Labour will not support TPP if it undermines NZ sovereignty


Screen Shot 2015-07-23 at 6.19.06 pm

The Labour Party will not support the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement unless key protections for New Zealanders are met, Opposition leader Andrew Little says.

“Labour supports free trade. However, we will not support a TPP agreement that undermines New Zealand’s sovereignty.

“A meeting of the Labour Caucus this week agreed on five key principles which will be non-negotiable bottom lines to protect New Zealand’s interests when the agreement finally makes it to Parliament.

“The lack of transparency around the Government’s negotiations with large foreign interests means Kiwis are in the dark about which of their sovereign rights are being gambled away by this Government in the hope of better trade conditions.

“Labour is pro free trade, as evidenced by the China Free Trade Agreement we signed in 2008. But by negotiating the TPP in complete secrecy, the Government is creating a level of public unease.

“We have been told that the Government expects to release the detail of the agreement after negotiations are complete.

“This will be too late to guarantee protections on some of our most valuable institutions and rights. This is not good enough, and it is not enough time for New Zealanders to ensure their interests are being protected.

TDB Recommends

“Labour will not support the TPP if it undermines New Zealand’s sovereignty. This means:

  • Pharmac must be protected
  • Corporations cannot successfully sue the Government for regulating in the public interest
  • New Zealand maintains the right to restrict sales of farm land and housing to non-resident foreigner buyers
  • The Treaty of Waitangi must be upheld
  • Meaningful gains are made for our farmers in tariff reductions and market access

“By completing negotiations for the TPP in secret the Government has failed to give New Zealanders the right to debate the merits or otherwise of this agreement.

“The bottom line for Labour is that New Zealand’s sovereign rights must be protected. Anything else is unacceptable.”


  1. Well done labour.
    Now join forces with;
    NZ First.

    All canvass each and every Government PM and make them realise that they need to vote against this TPPA and give away NZ sovereignty as it will strip away even their right as MP’s to effectively govern also.

    Why A Corporation May Not Legally Govern; Corporatised Governments of Other Countries & An Investigation into the Reserve Bank of New Zealand ‘Corporation’

    Would you be surprised to discover that a company with the same name as your country is registered with the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) in Washington DC?

    The United States Securities and Exchange Commission has the government of New Zealand registered as a corporation under the name of HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND IN RIGHT OF NEW ZEALAND.

    This PDF research paper provides the detail and evidence for this and other associated facts; such as why New Zealand government agencies and departments are registered with the United States Securities and Exchange commission, Dun & Bradstreet and the New York Stock Exchange.

  2. As there is obviously NO WAY that Labour’s bottom line will be met, and no way the treaty will be amended to remove the much-despised provision for corporations to sue governments in the “tribunals”, I am taking this as a certainty that Labour will end up opposing the TTPA.

    I cannot see any other scenario happening.

  3. NZ National Debt Clock $100,755,327,527 (but higher now). And no gold reserves.
    This country is in serious financial trouble and the hot air balloon the Nats have been riding in is about to come to earth with a thud. The days of the banking cabal are over.

    Labour knows exactly what the Nats (John Key) have been doing.

    The thing I love about all of this is the cupboard has been opened, all the skeletons are tumbling out and …… just at the right time …… in comes the right man, for the right job!!!

    I give my vote to INTEGRITY. I don’t care what the party is called.

    [Helena, you requested contact with me. I have sent you an email. – ScarletMod]

    • Notice how every question sleazy john is called to answer starts him railing loudly (of course to be shown on TV) against Labour by the 2nd sentence, at latest. Carter allows him to rail on for 7 paragraphs. They are rattled to the rotten core.

  4. Key’s neoliberal government is intending to put
    out a NZ For Sale sign.
    As with rampant immigration these measures are
    designed to pump up the growth rates.
    What is not stated is the reduction in quality
    of life, reduction in service quality, loss of
    sovereignty etcetera.
    Those with wealth such as Key will benefit but
    ordinary New Zealanders, including the middle
    class, will not becoming tenants in their own
    land beholden to foreign corporations and foreign

  5. Key’s neoliberal government is intending to put
    out a NZ For Sale sign.
    As with rampant immigration these measures are
    designed to pump up the growth rates.
    What is not stated is the reduction in quality
    of life, reduction in service quality, loss of
    sovereignty etcetera.
    Those with wealth such as Key will benefit but
    ordinary New Zealanders, including the middle
    class, will not becoming tenants in their own
    land beholden to foreign corporations and foreign

  6. I feel we might all need a jolly good laugh for the end of the week

    If you don’t laugh, you’ll probably cry

    Take particular note of the little list of “facts” on “TPP UNWRAPPED”
    I suggest anyone wishing to refer back to it should the TPP go into law should take screen shots of this website, as I am pretty certain it will disappear into the ether after.

    • Even more hilarious is looking up the scrubby clean puppets of the producers, Acumen Republic.

  7. There seems to be a general misconception that people/parties opposing the TPPA will be able to veto the ratification of it.
    I do not believe this is so. I understand that when it is presented to parliament the discussion and voting will be around various laws that will need changing to facilitate the TPPA, govt will simply be able to ratify at executive level.
    It will do Labour no end of good to oppose, regardless, if they do not wish to face the political firing squad they would be well advised to do so.
    I have a sneaky feeling there may be a Natl party MP who is not happy with the TPPA he/she needs seeking out.
    James Shaw may know who he/she is.

    • That National MP may be looking at the fate of Marilyn Waring and Derek Quigley, and wonder if s/he wants to end up like them?

      It would take a politician with extraordinary courage to go down that road…

      • Hell yeah imagine ending up with the respect that Marilyn Waring ended up with, fate worse than death, I say, fate worse than death

        • The respect Ms Waring received afterward is a different issue. At the time, though, people don’t think about what lies in the future (“will I be respected or not, after my political career is in tatters”).

          Ironic though, that the very best ones often don’t last long in the main parties. The discipline structure is simply too rigid.

    • Hopefully there is more than one MP.
      Rae is probably correct in saying labour wont be able to veto anything in TPP ,once signed it as been set up to be watertight in favour of John Key just laughs at Labours stance. The best way to stop TPP is get national MPs to resign and create bye elections as Northland did.There must be some NAt MPs who are decent enough to think of the people,they would be sure to be voted back in by greatful people.

  8. An alternative headline would be “Labour vows to support TPPA provided certain conditions are met”

  9. Labour will have to get off the fence on this one and state their intention to change the position regarding TPPA, should it be agreed to by NACT and the aborated laws that allow its toxic provisions.

  10. Labour’s attempt to spin this announcement to appear to take a principled position that meets its members’ concernsm is disingenuous at best. There is only one red line in this list. The rest you can drive a bus through.

    That one red line reflects David Parker’s obsession with the right to regulate foreign investment in land – a crucially important right of governments, but it has already been given away in relation to China through the recent Korea FTA, because China is entitled to the same treatment as NZ gives Korea. True, not including it in the TPPA would mean the US and Japanese investors don’t get it, but investors can re-locate themselves easily enough to take advantage of the existing FTAs.

    Is Labour not equally concerned about protecting the right to introduce a capital gains tax (a question not answered by officials in relation to the Korea FTA and not mentioned by Labour)? Or not pouring more of the health budget down the trough of Big Phrma or its local offshoot (not some vague promise that ‘Pharmac must be protected” – what does that mean????)? Or ensuring the SOE chapter will allow Labour to establish their state-owned KiwiAssure or rebuild a genuine public broadcaster?

    As for balancing the economic gains, they know the economics don’t stand up.

    Moreover, Labour seems to be sticking to the ‘we can’t reach a final decision until we see the fine print’ – by which time they know they can’t change anything.

    What really matters to National is to legitimise the TPPA by claiming bi-partisan support. Labour’s leader Andrew LIttle needs to have the guts to say to Phil Goff, Mike Moore protogé Clayton Cosgrove, health minister Annette King (who has been super silent on the health impacts) and David Parker that this deal will place unacceptable handcuffs on future Labour governments and that Labour is going to oppose it – and he needs to do so before the TPPA ministers meet in Maui on Tuesday.

    • Jane, firstly, many, many thanks for the fine work you are doing in this field.

      Secondly, if I understand the National strategy, it goes something like this;

      1. Groser will committ, hand-on-heart, that ‘‘Pharmac must/wuill be protected”.

      2. The TPPA will be signed, and then revealed that Pharmac’s ability to buy cheap medicines has been under-mined.

      3. Key will then be trotted out to reassure the masses that the deal is a “good one” and “balances” economic needs with Pharmac’s purchasing ability. He will make reassuring noises about “it’s a balancing act” and “in the end, this deal will be worth billions and thousands of new jobs, yada yada yada”.

      I’ve watched Key’s performances in the past. This is his MO.

  11. “Corporations cannot successfully sue the Government for regulating in the public interest”

    What does this actually mean?

    Would it not have been better and more simpler for Labour to say; ‘Corporations cannot sue the government for regulating in the public interest’?

    Or even more simply; ‘Corporations cannot sue the Government?’

    As a number of cases overseas have shown, the very fact that huge multinational corporations have threatened to sue, and tie governments up in expensive litigation, has had a “chilling effect” on independent sovereign governments willingness to pass legislation for the protection of their citizens, or the environment if it impinges on the profits of these multinationals.

    Some commentators have said that this ability to sue governments is more dangerous to democracy than actually even ever winning these law suits. And that in fact will lead to out of court settlements, decided behind closed doors between a secret cabal of multinational executives and their high powered lawyers up against a handful of pressured, or intimidated government Ministers. This scenario may deliver even worse outcomes than what a international tribunal would hand down in an open hearing,

    I would like to think the best of Labour over this latest statement on the TPPA and give them the benefit of the doubt.

    But Labour need to seriously tighten up their language, and tell us exactly what they mean. Exactlty how much will Labour let these big foreign multinationals get away with meddliing in this country’s sovereign right to govern itself?

    None at all?

    Just a bit less than National?

    Or what?

    I think people are heartily sick of the weasely language that allows all sorts of outs.

    If Labour want to be taken seriously they need to speak plainly.

  12. “Corporations cannot successfully sue the Government for regulating in the public interest”

    The slippery slope.

    Multinational corporations want the right to ‘sue the governement’ for any restrition to their profits caused by government or local government laws or bylaws.

    Laboour are not opposed to this. But say (from what I can tell) that a Labour led government would reserve the right to overule any international tribunal judgements that are handed out that impinge on our sovereignty.


    How would that work in practice?

    Would a Labour government settle for lesser restrictions on our sovereignty to avoid such a judgement?

    Would we even know if they had?

    Would mysterious corporate friendly legislation just suddenly be passed and appear to be made independently without any apprarent pressure?

    Do the transnationals even want globally announced large rulings against sovereign governments that would harden global public opinion against them?

    Overseas practice has shown, that what the transnationals really want, is more avenues for undemocratic backroom arm twisting, secret out of court settlements, threats of expensive litigation made to governments behind closed doors. All of which Labour’s weasely above statement allows.

  13. Labour’s fundamental mistake is thinking the TPPA is an FTA that can be made better with a bit of tidying up around the edges. It’s not, and it can’t. I absolutely agree with Jane – Andrew Little needs to show some spine on this but that sadly doesn’t seem to be happening.

  14. Just listened to report from U.S. and many Americans are worried about the TPPA and concerned as much of their country has already been sold out to foreign interests. I did hear today from someone ‘in the know’ that these “foreign interests have a mobster mentality (I don’t know how to put it a more sophisticated way) but much has been written as to how this mentality operates. When you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas. (Bankers)
    Truck on Andrew, we’re right behind!

    • I cant resist adding this: NESARA does exist. However, not in the form put out by boy Bush which was a watered down stomped on version. Anyway, bottom line is we may/may not have difficult times until it is put in place but when NESARA is put into effect there will be a zero value to everything – money, stocks, shares, bank accounts, you name it, zero, zilch. Then we start again: National Economic Security and Recovery Act. The name says it all. It’s what the Bilderberg and Cabal have been trying to blow out of the water (and they are scrambling for gold). Putin knows all about it along with the others in BRICS. I think Andrew Little knows too. Time for all of us in New Zealand to know about it as well, don’t you think.

Comments are closed.