports on it.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) is a so-called “free trade” agreement currently under negotiation between New Zealand and ten other countries – the United States, Chile, Peru, Brunei, Singapore, Australia, Malaysia, Japan, Canada and Vietnam. Mexico is waiting to join the negotiations and there is a vision to extend it to all the countries of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). But most trade between the countries concerned is already quite “free”. So what is it about?

Special Rights For Foreign Investors

The TPPA would guarantee special rights to foreign investors that operate from any of the TPP countries. If these negotiations succeed they will create a mega-treaty across all countries that will put a straitjacket around what policies and laws sovereign governments can adopt or enact. In the case of New Zealand, these provisions could impact on the controls on genetically modified food, laws restricting foreign investment , price of medicines, regulation of dodgy finance firms, regulation of mining activities, all aspects of ACC, intellectual property protection especially in digital media, limiting of tobacco advertising  or provision for local content on TV. Protection for labour or the environment (another Pike River anyone?) could be severely weakened and there would be no preference for New Zealand business in major government procurement projects. Our commitments under the Treaty of Waitangi would be read through the lens of this “trade” treaty. Put simply, anything that interferes with the untrammelled profit-making of corporations risks being challenged. And it is the US corporations that are the largest and have the most to gain.

The US drug lobby, or “Big Pharma” as it is known, is keen to challenge the operation of agencies such as our Pharmac, which has saved $5 billion in the last 12 years (Pharmac’s Annual Report 2012). Surely a good thing. But from the “Big Pharma” angle, the purchasing power of a Government enterprise like Pharmac, threatens their potential profits and they could well demand that it has its wings severely clipped. For those in the aging demographic or anyone dependent on medicines that is not good news. The insanity of such corporate pressure was summed up by one who quipped “If you loved multi-national banks, you’ll really love multi-national blood banks” - globalised blood supply being one ambition of the US corporate health lobby.

Bill Of Rights For Big Corporations

The TPPA is effectively a bill of rights for big corporations, one that shackles future Governments and our democratic right to decide future policy and laws. If the Government goes ahead with a new policy or law that the investors say affects the value of their investment they could sue the government for millions of dollars thereby trumping our domestic laws. Phillip Morris (Asia) has already invoked these provisions under an investment agreement with similar rules to sue the government of Australia about its decision to have plain packaging of cigarette packets (this decision is pending).Such cases are heard in secret international tribunals run under World Bank rules, not in our domestic courts. Even if governments have a good defence, as Australia does, these long and expensive cases have a “chilling effect”, discouraging governments from making decisions that may incur the wrath of the corporates. In the case of “The Hobbit” and Warner Bros., we have already seen how one company could bring pressure to bear to both change labour laws and winkle massive tax subsidies from a Government that maintains there’s no money for health, early childcare or public transport. The Orwellian term “regulatory coherence” refers to all participating countries conforming to the same weak standards across all aspects of public policy and business.

All Negotiations Are Secret

The bits we do know are garnered through leaks. The final text does not have to be approved by Parliament; it will just be ratified by Cabinet. Once the negotiations are over and the treaty is signed it does go to a Select Committee, but this Committee has no power to change its substance, merely to report back to Parliament about any concerns. All documents except the final text would remain secret for four years after signing. The Agreement is forever unless a party withdraws, but that is not a real option for a range of legal, diplomatic and economic reasons.

How does the New Zealand government justify the TPPA? The familiar line is that it is all about better access for Fonterra into the huge US market. But, as US economist and former World Bank President Joseph Stiglitz, frankly stated: “Most of these ‘free trade’ agreements are … managed for the advantage of the United States, which has the bulk of the negotiating power… One can’t think that New Zealand would ever get anything that it cares about”. A Wikileaks cable showed that even New Zealand’s lead negotiator didn’t expect any significant gains.

Big losses are what we’re lining up for. So why would the Government secretly sell out our right to make our own choices about public health and safety, our environment, our tino rangatiratanga, in fact our future? Partly because they are true believers in globalisation. Partly because the notion of democracy has taken such a pummelling already, they don’t think it matters. Partly because they think a TPPA can morph into an Asia-Pacific wide free trade agreement that will spread their gospel to the new powerhouses that will dominate the 21st Century. Partly because they are pandering to the US in its moves to strengthen its role in Asia and counter the influence of China. owever with 11 and possibly 12 countries involved, negotiations are very complex. It may just be that some countries perceive the costs to be too high and withdraw. The best hope is that it will collapse under its own weight. Meantime, we need to let them know that we know the gist of what’s happening. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing (Edmund Burke). Read the facts at http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/

This was published, titled “TPPA Signs Away Our Independence”, and minus these subheadings, in the Nelson Mail, 29/11/12. Ed.

The 15th round of negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (took place in December 2012) in the SkyCity Convention Centre, in Auckland. Around 500 negotiators from 11 countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, spent ten days behind closed doors trying to make progress on 29 chapters in this mega-"free trade" deal. Few New Zealanders knew this event was taking place, let alone the significance that an agreement purportedly about "trade" has for many aspects of everyday life, from affordable medicines, access to the Internet and food labelling to smoke-free strategies, new health and safety rules to prevent more Pike River catastrophes, or re-regulation of shonky finance companies.

Speculation around the TPPA is likely to focus on whether Fonterra will get to sell more butter to the US, whether the big drug companies will be able to undermine Pharmac and whether foreign investors will be permitted to sue the Government in private overseas tribunals. These are all important questions. But they are dwarfed by the bigger game plan that explains the US drive to secure this agreement. The commercial ambition, articulated by Trade Representative Ron Kirk, is "to build what will become the largest, most dynamic trade collaboration of our time", producing "a new 21st Century gold-standard trade agreement".

TPPA Is Not Simply, Or Even Principally, About Trade

There is a well-documented push from the US to secure extensive new rules that will serve the interests of their corporations and empower them to enforce those rules. But it is increasingly clear that US politicians see the TPPA as a vehicle to re-establish America's ascendancy in the Asia-Pacific region to counter China's emergence as a superpower. In the 2012 US Presidential election campaign, candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney competed to demonise China, and hailed the TPP as the pivot of their containment strategy.

Romney endorsed the TPPA as a "dramatic geopolitical and economic bulwark against China". Obama, describing his "pivot" towards the Asia-Pacific, said: "We're also sending a very clear signal that America is a Pacific power ... organising trade relations with countries other than China so that China starts feeling more pressure about meeting basic international standards. That's the kind of leadership we've shown in the region. That's the kind of leadership that we'll continue to show". This followed speeches from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that positioned the TPPA as the economic limb of a two-pronged US offensive dubbed "America's Pacific Century". The second limb was the reassignment of US military presence from Iraq and Afghanistan to strategic allies throughout the region.

“An Anti-China Thing”

This poses a dilemma for New Zealand. The Government is ideologically committed to concluding this agreement and eager to cement closer ties with the US. At the same time, we have a growing economic dependency on both China and ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations). Back in February 2012, Trade Minister Tim Groser told Radio New Zealand: "If we in New Zealand smell or sense that this is an anti-China thing, we would leave TPPA". Australia's Trade Minister reportedly said it would follow New Zealand out the door. The TPPA is now undeniably "an anti-China thing" and we are still in there. Problematically for the Government, the stakes in relation to China have got even higher.

Rival Deal: China In, US Out

In November 2012, at the East Asian Summit, negotiations were launched for a Regional Closer Economic Partnership (RCEP), involving all the ASEAN countries, China, India, South Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand - but excluding the US. The rhetoric is almost identical to the TPPA, with predictions that "the RCEP will emerge as the world's largest free-trade zone, surpassing any existing regional FTA (free trade agreement) bloc ... given its inclusion of the most dynamic economies, its gigantic economic capacity and unparalleled market potential". The Taipei Times says "it is widely believed that the RCEP is ASEAN's counter-proposal in response to US-led Trans-Pacific Partnership".

Although ASEAN initiated the RCEP, China is clearly its driver, just as the US sets the terms for the TPPA. In seeking to reconcile our participation in both negotiations, Prime Minister John Key said he did not want to "over-emphasise" the China-US stand-off. Groser optimistically believes that the two mega agreements can converge to form a compatible Asia-wide integration arrangement. Whether or not you think that is desirable, it ignores both geopolitical realities and the divergent paradigms on which China and the US operate. A serious risk is that governments participating in the TPPA will sign up for strategic reasons to a text designed by and for the US to serve its commercial and foreign policy interests. As a result, New Zealand and Australia, alongside Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei and Vietnam, who are members of ASEAN, will become caught up in a new Cold War, conducted through the proxy vehicle of economic integration agreements.

This was published, titled “Pacific Deal Masks Bigger Plan”, and minus these subheadings, in the New Zealand Herald, 3/12/12. Ed.

Recent statements by politicians, corporate lobbyists and pro-TPPA commentators imply that Parliament gets the final say over the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA). That shows woeful ignorance of New Zealand’s treaty making process. The Cabinet Manual could not be clearer: “7.112: In New Zealand, the power to take treaty action rests with the Executive”. In practice, that means the Cabinet. Any claim that this is a democratic process is disingenuous. Successive Governments have blocked changes to Standing Orders and legislation proposed by ACT and the Greens that would have given Parliament a stronger role in approving treaties. In both cases the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade vigorously and successfully defended its turf.

The text is not tabled in Parliament until it is signed, which means the Cabinet has already formally indicated its commitment to adopt the text. It is then referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Select Committee, which is required to report back within 15 sitting days, unless the Government extends the time. A reality check is necessary. If the TPPA is completed it will be the size of two telephone books. Very few people can provide a comprehensive and informed submission within the available time.

Select Committee Process A Cosmetic Exercise

From past experience, the Select Committee process is a cosmetic exercise anyway, because the Government has a majority. Even if it wanted to propose changes, the Committee has no power. The Cabinet can ratify the treaty while the hearings are still proceeding, as happened with New Zealand Thailand Closer Economic Partnership. Parliament might be invited to vote on the TPPA, if the Government majority agrees, but the vote would be symbolic. Such votes were held on several recent free trade agreements – with the assurance of a bi-partisan National/Labour consensus. That consensus is no longer guaranteed, given the Labour Party’s policy remit adopted at its November 2012 Party Conference (which said that a Labour government would only sign the TPPA if a number of conditions were met)..

Even where implementing legislation is required, Parliament could refuse to pass the laws, but if the treaty were already ratified New Zealand would then be in breach of its new obligations. But the Government could seek to bypass legislation. Controversial changes to Pharmac, for example, might be made by regulation. The sad truth is that our elected representatives, and we as citizens, are impotent to affect a process that the Cabinet effectively controls from start to finish. Those who claim it is not, from the Prime Minister down, are misleading the public deliberately or otherwise.