Posts by nzlemming
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: TPP: Error Correction, in reply to Stephen R,
That’s not my fear. I think they know that Pharmac is generally well regarded by New Zealanders. What could screw Pharmac is rules requiring “Openness” of their criteria for funding, in their negotiations with Big Pharma, and allowing big pharma to appeal funding decision criteria.
That would cripple Pharmacs ability to pressure pharmaceutical companies to get a better price, while not actually disbanding it.
FYI Pharmac has recently had a major restructure of its management team. Staff are reportedly in shock as to which managers were let go and who got their jobs. I'm led to believe that none of the of the top 3 people with responsibility for and experience at managing the Schedule (which is the technical term for what you describe) were retained. #connectthedots
-
However, I'm not going to get into it with him on Twitter. He's right that it's too difficult to discuss complex issues there. But, if he's any sort of journalist, he should be able to figure out how to sign on to PAS to make his points.
-
I must admit to curiousity in knowing the genesis to this "opinion piece". Smellie describes himself as "a Wellington-based journalist, and co-owner of Content Ltd, a journalism and content wholesaler" so I'd be interested in knowing who commissioned this piece.
-
Speaker: TPP: Error Correction, in reply to nzlemming,
I’ve been told that the proposal includes keeping the fine detail confidential from the public for around 5 years, but I’m just looking for a source on that, so I didn’t include it in the article.
Matthew Holloway has kindly provided a source and clarified that it’s 4 years, not 5.
From MFAT:First, all participants agree that the negotiating texts, proposals of each Government, accompanying explanatory material, emails related to the substance of the negotiations, and other information exchanged in the context of the negotiations, is provided and will be held in confidence, unless each participant involved in a communication subsequently agrees to its release. This means that the documents may be provided only to (1) government officials or (2) persons outside government who participate in that government’s domestic consultation process and who have a need to review or be advised of the information in these documents. Anyone given access to the documents will be alerted that they cannot share the documents with people not authorized to see them. All participants plan to hold these documents in confidence for four years after entry into force of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, or if no agreement enters into force, for four years after the last round of negotiations
emphasis mine
Also see this start page search and make your own way down the rabbit hole.
-
Here's a pretty good analysis of some of the issues and an action group that was the source of it, I believe.
-
Speaker: TPP: Error Correction, in reply to Steve Curtis,
But if you were trying to mislead ….
You may very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
-
Speaker: TPP: Error Correction, in reply to Sacha,
thought they were relying on that nation’s agreement with Hong Kong?
O gods, second correction on the same point. Quite right, my bad. I was right the first time, but with the wrong country. Australia did not sign up to the US demands for the tribunals when they signed their FTA. They did, however, leave it in for their FTA with Hong Kong.
I understand Philip Morris moved their "Australian Headquarters" to Hong Kong's jurisdiction precisely to take advantage of this.
Thanks Sacha.
-
Speaker: TPP: Error Correction, in reply to B Jones,
Presumably its terms will be made public once it’s signed: it won’t have any impact before that.
I've been told that the proposal includes keeping the fine detail confidential from the public for around 5 years, but I'm just looking for a source on that, so I didn't include it in the article.
Anything needing to be legislated has an element of public consultation to it. Parliament can always choose not to pass legislation – take it or leave it is still a choice of sorts
Yeah, nah. Once you have signed a treaty, you have to ensure that your domestic legislation complies with your international obligations. That was the worry around ACTA, that it would force the NZG to pass very restrictive copyright amendments "to meet our international obligations". And if the party that signed the treaty is still the party in power, slam dunk.
-
Speaker: TPP: Error Correction, in reply to Andrew E,
I agree with you about the secrecy, Mark, but ‘nothing to hide, nothing to fear’ is not a valid argument in relation to the surveillance. The point is that governments should be accountable to their people, not the other way around. And that in order to have a legitimately representative democracy, the public needs the information disclosed to them in order that they can give (or withhold) informed consent to any deal reached.
I agree, it was a sarky jab at the government line on surveillance. It's not validly applied to us, I know, and is far more validly applied to them. I'll toddle off and do a refresher course in sarcasm ;-)
-
Speaker: TPP: Error Correction, in reply to TracyMac,
The only quibble I have is with the statement that members of Parliament are not representative of the population as a whole. Sure, in the socio-economic sense, but we elected the buggers.
Umm, I think I did say that, Tracey:
Smellie can’t (or won’t) tell us how many NZ politicians have agreed to silence themselves to get a peek at something they can’t do anything about, but he’s sure they can, and somewhere along the line he’s missed the fact that the party in the House is a subset of the party at large, which may or may not agree with this, and that the members in the House are representatives of the population at large
Perhaps I wasn't clear. It seemed to me that Smellie assumed that the only people who speak for the National party (for example) are the Ministers in Cabinet, whereas I wanted to note that there's a bigger party than just what's in the House, and that thier point of view needs to be considered by the Cabinet as well, or they risk a palace revolt. The point about MPs being our representatives follows from that and that MPs in general need to realise they have to take account of that the people want them to do and not try to manufacture some spurious mandate to take action. The only way to make this happen is to contact our local MPs and make them aware that we don't want this thing and they won't get re-elected if they make it happen. I didn't get that detailed in the article because it was outside the lines of rebuttal that I set myself.