It is almost incomprehensible that a meeting about the TPPA is being held in a tiny room like Europe House at AUT.
A decision this big demands far more respect than that.
Tonight from 6pm-7.30pm The Daily Blog will live stream this incredibly important debate.
We are doing this in conjunction with Professor Jane Kelsey and It’s Our Future and we desperately require donations to cover the cost of this.
If you believe this kind of political coverage is essential and you can donate to cover this, please do so here.
Thanks for this Daily Blog. Just wondering, will this stream be recorded?
Cheers
First off the government is engaging in R&D tax credits and infrastructure bonds to fill the missing $14bln capital expenditure. And I’ll come back to this.
Secondly Macroeconomist say New Zealand is growing 3% year on year, give or take. And open up the books at the micro level, it’s a totally different picture. Totally close economy, barley even trading in minimum nutritional values. So hardly any trade there. Also our education system is designed to supply urban life. It’s not designed to supply non urban settings and be able to produce. There aren’t any clear rulz of engagement and division between the crown and the markets we trade in including abroad. Infact we’ve spent the last 9 years creating public private partnerships and the savage markets win all the time.
Obviously you want markets to give you good set ups to put “infrastructure bonds” (those are Jacinda and Robertsons words not mine) into and that’s where this is where the bond markets come in. Bonds are great for those trading in accounts that need one winner covering all loses. So we don’t want to order stuff and have no one filling it. We really do need them to pay off (this is partly the recently announced Luxury Train Project being built from the carriage up in Christchurch I believe) and that means checking to see if people buy into the kiwi dream. We don’t want them to get to retirement only to relies it was all a scam.
NZ both imports and exports oil because there’s different grades of it; sour cheap oil which is then refined which frees up higher quality oil to be exported. This could become a closed cycle and to a significant degree left unbought, unsold, un-refined, and unburnt. Plus it snowballs, of course. In spite of having stepped up oil explorations, NZ imports an ever greater amount of Middle East oil and gas. And I can’t say hand on hart that James Shaw raising oil royalties to the international 72% average is a bad thing.
Same goes for Chinese dump steel. Hand on hart is taxing the shit out of harmful products with free range over adverts a bad thing? For me nah. I’d actually be quite happy with a domestic 1 for 1 replacement programme for all capital infrastructure.
Under the old TPPA government most or all of this would have been sourced offshore for reasons only known to a drunk old liptard who lost New Zealand’s only TPPA negotiating text late one night and had to hold himself up in New Zealand U.S embassy.
So there is a sunrise difference from the previous government and the current one.
Sadly missed it Martyn,
Hope someone recorded it, and qwill offer it for us to view as this stuff needs to be viewed/heard by all as a ‘public good.
I am surprised to hear the Government did not allow thiose meetings to be sreened for public information. Sad that was to see.
It wasn’t a consultation meeting Cleangreen, it was a promotion with the audience allowed to ask questions , not so much to put forward their own arguments. We were being told not telling.
Many questions went to the negotiators after the minister had left, and could only be answered by him as the negotiators just faithfully work towards the government’s objectives.
They did explain the pros and cons quite well though.
My thought is that trade deals should not include anything but trade , and leave interference in a country’s laws right out of it.
D J S
I’m still not enlightened as to the mechanism of possible future resumption of TPP11 features “suspended” due to departure of the US.
We are told these can only be reintegrated after renegotiation and “consensus” agreement at some future date.
It’s the “consensus” aspect of the answer given by the officials that disturbs me. What does that mean exactly? Will it be possible that a simple majority of members can later enforce (over objections by NZ) those aspects of ISDS that have currently been suspended by efforts of Ardern’s Govt (and let’s be honest, crowed about).
Given NZ’s willingness to be bullied into accepting this agreement, I have no confidence that the toxic elements currently suspended will not just resurface a year or three down the track.
I’m sure that if US wants back in the clauses will all be reinstated.
D J S
100% Thanks Dave appreciated.
Comments are closed.