The madness has begun.

We should have suspected something when the cloud strike shut down occurred.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu needs to continue war so that he is never held to account.

This madness is the last straw.

NZ must immediately expel the Israeli Ambassador for this unprovoked attack on Iran.

As moral and ethical people, we must turn away from Israel’s new war crime, they have started a war, we must as righteous people condemn Israel and their enabler America.

This is the beginning of madness.

We cannot be party to it.

Al Jazeera’s Nour Odeh, reporting from Amman, Jordan, said the Israeli army radio was reporting that in addition to the air strikes, Israel’s external intelligence service Mossad had carried out some sabotage activities and attacks inside Iran.

“There are also several reports and leaks in the Israeli media talking not only about the assassination of the top chief of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard but rather a very large number of senior military commanders in addition to prominent academics and nuclear scientists,” she said.

“This is a very large-scale attack, not just on military installations, but also on the people who could potentially be making decisions about what Iran can do next, how Iran can respond to this attack that continues as we speak.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Social Democratic Liberal Party (Sodelpa) today decided to go into a coalition government in Fiji with the People’s Alliance and the National Federation Party, reports Fijivillage News.

Sodelpa vice-president Anare Jale announced that 13 management board members voted for the People’s Alliance/NFP coalition led by Sitiveni Rabuka while 12 votes backed the FijiFirst party of incumbent prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama.

Jale told news media Sodelpa was ready to be part of the government with the Alliance and NFP.

According to Fijivillage, Sodelpa leader Viliame Gavoka said democracy had won and the party had observed the process to its fullest.

Gavoka said it was very close again and came “down to the wire”.

He said Sodelpa made the decision fully committed, ensuring that it had the best interest for the people of Fiji, reported Fijivillage.

Today’s vote reaffirmed an earlier decision to join the coalition made on Tuesday which was challenged after reported “anomalies”.

More later.

The Social Democratic Liberal Party will partner with the People’s Alliance and the National Federation Party to form the next government.#FBCNews #FijiNews #Fiji #election2022
More: https://t.co/ykNqVhQufT pic.twitter.com/SMLuAxyvSx

— FBC News Fiji (@FBC_News) December 23, 2022

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By RNZ

Armed police have been deployed after shots were fired at two mosques where hundreds of people were praying near Hagley Park in Christchurch today.

READ MORE: ‘This is horrible – unthinkable in New Zealand’

Key points:

• There have been two shooting incidents – at the Masjid Al Noor Mosque next to Hagley Park, and at the Linwood Masjid Mosque in the suburb of Linwood.
• Police Commissioner Mike Bush said one person was in custody, but police said there may be other offenders.
• Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said on live television: “There is no place in New Zealand for extreme violence.”
• An eyewitness inside the Masjid Al Noor Mosque said he heard shots fired and said at least four people were lying on the ground and “there was blood everywhere”.
• An eyewitness said a man wearing a helmet and glasses and a military style jacket opened fire inside the mosque with an automatic weapon.
• About 300 people were inside the mosque for afternoon prayers.
• Police sid the “risk environment remains extremely high”.
• The manager of the An-Nur Early Childhood centre in Wigram earlier said police gave some parents an update that said there were two gunmen and at least one was on the loose.
• People in central Christchurch have been urged to stay indoors and report any suspicious behaviour immediately to 111.
• All Christchurch schools, Christchurch Hospital and Christchurch City Council buildings have been placed into lockdown.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

Police at the cordon around a shooting incident in central Christchurch today. Image: Simon Rogers/RNZ

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Pacific Media Centre Newsdesk

Tonga has declared a state of emergency today in preparation for severe Tropical Cyclone Gita as it threatens to hit the southern part of the kingdom with a potential category 5 force tonight, reports Matangi Tonga.

Acting Prime Minister Semisi Sika announced the state of emergency at 10am, saying this was due to the destructive force winds and expected sea level rise brought by Gita.

The tropical cyclone, which has already caused widespread destruction in Samoa and American Samoa, is expected to hit Tonga about 7pm.

The state of emergency is to help prevent or minimise loss of lives, injury, damage to property and the environment, Matangi Tonga reported.

READ MORE: Tonga declares state of emergency – Matangi Tonga

Earlier, Kaniva Tonga reported that Tonga’s Minister of Police Māteni Tapueluelu said police had forced a hardware supplier to close down yesterday for breaching the country’s Sunday laws.

The minister said Pacific Timber and Hardware “opened without permission this morning [Sunday] and we had it closed down.”

His response came after Kaniva News reported yesterday two hardware suppliers opened temporarily for the public with Cyclone Gita approaching but they had no permits to do so.

• Cyclone Gita devastation in Samoa in pictures
• Samoa Observer editorial on Samoan damage

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The US Trade Representative Michael Froman has revealed his office is sending teams of officials to the other the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) countries, including New Zealand, to vet their implementation of the intellectual property chapter and other parts of the agreement.[1]

‘ “Implementation” is code for the US making sure it gets what it wants, backed by its power to veto the TPPA’s entry into force if it doesn’t’,  said Auckland University law professor Jane Kelsey.

‘This is an outrageous assault on the sovereign right of nations to decide their own laws without interference from other states.’

‘The US is notorious for rewriting the script after negotiations are ‘concluded’ to secure their version of the text when other countries insist they have done what is required.[2]

‘This will come in two stages’, Professor Kelsey explained.  ‘The first we are seeing now. The US says “we can’t possibly get this to the floor of Congress without these changes to what you are doing”.’

‘If Congress votes in favour of its implementing legislation – which at present can’t be assumed – the US comes back again and says “we won’t certify you have complied with your obligations until you do these additional things”.’ The TPPA can’t come into force without US certification.

The USTR is currently trying to ‘fix’ problems that mean the TPPA doesn’t have support in Congress. Froman cites intellectual property as a major point of discussion with other governments, making particular mention of New Zealand’s proposed legislation on patent term extensions.

Ominously, Republican chair of the Senate Finance Committee Orrin Hatch, who decides if and when implementing legislation proceeds, has hardened his stance on monopoly rights for biologics medicines. He announced today that 8 years’ is not enough. He requires 12.[3] But the New Zealand government says the TPPA lets us keep our current 5 years plus some process delays.

Professor Kelsey asked ‘how will we know what pressure the US is bringing to bear on our government and whether it will stand up against US threats when that could sink the deal for New Zealand?’

‘I strongly suspect these fixes will involve administrative measures, not legislation, so there will be no public process even after the fact,’ Professor Kelsey said.

She noted the select committee process was over, based on the existing text. ‘The government must be up front about what the US officials will be doing here and release full documentation of their demands and the government’s response for analysis and debate before any further commitments are made.’ 

[1] ‘Froman: U.S. Sending Out TPP Implementation Teams, Undecided on Fixes’, Inside US Trade, 18 April 2016

[2] See www.tppnocertification.org

[3] ‘Sen Hatch Stands Firm on Biologics’, Washington Trade Daily, 20 April 2016

—

The statement titled ‘Desperate Key govt trying to redefine TPPA as law and order issue’ also suggests that the Prime Minister is attempting to swing public opinion in his government’s favour.

The statement reads:

‘News that police have been visiting opponents of the TPPA ahead of next week’s signing is the latest step in an orchestrated move by the Prime Minister to try to redefine the signing of the hugely unpopular Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) as a law and order issue’, said long-time TPPA critic Professor Jane Kelsey.

‘Presumably the National Party’s polling shows they can claw back some of their support base if they can demonise the opposition to the TPPA and divert attention from the substantive issues of affordable medicines, privileged rights for foreign investors, democracy and sovereignty.’

Professor Kelsey observed the parallels to Muldoon’s strategy during the 1981 Springbok tour. ‘The choice of Sky City as the venue was the first step. Then the media ran a conveniently planted story that police were doing riot training using the TPPA signing as their scenario. Now we have police visits to people labelled as anti-TPPA activists. By the time of the signing, National will hope the law and order threat is firmly implanted in people’s minds, even if nothing happens.’

‘I wouldn’t be surprised if government claims it has to relocate the signing somewhere more secure because of the threat to visiting ministers – I’ve already heard rumours of an alternative venue that may actually be the government’s preferred option,’ Kelsey said. 

‘Clearly, the government has been damaged by the fact that tens of thousands of ordinary Kiwis have turned out across the country to protest against the secretive negotiations. Instead of responding to citizens’ concerns through a democratic process, the government has resorted to a classic and not very sophisticated law and order beat up that aims to intimidate and further suppress democratic dissent.’

Professor Kelsey predicts that, ‘just as the previous insults haven’t worked, this won’t work either’.

The statement followed news reports that Police had begun visiting activists and opponents of the TPPA. Fairfax’s Stuff website reported:

Scout Barbour Evans was visited by two police officers on Thursday morning, “asking me what I’ll be doing for the TPPA events”.

The officers said they were following a national directive and were “visiting all known activists in the country”.

“Having police show up at your door to ask you what you plan on doing is chilling and the police know that” said Turei.

“It carries with it an implicit threat and New Zealanders have the right to speak out and have their voices heard. Being an activist isn’t a crime, being an activist is being passionate about something and last time I checked that wasn’t illegal.”

Commenting to the New Zealand Herald, Civil liberties lawyer Michael Bott said:

The police action would have a “chilling” effect on freedom of expression and the right to protest.

“These people haven’t committed any crime and yet the police are going to conduct a search or an interview, and there are legal concerns with that.”

“Not the way we do things in this country”.

“My initial reaction is that it is a little heavy-handed. The protesters have a legal right to protest within the bounds of the law.

“During every single TPP rally, I can’t recall any instances where protesters have been violent or aggressive.

—

When combined with the earnings per share range of 45-55 cents, this means a total available for payout of $4.60-$4.70 per kgMS and would currently equate to a forecast Cash Payout of $4.50-$4.55 per kgMS to our farmers after retentions.

Chairman John Wilson said global economic conditions continue to be challenging and are impacting demand for a range of commodities, including dairy.

“Key factors driving dairy demand are declining international oil prices which have weakened the spending power of countries reliant on oil revenues, economic uncertainty in developing economies and a slow recovery of dairy imports into China. In addition, the Russian ban on European Union dairy imports continues to push more product on to the world market.

“There is still an imbalance between supply and demand which continues to put pressure on global milk prices. Since last September, prices on GlobalDairyTrade for Whole Milk Powder (WMP) have fallen 12 per cent, and Skim Milk Powder (SMP) prices are down 8 per cent.

“Although New Zealand farmers have responded to lower global prices by reducing supply, that has yet to happen in other regions, including Europe, where milk volumes have continued to increase.

Chief Executive Theo Spierings said while global demand remained sluggish, Fonterra supported the general view that dairy prices will improve later this calendar year.

“However the time frame for supply and demand rebalancing has moved further out and largely depends on a downward correction in EU supply in response to the lower global prices. These prices are clearly unsustainably low for farmers globally and cannot continue in the longer term.

“It is important to state that despite the current challenges, we have confidence long-term international dairy demand will continue its expansion due to a growing world population, increasing middle classes in Asia, urbanisation and favourable demographics.

“While a unique series of global issues are impacting the forecast Milk Price, the business is performing well, as outlined in our business update in November, and is on track to generate improved dividend returns. Fonterra has remained focused on reducing costs, increasing efficiencies and shifting more milk into higher value products,” said Mr Spierings.

Mr Wilson said: “The reduction in the forecast Farmgate Milk Price will be very tough on our farmers. As we confirm the Co-op’s performance for the first half of the financial year, we will look at the best way to help our farmers’ cash flows, underpinned by the expected improvement in dividend returns and the financial strength of the Co-operative.

“We will continue to keep our farmers updated as the season progresses,” said Mr Wilson.

Note: currency is New Zealand dollars unless otherwise stated.

However, TPPA critics suggest the National Interest Analysis document is far from an independent analysis and is designed to spin the National-led Government’s (and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s) view.

University of Auckland law professor Jane Kelsey said the formal National Interest Analysis (NIA) on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) released by Trade Minister Todd McClay today is simply an expanded version of the so-called ‘fact sheets’ prepared by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), which seek to justify the deal that officials and the National government have negotiated.

“The NIA is a totally predictable cheerleading exercise that talks up the supposed gains and largely ignores the huge downsides of the TPPA,” Professor Kelsey said.

She added an Australian Senate Inquiry into the treaty making process last year dismissed similar exercises produced by MFAT’s counterparts in Australia as totally inadequate, and called for a genuine independent, in-depth study before as well as after the conclusion of negotiations, including the TPPA.

“The flimsy NIA contrasts to the careful and detailed analysis in five peer reviewed expert papers on the implications of the TPPA that have been produced so far as part of a series supported by funding from the New Zealand Law Foundation,” Professor Kelsey said.  

These expert papers examine the impacts on New Zealand’s regulatory sovereignty, the investment chapter, climate change and the environment, the economics of the TPPA, and the Treaty of Waitangi and are available at tpplegal.wordpress.com. More papers are to come on financial regulation, public services, and IT and innovation.

“If the government wants its assessment of the national interest of the TPPA to be taken seriously it needs to engage with these independent expert papers and attempt to rebut the analyses by which the authors conclude that the deal is not of net benefit to New Zealand, now or in the future,” Professor Kelsey said.

McClay insisted New Zealand has published an “unprecedented amount of information” on TPP.

Tonight at 7pm, a public meeting will be held at the Auckland Town Hall where Professor Kelsey, international TPPA expert Lori Wallach of the USA’s Public Citizen, and other key public figures will talk about the TPPA, the latest research, politics, analysis and actions.

Other public meetings are planned throughout the country. See ItsOurFuture.org.nz for more details.

—

The ministers from the twelve countries who negotiated the the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) will sign it in New Zealand on 4 February, a government spokesperson from Chile has confirmed.[1]

The New Zealand government has made no formal announcement, despite reports that it would host the meeting since the APEC summit last November.

‘Consistent with the government’s obsessively secrecy throughout the TPPA process, we have to get confirmation of what is happening in our own country from offshore’, says Auckland University Professor Jane Kelsey, who has led legal action to challenge the government’s failure to release information on the TPPA.

‘Polls have shown the government doesn’t have popular support for the deal. Presumably it wants to limit the chance for New Zealanders to make their opposition heard’, Kelsey said. ‘We were reliably told by offshore sources some time ago that the meeting is in Auckland, but we expect the government to try to keep the actual venue secret until much closer to the day’.

A series of high profile public meetings has been planned for the main cities at the end of January, starting with Auckland Town Hall on the evening of 26^th January, followed by Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin.

The star attraction will be Lori Wallach, director of Washington based Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, the organisation founded by Ralph Nader. She last toured New Zealand when the TPPA ministerial meeting was held here in late 2010.

‘The US holds the key to the fate of the TPPA. Lori Wallach probably knows more than anyone about what is really happening in the US Congress and across the corporate lobbies and civil society groups in America. Her insights will provide a reality check in advance of the pr spin that is bound to surround the signing’, Kelsey said.

[1] http://www.bna.com/tpp-countries-sign-n57982065797/

—

In a statement this morning, Graeme Wheeler said New Zealand’s financial system continues to perform well despite a deterioration in the outlook for global financial stability and increased risks related to the dairy and housing sectors, Reserve Bank Governor, Graeme Wheeler, said today when releasing the Bank’s November Financial Stability Report.

“Global economic growth has softened over the past six months, and uncertainty over the path of economic and financial adjustment in China has helped to depress commodity prices and added to financial market uncertainty.  Interest rates at historic lows are encouraging higher leverage, leading to a build-up in risk in international asset markets.  This environment creates risks for the New Zealand banking system, which remains reliant on the global markets for funding.

“The dairy sector faces a second consecutive season of weak cash flow due to low international dairy commodity prices.  Prices have shown some recovery since August, but many indebted farms are coming under increased pressure, which would be exacerbated if low dairy prices are sustained or dairy farm prices fall significantly.

“House price growth in Auckland has increased strongly with house price-to-income ratios in the region now comparable to those seen in some of the world’s most expensive cities.  Rising investor activity has been an important driver of price developments, and international evidence suggests that investor loans have a higher tendency to default in the event of a major downturn in the housing market.

“A sharp downturn could challenge financial stability, given the large exposure of the banking system to the Auckland housing market.  While it is still too early to judge the effect of recent policy changes, they are expected to help moderate pressure on Auckland house prices, and will improve the resilience of bank balance sheets to a housing downturn.”

Deputy Governor, Grant Spencer, said that “Banks hold strong capital and liquidity buffers and have maintained their profitability with further reductions in cost-to-income ratios. Lending growth to households and businesses has picked up and is being funded mainly through higher domestic deposits. 

“The banks are working with dairy farmers experiencing difficulty, and it is important that they continue to take a medium-term view when assessing farm viability.  The banks’ losses on dairy exposures are expected to be manageable but banks need to ensure that they set aside realistic provisions for the likely increase in problem loans.

“New rules on Auckland residential investor loans came in to force on 1 November.  The bulk of these loans are now required to have a loan-to-value ratio (LVR) of no more than 70 percent.  Banks are also now required to put residential property investment loans in a separate asset class and hold more capital against them.

“LVR restrictions have been eased outside of Auckland where housing market activity has been more subdued.  However, the Bank is closely monitoring the recent rises in house price inflation in some areas such as Hamilton and Tauranga.

“The Reserve Bank has a number of other regulatory initiatives in train. Public consultation has recently closed on a stocktake of banking regulations and a summary of submissions will be published shortly. We have recently released a consultation paper proposing changes to the outsourcing policy for banks.  And we are also well advanced on an improved oversight regime for payment and settlement systems.”

More information: Financial Stability Report

—

“That’s why I am posting the text of this agreement here for you to read and explore. There’s a lot in here, so we’ve put together summaries of each chapter to help you navigate what’s in the agreement and what these new standards will mean for you,” President Obama said.

He added: “I know that if you take a look at what’s actually in the TPP, you will see that this is, in fact, a new type of trade deal that puts American workers first.”

Regarding the TPP, the Obama Administration has placed much of its reputation on the line. And the US President’s push is to convince US workers that this multilateral deal will prevent other countries from becoming more competitive through lower labour costs, standards, wages, regulations and barriers to US imported goods and services.

Last night Obama said: “If you’re an autoworker in Michigan, the cars you build face taxes as high as 70 percent in Vietnam. If you’re a worker in Oregon, you’re forced to compete against workers in other countries that set lower standards and pay lower wages just to cut their costs. If you’re a small business owner in Ohio, you might face customs rules that are confusing, costly, and an unnecessary barrier to selling abroad.

“The Trans-Pacific Partnership will change that.

“It’s the highest standard trade agreement in history. It eliminates 18,000 taxes that various countries put on American goods. That will boost Made-in-America exports abroad while supporting higher-paying jobs right here at home. And that’s going to help our economy grow,” Obama said.

Major Holes and Inequality

Back here in New Zealand, University of Auckland trade law expert Professor Jane Kelsey has evaluated the released Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement texts and states there are “major holes” in the Government’s fact sheets and apparent inequalities between signature states.

Professor Kelsey said an initial review of the most controversial chapters confirms that New Zealand will have to comply with onerous new obligations and lose the future capacity to regulate in ways that an elected government thinks appropriate.

Her evaluation follows:

The investment chapter goes beyond New Zealand’s existing agreements in numerous ways. For example, a foreign investor from a TPP country that is party to a contract for oil exploration, a PPP contract for water, sewage or toll roads, or a mining or forestry concession with central government or an SOE exercising a delegated power, can use the controversial investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) process if it wants to claim its rights are breached, even if the contract requires them to use NZ courts or some other dispute mechanism. 

Foreign investors, notably from the US and Japan, gain special rights not available to New Zealand investors, which are commonly used to challenge new regulations that adversely affect their business. In New Zealand, where risk-tolerant light handed regulation is the norm, that poses major problems for a future government wanting to regulate in the public interest.

As the government conceded, the categories of investment where the rules can be tightened have been constrained, and existing regulation of various services and investments are locked in so they can’t be made more restrictive in the future.

Some of the so-called protections for environment, health and regulatory objectives in the investment chapter are a nonsense – they allow the government to do what the chapter allows the government to do. The wording of the annex on expropriation, which supposedly restricts the scope of indirect or regulatory expropriation – where regulations are challenged for eroding the value of an investment – is weaker than other New Zealand agreements.

The general exception provision, which provides only weak protection for public health or environment measures at best, does not apply to the investment chapter. Instead, there are highly contestable rights to adopt rules for ‘legitimate public policy’ reasons, but those apply only to some rules and will be interpreted by ad hoc investment arbitrators.

There are some attempts to rein in the ISDS process, but they do not address the major concerns. The arbitrators are still likely to be drawn from a small club (often referred to as the mafia) who are also investment lawyers; there are no conflict of interest rules, merely that they must be developed before the agreement comes into force; there is no appeal; compound interest can still be awarded; and the kinds of damages that be claimed are still extensive.

A further, fundamental problem is that investment tribunals have proved adept at reading down or circumventing attempts to constrain the adventurism of the tribunals, including provisions on which parties to the TPPA claim the right to make binding interpretations that the tribunals must follow. 

The tobacco-specific exception applies only to disputes brought by investors under the investment chapter, where a country opts to exclude it. Unlike the proposed Malaysian carveout for tobacco control measures from the entire agreement, it does not apply to other chapters, such as labelling rules, intellectual property, or the investment chapter itself. (Australia’s plain packaging law is currently facing a dispute over labelling and intellectual property in the WTO).

There is at least some provision for countries to impose capital controls, which does not exist in standard US FTAs. But it is circumscribed by almost impossible conditions. 

There are serious new constraints on financial regulation, including of cross-border financial transactions and data flows, which require further careful study.

The unprecedented State-owned Enterprises chapter has three complex principal rules, which will create major problems for SOEs that provide integrated services both within and outside the country or produce a mixture of goods and services. The procedural requirements are commercially intrusive and provide scope for harassment by other TPPA parties on behalf of their corporations.

The chapter will create particular problems for the creation of new SOEs that require a capital injection and subsidisation or other special treatment or the provision of guarantees – for example, the proposal to establish a new state-owned insurance company.

The intellectual property chapter has already been leaked and analysed. Copyright is extended by 20 years in two tranches; New Zealand is the only country that has to make changes immediately.

The highly sensitive area of biologics is far from secure. New Zealand’s negotiators say they consider our current process satisfies the obligation. But there is a very high risk that the US will demand that we adopt its interpretation of what is required and refuse to ‘certify’ our compliance (a pre-requisite for the agreement to come into force with the US) until we provider a longer effective monopoly on those new generation pharmaceuticals. In addition, the rule comes up for renegotiation in 10 years, by which time biologics will be a much more dominant part of the medicines budget.

The transparency annex that affects Pharmac’s processes will increase its administrative burden and a new review procedure provides Big Pharma with a new opportunity to challenge Pharmac’s decisions.

Professor Kelsey said the above comments confirm the predicted problems in the text. Full analysis of the different chapters will follow, with expert peer reviewed papers being released over the next few weeks.

SOURCE INFO: Late last night the New Zealand Government released the Trans Pacific Partnership texts, which can be accessed in full at www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/text

University of Auckland trade law expert Professor Jane Kelsey has evaluated the released Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement texts and states there are “major holes” in the Government’s fact sheets and apparent inequalities between signature states.

Professor Kelsey said an initial review of the most controversial chapters confirms that New Zealand will have to comply with onerous new obligations and lose the future capacity to regulate in ways that an elected government thinks appropriate.

Her evaluation follows:

The investment chapter goes beyond New Zealand’s existing agreements in numerous ways. For example, a foreign investor from a TPP country that is party to a contract for oil exploration, a PPP contract for water, sewage or toll roads, or a mining or forestry concession with central government or an SOE exercising a delegated power, can use the controversial investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) process if it wants to claim its rights are breached, even if the contract requires them to use NZ courts or some other dispute mechanism. 

Foreign investors, notably from the US and Japan, gain special rights not available to New Zealand investors, which are commonly used to challenge new regulations that adversely affect their business. In New Zealand, where risk-tolerant light handed regulation is the norm, that poses major problems for a future government wanting to regulate in the public interest.

As the government conceded, the categories of investment where the rules can be tightened have been constrained, and existing regulation of various services and investments are locked in so they can’t be made more restrictive in the future.

Some of the so-called protections for environment, health and regulatory objectives in the investment chapter are a nonsense – they allow the government to do what the chapter allows the government to do. The wording of the annex on expropriation, which supposedly restricts the scope of indirect or regulatory expropriation – where regulations are challenged for eroding the value of an investment – is weaker than other New Zealand agreements.

The general exception provision, which provides only weak protection for public health or environment measures at best, does not apply to the investment chapter. Instead, there are highly contestable rights to adopt rules for ‘legitimate public policy’ reasons, but those apply only to some rules and will be interpreted by ad hoc investment arbitrators.

There are some attempts to rein in the ISDS process, but they do not address the major concerns. The arbitrators are still likely to be drawn from a small club (often referred to as the mafia) who are also investment lawyers; there are no conflict of interest rules, merely that they must be developed before the agreement comes into force; there is no appeal; compound interest can still be awarded; and the kinds of damages that be claimed are still extensive.

A further, fundamental problem is that investment tribunals have proved adept at reading down or circumventing attempts to constrain the adventurism of the tribunals, including provisions on which parties to the TPPA claim the right to make binding interpretations that the tribunals must follow. 

The tobacco-specific exception applies only to disputes brought by investors under the investment chapter, where a country opts to exclude it. Unlike the proposed Malaysian carveout for tobacco control measures from the entire agreement, it does not apply to other chapters, such as labelling rules, intellectual property, or the investment chapter itself. (Australia’s plain packaging law is currently facing a dispute over labelling and intellectual property in the WTO).

There is at least some provision for countries to impose capital controls, which does not exist in standard US FTAs. But it is circumscribed by almost impossible conditions. 

There are serious new constraints on financial regulation, including of cross-border financial transactions and data flows, which require further careful study.

The unprecedented State-owned Enterprises chapter has three complex principal rules, which will create major problems for SOEs that provide integrated services both within and outside the country or produce a mixture of goods and services. The procedural requirements are commercially intrusive and provide scope for harassment by other TPPA parties on behalf of their corporations.

The chapter will create particular problems for the creation of new SOEs that require a capital injection and subsidisation or other special treatment or the provision of guarantees – for example, the proposal to establish a new state-owned insurance company.

The intellectual property chapter has already been leaked and analysed. Copyright is extended by 20 years in two tranches; New Zealand is the only country that has to make changes immediately.

The highly sensitive area of biologics is far from secure. New Zealand’s negotiators say they consider our current process satisfies the obligation. But there is a very high risk that the US will demand that we adopt its interpretation of what is required and refuse to ‘certify’ our compliance (a pre-requisite for the agreement to come into force with the US) until we provider a longer effective monopoly on those new generation pharmaceuticals. In addition, the rule comes up for renegotiation in 10 years, by which time biologics will be a much more dominant part of the medicines budget.

The transparency annex that affects Pharmac’s processes will increase its administrative burden and a new review procedure provides Big Pharma with a new opportunity to challenge Pharmac’s decisions.

Professor Kelsey said the above comments confirm the predicted problems in the text. Full analysis of the different chapters will follow, with expert peer reviewed papers being released over the next few weeks.

“That’s why I am posting the text of this agreement here for you to read and explore. There’s a lot in here, so we’ve put together summaries of each chapter to help you navigate what’s in the agreement and what these new standards will mean for you,” President Obama said.

He added: “I know that if you take a look at what’s actually in the TPP, you will see that this is, in fact, a new type of trade deal that puts American workers first.”

‘Today’s release of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement text ends the farcical situation where governments were touting the benefits for the nation with no prospect of any independent assessment to contradict them,’ said University of Auckland law Professor Jane Kelsey.

It is not clear whether this will also start the 90-day countdown before President Obama is allowed to sign the agreement under US law, or whether any of the other countries would sign unilaterally before the US does.

But, Professor Kelsey points out, ‘the legal text is not enough on its own. We need to see the background documents that help make sense of the text, but the parties have vowed to keep secret for effectively another six years.’

‘We also need the various analyses the New Zealand government has relied on when talking up the benefits and playing down the costs.

“They have been coy about who has done this work, especially the projections of $2.7b benefits for the economy, and stalled on Official Information Act requests to release them, despite the High Court’s rebuke last month,” Jane Kelsey said.

Jane Kelsey indicated that a further statement relating to the content of the text will be released later tonight.

Meanwhile the New Zealand Trade Minister Tim Groser issued the following statement welcoming the release of the Trans Pacific Partnership text.

—