Kelsey defends professionalism

Jane kelsey defended her professionalism in an urgent Waitangi Tribunal hearing in the Trans -Pacific Partnership Agreement.

Stuff: Professor Jane Kelsey defends herself

During questioning the Crown pointed out the academic failed to mention any positive aspects of the trade deal in her affidavits for evidence.

“So if something’s not good enough to your standards, you don’t mention these positive aspects to it,” said Crown lawyer Mike Heron.

Kelsey is well known as a long time opponent of the TPPA and of trade agreements. On trade matters she looks like an activist more than an academic.

“You’re giving evidence as an expert. Do you understand the obligations on you?”

Kelsey seemed to take that as an attack on her professional integrity.

Kelsey told the Chair Judge Michael Doogan that she was offended by the questioning.

“The concern is that somehow the Crown is suggesting that I have not acted with professional propriety in making that assessment of the Treaty exception,” she said.

“And I find that objectionable.”

“I actually think you are trying to paint an image of me as ideologically opposed to everything for the sake of it,” Kelsey had told Heron, a few minutes before the objection.

“And I’m saying to you that there is a rationale behind that.”

Some people find it objectionable that Kelsey uses her academic position to promote one side and attack the other rather than attempt to give a balanced assessment.

Heron said he was not trying to assert that. He had been pointing out that the Treaty of Waitangi provision in the trade deal was “unique”, that it “positively discriminated to Maori”, and that it was a show of “leadership” by New Zealand.

But Heron had made his point, and Kelsey amplified that point by objecting.

Does anyone not think that Kelsey is “ideologically opposed to everything” about trade deals and the TPPA?

 

Leave a comment

26 Comments

  1. kiwi guy

     /  16th March 2016

    She attempts to avoid the question by clutching her pearls in feigned outrage.

    Kelsey is a Marxist, she and the rest need to be purged from the universities where they live comfortably off the tax payer and student debt while brainwashing kids with anti Western Marxist propaganda.

    Reply
    • jamie

       /  16th March 2016

      Calling for a purge of academia along political lines? Pretty disgusting as usual, kg.

      Remind me again, what is this (literal) fascist adding to the discussion?

      Reply
      • kiwi guy

         /  16th March 2016

        LOL, the universities – at least in the Liberal Arts section – are already under Progressive control. They need to be thrown out so universities can become centers of thought and inquiry instead of factories producing radicalised youth.

        Not to mention the low low standards of Feminist and Marxist academia.

        Reply
  2. kiwi guy

     /  16th March 2016

    I should add her only profession is being a Marxist propagandist. The Left can’t get enough of her.

    Reply
  3. Alan Wilkinson

     /  16th March 2016

    Kelsey is a professional objector, not an objective professional. If the Tribunal doesn’t accept that they destroy their own credibility.

    Reply
  4. David

     /  16th March 2016

    She has no credibility on trade and as above is a commited Marxist by all accounts. She has opposed the TPP from the very beginning before anyone even had an idea, including negotiators, what was in there. That she is briefing the Labour caucus is just alice through the looking glass bizarre and they rate her higher than Goff and Shearer shows how bad they have become.

    Reply
  5. Brown

     /  16th March 2016

    The biggest danger in Kelsey is that she presents well and even rational people sometimes have to pinch themselves to not slip under her spell of bullshit masquerading as facts. The left love her for good reason – she’s one of few who can string together a sentence that sounds half sensible.

    Reply
  6. Zedd

     /  16th March 2016

    Why is it.. that anybody who ‘rattles the cages’ or speaks out against ‘the mainstream’ is summarily labeled a ‘marxist’ OR ‘loony left’.. FFS if we all agreed with every statement uttered by ‘Team Key’.. it would be a very BORING country/world !! “WAKE UP” :/

    “Good Onya Jane.. more POWER to ya !” Viva la revelucion.. 🙂 😀

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  16th March 2016

      Kelsey’s CV invites the marxist/loony left characterization: http://keywiki.org/Jane_Kelsey

      Reply
      • Goodness me Alan, she shouldn’t even be classified as human with a CV like that! Imagine people belonging to organisations they have a robust emotellectual affinity with? 😦

        Coming from entirely the other direction, guess who else doesn’t like free trade agreements, although they are big-time advocates of free trade? 🙂

        “Trade agreements are filled with “exception.” A favor[ite] is protection from foreign competition for those who wield political influence through vested interests … Rather than free trade these agreements create a regime of managed trade and, not least lots of expensive useless wealth-consuming jobs for bureaucrats.

        To supervise and control trade between countries makes as much economic sense as supervising and controlling trade between the states or provinces of the same country …”

        https://mises.org/blog/free-trade-versus-free-trade-agreements

        I hope its genuine ‘Mises’ because the writer has some difficulty with English spelling and grammar? A translation thing I guess?

        Anyhow, we can’t win eh? We get way out into Far Right Field and darned if there isn’t an Anarcho-Capitalist way outside of us … 😉

        Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  16th March 2016

        Simple fact is she does have a Marxist extreme Left background. Which answers Zedd’s complaint.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  16th March 2016

          She’s almost a caricature of that kind of person. If I read a novel that had her in it, I’d be returning it unfinished to the library or cursing myself for wasting money if I’d bought it.

          Reply
    • Zedd

       /  16th March 2016

      whats this 8 thumbs up.. I almost miss when nearly every comment I made, got mostly thumbs down.. followed by scorn & derision ! 😀

      Reply
      • @ Zedd – Orrrhhhh, sad isn’t it? Sorry to hear you almost miss the scorn and derision. I’m sure someone is out there planning a load of it to dump on you! 😀

        I personally do not see why an “expert” attending a Waitangi Tribunal hearing cases about TPPA clauses specifically relating to Maori should necessarily make a complete and objective appraisal of the entire document? (All 6000 pages of it!) I just don’t understand that. I think it is the application of very convenient false logic. Kelsey was there right from the beginning to elaborate upon the perceived ‘inadequacies’ of the document in relation to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Maori, surely?

        As I understand it, the Tribunal doesn’t meet regarding land claims where there ISN’T a land claim, it meets only because there IS a land claim? It’s not meeting because there ISN’T TPPA concerns, but because there IS such concerns. :-/

        Reply
        • Zedd

           /  16th March 2016

          @PZ
          I look forward to it.. (mainly the scorn.. BUT also the derision too) 😦 😀

          Reply
  7. Well, I don’t know about anyone else, most people appear to wanna just have another kick around Jane Kelsey session. I thought yous’d be tired of that by now? :-/

    Me personally, I’m interested in what the Maori concerns are. Do I need to add Iwi, hapu, individual … I don’t care … just other people’s concerns. 😉

    Incidentally, those words, “interested” and “concerns” do not mean anti or against TPPA or anti-trade agreements generally, just as they do not mean anti-trade. 🙂

    I probably do share Kelsey’s apparent scepticism about neoliberal economics and globalisaton though, to be fair, at least to some extent. I don’t know about “ideologically opposed”? If an academic studies the facts available to them as ‘objectively’ as possible and comes to the conclusion free trade is detrimental and therefore they oppose it on those grounds, is this necessarily “ideological”? If so, can’t one equally say all those who support FTA’s do so “ideologically”? Some people clearly believe free trade itself is an “ideology”. Here is a lengthy paper I have not read completely yet but which appears to be a fairly objective analysis, albiet of what the author calls ‘free trade’ vs ‘fair trade’?

    http://www.academia.edu/525365/Free_Trade_vs._Fair_Trade

    The Herald – once keeper of the Centre-Right faith, now debunked as “Loony Left” like every other MSM rag – has deemed to report on the Tribunal’s TPPA hearing –
    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11605570
    – arguably even with a certain “report the facts” objectivity?

    Nowadays you get your hardcore ‘Righty’ view over at ‘No Minister’ –
    http://nominister.blogspot.co.nz/2016/03/on-waitangi-tribunal-yet-again.html
    – where sadly little ole’ YourNZ doesn’t even rate a mention on his – whoever ‘he’ is – Blogroll Right or even his Blogroll Left? Does YourNZ have a pageview counter like No Minister? Number of pageviews in the last month would be interesting PG …? :-/

    And get your Lefty view as always at – http://itsourfuture.org.nz/what-is-the-tppa/

    Where’s the Centre gone? If YourNZ can’t even discuss the actual issues being raised at the Tribunal hearings, only the challenge to Kelsey’s “professionalism” and her response? IMHO, this topic is just a set-up for ad-hominem replies, and that’s exactly what it has largely received. 😀

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  16th March 2016

      “We do not accept that the Treaty exemption is the protection the Crown claims it to be,” she said.

      Well, until they give some basis for that position the only possible response is, “Why should we care what you accept?”

      Reply
      • I don’t know if transcripts of the hearings are available Alan? They may be and perhaps they should be? If there were examples cited – which is what I heard was happening, some theoretical examples were being presented – then you are right, it is lax of the Herald not to report them or at least one of them.

        Reply
  8. Pantsdownbrown

     /  16th March 2016

    Kelsey: ““I actually think you are trying to paint an image of me as ideologically opposed to everything for the sake of it,” Kelsey had told Heron, a few minutes before the objection”.

    He sure did and very successfully I might add…….as an ‘expert’ you’d be expected to weigh up both sides of the argument before reaching an outcome (as obviously there is some glaring positives to the TPPA). By not doing so, even if they are only minor positives, she is effectively showing us that she is opposed through ideological beliefs rather than based on any facts before her. It shows there was no actual method of looking at the positives/negatives before reaching her final ‘TPPA is all bad’ conclusion. In fact she was 100% against the TPPA before she had access to the full text – the classic ‘chicken before the egg’ approach.

    With that obvious strong anti-TPPA bias anything she might say against the TPPA is badly tainted. Well done crown lawyer Mike Heron!

    Reply
    • Docu-drama of the tense Tribunal scene. Heron played by Dr Chris Warner and Kelsey by Antonia Prebble … suitably aged …

      Heron: Mzzzzz Kelsey, you’ve come here to support claimants’ cases that TPPA clauses, the Treaty exception especially, will not or may not sufficiently protect Maori interests under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, correct?

      Kelsey: Yes, that is correct.

      Heron: And yet you have wilfully neglected to provide a thorough and complete evaluation of all 6000 pages of the entire document or mention even one positive thing about it! Do you not feel professionally obligated to do that? Do you not feel unutterable professional shame for not having done so?

      Kelsey: Well of course not! As you said in your first question, I am addressing the Treaty exception only, that’s what we are hearing at present, and my assessment of that provision is as I have stated. Is this too simple for your learned self to comprehend? Having, I might add, apparently already comprehended it in your first question? We are not litigating the positives Mister Heron, we are hearing the possible negatives. If you wish to call another witness to make the positive case, by all means do so.

      Reply
      • Pantsdownbrown

         /  16th March 2016

        A more likely scenario at the end is this;

        Kelsey: Well of course not! I have been against the TPPA even well before any of the transcript was released based purely on my hatred for such agreements. Reading the agreement? How absurd! and further to the specific issue at hand of the Treaty of Waitangi – again I fail to point out how well a very similar Treaty of Waitangi provision works in the China – NZ trade agreement because I was 100% against that agreement too (still am), and I never admit to being wrong so trying my luck again here pushing my same old narrative.

        Heron: The same China – NZ trade agreement that helped keep the country afloat in the recent GFC and has not affected the crowns treaty obligations by the slightest?? Thanks Professor, you have strengthened the case for the crown quite considerably.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  16th March 2016

          Pants-for an awful moment I believed this-then I read the first line properly 😀

          Reply
  9. Kitty Catkin

     /  16th March 2016

    What a tiresome person she seems-she must be hell to live with !

    Reply
    • Iceberg

       /  16th March 2016

      She’s ok, leaves the looney Marxism at work, cooks and cleans at home.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  16th March 2016

        How do you know ? I bet that she’s not too much of a Marxist to not have a cleaner !

        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