Today I went to the TPPA protest in town. For many, protests are classed as antisocial, or a mere waste of time, or a considerable inconvenience to members of the public. I want to acknowledge that protests risk becoming violent and that protests can unnecessarily affect the general public. Today’s interventions on the on ramps and off ramps of the motorway were rather foolish and there is no doubt that commuters were adversely impacted by the various demonstrations. I do want to apologise to those who were prevented today from arriving at their respective destinations, whether it was work-related, social in nature or some other engagement.
However, I want to recognise too that today’s actions were necessary. There have been numerous protests over the last few years related to this partnership. Many would say since these protests had little effect, what was the point of doing another demonstration today? It was for a number of reasons.
One of them was that after all the public outcry there was still little acknowledgement by Key and his administration of the legitimacy of the concerns of the public. This comes across as arrogant when we live in a democracy and even more worrying when expert voices in health, law, and academia have vocally expressed their trepidation over the agreement. It has been even more troubling that Key has disparaged these respectable professionals rather than engage with their arguments. He has only widened the division between those who were worried about the agreement and those who were satisfied with the trade deal or simply uninformed or uninterested about it. He has merely expanded this schism through his frequent and open use of pejoratives and derision.
A related secondary reason for protesting is that Key and his key ministers instead of attempting to create discussion have created further discord. They have favoured an approach of blind trust rather than opting for an informed citizenry. This has meant that the public has had a staple diet of spin rather than substance. A democracy thrives on a healthy public sphere but for this public issue, we have had very little rigorous debate despite specialist’s offers to critically engage with the Key administration. These simple assurances of the TPPA being in New Zealand’s best interests have further added to the confusion and dissonance surrounding the agreement.
Thirdly, the trade negotiations have been done in secret. For many this has been a sign of a lack of good will by the government. After all were not the NZ public advised by the government for the “GCSB” Bill that if you have nothing to hide then there is no cause for concern? After such arguments, the lack of transparency over the TPP agreement would surely indicate a lack of consistency at best or moral integrity at worst? What’s more is that these circumstances were shared by all the citizens countries involved in the agreement and all expressed the same disapproval of this secrecy which betrayed their democratic values. Yet, corporations were offered ample opportunities to see the agreement and to inform its content.
Fourthly, is that this these undemocratic measures have been justified under the guise that this has been standard protocol for previous trade agreements. However, this claim neglects to recognise that this is not your average trade agreement. This agreement has no historical equal. It concerns all manner of issues ranging from copyright to pharmaceuticals, to financial regulations (that could prevent another recession), and to corporations having the capacity to sue us for decisions made in the best interests of its citizens. The scope of this agreement is extensive and will undoubtedly impact the lives of the average citizen in the signatory countries.
Fifthly, despite the potential issues posed by the last concern we have been given the reassurance that a lawsuit has never happened before in the history of previous agreements. However, this overlooks the fact that new trade agreements, like this one, offer new opportunities for lawsuits that could lead to the first time. New Zealand has no history of lawsuits by corporations but Australia is still in the midst of a lawsuit – made possible through trade agreements tied to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) – for its legislation to put into place plain packet packaging for cigarettes that could decisively influence NZ’s own attempts at legislation. Therefore, the apprehension of concerned public citizens, over the prospect of NZ facing legal action over laws made for the betterment of the country, is reasonable.
Consequently, with all of these qualms, questions, and quandaries which were not satisfactorily addressed is it any wonder that the NZ public responded with non-violent direct action today? Isn’t it miraculous that people despite their disquiet and desperation didn’t resort to violent action? That being said I’m certainly not condoning such actions. However, I think that direct action was tame compared to what could have ensued.
Furthermore, was it really surprising that there was such a heavy presence of iwi given that the TPPA concerns the country’s sovereignty? Without the treaty’s claims being fully resolved they had every right to express their disapproval. What's more, what kind of signals are being sent to iwi when the TPPA is signed on the week of Waitangi Day and in New Zealand no less? Therefore, is it any wonder that Maori chose to abstain from conducting a powhiri for the signing of the agreement? Is it any wonder that Key was asked not to speak of the TPPA in his address at Waitangi? He was afforded the respect of the country’s PM to speak (albeit with conditions) at a time when he did nothing to mitigate the concerns of the people of the land.
Therefore, direct action was called for and was fully understandable given the circumstances. In a democracy shouldn’t we laud democratic participation rather than lambast those who choose to exercise their rights to protest and to protest with others? These citizens were not letting off steam. These citizens were not unstable, unproductive, or paranoid idiots. No. These citizens were fighting for the future of New Zealand. They don’t like the ominous nature of this agreement. Neither do I. I encourage each of you to ask yourself are their concerns and methods so surprising?
