Why we can't succumb to unhealthy demands

Nelson Lebo

As a general rule, I'm not fond of the word expert.

I feel it's used too often, especially among self-proclaimed experts. At very least the designation should only be bestowed by a third party. In modern, Western culture, universities have taken on that role: A Masters Degree implies one has achieved a certain level of "mastery" of a subject, while a PhD implies the highest level of mastery, ie expertise.

When I was in the initial stages of my doctoral research, my supervisor said something to the extent: "When you're finished you will be the world expert on your topic." At the time I was more intimidated than inspired. Now I'm more-or-less indifferent. What good is being an expert in a field in which few people appear interested?

Recently I have ventured from my field of study and into a realm in which I am most assuredly not an expert. That realm is democracy, and if you have read previous opinion pieces, you'll know I have tried to carefully construct logical, sequential arguments based on observable phenomenon, simple data, and the work of real experts on any given topic. That I am allowed back on this page appears to indicate that at least a few readers appreciate this approach to promoting democracy in Whanganui.

This time, however, we leave the River City to discuss topics more central to discussions happening in Wellington, Washington DC, and the netherworld of corporate secret negotiations. The topic of this column is the ethereal Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), but first a word on the timely topic of asset sales.

While not an expert on asset sales, I do rank myself highly on the common sense scale. Considering this, I subscribe to the following simple argument: If an asset performs well (returning an acceptable or better rate), it would appear too valuable to sell. On the other hand, if an asset is underperforming, the selling price would be so low that the state would hardly make anything from the sale.

Put another way, if private money considers public assets so potentially profitable as to purchase them, wouldn't that be a signal to government that they are too valuable to sell?

From what I have been able to gather, the TPPA is a trade agreement being negotiated in secret.

Fortunately for democracy, some material from the TPPA has been leaked, including a 95-page excerpt published by WikiLeaksin Mid-November. The NZ Herald ( November 14, NZ WikiLeaks Scoop) reported disputes between New Zealand and US negotiators on issues of internet freedom, industrial innovation, ownership of endemic plants and animals, and, dear to my heart, access to affordable medicines.

From the Herald: "A large section reveals the battle between the US pharmaceutical lobby and countries such as New Zealand that want to continue to buy cheaper generic medicines."

In order to dissect this sentence we need to know a couple of facts: 1) the utmost duty of a corporation is to return profits to its shareholders; 2) the US - where corporations have used lobbyists to sculpt health care policy - has the most expensive health care system in the world; while ranking close to 40th in performance by the World Health Organisation; 3) New Zealand health care remains reasonably priced in part due to the ability to bulk buy generic medicines.

Using the numbers above in a mathematical equation: 1-3 = 2. In other words, if pharmaceutical corporations have their way through the TPPA, New Zealand health care will more closely resemble that of the US.

What this means for Whanganui is that our already strapped health services would become even more so.

I reckon it is our democratic duty to resist corporate influence globally and locally. Once the deal has been done, it won't easily be undone.

Nelson Lebo is a consultant, educator, and advocate for affordable health care.