New Zealand's Trade Minister Admits They Keep TPP Documents Secret To Avoid 'Public Debate'
from the who's-ill-informed? dept
A couple years ago, then US Trade Representative Ron Kirk explained why the negotiating text of trade agreements like the TPP needed to be kept secret: because if the public debated it, the agreement probably wouldn't be approved. He used, as an example, a failed trade agreement where the text had been public. Beyond the "small sample size" problem of this explanation, the much more troubling aspect is the obvious question of recognizing that if public debate would kill the agreement, perhaps it's the agreement that's the problem and not the public.Apparently, New Zealand's current Trade Minister, Tim Groser, feels similar to Kirk on this issue. During a question and answer period, he was asked why he won't share the draft texts with, say, medical professionals for input, given that the current leaks suggest it would be a disaster for public health. Groser's answer is quite telling, in that he admits that he fears the public debate, because it would be "misinformed."
Hon Phil Goff : When the Minister has the right under Trans-Pacific Partnership rules to provide negotiating texts in confidence to relevant groups outside the Government, why has he not taken advantage of that right to ensure that core groups like medical professionals are properly informed about the issues under negotiation?Goff immediately tries to point out that Groser does not, in fact, answer his question, but is cut off by the Speaker of the Parliament who claims that the question has been "addressed."
Hon TIM GROSER : We are trying to make this negotiation a success, and the member is well aware that there is some quite heavy politics here and that full disclosure to certain parties is likely to lead this to go immediately into the public debate on an ill-informed basis before the deal has been done. We are very conscious of the interests of New Zealanders in protecting themselves from such legislation, and we will continue to take a very responsible approach in this negotiation.
Groser's response is revealing. First, he doesn't actually answer the question. Goff doesn't ask him about revealing it to the public, but merely "medical professionals." Groser is the one who leaps to the conclusion that sharing the text with medical professionals will result in public debate. Why would that be the case unless the issues in the document are so severe and so concerning to those medical professionals that they would feel the need to leak the document to the public?
Second, going back to the point concerning Ron Kirk's comment: if you're going to lose the public debate, then perhaps it's the agreement that's the problem, rather than the public debate. If these agreements are so good and important, then why can't Groser and others present that information to the public so that they're not "ill-informed." Yes, these are draft texts and not the final ones, but there are other forums in which such draft text negotiations are done publicly, and it hasn't been a problem. It's only in these international trade agreements where the final product is only revealed to the public after it's too late to make any changes or get any input from the public who is most impacted.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: new zealand, public, public good, ron kirk, secrecy, tim groser, tpp, trade, transparency, ustr
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
A point, but not the one intended I'm sure
I agree, if the texts were made public, the initial reaction, before people really started digging into it, would likely be 'ill-informed'. You know who's to blame for that though? It's sure as hell not the public.
Rather, the guilty parties are those intentionally keeping the texts, discussions, and any details involved in the 'negotiations' secret.
The public is 'ill-informed' because they've been intentionally kept in the dark during the entire process. What few tid-bits have made it out have been due to leaks, not due to the 'transparency' of those involved.
If he's worried about an 'ill-informed' reaction from the public should the texts and negotiations become public, he has only himself to blame, alongside those from other countries who have likewise kept the public ignorant the entire time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A point, but not the one intended I'm sure
But instead of having the process be so unbelievably gedulgd, it may be worth it to change the format of the negotiation to: Secret negotiation, public debate around wording, secret negotiation, public debate with a split of either back to negotiation or signing. But the bully doesn't want his playground to become public since he will look unbelievably bad.
Democracy and the several different public rights aren't N/A. There is a continuum in both areas. The most serious countries on these continuums are large in political entities and have significant regulations. In this case regulation is a surrogate for the loss of control, but it is making the really undemocratic dealings harder to do without fear of oversight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A point, but not the one intended I'm sure
Not sure we see the current process the same way. It seems to me like the current system is more like sign, implement, rubberstamp, then (maybe) negotiate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A point, but not the one intended I'm sure
is the crux. They've decided amongst themselves that they don't like the way society works. Even something like democracy that only gives minimal lip service to freedom is too limiting to their preferences. They want to change the game to something more to their taste.
This is plutocracy, oligarchy, or tyranny. Freedom for us serfs is anathema, and they've decided to eliminate it. The experiment with democracy didn't work (for them), so they're ending the experiment and going back to tried and true ways of controlling all those noisy masses of indentured servants, serfs, and proles.
I'm glad I'm too old to have to see it finally come to fruition. Enjoy the revolution, all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A point, but not the one intended I'm sure
This sounds almost like an admission that these negotiations aren't about the public interest but more about the politics involved.
I don't understand how these people can continuously be so tone deaf. It's like Sandra trying to argue that forty years ago only 'legitimate businesses' participated in the debate (and now it's a bad thing that others are participating). Does she not realize this is an admission to the undemocratic nature of how politicians and regulators try to conduct these debates? I just don't understand how can these people can continuously make such tone deaf statements in public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What would happen...
I think every nation should, for the protection of its people pass such a law.
And any nation that doesn't should be regarded as less than adequately interested in the welfare of its people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What would happen...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What would happen...
⛔ Such laws have been passed in some of the countries participating and have been ignored. This was revealed during the earlier attempts to pass ACTA. Canada I believe is one such country and some of the EU countries have this that any trade agreements have to be revealed to the public during the negotiation process.
Needless to say those laws have been ignored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What would happen...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Release the texts to the public so there can be an informed debate. Problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
circular reasoning
It's kind of like the government of California arguing they need to arm and train cops in lethal force to keep everyone safe from people like Christopher Dorner -- a cop armed and trained in lethal force.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
protected from the world and cared for by superior wise elders like Groser. This is typical of the delusional
worldview of the corrupt, criminal-conspirator monsters that currently control all of the anglophone governments.
We've got a big fucking problem here. TPP is just one of the MANY symptoms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
blow me peons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: blow me peons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are citizen groups working to stop the TPP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shorter Tim Groser
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shorter Tim Groser
Shorter: We can't tell the public what we're doing because the public wouldn't agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"the member is well aware that there is some quite heavy politics here"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "the member is well aware that there is some quite heavy politics here"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
choice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“But, WILL CHINA SUPPORT PUTIN (BRICS, et al); The WHITE KNIGHT”?
SUPREME COURT of CANADA'S, et al, FINDINGS, et al to PROCEED.
It will be good for, not only the NON shareholders of the enterprises that will be generated by the on-going global "cooperation" of corporate treaties, agreements, partnerships, et al, including the China - Canada Investment Treaty, The Trans Pacific Partnership, the EU - Canada CETA,
but,
for the potential shareholders, as well,
who are quite interested to know if President Xi Jinping (China) will support Russia as a co-member of B.R.I.C.S. when President Putin uses his potential role as "The White Knight".
And, while President Putin's potential support as “The WHITE KNIGHT” in the development of the CETAgreement, et al, litigation below can dramatically off-set the hundreds of billions of dollars due to the present & future sanctions leveled by American led, et al, corporations & financial institutions via their governments' signing their global corporate economic treaties/”arrangements”,
and the potential for making trillions of dollars for the Russian economy over the next 30 - 40 years & beyond,
are the citizens (SHAREHOLDERS & NON shareholders) of Germany & JAPAN just being prudent in wanting to wait for the outcome of:
1) the submission to The SUPREME COURT of CANADA & the highest court in Germany, et al, to make their findings regarding “The Submission”:
"The SHAREHOLDERS & Corporations of AMERICA, et al
v
the harmless Canadian NON shareholders, et al"?
and
2) "The MERKEL (Chanc. Germ.) Letter; To Sue, or, Be Sued”?
(see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com )
Have the federal representatives of the nations that are the potential signatories of CETA, TPP, et al, willingly provided the NON shareholders of China, Canada, Europe, the Trans Pacific nations, et al, with the aforementioned information? Are the federal representatives, et al, depriving the NON shareholders of Canada, et al, of the due diligence information that enables the family of the NON shareholders of Canada, et al, to make informed decisions regarding their financial planning?
And, would a reasonable person conclude by a preponderance of the evidence, &/or, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these documents, et al, demonstrate that the SHAREHOLDERS of AMERICA, CANADA , the EU & Trans Pacific nations, et al, really do not care which NON shareholders pay them the punitive penalties, etc., by way of their secret (“Death-Star Chamber”) TRIBUNALS, as long as its not the SHAREHOLDERS who pay & not their corporations regardless of which country the corporations:
1) operating from,
2) maintain their headquarters,
3) use to do their cyber banking, accounting, "taxation", etc.
&
4) et al?
And, re; the CHINA – Canada Investment Treaty, is it understandable why the “coveted” Hong Kong investor & his associates are “concerned” with the aforementioned findings of The SUPREME COURT of CANADA, et al, & the effects of the findings, et al, on the EU, AMERICA, the Trans Pacific nations, et al, treaties with CHINA, et al?
In regard to arms sales; how about the sale of arms (non nuclear) in general in regard to the "trade" treaties that are continuing to be secretly negotiated and how will the Tribunals, both; B.R.I.C.S. & non BRICS, adjudicate, decide & penalize the NON SHAREHOLDERS for the sale of legitimate, semi- legitimate & "illegal" sales of arms within the signatories nations & the those of others, &/or, unaligned? Of particular, interest is China, which does have an treaty with Canada, which puts China "at odds" with other arms manufacturing & nuclear powers that it (China) does not have any "arrangements" with.
Are these types of questions that your politicians & the corporate lobbyists calls "forget-me-nots" ("Buyer Beware") that will be (maybe) worked out after the fast tracked signatures are obtained?
And, what do you think is the significance of the line in The Submission to The Supreme Court of Canada “...And, lest one forgets that the revelation of the present perilous international treaties/”arrangements” began with the regard for the rights of Native Canadians as per the Treaties/”arrangements” that corporate Canada & the Government of Canada have “foisted” upon Native Canadians...”? What are the various ways that this line will cost the SHAREHOLDERS, et al?
On the other hand, it may be worth repeating yet again,
"What the TREATY of VERSAILLES was to the 20th century PALES in COMPARISON to the TPP, CETA, C-CIT, NAFTA, et al, in the 21st".
And, how will YOUR submission to YOUR highest court IMPROVE upon The Submission that is presently before The Supreme Court of Canada?
David E.H. Smith
- Researcher
- “Qui tam..."
******
For more Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics by way of the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement, TPP, et al, and The WAD Accord
& List of RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by DEHS,
see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"So, the agreement before us here today is that the employees shall be paid only in company scrip redeemable only at the company store where all products be sold at a 300% markup. All employees shall live in company housing and all creative works made by employees on company property shall belong exclusively to the company to be licensed for maximum corporate profit. All in favor?"
"What about the employees? Shouldn't we show this agreement to them and ask their opinion before we vote on it?"
"Of course not! We are trying to make this negotiation a success, and the member is well aware that there is some quite heavy politics here and that full disclosure to certain parties is likely to lead this to go immediately into the public debate on an ill-informed basis before the deal has been done. We are very conscious of the interests of the employees in protecting themselves from such an agreement, and we will continue to take a very responsible approach in this negotiation. If the public debated it, the agreement probably wouldn't be approved."
"Oh, all right. All in favor?"
"Aye!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Need to know basis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Private lobby
Who said it was Edgar Vasquez, who is chief of TPP negotiations from peru.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When the Merchant is King, we all have a price on our heads.
Nice eulogy eh! :)
I thought it might be a little large for a tombstone...
But then I realized that tombstone was gonna be huge!!
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no comment
No comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]