Polity: TPP, eh?
216 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 Newer→ Last
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Oh and I’ve written my little rant under that RNZ article about why the family farm analogy doesn’t add up, at least in my own view.
-
I skimmed the wikileaks copy but didn’t find what I was looking for, anyone know if we’re going to get software patents forced on us?
-
Sacha, in reply to
Apparently not, though it's because of the cunning way our law against them was implemented rather than any negotiating chops.
-
I wonder if it works the other way ......
I do love the words in and around copy protection, I'd like to note that an "effective technological measure that controls access to a protected work" is not one that can be broken .... seems to me that anyone who finds themselves in court for breaking copy protection can simply point out that because it was broken it was not effective and therefore law does not apply .....
-
Latest from Andrew Little;
Badly framed - sounds defeatist as opposed to defiant.
-
Alfie, in reply to
Followed up with a taunt from Key to keep Labour in their place.
Prime Minister John Key says he would prefer for Labour to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPPA), given the two parties have been "locked at the hip historically when it comes to trade deals".
"In the end if Labour don't vote for it, it says a lot more about Labour than it says about TPP. It just means they're not thinking like an alternative Government - they're thinking like the Opposition," Key said.
Doh! They are the opposition, Prime Minister.
And naturally, Labour again portrays itself as Nat Light rather than offering any credible alternative.
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
Yes, feels like they couldn’t frame Roger Rabbit :(
RNZ leading? their bulletin and repeating inside ‘Labour *supports* the TPP despite … ’ I listened carefully, and didn’t hear Little say ‘support’ even once. He just said they were unlikely to pull out. -
Prof Jane Kelsey appears to have won a minor victory with her High Court TPP challenge to Tim Grosser. Here’s her take in the Herald.
The High Court’s decision today that Trade Minister Groser acted unlawfully in refusing to release any information to me under the Official Information Act should act as a wake up call for him and the government.
In his determination to keep everything secret, Minister Groser treated his legal obligations with contempt. He did not look at a single document before deeming every piece of information too sensitive, or too anodyne, to release.
During the case the Minister’s standard line, parroted by many politicians and media commentators, that ‘negotiations are always done this way’ was abandoned in the face of evidence they are not.
My reading suggests that the Court has ordered the Minister to revisit his decision (PDF) and I can’t see the Key government losing too much sleep over that. To them the OIA seems to be a method of concealing information, rather than honouring it’s intended purpose.
Kelsey continues.
It’s time for the post-Atlanta debate to focus on the substance, which requires release of the text and the background documents, and for the parties to revoke their secrecy pact to keep negotiating documents secret for four years after the agreement comes into force.
Work has already begun, with support from the Law Foundation, on a series of expert analyses that will enable New Zealanders to judge for themselves what they think of the final deal.
That is what democracy requires. New Zealanders deserve nothing less.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Badly framed
surely not, from those guys? #gasp
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
To them the OIA seems to be a method of concealing information, rather than honouring it’s intended purpose.
Yes, I had high hopes when the Ombudsman announced a comprehensive review in light of information emerging during the election, but the scope of the review project didn't excite me;
given the emphasis seems to be on surveying the perpetrators, rather than gathering incriminating evidence from the disaffected media and public. Glad that Kelsey got the courts involved - but not a great reflection on confidence in the Ombudsman's ability to enforce the law.
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
surely not, from those guys? #gasp
Yeah, it seems between the two articles I read that Andrew's tone changed from defiant to defeatist after his one-on-one with Groser. Makes you wonder just how much of the dirty politics played by the multi-nationals during the negotiations was disclosed to Andrew. In other words he might now be more aware just how awful in their intent and tactics these corporate lobbyists are. I found Groser's interviews on the weekend TV1 and TV3 programs sounded defeatist as well. He really failed to come across as the chirpy cheerleader of past performances.
Key on the other hand remains his chirpy old self and the timing of Helen's effort on behalf of the club was also interesting.
Looks to me that only the US legislators can save us from this type of multi-national corporate rule now.
-
Stephen R, in reply to
Looks to me that only the US legislators can save us from this type of multi-national corporate rule now.
And isn't that a scary sentence to contemplate?
-
izogi, in reply to
I can’t see the Key government losing too much sleep over that. To them the OIA seems to be a method of concealing information, rather than honouring it’s intended purpose.
At the very least, it was good to hear the PM on the 5pm RNZ news bulletin just now indicating that a change of behaviour will need to be considered by Ministers when considering OIA requests. I was mildly concerned he'd be signaling a change in the law, instead.
Hopefully that gets seriously followed through, but given the track record on these things I'll believe it when I see it!
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
is it a bird? is it a plane?...
Looks to me that only the US legislators can save us from this type of multi-national corporate rule now.
And isn’t that a scary sentence to contemplate?Kinda like that scene in Griffith's movie Birth of a Nation when the whole movie theatre erupts in patriotic fervour as the Klansmen ride in to sort out the evil coloured men attacking the hapless homesteaders...
Ever get the feeling we've been played?
-
izogi, in reply to
I think any saving of New Zealand by US legislations would be purely coincidental.
If they can find a way to get what they want yet still keep a foot on everyone else's throat, it shouldn't come without expectation.
-
Pat Pilcher has a summary of how the TPP will affect copyright and in particular, how America's DMCA might be applied here.
The leaked chapter also includes a proposal of how internet service providers (ISPs) are to deal with copyright infringement and could require that New Zealand adopt laws similar to the much maligned DMCA (digital millennium copyright act).
Criticism of the DMCA appears to have been a consideration of the TPP negotiators who have also proposed penalties for wrongful takedown notices, as well as the verification of takedown notices by an independent body.
How to adopt US laws by proxy.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Walk this way...
US laws by proxy
<Run DMCA...>
It's like that,
it's tricky -
Well if we are stuck with it,
this ‘Trade Deal’ better work,
The NZ National Debt Clock
clicked over beyond $100 billion overnightDo we have an upper limit on how much a Govt can borrow on our behalf?
-
Alfie, in reply to
Do we have an upper limit on how much a Govt can borrow on our behalf?
I think it's pretty much an open chequebook as far as the Key government in concerned. And for them it won't be a problem, as long as they can keep the figures hidden discreetly from public scrutiny.
Bryce Edwards' political roundup today is Labour's TPP disaster which pretty much sums up Labour's confused "yes I do but no I don't" public attitude towards TPP. Honestly, they seem determined to portray themselves as a bunch of headless chooks lately.
Edwards quotes this morning's South Times editorial called Labour's weird approach to TPP deal which ends...
It seems Labour has commitment issues.
Damn right!
-
Sacha, in reply to
Run DMCA
zing
#onya -
chris, in reply to
Bryce Edwards’ political roundup today is…
The only surprising thing about this for me is that a lecturer in Politics who teaches and researches New Zealand public policy, political parties, elections, and political communication still feels that the flip- flopping of major New Zealand political parties is that newsworthy.
And now its supposedly non-negotiable bottom lines over TPP are suddenly appearing to be rather flexible.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Honestly, they seem determined to portray themselves as a bunch of headless chooks lately.
lately, in geological terms
-
Sacha, in reply to
it is when said party is trying to recover from an overdose of incompetence.
-
chris, in reply to
Sounds like a long term project.
Labour's support is not a done deal. Mr Little still has qualms about the legislation's provision for 48-hour warrant-less surveillance, and its provision for cancelling passports for up to three years (compared to the current 12 months). But commentator Bryce Edwards says he expects Labour will ultimately back the legislation all the way.
-
Eh?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=11529598
The head of New Zealand's branch of the US Pentagon's missile and fighter jet manufacturer is coming to Whangarei to help Northland companies arm themselves with information to win lucrative contracts with international governments.
Graham Lintott, former Air Vice-Marshal with the Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF), is managing director of the NZ branch of Lockheed Martin, and has been invited to speak at a New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE) workshop on Monday.
Military Industrial Complex?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.