Harawira versus TPPA

Hone Harawira has said that he doesn’t think that the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement should be signed at all and that there is no mention of Maori in the agreement.

He’s either ignorant about what’s in the Agreement, or he’s blatantly lying.

Interviews from Radio NZ on Will the Treaty clause in TPPA do the job?

I don’t think it should be signed at all.

There’s no mention of Maori in the TPPA, there’s no mention of the Treaty of Waitangi in the TPPA, there’s no mention of the protections for Maori through the Waitangi Tribunal in the TPPA, there’s not even mention of the rights of indigenous peoples under the United Nations  declaration of the rights of indigenous peoples.

So Maori are almost unanimous in saying we don’t think it should be signed at all, let alone that close to Waitangi.

I don’t know on what basis Harawira can claim “Maori are almost unanimous in saying we don’t think it should be signed at all” and I think that is highly questionable.

And the ‘no mention’ claims were challenged on Radio NZ.

However there is a treaty exclusion clause in the agreement, but there’s no agreement on the level of protection that it offers Maori.

With me now to discuss this is trade expert Charles Finney, a partner at Government relations consultant Saunders Unsworth, also Victoria University senior law lecturer Carwyn Jones.

So Charles if I can start with you, the clause, it’s too long probably just to read out but do you think it’s robust enough?

Charles Finney: Yes it’s pretty much the same clause we’ve had in every free trade agreement since the one we negotiated with Singapore that came into force in 2001.

It was drafted by Nigel Fyfe who is now actually a senior treaty negotiator for the Office of Treaty Negotiations, and it has basically stood the test of time. It’s been in all these agreements and has yet to be challenged.

This is slightly different in that it actually goes further and it basically says that interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi is actually not subject to the dispute settlement provisions of the agreement, so basically it’s up to New Zealand to say if the Treaty of Waitangi is actually covering a measure.

That’s quite contrary to Harawira’s claim.

So Carwyn, is that rub, is it there’s too much room for manoeuvre in the language?

Carwyn Jones: Well I think the key concern really is that essentially it relies on the New Zealand Government being willing to make an exception, to stand up and say we’re going to go outside of the general provisions of the TPPA because we believe that we need to do this for Treaty of Waitangi obligations.

What else could it rely on? We (New Zealand) must be responsible for ensuring provisions of the agreement are in keeping with the ToW.

Carwyn Jones: Now it’s been difficult enough to get movement from the Government on some of these long standing issues around things like traditional knowledge around environmental regulations, those kind of issues, without adding in other parties who don’t have Treaty of Waitangi obligations, who don’t have any interest in the New Zealand Government fulfilling their Treaty of Waitangi obligations.

We can’t hold back on any international agreements until absolutely every issue related to the ToW is completely dealt with to everyone’s satisfaction, which will probably be never.

So essentially it’s a lack of trust?

Carwyn Jones: Well I mean it is a lack of trust because we look at the history of the way Government has dealt with Treat of Waitangi issues and we see that we need to have some pretty strong provisions to be able to have some leverage and enforce those.

How could you get stronger than “it’s up to New Zealand to say if the Treaty of Waitangi is actually covering a measure”?

Ok, what does that mean about whether it’s subject to the dispute settlement process, does that come into this at all? Could people be sued over it?

Carwyn Jones: Well as Charles has pointed out the Government’s interpretation of the Treaty isn’t subject to those disputes, but the Government’s actions may still be open to challenge if the other parties are concerned that this is an unjustified discrimination against persons from those other parties, or if it is actually disguised as a restriction on trade.

And so even just that ability to make those challenges I think has a kind of chilling effect on what the Government is going to be willing to do and so I can only see them becoming more entrenched, more conservative, even less likely to start to move towards actually law and policy which is consistent with the rights guaranteed under the Treaty.

This sounds vague, I really don’t not what his specific concerns are here, especially regarding the TPPA.

Charles Finney: I think that those concerns really about New Zealand domestic politics, not about  the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, but I would note that we have had exactly this clause with the exception of the exclusion from the dispute settlement in all our free trade agreements, which have been subject to dispute settlements since 2001. We haven’t had a problem, we haven’t seen a chilling effect from Government action vis a via the Treaty, the Treaty settlement process has actually been accelerated and there have been a number of very good settlements  occurring with these agreements in place so I disagree with that view.

The perceived problems seem to be theoretical possibilities rather than real likelihoods.

But do you understand effectively where some Maori are coming from on this, if it is a question that they just don’t think that perhaps they will be backed up enough and that they will be in a position which could put them vulnerable?

Charles Finney: There has been extensive consultation with Maori on these types of provisions since the late 1990s, I personally have done a number of those consultations. Indeed I remember consulting with Hone Harawira’s sister on this issue about the year 2000.

The concerns have been listened to and I believe Government will act appropriately.  

People like Hone Harawira are unlikely to ever feel consulted enough or trust the Government on things like this.

Can we trust Harawira to tell the truth about what Treaty provisions there are in then TPPA?

Trade Minister Todd McClay released a factsheet on this:

Setting the record straight on TPP and Treaty

Trade Minister Todd McClay today released a new TPP factsheet outlining how TPP specifically recognises the Treaty of Waitangi, as well as other areas of significance for Māori including opportunities for Māori exporters.

“There is a lot of misinformation out there about TPP,” Mr McClay says.

“Nothing in TPP will prevent the Crown from meeting its obligations to Māori.

“As with all of New Zealand’s free trade agreements since 2001, TPP includes a specific provision preserving the pre-eminence of the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand.

“The value of the Māori asset base is now over NZ$40 billion, with significant ownership in key export sectors such as red meat, dairy, kiwifruit, forestry, and seafood.

“Maori therefore stand to benefit from the tariff savings under TPP on current exports across these sectors, which are estimated to be more than $200 million a year once the tariff commitments are fully phased in.

“New Zealand’s approach in its free trade agreements reflects the constitutional significance of the Treaty of Waitangi to New Zealand.

“The Treaty of Waitangi exception is in addition to the fact that the obligations in TPP have been designed so as not to impair the ability of governments to make legitimate public policy, including in health, education, and protecting the environment.

“Being part of TPP – which covers 36 per cent of global GDP, and takes 40 per cent of our exports – is strongly in New Zealand’s national interest.”

TPP Factsheet – TPP and Maori 21 Jan 2016 (pdf 82.73 KB

The factsheet includes:

A key feature of TPP is an exception that preserves the pre-eminence of the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand (Article 29.6 in Chapter 29 of the Agreement, see http://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/text). The Treaty of Waitangi exception has been included in all of New Zealand’s FTAs since 2001. This reflects the constitutional significance of the Treaty of Waitangi to New Zealand.

The clause:

TPP Article 29.6: Treaty of Waitangi

1. Provided that such measures are not used as a means of arbitrary or unjustified discrimination against persons of the other Parties or as a disguised restriction on trade in goods, trade in services and investment, nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the adoption by New Zealand of measures it deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Maori in respect of matters covered by this Agreement, including in fulfilment of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.

2. The Parties agree that the interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, including as to the nature of the rights and obligations arising under it, shall not be subject to the dispute settlement provisions of this Agreement. Chapter 28 (Dispute Settlement) shall otherwise apply to this Article. A panel established under Article 28.7 (Establishment of a Panel) may be requested to determine only whether any measure referred to in paragraph 1 is inconsistent with a Party’s rights under this Agreement.

The factsheet:

The Treaty of Waitangi exception in TPP specifically refers to the Treaty of Waitangi, and applies to the entire Agreement. The exception ensures that successive governments retain flexibility to implement domestic policies that favour Māori without being obliged to offer equivalent treatment to overseas entities. The “chapeau” language at the beginning of paragraph 1 of the Treaty of Waitangi exception (Article 29.6) provides assurance to trading partners that the New Zealand Government will not seek to abuse the flexibility that has been provided to New Zealand in respect of the relationship between the Crown and Māori. Paragraph 2 ensures that New Zealand’s interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi is not subject to the dispute settlement provisions of TPP.

It’s hard to imagine that Harawira is ignorant of this. If he’s aware of it as he should be if he is saying things like “Maori are almost unanimous in saying” then he should not be saying things that appear to be blatantly untrue.

 

Leave a comment

52 Comments

  1. Brown

     /  23rd January 2016

    Harawira is both ignorant and a liar. The latter is a fact because while I’m white I never fucked my mother. He is irrelevant except as a measure of crudity and thuggish behaviour.

    Reply
  2. Blazer

     /  23rd January 2016

    the TPPA stands for the trans pacific partnership agreement…..nothing about free trade in that descriptor.80% OF THE AGREEMENT IS NOT ABOUT TRADE ,SO HARDLY SURPRISING.

    Reply
  3. David

     /  23rd January 2016

    Todd McLay needs to come back from holiday and start doing interviews rather than firing out fact sheets, he needs to court the media a bit better and National Radio need their heads pulled in and stop insulting its audience particularly Morning Report. They need to remember their audience is not twitterers whose half arsed opinions are constantly read out as if thats the way their whole audience thinks.

    Reply
  4. Pantsdownbrown

     /  23rd January 2016

    Hone is typical of the left: Against something for the sake of being against something. He obviously has no idea what is in the agreement (and doesn’t care to find out for himself) but because the USA & John Key is involved in it whatever it contains must be evil. Ideal chance for him to again play the race card *yawn*

    Then he has the cheek to mention disrespecting Waitangi day when his extended family have trashed the day for years, to the point where the majority of NZLders treat it as ‘just another day off work’ rather than a day of national importance.

    Reply
    • Rob

       /  23rd January 2016

      “Hone is typical of the left: Against something for the sake of being against something.”
      The ignorance of that statement is appalling. If, in your opinion, it’s correct then it stands to reason that you know nothing of what’s in the TPPA and the only reason you agree with it is ‘stickin to the left’. Grow up.

      Reply
      • Iceberg

         /  23rd January 2016

        I think the facts in PGs post clearly support the accuracy of PDBs statement.

        Hone either is, or is pretending to be, an ignorant bafoon.

        Reply
        • Rob

           /  23rd January 2016

          I think the fact is you nead to learn comprehend what you’re commenting on.

          Reply
          • Pantsdownbrown

             /  23rd January 2016

            Rob: Not only do the facts go in my favour that Hone is either lying or doesn’t actually know the treaty of Waitangi is covered in the TPPA but you yourself have proved my statement about lefties – cheers for your assistance!

            Reply
            • Rob

               /  23rd January 2016

              Well, I guess I’m going to have to dumb it it down for you then because you’re lacking comprhension skills as well.
              Really PG, you need to try to attract a little higher quality of poster in here. The stupid brigade is invading. Pantsdownbrown is aiming for the blithering idiot award. And seriously, the leftie derangement syndrome is farcical in here. But, at least you don’t ban idiots like PDB and their ilk and they’re always fun to toy with.
              And by the way PDB I agree with you. Harawira is a smarmy prat who doesn’t speak for any, other than is own clan.

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  23rd January 2016

              Doing nothing to dispel the theory of the ‘nasty left’ are you Rob……….

            • Rob

               /  23rd January 2016

              Ahahahahahahahahaha. Give him the award PG.

  5. “Maori are almost unanimous in saying”

    hahahaahhahahahaahaha…. oh dear. Hones’ party got what 1.2 percent of the total votes cast 2014 election. He speaks for virtual no one as not everyone votes aka the missing million, so he represents less than 1% of the voting age public. So how doe s he know what hundreds of thousands of Maori around the country think?

    Why is he given so much air time and column inches? No one every challenges his outrageous statements in the media and rarely elsewhere. Though I do recall john Banks destroying him in a debate in the House on child poverty a few years back.

    Maori ceded sovereignty to the Crown in 1840. The Crown negotiates foreign treaties. The need for specific consultation with Maori is not required

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  23rd January 2016

      ‘I do recall john Banks destroying him in a debate in the House on child poverty a few years back.’…doubt this very much…Banks is as thick as…

      Reply
      • Blazer I listened to it. He ripped Hones’ arguments to shreds. And given Banks childhood, I think he knows a thing or two about growing up in an unloving home, surrounded by a bit of violence and not having 3 squares a day…. so he knows the child poverty arguments inside and out based on personal experience….

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  23rd January 2016

          Banks hard done by story is embellished believe you me.

          Reply
          • Prove it Blazer. Front up with some cold hard facts then. Otherwise you are just another I hate John Banks because he is a “tory” brigade….

            Reply
            • kittycatkin

               /  23rd January 2016

              John Banks is anything but thick. I have met him, and while he & I would never be kindred spirits, I admire and respect him. He doesn’t bang on and on himself about what a rotten start he had, he respects his parents and seems to have forgiven them (more than I could do). He wanted to be a policeman and was declined because of his family, but he ended up as Minister of Police ! People who are thick do not achieve what he has achieved. Most people who began life as he did would have either followed in father’s footsteps, I imagine, not done what he has done. To dismiss him as stupid is to show that one either envies him or has no knowledge of him and his achievements.

            • Blazer

               /  23rd January 2016

              he has been a brown nosed sycophant of business most of his life,a hypocrite,bigot,liar and intellectual lightweight…its all on record.

            • Banksie is not my cuppa. But i do respect someone making something of themselves from nothing. Blaze is just doing what Blaze does deflect and undermine…..

            • Blazer

               /  23rd January 2016

              no need to prove anything…if you believe that Banks cant remember a trip on a helicopter to Dotcoms mansion….you’ll believe anything!

            • kittycatkin

               /  23rd January 2016

              Those are opinions, and opinions on record prove nothing.

              I can well believe that he wouldn’t remember one particular helicopter ride-he owned and maybe still owns a helicopter himself, so they’d be no novelty to him.It would be like me remembering a particular taxi ride on a given day. He is a very busy man. You seem to forget that Dotcom has been proved a liar, and John Banks cleared. For all we know, the helicopter ride on that day never took place, or happened in his own one.

              Intellectual lightweight ? I doubt it.

            • Blazer

               /  23rd January 2016

              surely you jest re remembering a helicopter ride to Coatesville….a sample of Banks mighty intellect…thought Nokia was a Japanese company.Because you met him you are biased.

            • kittycatkin

               /  23rd January 2016

              I have met many politicians; I have met Winston Peters and I still can’t stand him. If I was biassed towards every politician I have ever met, I would be voting for every party.

            • Nice deflection when called on your BS Light boy…..thanks for confirming you have nothing but a personal antipathy.

              the chopper ride bs from Banks is a different topic all together but nice attempt to conflate them as part of you little personality assassinationa ttempt.. ciao

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  23rd January 2016

              Blazer: “Because you met him you are biased”.

              Because you haven’t met him Blazer you are uninformed……..I don’t particularly like Banks but he is no intellectual lightweight that’s for sure. The left have been underestimating John Key for years so no surprise.

            • Nelly Smickers

               /  23rd January 2016

              I always used to think Banksie was a bit of a hottie!

              That was until I saw him on TV one day eating his earwax 😦

            • Oh Smelly you’re a card

            • kittycatkin

               /  23rd January 2016

              He said that he made hundreds of helicopter flights so didn’t at first remember that one, but when he checked his records he realised that he had done it. If someone is as used to flying a helicopter as most people are to driving, one flight is unlikely to stand out in their memory. It’s not like most of us for whom a helicopter flight would be a one-off that we’d remember forever.

  6. kiwi guy

     /  23rd January 2016

    Meanwhile the Progressive Dildos are trying to fill the Auckland Town Hall:

    “EXCLUSIVE: An open invitation from Professor Jane Kelsey

    Now is the time to get out there and be visible in your opposition. WE NEED YOU THERE TO FILL THE TOWN HALL and show the government and corporate beneficiaries we don’t want a bar of their TPPA!

    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/

    She is a prime example of tax payer money funding Cultural Marxism’s attacks on us the taxpayers.

    LIke I said in another thread the universities need to be purged of these politicos.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  23rd January 2016

      a purge of all academics and intellectuals with the temerity to expose the failings of the established power base,you reckon….Pol Pot style.

      Reply
    • Henry

       /  23rd January 2016

      Kelsey is a commie who cares what that leech has to say.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  23rd January 2016

        ‘commie’ is so …yesterday…’cultural marxist’ is the latest label…whatever happened to tolerance,balance and freedom of speech!

        Reply
        • kittycatkin

           /  23rd January 2016

          There’s no answer to that.

          Reply
        • Pantsdownbrown

           /  23rd January 2016

          Freedom of speech can’t be too bad in this country when a raving loony communist such as prof. Kelsey gets funding by the National govt in order to continue her crusades against that same govt.

          Reply
          • Woe betide us if the system doesn’t critique itself Pdb. That’s Totalitarian ‘Communism’ at its worst, Stalin’s USSR, Mao’s China, Pol Pots Cambodia …

            The worst kind of BS to believe is your own BS without any sort of BS mitigation.

            Your idea that a highly educated woman who offers a cogent critique of neoliberalism and globalisation is automatically “a raving loony communist” amounts to nothing more than you belittling your own intellect IMHO.

            “Advocates of market liberalism within the Fourth Labour Government secured a power base from which they launched the New Zealand version of their paradigm, known as Rogernomics. The two policies (Rogernomics and recognition of the Treaty) were logically irreconcilable, and embodied the deeper, real contradiction of the colonial project itself. Once that logical contradiction became apparent, and the electoral implications became too costly, the Treaty policy gave way … [but] the fundamental contradictions of colonial capitalism, and the crisis of constitutional legitimacy for the colonial state, had not been resolved. They had merely been deferred” – Jane Kelsey, Doctoral Thesis 1991

            https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/2871

            Clearly a person worth listening to and the government obviously agrees …?

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  23rd January 2016

              Can you tell me something useful and worth considering that she has ever said?

            • I just did. See above. And, of course, you could find one yourself if you wanted to. But here you go – excerpt –

              “So public tertiary education has been redefined as primarily a private good, with education and research now private commodities to be bought and sold. Funding for the provision of any ‘public good’ element — or ‘social benefits not captured by individuals’ — is for government to determine as the putative beneficiary”

              Read the whole quote, about 3 times longer than above –

              http://academicfreedom.nz/2013/09/jane-kelsey-a-new-threat/

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  23rd January 2016

              Huh? That’s a conclusion qualified economists produced ages ago, not Kelsey who’s just a lawyer.

            • It wouldn’t have taken that much to read the whole thing! Anyway, look, its good to know where you stand. You advocate “Public Bad” rather than Public Good.

              Kelsey’s quote finishes thus –

              “Moreover, according to the Treasury, the universities are no longer ‘a key source of free information and discussion on political and other sensitive issues. In the information age, the very multiplicity of information sources is itself a form of protection’ — as modern totalitarian states have found.”

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  24th January 2016

              In other words, she hates competition and wants to be treated like an oracle. No surprise there.

              Here’s a question. Who should we take seriously? A safely tenured academic with a passion for seeing her name in print or exporters whose livelihood depends on the trade agreements she is scaremongering about? When the latter are telling us the TPPA is bad news not good I’ll give her rantings some credence.

            • Blazer

               /  24th January 2016

              ha has done, but you are not interested .You are interested in unsubstantiated smears as to her credentials and motives.Pretty typical unfortunately.

  7. artcroft

     /  23rd January 2016

    When Carwyn Jones complains only govt can action the TPPA provisions, he means if company A and company B reach a deal, moari would like the chance to clip the ticket but can’t if only govt can action TOW provisions.

    Reply
  8. Zedd

     /  23rd January 2016

    Good onya Hone.. I agree “DUMP the TPPA”
    I hear that 62 people now own half of the total global wealth.. is the TPPA going to reverse this trend OR make it worse ?
    I’m guessing its about the latter 😦

    “WAKE UP people”

    Reply
    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  23rd January 2016

      I’m ‘guessing’ you don’t know much about the TPPA if you need to be ‘guessing’ as to its content – ironic then to be told to ‘WAKE UP’ when you haven’t the faintest idea what you are talking about. I can see why you support Hone as he obviously doesn’t know what the TPPA is about either……

      Reply
      • Zedd

         /  23rd January 2016

        @pdb
        I’m guessing.. you’re guessing too much about my knowledge !?

        I’m guessing you need to “WAKE UP too”

        ‘Team Key’ are only concerned about keeping the top 50.1% onside (who keep them in power). The TPPA is about looking after the wealthiest & further widening the gap 😦

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  23rd January 2016

          Drivel. The TPPA is about facilitating trade around the Pacific which is crucial for this country. North Korea is about widening the gap – by sinking to the bottom. Let’s stay out of the free trade area like them, eh? We can see how well that works.

          Reply
      • Rob

         /  23rd January 2016

        And you do? Would you sign up for something like this personally when you don’t have a clue what’s there? Stupid if you did.

        Reply
  9. Pantsdownbrown

     /  23rd January 2016

    It must make Hone bitter that the National party has done more for the Maori movement then Labour has ever done in power. He openly says he hates white people then sucks up to, & sells out his party to Dotcom when the German throws him some money. Hone is a man of ‘no mana’ supported by a few zealots also wanting ‘free’ money.

    Reply
  10. Alan Wilkinson

     /  23rd January 2016

    How could you ever work with someone who just lies whenever it suits him or he can’t be bothered finding out the facts and makes them up as he goes along? Harawira clan living down to their bad name.

    Reply
    • kittycatkin

       /  23rd January 2016

      Hone probably thinks that unanimous means one person because a unicycle has one wheel, a unicorn has one horn and so on…so he’s right as far as that goes.

      Reply
    • Blazer

       /  24th January 2016

      on analysis you may find John Key is the undisputed champ at the behaviour you accuse Harawira of.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s