A Sykes / K Delemere-Ririnui, Reply to closing submissions, 21 Jan 21
Wai 2522 - The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (Reid and others) Claim
Power point presentation of Karaitiana Taiuru, 17 Nov 20 (Filed by A Sykes / K Delamere-Ririnui / C Ware)
Wai 2522 - The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (Reid and others) Claim
The Report on the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership
Wai 2522 - The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (Reid and others) Claim
The Waitangi Tribunal has released The Report on the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, concluding the inquiry into the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) which has proceeded over three stages.
The inquiry panel comprised Judge Michael Doogan (presiding officer), David Cochrane, Professor Susy Frankel, Tā Hirini Moko Mead, Kim Ngarimu, and Tania Simpson. Hearings were held at the Waitangi Tribunal’s hearing room in Wellington from 17 to 19 November 2020.
Originally, stage 3 of the inquiry included issues relating to engagement, secrecy, and data sovereignty. The issues of engagement and secrecy were resolved through mediation and, as a result, the majority of claims were withdrawn. The two remaining claims contained pleadings relevant to the remaining issue; data sovereignty. As such, the report asks one question: What (if any) aspects of the e-commerce chapter of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership are inconsistent with the Crown’s obligations under te Tiriti/the Treaty?
The Tribunal concluded that the risk to Māori interests arising from the electronic commerce (e-commerce) provisions are significant and that reliance on exceptions and exclusions in the agreement to mitigate that risk falls short of the Crown’s duty of active protection. As a result, the Tribunal found that the Crown has failed to meet the Tiriti/Treaty standard of active protection and that this failure constitutes a breach of the Tiriti/Treaty principles of partnership and active protection.
Having found Tiriti/Treaty breach, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it would not be appropriate to make recommendations in the circumstances of this case. This is largely because, over the five years since the inquiry began, a significant shift in the Crown’s position in response to claims has ocurred and a number of processes are underway, or in place, to address concerns. Additionally, the resolution of issues relating to engagement and secrecy through mediation gave the Tribunal significant reason to pause and think carefully about what (if any) recommendations it could make that would remove or mitigate prejudice in ways not already addressed as a result of commitments or processes already underway.
Having considered the relief sought by the claimants, the Tribunal declined to recommend that further e-commerce negotiations be suspended until an effective or proper regime had been designed. The Tribunal agreed with the Trade for All Advisory Board that there is a need for a comprehensive review of Aotearoa New Zealand’s policy and that, until such review is carried out, the Government should avoid locking the country into any fixed negotiating positions. It is the Tribunal’s understanding that the Crown has accepted this recommendation and the review, which engages Te Taumata and Ngā Toki Whakarururanga, is currently underway. The Tribunal also saw the recently announced Agreement in Principle between the United Kingdom and New Zealand, which will include a chapter on indigenous trade, as indicative of what is possible without freezing international negotiations altogether.
Overall, the Tribunal acknowledged there will be challenges ahead. However, it described these matters as best left for negotiation and dialogue between the Tiriti/Treaty partners in good faith and within the fora and processes now in place.