2 November 2012

TPPA ‘non-transparency’ hits a new low

The obsessive secrecy surrounding the Auckland round of Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement negotiations in Auckland from 3-12 December has plumbed new depths.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) has declined a request for the dates on which up to 29 working groups will be meeting. It merely offered to identify ‘windows’ when negotiators in specified sectors would be meeting.

MFAT’s response was a list that only says whether the group will be meeting before or after the so-called ‘stakeholder’ day on 7 December (see below).

“Even the dates that various groups are meeting is now a state secret, presumably because disclosure would somehow jeopardise the success of the negotiations” said Professor Jane Kelsey, who made the request on behalf of international experts who will be coming to Auckland for the round.

"This is just silly".

“Several individual negotiators have been more sensible and cooperative. Beyond that, we will have to rely on negotiators from other countries to tell us the dates on which they are attending a meeting hosted by our own government so that we can organise travel and accommodation, and plan events that attempt to engage with the negotiators."

MFAT’s email:

“Regarding the areas you have identified, below is a list of ‘windows’ organised around the central date of 7 December which we would expect most stakeholders to be planning travel around.

ENDS

© Scoop Media

Arguably Reassuring: Inspector-General Finds GCSB "Arguably" Legal

Of the 88 individuals:

• 15 cases involving 22 individuals did not have any information intercepted by GCSB.

• another four cases involving five individuals were the subjects of a New Zealand Security Intelligence Service warrant and the GCSB assisted in the execution of the warrants. The Inspector-General is of the view that there were arguably no breaches and the law is unclear.

• the Bureau only provided technical assistance which did not involve interception of communications, involving three of the individuals, so no breach occurred.

• the remaining cases involved the collection of metadata, and the Inspector-General formed the view that there had arguably been no breach, noting once again that the law is unclear.
More>>