What's New And What's Important?

We've travelled a fair distance in the space of several months since my report in Watchdog 141 (April 2016, “TPPA End Game: Government In A Rush To Deny Democracy”, http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/41/04.html). The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade (FADT) Select Committee’s TPPA treaty examination process had commenced and was receiving and hearing evidence from the public. The Select Committee final report was tabled in Parliament on 4 May. Parliament sits from 2 p.m. on each of the sitting days.

Parliamentary process, and a general appreciation of how to achieve one’s bureaucratic objectives when engaging in Government process, is extremely educational. In this exercise I've become familiar with how to... and how to find out if I'm perplexed. The TPPA legislation was tabled in Parliament; we held a rally in Wellington to mark the occasion. It wasn't spectacular; however we did have about 150 people in attendance who were addressed by Opposition MPs.

A large cross section of the Aotearoa New Zealand community addressed their minds to the TPPA, and offered the select committee 6,000 individual offerings (2-3,000 associated with an Action Station initiative) and over 250 gave oral evidence in hearings in Wellington, Christchurch and Auckland. The report by the Select Committee was dominated by the five National Members’ view, which took no notice of the majority of the public input which opposed many aspects of the TPPA.

The Opposition Members offered minority reports that were markedly different from the Government Members’ view. I will address their respective positions further on in here. The Government achieved its third bureaucratic objective re the TPPA: getting Parliament to vote for it at its first reading on 12 May. People will have offered their view on the TPPA legislation by 22 July, with hearings on those matters to follow. Mine will be around the principal question again, as I desire that Parliament ought to reconsider and halt the process toward ratification to allow a proper consideration of the implications of the TPPA, cognisant of the global condition and context - “What is the best thing to do next for Planetary Peace and Justice?” I'll converse on that in any subsequent report.

Also presenting challenges are the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA). These are considered later in this essay. The anti-TPPA movement has determined a course of action for the second half of 2016 to mobilise public pressure to stop these impositions from being entrenched in law. Mobilisation is anticipated in most nations and certainly we associated with It's Our Future (https://itsourfuture.org.nz/) and the general TPP Action and TPP Free movement are working to ensure that Kiwi voices are offered an opportunity to call the Government to account for its arbitrary imposition of the TPPA without the people's consent.

To that effect we persist with our petition to the Governor General. The petition was launched in late 2015 and has had a few incarnations in its tactical employment. It is still circulating as a paper petition and is now launched online with Action Station hosted here: https://our.actionstation.org.nz/petitions/demand-a-binding-referendum-on-tpp-let-the-people-decide?source=facebook-share-button&time=1464778402. Nationwide actions were held on Saturday 10 September in all the main centres (Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and more). My report on how they went will appear in the next Watchdog.

We haven't added further Councils, Local or Community Boards to the list of Waiheke and Upper Hutt who have taken a stance on TPPA Free Zones. We aim to lift the energy and mobilise that campaign to gain more TPPA Free Zones in Aotearoa. Many of you will be participants in other community organisations. You could be the connector that brings a public speaker on the implications of the TPPA into your community through the available forums, whether they be Probus, Rotary, RSA, Lions, hunting and fishing, transition towns, intentional communities, eco enterprises, ethical business organisations, academia, environmental or oil free, social welfare, faith and worship or any other. All of the interests and values dear to the members of these organisations are under threat in the trade and investment treaty agenda being imposed with the TPPA, RCEP, TiSA and more proposed in the near term. We know what we do not want. What is it that we do want?

What's The Vision?

I'm reminded that we the people of Aotearoa New Zealand have an enormous opportunity and potential to make adjustments to our political structures and economic systems to benefit all in the nation. In order to get to that point or ideal requires we confront our present reality. In proceeding in my role I grow in my awareness of the nature of the challenge, the forces and drivers contributing to chaos and deprivation based in the rule of the jungle. The alternative is with those seeking to remedy the chaos and return to the principle of a just civilisation.

Is it possible to consider that the system will sort itself without aspirational people combining around a vision of a process to move upward, rather than down? Consider then the possible paths we traverse in the next 40 years. Where do we want to be in 2056? Here's one suggestion for a process to move us upward. Generation Zero and Ora Taiao call for legislation to ensure that Aotearoa NZ is carbon neutral by 2050, to ensure that our nation is contributing its fair share to the global effort to reduce the use of fossil fuel energy use to ensure that the worse potentials of climate change are averted. To my mind this is an initiative that all ecologically minded people must support. How do we develop the political will to do the right thing as people, community, nation state(s) and the planet?

What's The Vehicle?

One of the ideals and its institutionalisation that underpin the process whereby we make decisions is known as democracy. Is the Aotearoa NZ democracy effective? What does this matter? What aspects of governance are to be considered in the public space, and which parts are confined to the inner court where the public is effectively excluded and thus unable to influence the outcomes. By court I mean the inner or executive and administrative functions of Government where these are not impacted by direct democracy or hidden from view, as in not subject to disclosure through Official Information Act access. There are other areas where none find out until one asks questions.

The TPPA has given me a window into policy and governance from regional through to the global level. Added to that is a broad survey of the ecological, energy, economic, social and political framework that the human drama to achieve our 2056 vision must negotiate to attain its end. In terms of epitaphs and histories, I'll be in my 98th year. I hope I see the vision entrenched in our planetary reality and that I am able to smile at the efforts, mistakes and successes we all made to see it guided into place. Humanity set up for a thriving future. It is imperative that we engage in a vision of what we want to achieve.

There are alternatives to a thriving future, and they will unfold where we do nought. That means that those who know the likely consequences of do nothing are morally impelled to assist the thriving future. The TPPA and the larger agenda, because of their likely lengthy entrenchment in our legal structures, require a long-range perspective to appreciate the scaled up implications. In fact, it requires many minds paying attention as the field is extremely multi-disciplined. The acceleration of technological development and the reach of science into the largest and smallest scales of matter and energy provide the notion that we will have all the tools we need to create the garden and abundance we need to sustain all inhabitants upon this bountiful spaceship. Do we have the political will to achieve our object?

To The Governor General: “TPPA - How Does This Fit Our Democracy?”

That is the message I endeavoured to convey to the Governor General, in my correspondence and essay of 29 June 2016: http://gregfullmoon.blogspot.co.nz/2016/07/tpp-how-does-this-fit-our-democracy_4.html To illustrate, this is extracted from the essay:

“Aotearoa New Zealand – Our Role In The World – How Do We Score?

“In regard to the workings of the world, our survey appears to be broader in scope and consideration than your Government’s. 9/11 is the causal pretext employed to enlarge the ‘disaster capitalism’ model currently in ascendency. The coffin lid is now nailed firmly shut on the West being ‘Mr Good Guy!’ Realism identifies that we inhabit ‘dystopia in the making’. The previously mentioned denial of scientific finding in our public policy settings, plus an objective observation of the trend of social, environmental and economic wellbeing indicators, adds weight to my thesis”.

“We in the land of New Zealand, and particularly Your Excellency’s Government, are complicit by silence, if not collusion, to cover up gross war crimes and corruption! It was Edmund Burke who said: ‘Evil flourishes when good men do nothing’ One assumes that applies to nations: ‘Evil nations flourish when good nations do nothing’. Perhaps more so for nations which are sovereign entities with powerful force and weight of word in their considered statements, judgements and acts”.

“How do we redeem our sullied name, as people and as a nation state? How do we distance ourselves from further complicity in genocide and aggressive war? What of the planetary reality? Who, if not our governments, will regulate the development of the planet, its peoples and the orderliness of the process, unencumbered by corporate interest in determining the principles and levels of social and ecological welfare to be attained when development is permitted?”

“Aotearoa New Zealand – I Wish It Was Funny

“Sustainability is about conserving and ensuring that there is abundance now and forever. The current paradigm is wasteful. The employment of industrial warfare for the settlement of disputes is the most wasteful of all strategies. If the Presidents of the USA and Iran have a disagreement they, like any other adults on the planet, ought to be able to sit down and work out a just settlement. We have arbitration in all other realms, what about over the larger powers?” End of extract, although I employ material from it elsewhere herein.

Our Constitution – What Does It Mean?

Which brings us to the point about law and constitutionalism. What does it mean to say the New Zealand State is a constitutional monarchy? Does a constitutional monarchy guarantee our right to positively affect the outcome of decision making? What rules govern its exercise of State power? Do our constitutional elements protect the democratic nature of the State? If not, what can be done to remedy the autocracy of the Executive? Executive autocracy is the opposite of most people’s appreciation of democracy.

In bilateral and multilateral trade and investment treaties the Crown prerogative is employed to sideline, ignore and belittle civil opposition to the scheme being imposed. At no point is a democratic decision taken prior to the Government signing and committing the NZ State to the arrangement. See, for example, the report of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Select Committee, in relation to the International Treaties Bill (November 2002). In it Matt Robson (of the then Progressive Party) had a minority report acknowledging the undemocratic nature of the exercise of Crown prerogative by the Executive in respect to treaty making:

“...Parliament would have a practical mechanism to begin bridging the divide between the exclusive Executive right to make treaties and the responsibility of Parliament to ensure that the interests of democracy are protected. As this Committee gained experience it would be able to advise Parliament of further practical and effective steps to allow for the democratisation of the process. The Progressive Member believes it is time to take treaty making and foreign affairs in general out of the realm of the mysterious and into the realm of the normal democratic processes of Parliament. The arguments that now is not the time and we do not have the resources are advanced whenever those with vested interests wish to protect a position. In a globalised world, treaties and conventions have a greater and greater impact on the ordinary citizen. Their representatives in Parliament require adequate information to be able to protect the interests of the electors....”

Reality 101 In The Aotearoa/NZ Nation State

Our constitutional arrangements appear to facilitate the endless power struggle known as class warfare which currently trends toward determination in favour of powerful vested and monied interests. My survey finds the winning trend in the political economy being institutionalised provides for “the systemic rip-off of wealth from the poor toward the top of the privilege pyramid”. What happened to building a cohesive and egalitarian State (once upon a time referred to as the commonwealth)?

Every bill and piece of legislation is a constitutional alteration absent a formalised and publicly mandated constitution. The determinations of the courts add to the mix. If the constitutional arrangements are adequate - what might be at work? Is it corruption that is at work? Or is it that insufficient “safeguards are built-in to the constitutional framework of the Aotearoa/New Zealand State governance system to ensure an egalitarian commonwealth? Or both?

The means to remedy this in NZ is through legislation (which is subject to change by a future Parliament), or by a publicly mandated constitution. One remedy is to counter the influence monied interests might have to corrupt process, by ensuring that a person’s wealth is a minimal factor with regard to access or influence in political activity. Whether or not fully publicly funded elections are the answer is moot. Those that inhabit a movement or any individual or community must be enabled to engage in lawful political activity both in the ordinary run of things and during election campaigns. In this nation we appear to have maintained that right.

TPPA Evidence – We The People Said “No TPPA!”

Which brings us to the evidence placed before the Select Committee by the public to enable its’ appreciation of the folly of the TPPA. Those opposing the TPPA have the weight of informed public opinion from civil, academic and professional society, as the many who opposed it at the Select Committee come from all walks of life in our State. These include many in commerce, professional roles including health practitioners, community and environmental organisations, and as individuals.

The Vice Chancellors of all eight NZ universities oppose the TPPA! The evidence and position paper from the university Vice Chancellors is the Christmas Star on the TPPA Tree of Knowledge. Their thesis: “The TPPA is not in our interests”. The Vice Chancellors’ evidence is supremely authoritative. To deny the authority of the Vice Chancellors’ evidence to the FADT Select Committee is similar to the Roman Catholic Church requiring Copernicus and/or Galileo to recant and say that the Earth is the centre of the Universe despite their observations.  The question of dogma reigning over empiricism appears as relevant today.

The Vice Chancellors provided two of the 400 papers offered the Committee by 255 oral presenters. In total more than 6,000 people offered their opinion, evidence or thoughts to the Committee in written form. I attended most FADT Select Committee hearings in Wellington and both Auckland days in early April. I missed the Christchurch hearings where It's Our Future Christchurch activists were prominent amongst the presenters with some brilliant oral contributions. Similarly the Auckland and Wellington hearings witnessed members of the public offering their heartfelt concerns about transnational corporations impacting our lives and communities through rules imposed without our input. I'll return to this further in this essay.

TPP Roadie Digs Deep For An Answer

I offered a number of papers to the FADT Select Committee based on my discoveries and observations on the nature of the TPPA and our place in the world of nations and powers. The TPPA's projected monetary benefits are small relative to the cost. Recall that, all is speculation until it is implemented.  In the course of my oral evidence Green MP Kennedy Graham asked (paraphrased): “what could the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) do to consult fully with the New Zealand people, and secondly what would be an improved process, including what constitutional changes might be required for the future?”  Following the oral hearing I considered my response and wrote to Kennedy Graham and the Select Committee members on 1 May, suggesting practical ways in which our treaty making process might be made more akin to our democratic values. I suggested the development of a model treaty through a consultative public process.

Model Trade And Investment Treaty Agreement

Recent domestic legislation adopted by the South African Parliament to replace their investment agreements, and the new model agreement developed by Brazil, ought be reviewed in respect to application to the New Zealand context. Both seek to provide balance between competing interests and protect regulatory autonomy/sovereignty. Add to this the similar concerns the European and US public are expressing in respect to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) - and the TPPA in the US - and we observe that the world’s people and many of their governments desire a rebalancing of FTA content and provisions.

It is of note that the advanced and developed nations have largely moved their efforts from completion of the World Trade Organisation’s long-stalled Doha Round of trade liberalisation, in favour of a patchwork quilt of plurilateral rather than universal or multilateral agreements. These invariably exclude the less developed nations who previously demanded tariff free access for their primary exports into the domestic markets of the larger and protectionist First World nations, in the global multilateral WTO negotiations.

Clearly the agenda is not about universal trade liberalisation so much as creating a trading and investment club that retains established advantages. How does this meet the UN Sustainable Development Goals unanimously agreed in 2000 and again in 2015? What does the next phase of the multilateral patchwork quilt strategy look like? It looks like everyone agreeing to the protectionist states retaining their domestic subsidies, such as the US Farm Bill.

In developing a model agreement MFAT ought to consult openly and fully with the public and interest parties to arrive at the model that is universally agreed. The TPPA policy solution adopted by the Auckland City Council initially, followed by more large Councils in the  period to the October 2015 Atlanta TPPA agreement, was a broad brushstroke attempt at such an exercise. The issue for discussion with the public in any subsequent negotiations then might be focused on the points of divergence from the model, and the reasons why. That model agreement would include:

1. An open Parliamentary process as a minimum for determining acceptance of any treaty agreement content, including a public process for engagement and feedback prior to signing of any treaty.

2. Give equal weight to social, environmental, economic, cultural, and security/resilience impacts on NZ and globally.

3. Be within the general guidelines of the UN Charter and international law as outlined in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

4. Protect human, civil and political rights, including the Crown responsibility to tangata whenua in the partnership known as Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Inclusion & Open Dialogue

In this way the process commences with inclusion and open dialogue about what is being negotiated. A 21st Century agreement which has a dominant effect on our political economy must cohere with values and needs of the people and State. Then, suitable arrangements can be qualitatively built into the agreement. Surely such an initiative would be welcomed by other states similarly concerned to advance the social, environmental, economic, cultural, and security/resilience needs of their nations to advantage their people?

Pacific Island nation states would applaud. I imagine such an initiative would fit nicely with the principles and rationale that NZ offered the world in seeking its place on the UN Security Council. Given the unanimity of the 2015 Paris UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the recent mass signing in New York, all states would be interested in general provisions which facilitate the ease of implementation of the UNFCCC.

In addressing the rationale for entering any trade and investment treaty it must be relevant to our NZ needs and values. For NZ to uphold the rule of law in a meaningful manner, any treaty must be demonstrably within the general guidelines of the UN Charter and International Law as outlined in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). I’ve addressed at some length the VCLT provisions which purport to protect human, civil and political rights.

The VCLT expresses the word of international law agreed amongst the contracting parties. On the face of literal interpretation of the VCLT wording the TPPA is in conflict and ought not come into force in its current form. This raises to prominence the question of the effect of the law in practice, despite the written intent. Note here that it is through engaging in the processes that are entrenched in the governance structures that one acquires or builds awareness of the law and its effect in structuring our formalised relations, material development, human constructed environment and governance administration and systems, including who decides what and how they do it.

Contracts and agreements and how are disputes resolved - what rules or law applies there and everywhere else? Common law? Legislated law? By laws? Admiralty law and/or law of the sea (if these two are different)? Human rights law? Commercial law? Domestic law? International law? Which is supreme when there is a conflict between these? Is there a court of final arbitration? Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) arbitration is another area of commercial law, raised up to international law in the context of investment treaties. It is not administered out of a properly constituted court with a basis in law and precedent. ISDS arbitration appears to trump all other law!

Futures And Counter Futures I

RCEP Vs TPPA – A Competition Or A Play In The Globe Theatre?

TPPA versus RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) is one way to picture these arrangements. It is incorrect, as the text, framing, structure and players are largely the same, with the exception that the US is the main economy in the TPPA, whereas both China and India are central to RCEP. The RCEP negotiators came to Auckland for the negotiation at the Sky Tower in mid June. There was an opportunity for stakeholder engagement on the afternoon of 14 June.

The ability to attend and participate was arranged well in advance, with a formal registration process. There appeared to be about 30-40 stakeholders and maybe half that number offered a view. It was impressed upon us that “Chatham House rules” applied, which is the etiquette or protocols under which the engagement transpired. It is accepted under Chatham House rules that anything uttered in the room stays in the room – I'm not sure what that means in relation to papers I tabled therein. Ignorance is bliss.

For our team there were many including, Jane Kelsey, Barry Coates, Penny Bright and Sanya Reid Smith. The engagement was in three parts each with a different focus or purpose;

• The first was to speak on the general matters or issues of RCEP to a cross section of RCEP negotiators who sat around the vast room at the Sky Tower Convention Centre. We were offered a couple of perspectives from two countries’ negotiators, Philippines and Vietnam. Followed by the opportunity for two minute speaking opportunities for those stakeholders who wished to contribute.
• The second followed immediately and allowed stakeholders to speak specifically on services.
• The third was in a different room where we were able to speak directly to the New Zealand negotiators and Minister Todd McClay.

1. In the first engagement I offered a formal paper abstracted from my paper on “Neo-Liberalism, TPPA And Climate Change In The Pacific” that I had presented at Victoria University’s February 2016 Pacific Climate Change Conference, “In the Eye of the Storm.” The RCEP paper, “TPP Free Wellington and TPP Action Greg Rzesniowiecki - RCEP stakeholders 14 June 2016” similarly highlights the problem of ISDS in the context of Philip Morris and tobacco interests generally attacking government policies to control tobacco use through legislated measures under the ambit of the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).

I make the point that the fossil fuel energy corporations are much more powerful than the tobacco corporations; where is the carve out to protect governments’ ability to legislate for climate change action through measures to reduce carbon emissions? The ISDS provisions will undermine our agreed vision promoted by Generation Zero for zero carbon emission by 2050!  It's Our Future reports and media releases are available for a larger perspective of the issues in RCEP, noting that the same problems appear in relation to extensions of intellectual property (IP) and copyright, as well as tilting the playing field further in favour of the investor interests through the investment chapter's provisions. It is to be noted that the secrecy we confronted in the TPPA is just as paranoid in RCEP, where an Official Information Act application for the chapter titles being negotiated was returned with redactions, meaning they are not even describing the full scale or content of the areas under consideration. It's food for paranoia, but it is definitely concerning and undemocratic.

2.  The second opportunity was for parties to contribute their views on services, with Jane, and Sanya taking the lead.

3.  The third exercise with the NZ negotiators and the Minister was in a smaller setting. It was also livestreamed so a record is available for those who wish to review proceedings: 

I was one of the first to raise a question with the Minister following their outlines of what NZ's priorities and concerns were in the negotiations. Both Minister McClay and MFAT’s lead TPPA negotiator Mark Trainor spoke, before allowing the public their opportunity. In this exercise I raised the question of process and constitutionalism. I drew to the Minister's attention the paper I forwarded to the FADT Select Committee in considered response to Kennedy Graham's questions on MFAT guidelines and constitutional alterations to accommodate an alternative and democratic process for the public to be involved in determining the content of trade and investment treaties.McClay offered that MFAT would look at the paper, which I forwarded that day. The Minister returned with a response to that in early July which offered that MFAT was involved in extensive engagement with stakeholders and was being innovative in the RCEP stakeholder event in Auckland. He went on to state that the Ministry offers the opportunity for stakeholders to engage at the initiatory stages of a negotiation.

There are several more negotiation sessions programmed and an objective to have the RCEP agreement reached by the end of 2016. A very ambitious target given that India is now reviewing and withdrawing from ISDS provisions in its existing investment treaties. Also there is a clash between the nations that are IP importers and exporters, especially in the area of pharmaceuticals, and the period of time before a drug can be manufactured under a generic licence. The nations that are exporters of IP are well represented in Japan, Australia, sometimes NZ and some of the larger developing economies.

TiSA: An Agreement For Stuff We Cannot Drop On Our Toes – But Can It Still Hurt?

Trade in services is a growing component of international trade. The Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) presumes to bring together 23 economies including the 28 (or is that 27 now that Britain has gone Brexit?) economies that comprise Europe. Negotiations have gone on since 2013. A plotted history and background to TiSA is available at the MFAT Website: TiSA stakeholder engagements were run by MFAT's Trade Negotiations Division (TND) Trade in Services department. Events were run in Wellington on 22 June and 28 June in Auckland. I attended the Wellington event. I wrote a detailed report of the engagement which is publicly available. I've extracted the following from the paper:

“Brad Burgess, TND, provided an overview of the TiSA agreement which is being negotiated between 23 nations including the European Union (EU). TiSA if implemented would cover 70% of global trade in services. He reported that NZ’s objects involved;

• ensure improved market access of export services
• grow the student market – currently NZ trains 16,000 students from TiSA nations.
• grow visitor numbers – currently 2.5 million visitors per annum.

TiSA nations include seven of NZ’s top ten service export markets.

TND NZ policy interest priorities are;

• similar to NZ’s objects at WTO GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services)
• obtain new/improved market access commitments”.

“Brad noted that a NZ objective is to bring TiSA improvements into the World Trade Organisation’s GATS agreement rules at a future point. TiSA involves negotiation of 19 Annexes under the following 17 headings (the discrepancy wasn’t explained):

• Delivery services
• Direct selling
• Domestic regulations
• Electronic commerce
• Energy-related services
• Environmental services
• Export subsidies
• Facilitation of patent mobility
• Financial services
• Government procurement
• Localisation – refers to the requirement to employ local management/professional staff
• Movement of natural persons
• Professional services
• SOEs (State-owned enterprises)
• Telecommunications
• Transparency
• Transport services (air maritime and road)”.

“Since Brad had indicated we could ask questions during the session, Cherry (Cherry Gordon, who is interested in copyright law) asked for clarification about the nature of the shortcomings under WTO rules in these areas that the NZ government wishes to address through TiSA, and the principles underpinning the negotiations. Brad noted that not all texts under discussion may go ahead, depending on degree of agreement within the proposed timeframe and that Sarah (TND's Sarah Ireland) would speak to the issues for business”.

“TiSA is not about goods and does not contain an Investment chapter, nor an ISDS provision (note that a services investment under TiSA services may well count as a covered investment under one of the other trade and investment treaties’ ISDS clause to which NZ is party). I asked about NZ’s rights to regulate the finance industry in light of the GFC (global financial crisis). Brad answered that NZ reserves that policy space, referencing the ‘balance of payments’ exception in the TPPA and an exception to regulate in respect to public policy”. I provided a copy of the report for the Auckland Its Our Future to assist their preparation for their TiSA stakeholder event the following week.

Futures And Counter Futures II

To carry on as we are we will have these arrangements imposed without consent. The challenge is always what to do about it?

TPPA free zones

Nationwide actions

Public meetings and discussions

Attending roadshows and engagements facilitated by MFAT or the Government

Lobby MPs and political parties

Campaign and lobby your community groups to take an interest.

Lobby candidates for the upcoming local government and District Health Board (DHB) elections.

Sign the petition to the Governor General and participate in events and initiatives to highlight the undemocratic nature of our NZ constitution including our proposed 29 October TPPA rally in Wellington, where we plan to march on the Governor General's gates with hopefully at least as many thousands as marched in Auckland on Thursday 4 February to oppose the signing of the TPPA agreement at the Auckland Sky Tower.

Keep reading and researching all these matters for they are all connected – “join the dots!”.

Appeal To Sustain “TPP Roadie”

Donations to this initiative to help protect our interests against the TPPA can be made to the following Kiwibank account: Public Advocacy Donations Account, 389017-0439360-00, reference “TPP roadie”.

Greg Rzesniowiecki aka Greg Fullmoon resides at large, originally from the Motueka Valley. He has assumed varied roles in the past, both here, and across the ditch in his native Melbourne and Australia. He has come to call Aotearoa/New Zealand home. He can be contacted at gregfullmoon013@gmail.com

This article has been substantially edited, including deleting the several pages of endnotes. If you would like the full article, including all the references, please contact Greg Rzesniowiecki at gregfullmoon013@gmail.com. Ed.