Speaker by Various Artists

You may have heard that last week Wikileaks released a new draft of the TPP IP chapter. This document was circulated after the Brunei round and reflects the scuttlebutt I had heard while at that negotiating round. In short, the US was pushing hard in the copyright chapter for very strict rules and that there was a lot of discussion on pharmaceuticals.

The draft includes the proposals and oppositions of the various negotiating parties. As such we get a much clearer idea of where each country stands. New Zealand, for example, looks like it’s taking a stand against strict copyright law, something we should be proud of (for the time being).

On To Promote the Progress, Gabriel J. Michael has done an excellent analysis on each country’s position and who they stand alongside. While his analysis doesn’t look at what each country is proposing, it does show some interesting trends in which countries are working together.

For example Michael finds that “there appears to be a strong negotiating network between Singapore, Chile, Malaysia and New Zealand”. Also interesting is that New Zealand agrees more with those countries (and Canada) than Australia. Australia though is the US’s closest ally.

The US and Japan are the loneliest countries, with the fewest number of proposals with other countries. They also have the second and third highest numbers of solitary proposals (Canada oddly is first in this category).

The cut down network graph is the one that makes the most sense. This shows exactly which countries are working together (click to enlarge): 

The US isn’t on that graph.

As I mentioned on Consumer NZ you can see the disparity on the first page of the IP chapter:

[NZ/CL/PE/VN/BN/MY/SG/CA5/MX6 propose; US/JP oppose: The objectives of this Chapter…

The US and Japan oppose what the objectives of the IP chapter are, this doesn’t bode well.

Looking at this document, and knowing that the most recent IP negotiator meeting in Tokyo was a bust, any reasonable person would say that there is no way this will be signed by early December. Not without serious capitulation by certain countries.

And this is why the leak is so important. We now know each country’s position, so we can see who caved to whom. Should our Government sign this in its current form we can all see where they sold us out.

Pharmaceuticals is clearly still a major issue with the US pushing for patent extensions for any conceivable reason and for patents to be granted to surgical procedures. This is the sort of patent law which sees patients left hanging or paying exorbitant fees for medical treatments. New uses for drugs, even if that use is not as effective, can be cause for a patent extension.

Longer patents for drugs, means longer waits for generic drugs and higher drugs prices. This in turn could see the cost of health insurance premiums rise.

The Nyes Institute released an analysis of the impact on health in New Zealand from the TPP:

Improving regulatory coherence, maximizing efficiency and economic growth are valid and worthwhile goals of TPP negotiations. A signed agreement would almost certainly be benefit New Zealand’s economic measures. However, it is important that legitimate health goals can coexist with economic aims.

…

The TPP has considerable potential to promote New Zealand’s economic growth and regulatory coherence. However, provisions which directly or indirectly threaten population health could undermine these benefits unless meticulous attention to detail can be paired with pragmatic forecasting of science. The TPP’s binding commitments necessitate detailed advice and analysis by the health experts. The confidentiality of TPP texts makes the requisite analysis by acknowledged experts impossible. Developing a more transparent mechanism for technical experts to provide much needed input is required.

If publishing draft texts is impossible then innovative approaches are needed to improve transparency, appropriately reassure the New Zealand public and minimize potential harms of the TPP.

This lack of transparency may be a shock to the United States Trade Representative’s office (USTR). Their head Michael Froman called the TPP “the most transparent trade negotiation in history,” and he did so while touring Paramount’s movie studio. Irony is also not on his radar.

While they may parade the number of stakeholders who have spoken at negotiation rounds (including me) listening is not the same as transparency. Steve from OpenMedia.ca notes that “Over 600 Industry lobbyists have been invited to the negotiations while citizen orgs, key decision-makers, and the public have been left out.”

In the interest of transparency the latest round of talks, being held right now in Salt Lake City, will “work closely with subject matter experts to advance the ball as far as possible on a number of outstanding issues."

Who are these subject matter experts? From what I’ve heard these experts will be similar to the ITAC-15 (the US Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Intellectual Property Rights), the group of businesses who have already seen the TPP documents. Note that while some New Zealand companies, such as Fonterra, are championing the TPP none have officially seen it.

Let’s be clear about something: signing the TPP in its current form is letting a foreign country (the US) and the foreign companies that lobby it write the law in this country. New Zealand has delayed the review of our copyright legislation because of the TPP, now we may have to change it in order to protect American media agencies.

Right now there is so much information out there on the TPP as both sides of the argument go into high gear. Many of the countries would like the TPP signed in early December, just looking at the leaked draft will tell you that they are nowhere near that. This means politicians will be horsetrading deals on what they will give up.

Again, because of the leak we now know each country’s position, so we can see who caved to whom. Should our Government sign this in its current form we can all see where they sold us out.

Consider this a call to action.

There is still a large portion of the population who have not heard about the TPP or know what it means for New Zealand. For some reason the media don’t seem to care for it either. Despite getting the leak exclusive from Wikileaks, the Herald buried the story on page 2, while TV3 left the story to the middle of their broadcast. So it’s up to you.

Post links to social media, talk to your friends and family about it, and always make it clear, this deal will make it worse for consumers.

Resources:

The Fair Deal campaign

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)

A Reddit AMA (Ask Me Anything) on the TPP with members of EFF, KEI, Public citizen, Techdirt and OpenMedia.ca

The IP chapter on Wikileaks

A series of leaked “talking points” from pro-copyright groups

TV3 political editor Patrick Gower left his viewers in no doubt on Sunday night as to the consequences of the Labour Party's conference resolution  to work towards representation by equal numbers of men and women, or "man-ban in drag" as he preferred to call it:

The new party rule means Labour's men may have to give up spots in parliament, earned on merit, to female MPs.

Labour's caucus is currently 42 percent female, but the quota means that number will have to rise to 45 percent by 2014, and 50 percent by 2017.

It means Labour's party list will be stacked if required, with women put ahead of men to meet the quota.

He had earlier made a similar claim on Twitter.

Labour has introduced a female quota system that will see men demoted down the party list at expense of females

— Patrick Gower (@patrickgowernz) November 2, 2013

It wasn't hard to parse the language -- the context of  a male MP under alleged threat of gender-based deselection is clearly the only one in which you'll ever hear Gower grant that a member has "earned" a position "on merit". But it became apparent to me that Gower's facts were wrong too. So invited Rachel Boyack and Stephen Judd, who'd been discussing it on Twitter, to write a post about the issue. This is it. RB

---

My Labour Party colleague Stephen Judd and I have been asked by Russell to write a guest post on the Party’s gender equality resolution, which was passed resoundingly on the Conference floor on Sunday morning.  Stephen is the Chair of the Ilam Labour Electorate Committee (LEC), while I am the Region 5 Representative on the Party’s ruling NZ Council, which recommended the resolution to the Conference.

Specifically, we’ve been asked to look at the maths involved; will there be “demotions” of male MPs? as Patrick Gower asserted on Twitter and then on 3 News?

Before I get into the massive factual inaccuracy inherent in Paddy’s tweet (using actual maths), I must make some important statements about the rationale behind the changes.

1. Under MMP, Labour has been “stuck” at between 30 and 40 per cent female MPs.  Considering the skills and capabilities of our New Zealand women, this just isn’t good enough.
2. All the International evidence shows that such inequality is a result of structural discrimination.  It’s why we need Maori seats to address structural discrimination for Maori.  It’s why the Union movement exists (to address inherent inequalities in power between workers and employees). Etc, etc.

Most importantly, the argument that by addressing diversity we ignore quality is complete nonsense.  First, all candidates must meet the requirements of the agreed Strategic Selection Criteria, which lists the values, skills and experience needed to be considered for selection as a Labour MP.

Secondly, as I said on the Conference floor on Sunday morning, we need quality and diversity in our candidates.  They are one and the same thing.  The implication that they are not suggests that somehow in New Zealand we have a whole lot of incompetent women who are going to end up being MPs.  That’s a pretty offensive suggestion. 

On Thursday I presented at the Party’s campaign college and I was impressed at the number of women who introduced themselves and said they wished to be a candidate for the Party. These were skilled, capable women with diverse credentials ranging from academia to community leadership.  Many of these women will be great MPs and Party women are telling me they now feel empowered to put their hand up.  The glass ceiling that has disempowered them for so long is gone, and I reckon we will see some exciting and capable women emerge as potential candidates before the 2014 election.

 Now, to the maths.  The spreadsheet below is fairly self-explanatory.  Assumptions made are:

1. Labour receives 40% of the 2014 Party Vote.
2. Labour receives 42% of the 2017 Party Vote (this is an increase in PV of 5.01%, the same increase that Labour received between the 1999 and 2002 Elections).

Using the modelling below, you will see that in 2014, with a Party Vote of 40%, Labour will have a total of 48 MPs.  With at least 45% of those MPs being female, there will be 22 women and 26 men.  This is an increase of 6 men on current numbers.

Let me repeat that for you.  An increase of 6 men on current numbers.

Even if the unheard-of happens and equality is reached (look out! the sky is falling!) in 2014, there will still be an increase of 4 men on current numbers.

 4 more men.

At this point in my analysis, I’ve missed the demotions, but perhaps Paddy could be helpful and point them out to me (hint to Paddy: there aren’t any).

 

You will see from the table above, that based on my assumptions, there could be a scenario in 2017 where there is one less man in caucus following the General Election.  Given that there are always caucus retirements between elections, it would be pretty disingenuous in my opinion to excitedly squeal “demotions, demotions”.  There will be natural attrition.

You can see more of my analysis on twitter by searching for #MathsWithPaddy

Now I’ll throw to Stephen, who I believe is going to lay out why he thinks the Gender Equity Resolution is A Good Thing To Do.

Rachel Boyack

---

Yes, I am the chair of the Ilam LEC, cultivating that stony ground to eke out a harvest of Labour votes.

More relevantly, I'm a Labour activist who's also a man and a potential candidate. And this weekend's changes don't bother me a bit. In fact, I'm proud of them and happy for them.

I broadly see two kinds of argument playing out here. Let's call them "fairness" and "merit."

If you believe that men and women are equally able to be good MPs, then the current situation is an unfair situation. Reducing the proportion of men to 55% next election and 50% after that isn't wronging men who miss out as a result. It's correcting the wrong done to the women who are already missing out.

To the extent that this might impact me personally, it's only taking away an advantage I should never have had. I expect that my chances of candidacy have diminished -- to a point that reflects my real ability. That's what 50% means. You can't give up on a commitment to equality just because you personally are going to get your free bonus points taken away. When you're a kid, and you get a bigger slice than your sister by accident, and your parents cut a bit off to even up, you might complain, but when you're a grown man, you don't moan about it.

Fairness plays out at a group and individual level. Some might argue that enforcing fairness for women as a group could mean individual men, deserving men, get missed out. Interestingly, that flows into my thinking about "merit".

I've see a lot of comment about merit, about selecting the best, about a fear that we might not get the best with a quota. There's a lot to unpack there: what is merit? What is best? Do voters vote on merit? But let's put that aside for now.

Because I'm a programmer by vocation and I have to explain things to managers a lot, I like to work with very simple demonstrations. So let's conduct a little thought experiment. Assume that merit is about the skills and talents that make you a competent MP. Assume that men and women possess those skills and talents in equal measure to men.

Suppose we have 10 positions to fill. Suppose we pick the top 10 men and the top 10 women available in our pool. Let's grade them in rank order.

Men:     A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J

Women:     A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J

An equal selection looks like this:

Men:     A B C D E 

Women:     A B C D E

Now let's make an unequal 10 person selection, where men get 70% of the positions:

Men:     A B C D E F G

Women:     A B C

You can see that we've lost a D and an E grade person from among the women, and we have an inferior F and G grade person from among the men.

Labour has many thousands of members, balanced more or less 50-50 men and women. It's unlikely that there is much difference in distribution of talent in a pool that big. Even if the bar for MP-worthiness is just 1 in 100, as long as we believe that men and women have equal capability, Labour is going to lose capability if we don't get enough women.

Public Address's own Deborah Russell has often pointed out research showing that having more women on corporate boards improves organisational performance. If you're a gender essentialist, you might argue that's because of some inherent beneficial quality women have that men lack. But I think it's simply that if only the top 3% of women make it compared to the top 7% of men (or whatever numbers you like), and men and women have equal capacity, then the more you strive for equality of representation, the more you replace men with women who are more capable.

Of course as Rachel has pointed out, in any scenario where Labour grows its caucus, we're not going to remove men. We're just going to add more women. And that's a good thing for the capability of the caucus, the party and ultimately the country.

If you check the party constitution, you'll see that the very first statement of party objectives is:

"To elect competent men and women to Parliament and local authorities through free elections for the purpose of giving effect to Party policy and principles."

Competent men and women, folks. Competency comes first.

The new rule is consistent with our objective of electing competent men and women; it's consistent with the belief in the equal capacities of men and women; it's consistent with our princples about equality and equity. And that's why I support it.

Stephen Judd

Much is made of how awful, lazy and self-obsessed Millennials are. They are apparently fickle and flighty and have no attention span. They’re obsessed with celebrity and politically disengaged, and care more about instagramming their lunch than they do about the big issues. They’re entitled and delusional.

But they’re facing huge issues. Personal ones like how to save enough to buy a house or have a family, and then retire. Like illness and immigration, and what to do next in their lives. Relationships and employment. And broader issues like the economy, climate change, poverty and crime.

One young Aucklander told researchers for The Wireless and Colmar Brunton he is worried about “human rights - we live in such a bizarre world, structured by systems that exploit its inhabitants. I am concerned with issues of structural poverty and believe that everyone … should be given the same opportunities.”

Another, a Pasifika student, said she is worried about the state of the world, “as everything is looking pretty despairing re unrest, discontent, economies in recession, high unemployment, environment being trashed, climate change, natural disasters.” She said it is easy to become quite negative about what the future holds. “Especially when we will also be expected to pay more taxes to support an older population.”

Though finding information has never been easier, it has arguably never been more important for that information to be accurate. A 2011 study found 89% of survey respondents, aged between 13 and 24, indicated that they learn about sexual health-related issues online – just a few more than the 83% who ask doctors or nurses. And, sure, if they’re accessing good information from a credible source, then that’s great. But it’s not so good if they’re crowdsourcing on Twitter which contraception to use.

Whether old-school journos like it or not, Twitter and other social networks are where “digital natives” are getting their information. They don’t care about the mastheads, they want their news shared from people they trust. And a market research firm called YPulse reported that two-thirds of Millennials think, even then, the information they’re getting can’t be trusted.

Here at Public Address and elsewhere, the media’s inability to adapt to a digital world, and to continue to deliver important journalism is referenced often. In the clamour for voices, it can be hard to distinguish what’s real. In the wake of this year’s Boston bombings, nearly a third of “relevant tweets” were rumours or fake information. Only 20 percent were real, accurate facts.

One young Aucklander told researchers “I use news websites such as the New Zealand Herald, BBC or CNN. The information presented on these websites I always take with a pinch of salt because I know that the media is not the most reliable source of information.” Another said “I get most of my information from the news, but I think it’s important to realise that this source of information can have some bias”.

That’s where we come in. The Wireless is aiming to tell entertaining, informative New Zealand stories for those people that have grown up in the digital age. We’ll tell their stories without advertising, without shying away from controversy, and with all of Radio New Zealand’s core ethics of accuracy, fairness, independence, respect and diversity. Radio New Zealand has an obligation to serve a wide range of interests, and all age groups. And while there are parts of the organisation who do that last part well, only a small percentage of its audience are younger listeners. The Wireless is reaching out to them.   

So here we are. We’ve been a long time coming. The Wireless grew out of agitation for a non-commercial youth radio network. That ship has probably sailed, but there’s still a need – more than ever - for quality, public service media for 18-30 year-olds. Ish.  And in the age of graph search and targeted advertising, not only are we not selling anything, we’re not taking anything from them either.

We’re a small team, and there are only so many hours in the day. But we have plans and ideas and ways to make The Wireless grow and evolve. So far, indications are that there’s a niche to be filled and we’re excited to be finally live to share some of these great stories. More are coming. In the meantime, there are always GIFs. 

 Megan Whelan is a senior producer for The Wireless, Radio New Zealand’s new online venture for the so-called “millennial generation”. 

Ed Kuepper is a musician so prolific that no doubt many others feel exhausted just thinking about his output.  He co-founded the Saints in Brisbane in 1974 along with Chris Bailey (singer-songwriter, later guitarist), Ivor Hay (drummer). Eventually, punk rock caught up with them, but failed to make them rich or famous. After three classic albums, Kuepper departed.

His next band was the Laughing Clowns, who combined post-punk and free jazz so compellingly that some people considered them one of the best live bands in the world.

Since then, Kuepper has also helmed the Aints, and has recorded over a dozen albums in his own name with a variety of backing bands, including Ed Kuepper and the Yard Goes On Forever, Ed Kuepper and his Oxley Creek Playboys, Ed Kuepper and The Institute Of Nude Wrestling, The Exploding Universe of Ed Kuepper, Ed Kuepper and the New Imperialists and presently Ed Kuepper and the Kowalski Collective.

Kuepper and the Saints weren't just punk rock before punk rock, they were early in on the DIY-record label scene, forming Fatal Records in 1976 to release their first single '(I'm) Stranded'. In 1980 Kuepper started up Prince Melon Records to release his work with Laughing Clowns and he continues to run the label today.

He’s been awarded ARIAs for Best Independent Australian Release in 1993, for Black Ticket Day, and 1994 for Serene Machine and was nominated for similar awards in 1992, 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998.

In recent years Kuepper has been involved in soundtracking radio drama and experimental film, touring Australia and Europe performing semi-improvised music to some of these films under the banner of MFLL. 2007 saw the release of Kuepper's Jean Lee and the Yellow Dog album, which was inspired by the story of Jean Lee who was the last woman hanged in Australia, and features amongst others, performances by Jeffrey Wegener (The Saints, Laughing Clowns), Peter Oxley (Sunnyboys), Warren Ellis (Dirty Three), and Chris Bailey (The Saints).

After opening on tour for Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds in 2008, Kuepper joined the band in 2009 as a touring guitarist upon the departure of Mick Harvey. His most recent album was 2012’s ‘Silent Winter’, where he re-worked tracks from earlier albums Electrical Storm and Rooms Of The Magnificent albums with brand new arrangements.

Ed’s a rare visitor to New Zealand, but you have a chance to catch this tireless performer opening for Television this Thursday night at the Powerstation.

 (Source: Wikipedia)

This is a bit of a broad sweep – but what started you on the path to become a musician?

To be honest it was all I thought about as a kid ... didn't want to be anything else.

The Saints are considered one of the most influential bands not only in Australia but in the world punk movement overall. What was the musical landscape like in Australia when the band formed, and what was the impetus behind starting the band?

I was writing songs and getting ideas for an overall sound for quite a while before asking Chris and Ivor if they wanted to be in a band, as mentioned earlier I wasn't that interested in doing anything else - all completely naive of course and much of it not really thought through. The music scene in Australia wasn't really engaging my interest that much; I thought the best years were behind us in a lot of ways and wanted to do something that was as exiting to me as that earlier music. Brisbane in 1973 when we started was basically populated by cover bands doing whatever was in the charts at the time...there were also a number of concept/tribute bands who would model themselves after some [usually] overseas act...for example wearing Alice Cooper style make-up and playing a set by that band. They'd probably do really well these days

I like the fact that you revisit some of your already-released songs on your 2012 album ‘Second Winter’; but with the addition of field recordings and other unusual sounds. So I guess even though you’re always moving forward, you’re ok with revisiting the past?

I've never moved in a straight line really - never considered the idea of musical progress really. So I guess I move backwards, forwards and sideways ... sometimes all at the same time. Even when I was starting out I think I always had a sense of the musical past and its importance to me....this sort of put the original Saints a bit at odds with the Year Zero notion that some folks tried to hang on the punk scene.

There have been a smattering of Saints’ reunions over the last few years. With the performance of ‘I’m Stranded’ as part of Don’t Look Back, what was it like going back to the very first album, considering how much you’ve done since then?

A bit strange, but mainly because Chris was so hostile about it ... I actually didn't have that much of a problem conceptually and thought it might be fun. I think Chris viewed it as not acknowledging music he has done more recently; I saw it differently.

You played in New Zealand not too long ago; was your only show the Penguin Club in Oamaru (or did I miss something)? And how did it go?

I did a couple of shows in Dunedin as well. I thought they went well, especially the one at the Musicians Club

You’ve been involved with running independent record labels for most of your career. How do you think the challenges for indie labels have changed over the years?

The challenge has always been to make and keep them financially viable - that hasn't really changed.

Your own label Prince Melon seems to be very much a family business; are your sons still involved? And are they interested in working in the music industry?

My sons are conscripts really, I don't think they have more than a passing interest in the industry ... tho’ they both like music

How did the tour with Television come about?

It was offered, and because I haven't been to Auckland for a while I agreed. It seems silly to me not to play in New Zealand more given its relative proximity

Not to give away any secrets, but what sort of set do you have in mind for the New Zealand show?

The set will be solo acoustic, along the lines of what I've been doing in Australia. I cover a lot of territory.

Finally, you have done so much touring over the years. Do you still enjoy it, and what do you do to relax/chill out/stay sane while you’re on the road?

I really enjoy the playing for the most part ... however, flying and bussing long distances I could do without.

Trade negotiations are tense affairs. There are always interested parties trying to get your ear, long nights spent arguing small but technical points, and the invisible but ever present political pressure. So it was in Brunei late August where the latest round of negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was being held. I was there too.

What is the TPP?

The TPP is a big free trade agreement between 12 pacific nations: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. Japan being the latest to join (Brunei was Japan’s first negotiating round) and now Korea may join the group. Initially it started back in 2005 with just Chile, New Zealand and Singapore with Brunei tacked on soon after. So the agreement has been negotiated for a long time.

For the most part it seems like a regular free trade agreement (depending on your opinion of FTAs). This meant that the actual negotiations and texts were not available to the public. When it was revealed that the negotiations were looking at more than just tariffs and quotas that it would also cover industry regulation, various groups became concerned. Then in 2011 a draft of the agreement was leaked.

The leak was of special importance for the IP (intellectual property) chapter, the only chapter that seeks tighter regulation rather than deregulation. For a start, if we agreed to the TPP, New Zealand would have to import the USA’s copyright laws. The far reaching proposals would:

• severely limit parallel imports,
• make it illegal to bypass TPMs (Technological Protection Measures) like geoblocks,
• lengthen pharmaceutical patents to delay generic drugs, and
• introduce copyright terms of 100 years after the death of the creator.

IP is not the only concern. There are a number of issues surrounding food labelling (as in there could be none), investment (investors would have the ability to sue a government if it regulates the industry) and removing agricultural tariffs (for countries that don’t want New Zealand exporting to them).

These are extreme. In the two years of negotiating following the leak, we have had no concrete evidence, no information about the content of the current TPP beyond the small amount of information that can be gleaned from negotiators. So we – the various organisations opposed to the TPP – are shadow boxing at some very scary looking shadows while we are told by politicians to “relax”.

The Brunei Round

The Brunei round seemed disorganised right from the start.

At every round so far there has been a stakeholder day where interested parties can make presentations followed by a Q&A session with the chief negotiators. At first we were told that there would be no stakeholder day… then that the stakeholder day was a two-hour stakeholder session… then the presentations were cut from 15 minutes each to seven… then the venue for the session was changed… all in the few days leading up the Brunei round.

Later we would discover that the Q&A session we had prepared for would instead be a stand-up mingle event. This meant less access to negotiators (many of whom didn’t attend the talks or the stand-up event) and that when a question was asked, only those in earshot heard the answer and of course the language barriers.

I was there for Consumer NZ as a member of Consumers International and part of a wider group called the Civil Society. We were not happy about the set up.

Our group had to make camp in the lobby of the International Convention Centre where we could try to catch the ear of any passing negotiators. Literally lobbying. We also held daily press conferences for the assembled Japanese media (I only met one journalist who wasn’t from Japan), that is when we weren’t being moved out of the way so the Sultan could come through.

I should point out that the negotiators are very friendly and open to discussion with concerned parties. Consumers International held a lunch during the Brunei round for a number of negotiators and we were able to chat extensively with negotiators from Australia, Canada, Vietnam, the US, and New Zealand. Sadly the best intentions don’t cut it when the world’s largest economy is leaning heavily on the negotiations (when the US negotiator arrived at the lunch there were hushed groans as “when the US is around no one can talk freely”).

But the bus ride from the lunch back to the conference centre allowed us to have a good talk to the New Zealand negotiating team. They were cheerful despite having been negotiating until 4am the night before and rising for an 8am start to the next meeting (and the coffee in Brunei isn’t great).

As pharmaceutical issues were the main part of the negotiations in the Brunei round, the majority of presentations were on the fight for more generic medicines.

The new TPP rules would see longer patent terms for drugs, increasing the time before cheaper generic drugs can enter the market. Other elements of the TPP would further extend patents should a new use for the drug be found. All of these mean further barriers to the creation of generic drugs which, in some cases, can reduce the costs of drugs by huge amounts.

In New Zealand this would mean that PHARMAC would have to spend more of its set budget on non-generic drugs. Currently PHARMAC’s role is to manage the funding that District Health Boards set aside for spending on community, cancer, vaccines and, eventually, hospital pharmaceuticals. New Zealand has decided to operate within a fixed medicines budget because of that, PHARMAC needs to make decisions between competing priorities to achieve the best health outcomes for New Zealanders.

If fewer generic options are available then PHARMAC will have to make decisions about which drugs are no longer subsidised. Keep that in mind when you hear NZ Minister of Trade Tim Groser say that Pharmac won’t change. No, it won’t, but it just won’t be nearly as effective.

For my allotted seven minutes I spoke on copyright and IP issues.

The IP issues

New Zealand is a small market at the end of the line. We understand this because we see it every day, reflected in the prices we pay for imported goods and the length of time it takes for media to reach us. We are a long way from pretty much everywhere else in the world and other countries in the TPP face similar boundaries, if not of distance, then of language.

There is nothing in the TPP (from the leaked document or the small amounts of information from the negotiators) that would see those prices drop. The only thing that would happen is media companies would develop long-standing monopolies that would drive prices up.

The loss of parallel importing would naturally be a huge hit, with libraries affected more than other institutions. The lack of competition in the market would keep prices high but beyond this there are further barriers to New Zealanders and consumers from other TPP countries.

TPMs, Technological Protection Measures, are placed on various media to control who is able to consume that media and in what way. This could be region locks on DVDs or online videos or it could be copying protection to stop piracy.

Under current New Zealand laws circumventing TPMs is legal: (emphasis mine).

“Devices that control the mere access to copyright material are not protected… Consumers will continue to be able to circumvent a TPM to undertake a permitted act because there is no prohibition on possessing and using a circumvention device. Consumers are not, however, able to make, sell or distribute a circumvention device if they know or have reason to believe that the device will be used to infringe copyright.”

Permitted acts are everything except breaking the copyright laws. So if you want to just watch something, like a TV show, then you are allowed to get around any TPM that restricts your access to that show. So you can use a service like Unblock-US or Global Mode and access Netflix to get TV shows completely legally (you may be breaching Netflix terms of service, but they’ll probably just be happy to be getting more money).

The TPP would make it illegal to circumvent TPMs. That means you could be charged for watching legally purchased media in the same way as if it had been pirated. So your multi-zone DVD player would now be illegal. So would any clever ways that you access the US iTunes store or Netflix.

When Breaking Bad (the international hit TV show) finally wound up in the US the show last show was broadcast in New Zealand on Sky’s Soho channel. To watch the Soho channel in HD quality costs a consumer a total of $66.90 per month. To watch the same thing on a legal internet streaming site like Netflix costs a small fraction of that amount.

Stronger copyright laws and imposing penalties won’t see this monopoly broken down or the price lowered.

To quote not-yet-Prime-Minister John Key from back in 2003 in regard to the parallel importation of films:

“[The New Zealand public] want to enjoy a movie that is current and not wait to see it in 9 months’ time, when it has gone from being fashionable to unfashionable. They are not interested in watching a movie that has already been bagged by movie critics on radio stations and television. Who wants to see The Lord of the Rings 2 years after it has come out?”

He’s right (or he was, now he’s in power he’s actually in favour of the amendment that he was arguing against in 2003). Where in the restriction of parallel importing, or in the tightening of laws around TPM circumvention, are the benefits for the consumers?

New Zealand is a country that is told to wait for content. For example the highly anticipated new TV series Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D is now out in the US, and while a New Zealand TV company owns the rights (or potentially the option for the rights), we are still left waiting for the content on our screens.

Post-Brunei

Since Burnei there have been a number of “inter-sessional” meetings taking place. These have been closed off with no input from external groups. When trade delegates met in San Francisco, none of the numerous copyright groups based in that city (like EFF) knew it was on.

The idea is to get the TPP signed off at the APEC meeting which is happening… right now! We were told this over and over in Brunei that the TPP would be signed off in October when the politicians get together and can make political concessions that the negotiators can’t. That is not happening. Now we are hearing “by the end of the year” as the signing date.

However, according to Inside US Trade:

“Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) countries on Oct. 2 wrapped up a nine-day inter-sessional meeting in Mexico on intellectual property (IP) issues, where they did not make significant progress in the area of pharmaceutical IP protections, sources said.

… One informed source said TPP countries have already scheduled two future IP inter-sessional meetings, one in late October and another in November.”

Further, as Obama was not at APEC our own John Key was in charge of the TPP meetings. With due respect to Key, all this does not bode well for the agreement being signed soon.

John Key has said that:

“You wouldn't want to bet the ranch on the fact a deal is agreed by the end of the year but let's see. Let's see the momentum we can generate”

He also called on pro-free trade business groups to speak up. To speak up in favour of the deal we know nothing about, which seems odd. Especially as businesses might not be in favour of the deal when the tariffs are agreed upon:

During their work to compile work plans for advancing talks on contentious areas, the ministers discussed market access that covers tariff elimination rules and intellectual property rights among others and agreed on the tariff elimination rule despite each TPP country having its own sensitivities.

Japan faces strong domestic pressure to retain tariffs on imports of rice, wheat, beef, pork, dairy products and sugar to protect domestic agriculture, but the latest development could bring challenges to the country's attempt to protect them from cheaper foreign products.

While in the US, certain businesses have actually read the agreement (as part of the US government’s process for international trade deals) no New Zealand company has seen the text. Does that seem fair to New Zealand businesses?

"If we accepted a low quality deal, sure it might make the process go a bit quicker but the long term results would be significantly diminished and no one is going to start this process up again.

"It's either get it right first time or live for a long time with a poor quality deal. I don't think we want to be in that position.”

Sadly, despite his cautious words as Chair, Key also concedes that it might be different if Obama was there because (and I paraphrase) “He’s so awesome”.

“How can there be trust in American delivery on the deals its leaders propose to others when Congress messes capriciously with the authority of the US government?”

That, on the other hand, is the conclusion of the East Asia Forum. This is echoed by Jane Kelsey from the University of Auckland. When I asked her how the US shutdown was going to effect the TPP negotiations this was one of her issues:

“The presence of Obama would have intensified the political will to do the deal. That would have been vital given the many outstanding issues.

“The budget crisis shows the problems with Congress. Obama does not have fast track negotiating authority, without which Congress can pick apart any 'final' deal. He was expected to move for fast track (formally Trade Promotion Authority) around now. But clearly the Republicans, especially the Tea Party who do not like such deals, are in no mood to make anything easy for him. It would be madness for any other TPPA country to sign a deal if Obama can't guarantee to deliver.”

Jane also mentioned that the political leaders are not scheduled to be together again for some time. There is a WTO meeting in Bali in December which is potentially the “end of the year” line we are suddenly hearing.

“What was unlikely to happen, is now impossible. That is likely to become the next significant political bargaining session. But trade ministers don't have the same weight or cache as political leaders.”

China isn’t part of the TPP but their presence is felt. Jane doesn’t believe that China want to be part of the TPP and some see the TPP as a hedge against China moving into more Asian markets. This isn’t much of a worry for New Zealand as we already have a FTA with China.

And so we trudge onwards towards a new deadline.

The statements

The TPP talks have concluded at APEC and we now have the statements from both the trade ministers and the leaders.

The Trade Minister’s report to the TPP leaders is full of lots of the usually woolly words you’d expect:

“The common vision and joint commitment of the TPP Leaders to a state-of-the-art agreement that establishes high standards and new disciplines has guided our work.”

And the occasional bit of unintended comedy:

“Ministers, negotiators and officials will continue to actively engage stakeholders in our respective countries, ensuring the transparent process to which Leaders are committed.”

But it does contain some actual information too (emphasis mine):

“On goods market access, Ministers have agreed on a timeline for progress in order to accelerate the pace of their work and finalize the overall package on the timeframe Leaders envision. Much progress has been achieved, but agreement remains outstanding on treatment of the most sensitive products.

“…At the same time, negotiators are continuing to make progress toward packages that will provide TPP countries access to one another’s services, investment, temporary entry, and government procurement markets. Access to services and investment markets is being negotiated on a “negative list” basis, which assumes access unless countries take an exception. Ministers recognize the substantial benefits that liberalizing services sectors can have on enhancing regional and global competitiveness, and each TPP country has successively improved its market access offers over the past year.

“…To help promote production and supply chains and trade among the TPP countries, and to support jobs across the region, Ministers have agreed that negotiators will construct a single tariff schedule and have common rules of origin. …In addition, to support the development of value chains among TPP members, negotiators are far along toward agreement on such issues as customs, express delivery, e-commerce, and standards.

“…The TPP countries have agreed on ways to improve our regulatory practices, promote transparency, and conduct regulatory processes in a more trade-facilitative manner, as well as to coordinate approaches in specific sectors.

“…Expanding the participation of [small and medium-sized enterprises] in regional trade will be helped by the enhancement of access to specific, relevant, and user-friendly information and resources about the TPP and its benefits.”

So lots of work still to do. And it seems that the emphasis is on those local tariffs and, importantly, tariff exclusions. Every politician on earth seems scared of pissing off farmers.

On the other hand the Leader’s Statement is short and has almost nothing in it. Here is the final paragraph (emphasis mine):

Stakeholders across the region have provided valuable input to TPP negotiating teams both onsite at rounds and in our respective countries. As we work to conclude these negotiations, we will further intensify consultations with stakeholders to craft a final agreement that appropriately addresses the interests of our citizens. We look forward to review and consideration of the outcome of our work, consistent with each of our domestic processes.

The word “citizen” is interesting as all of the discussions and statements from politicians have been about business and not individuals. I’m still at a loss how this deal will be good for the consumer.

The fight

This is a fight worth joining. The best way is to be loud. So let’s say something loud up front:

WE ARE NOT AGAINST FREE TRADE

The opposition to the TPP is not a minority far left movement as the government would have you believe: “a small group was opposed to the TPP but they were opposed to the China FTA and to free trade generally.” This is an oft-repeated slogan along with “billions of dollars in economic benefits” that has no meaning and is simply a placeholder answer to too many criticisms.

We simply don’t have enough information to support this deal. The opposite of this, that we can’t protest it because we don’t know if it’s actually bad, doesn’t fly for me. By the time we discover that it’s a terrible deal, it’s too late.

After the talks John Key said:

“Like a lot of these issues, left in a vacuum people can create uncertainty and therefore a fear factor which is very difficult for us to combat until we can go through point by point and say here is the counter-argument.”

“People” haven’t created uncertainty, the complete lack of information coupled with some scary leaks have created the uncertainty. This lack of transparency is the basis for the It’s Not Right campaign, the latest in a long line of international campaigns to stop the TPP.

Jane Kelsey is one of the leads in the opposition to the agreement. Her press releases (sometimes printed in the Herald) are an excellent source of information and she has a lot of inside knowledge. She also writes sometimes for the Daily Blog.

InternetNZ has been leading the Our Fair Deal campaign for a few years now. It started as a local movement and has become an international one with a host of partners (including Consumer NZ).

And for further reading, over on Werewolf Gordon Campbell has been writing some excellent articles on the TPP.

Sadly none of these efforts are as catchy as Japan’s J-Pop song:

 ---

Hadyn Green usually writes here under Field Theory, but for this article he’s wearing his Consumer NZ hat.