Exploring partnership : the experience of HCAP

This report summarises the participatory action research (PAR) undertaken as part of the Homelessness Community Action Planning (HCAP) project implemented across seven regions in Queensland in 2011 and 2012. The HCAP is a component of the Queensland strategy for the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness, and is funded for three years (2010-2013). The report identifies and analyses factors which facilitated or constrained the development of Government- NGO partnerships at regional and state levels in HCAP. The study supports the view that the HCAP partnership between the Queensland Government and the Community Services Sector is working and likely to be productive.

Australia and Forest Carbon Partnerships : Indigenous Land Rights

One of the ways in which indigenous communities seek justice is through the formal recognition of their sovereign rights to land. Such recognition allows indigenous groups to maintain a physical and spiritual connection with their land and continue customary management of their land. Indigenous groups world over face significant hurdles in getting their customary rights to land recognized by legal systems. One of the main difficulties for indigenous groups in claiming customary land rights is the existence of a range of conflicting legal entitlements attaching to the land in question. In Australia, similar to New Zealand and Canada legal recognition to customary land is recognized through a grant of native title rights or through the establishment of land use agreement. In other jurisdictions such as Indonesia and Papua New Guinea a form of customary land title has been preserved and is recognized by the legal system. The implementation of REDD+ and other forms of forest carbon investment activities compounds the already complex arrangements surrounding legal recognition of customary land rights. Free, prior and informed consent of indigenous groups is essential for forest carbon investment on customary land. The attainment of such consent in practice remains challenging due to the number of conflicting interests often associated with forested land. This paper examines Australia’s experience in recongising indigenous land rights under its International Forest Carbon Initiative and under its domestic Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act (Australia) 2011. Australia’s International Forest Carbon initiative has a budget of $273 million dollars. In 2008 the governments of Australia and Indonesia signed the Indonesia-Australia Forest Carbon Partnership Agreement. This paper will examine the indigenous land tenure and justice lessons learned from the implementation of the Kalimantan Forest and Climate Partnership (KFCP). The KFCP is $30 million dollar project taking place over 120,000 hectares of degraded and forested peatland in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. The KFCP project site contains seven villages of the Dayak Ngdu indigenous people. In 2011 Australia established a domestic Forest Carbon Initiative, which seeks to provide new economic opportunities for farmers, forest growers and indigenous landholders while helping the environmental by reducing carbon pollution. This paper will explore the manner in which indigenous people are able to participate within these scheme noting the limits and opportunities in deriving co-benefits for indigenous people in Australia under this scheme.

Plain packaging for the Pacific Rim: The Trans-Pacific Partnership and tobacco control

Big Tobacco has been engaged in a dark, shadowy plot and conspiracy to hijack the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and undermine tobacco control measures – such as graphic health warnings and the plain packaging of tobacco products... In the context of this heavy lobbying by Big Tobacco and its proxies, this chapter provides an analysis of the debate over trade, tobacco, and the TPP. This discussion is necessarily focused on the negotiations of the free trade agreement – the shadowy conflicts before the finalisation of the text. This chapter contends that the trade negotiations threaten hard-won gains in public health – including international developments such as the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, and domestic measures, such as graphic health warnings and the plain packaging of tobacco products. It maintains that there is a need for regional trade agreements to respect the primacy of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. There is a need both to provide for an open and transparent process regarding such trade negotiations, as well as a due and proper respect for public health in terms of substantive obligations. Part I focuses on the debate over the intellectual property chapter of the TPP, within the broader context of domestic litigation against Australia’s plain tobacco packaging regime and associated WTO disputes. Part II examines the investment chapter of the TPP, taking account of ongoing investment disputes concerning tobacco control and the declared approaches of Australia and New Zealand to investor-state dispute settlement. Part III looks at the discussion as to whether there should be specific text on tobacco control in the TPP, and, if so, what should be its nature and content. This chapter concludes that the plain packaging of tobacco products – and other best practices in tobacco control – should be adopted by members of the Pacific Rim.

Blue future: Maude Barlow, water rights, investor clauses, and trade deals

Maude Barlow is the chairperson of the Council of Canadians, and the founder of the Blue Planet Project. She is a recipient of Sweden’s Right Livelihood Award, and a Lannan Cultural Freedom Fellowship. As well as being a noted human rights and trade activist, Barlow is the author of a number of books on water rights — including Blue Gold, Blue Covenant, and Blue Future. She has been particularly vocal on the impact of trade and investment agreements upon water rights. Barlow has been critical of the push to include investor-state dispute settlement clauses in trade agreements — such as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP). She has also been concerned by the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) leaked by WikiLeaks.

Trade war in the Pacific: ASEAN and the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Australian politicians are keen to project our participation in two major international trade talks - the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) - as unproblematic.

Towards universal high quality early childhood education

The Australian Government has committed $970 million over 5 years to fund the expansion of preschool education and has established a National Early Childhood Education Partnership Agreement with States and Territories to achieve universal preschool access by 2013. The Partnership Agreement acknowledges the role of State and Territory Government in preschool education, and different approaches to preschool provision. It also recognises differences in current preschool participation rates across states and territories. This paper offers snapshots of a number of different models of preschool provision, spanning traditional sessional approaches to some integrated and innovative approaches within the long day care context. The paper explores the newer long day care model and offers recommendations for the delivery of preschool education within this different context.

Changing perceptions of preservice teachers : innovations in middle schooling teacher education

For the past twenty years, the disengagement of early adolescents has been the focus of much of the literature related to middle schooling. In response, some universities in Australia have introduced teacher education programs that focus upon graduating specialised middle schooling teachers. Constructing such programs is at the centre of much debate and discussion, however, it is advocated that positive futures for early adolescents can be enhanced through quality middle schooling teacher education programs (Education Queensland, 2004). At a Queensland university campus, middle schooling elective units were introduced as part of the Bachelor of Education (primary) degree. The design of the units was to support preservice teachers to gain the theoretical and pedagogical knowledge to engage and promote early adolescent learning. An innovative approach to the delivery of the units was promoted by a partnership agreement between local schools and the campus. The partnership allowed preservice teachers to combine university classes with opportunities to visit exemplary classrooms to observe, participate and reflect upon middle school teaching practices. The aim of this study was to explore and describe the 38 first-year preservice teachers’ perceptions of their first middle schooling elective unit and to ascertain whether the combination of university classes and school-based experiences assisted their development of middle schooling concepts and approaches. Data were gathered using pre-test and post-test questionnaires combined with guided written reflections to record their views before, after and during the unit delivery. Results indicated that initially 34 preservice teachers had little understanding of middle schooling concepts and pedagogical practices, however, 11 participants recognised that bullying and peer pressure were issues experienced by early adolescents. The collation of the written reflections supported the combined delivery of the middle years unit further supporting the inclusion of school experiences with university delivered units.

Becoming professionals : partnerships reshaping preservice teachers’ transition to full-time teaching

While strengthened partnerships between University and Schools have been proposed in recent reviews of teacher education (House of Representative Standing Committee on Education and Vocational Training, 2007; Caldwell & Sutton, 2010; Donaldson, 2010), there is a need to understand the benefits and challenges for participants of these partnerships. The Teacher Education Centre of Excellence (TECE) in this study is a preservice teacher preparation partnership between a Queensland University, Queensland Department of Education, Training and Employment (DETE) and an Education Queensland school. It was established in response to a mandated reform within the Improving Teacher Quality National Partnership Agreement (Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations, 2011). High-achieving Bachelor of Education preservice teachers apply to be part of the 18-month program in the third year of their four-year Education degree. These preservice teachers experience mentoring in partner schools in addition to course work designed and delivered by a DETE appointed Head of Mentoring and a university academic. On completion of the program, graduates will be appointed to South West Queensland rural and remote Education Queensland schools. This paper analyses participant perspectives from the first phase of this partnership in particular identifying the benefits and challenges experienced by the preservice teachers and the leaders of the program from the participating institutions. A sociocultural theoretical perspective (Wenger, 1998) informed the analysis examining how preservice teachers experience a sense of becoming a professional teacher within a specific employment context. Data from interviews with 6 pre-service teachers and 8 program leaders were analysed inductively through coding of interview records. Findings indicate the importance of strong relationships and opportunity for reciprocal learning through ongoing professional conversations as contexts for preservice teachers to develop an identity as an emerging professional. This research has significance for the ongoing development of this partnership as well as informing the principles for the design of future similar partnerships.

Becoming Partners: Partnerships reshaping preservice teachers’ preparation to teach in rural Queensland schools

Preparing preservice teachers for successful rural and remote teaching is an ongoing and significant issue that impacts on equity issues for Australian students (Sharplin, 2002) and the sustainability of rural communities (Green & Reid, 2004). Improving the preparation of preservice teachers for teaching in rural schools is a key recommendation from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (2000). This presentation analyses how an innovative partnership between a teacher employer and a teacher education institution as a response to a mandated reform within the Improving Teacher Quality National Partnership Agreement has been established to address the important need to prepare and recruit preservice teachers to teach in rural and remote areas of Queensland.

Through the eyes of the mentor : framing expectations within preservice teacher and mentor relationships

Mentoring relationships during pre-service education are a significant relationship through which emerging teachers negotiate their teacher identity (Iancu-Haddad & Oplatka, 2009; Hudson, 2010). It is therefore important to understand how mentor teachers frame their expectations. This paper explores mentoring relationships established within a Queensland partnership program funded through the Federal Government’s Improving Teacher Quality National Partnership Agreement (DEEWR, 2011). Within the broader policy context, these mentoring relationships were seen as an important space for pre-service teachers to experience cultural induction into Education Queensland schooling, and be advocates for quality teaching (Willis, Bahr, Bannah, & Welch, 2012). Interview and survey data from 14 teacher mentors were analysed using a dialectic constant comparison approach (Dick 2007). Three significant themes were identified. Mentor teachers’ understanding of their roles positioned pre-service teachers as either novices or alternatively as colleagues, and these had implications for the opportunities for learning that were then made available to the pre-service teachers. The mentor teacher’s beliefs about teaching as a practical craft, and how the mentor teachers judged a pre-service teacher’s “enthusiasm” were also analysed. Understanding the factors that guide teacher mentor approaches may inform future designs of mentoring and preservice teacher preparation programs.

An Investigation into the Options for Increasing the Extent of Energy Efficiency Knowledge and Skills in Engineering Education

Society is increasingly calling for professionals across government, industry, business and civil society to be able to problem-solve issues related to climate change and sustainable development as part of their work. In particular there is an emerging realisation of the fundamental need to swiftly reduce the growing demand for energy across society, and to then meet the demand with low emissions options. A key ingredient to addressing such issues is equipping professionals with emerging knowledge and skills to address energy challenges in all aspects of their work. The Council of Australian Governments has recognised this need, signing the National Partnership Agreement on Energy Efficiency in July 2009, which included a commitment to assist business and industry obtain the knowledge, skills and capacity to pursue cost-effective energy efficiency opportunities.2 Engineering will play a critical part among the professions, with Engineers Australia acknowledging that, ‘The need to make changes in the way energy is used and supplied throughout the world represents the greatest challenge to engineers in moving toward sustainability.’

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, the environment, and climate change

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a sweeping, plurilateral free-trade agreement spanning the Pacific Rim.The ongoing, secretive treaty negotiations involve Australia and New Zealand; countries from South East Asia such as Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam; the South American nations of Peru and Chile; and the members of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, Canada, Mexico and the United States. There has also been some discussion as to whether Japan should be included in the negotiations.

Turing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Intellectual Property, Public Health, and Access to Essential Medicines

A recent controversy in the United States over drug pricing by Turing Pharmaceuticals AG has raised larger issues in respect of intellectual property, access to medicines, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). In August 2015, Turing Pharmaceuticals AG – a private biopharmaceutical company with offices in New York, the United States, and Zug, Switzerland - acquired the exclusive marketing rights to Daraprim in the United States from Impax Laboratories Incorporated. Martin Shkreli, Turing’s Founder and Chief Executive Officer, maintained: “The acquisition of Daraprim and our toxoplasmosis research program are significant steps along Turing’s path of bringing novel medications to patients with serious disorders, some of whom often go undiagnosed and untreated.” He emphasised: “We intend to invest in the development of new drug candidates that we hope will yield an even better clinical profile, and also plan to launch an educational effort to help raise awareness and improve diagnosis for patients with toxoplasmosis.” In September 2015, there was much public controversy over the decision of Martin Shkreli to raise the price of a 62 year old drug, Daraprim, from $US13.50 to $US750 a pill. The drug is particularly useful in respect to the treatment and prevention of malaria, and in the treatment of infections in individuals with HIV/AIDS. Daraprim is listed on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) List of Essential Medicines. In the face of much criticism, Martin Shkreli has said that he will reduce the price of Daraprim. He observed: “We've agreed to lower the price on Daraprim to a point that is more affordable and is able to allow the company to make a profit, but a very small profit.” He maintained: “We think these changes will be welcomed.” However, he has been vague and ambiguous about the nature of the commitment. Notably, the lobby group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhARMA), disassociated itself from the claims of Turing Pharmaceuticals. The group said: “PhRMA members have a long history of drug discovery and innovation that has led to increased longevity and improved lives for millions of patients.” The group noted: “Turing Pharmaceutical is not a member of PhRMA and we do not embrace either their recent actions or the conduct of their CEO.” The biotechnology peak body Biotechnology Industry Organization also sought to distance itself from Turing Pharmaceuticals. A hot topic: United States political debate about access to affordable medicines This controversy over Daraprim is unusual – given the age of drug concerned. Daraprim is not subject to patent protection. Nonetheless, there remains a monopoly in respect of the marketplace. Drug pricing is not an isolated problem. There have been many concerns about drug pricing – particularly in respect of essential medicines for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. This recent controversy is part of a larger debate about access to affordable medicines. The dispute raises larger issues about healthcare, consumer rights, competition policy, and trade. The Daraprim controversy has provided impetus for law reform in the US. US Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton commented: “Price gouging like this in this specialty drug market is outrageous.” In response to her comments, the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index fell sharply. Hillary Clinton has announced a prescription drug reform plan to protect consumers and promote innovation – while putting an end to profiteering. On her campaign site, she has emphasised that “affordable healthcare is a basic human right.” Her rival progressive candidate, Bernie Sanders, was also concerned about the price hike. He wrote a letter to Martin Shkreli, complaining about the price increase for the drug Daraprim. Sanders said: “The enormous, overnight price increase for Daraprim is just the latest in a long list of skyrocketing price increases for certain critical medications.” He has pushed for reforms to intellectual property to make medicines affordable. The TPP and intellectual property The Daraprim controversy and political debate raises further issues about the design of the TPP. The dispute highlights the dangers of extending the rights of pharmaceutical drug companies under intellectual property, investor-state dispute settlement, and drug administration. Recently, the civil society group Knowledge Ecology International published a leaked draft of the Intellectual Property Chapter of the TPP. Knowledge Ecology International Director, James Love, was concerned the text revealed that the US “continues to be the most aggressive supporter of expanded intellectual property rights for drug companies.” He was concerned that “the proposals contained in the TPP will harm consumers and in some cases block innovation.” James Love feared: “In countless ways, the Obama Administration has sought to expand and extend drug monopolies and raise drug prices.” He maintained: “The astonishing collection of proposals pandering to big drug companies make more difficult the task of ensuring access to drugs for the treatment of cancer and other diseases and conditions.” Love called for a different approach to intellectual property and trade: “Rather than focusing on more intellectual property rights for drug companies, and a death-inducing spiral of higher prices and access barriers, the trade agreement could seek new norms to expand the funding of medical research and development (R&D) as a public good, an area where the US has an admirable track record, such as the public funding of research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other federal agencies.” In addition, there has been much concern about the Investment Chapter of the TPP. The investor-state dispute settlement regime would enable foreign investors to challenge government policy making, which affected their investments. In the context of healthcare, there is a worry that pharmaceutical drug companies will deploy their investor rights to challenge public health measures – such as, for instance, initiatives to curb drug pricing and profiteering. Such concerns are not merely theoretical. Eli Lilly has brought an investor action against the Canadian Government over the rejection of its drug patents under the investor-state dispute settlement regime of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Health Annex to the TPP also raises worries that pharmaceutical drug companies will able to object to regulatory procedures in respect of healthcare. It is disappointing that the TPP – in the leaks that we have seen – has only limited recognition of the importance of access to essential medicines. There is a need to ensure that there are proper safeguards to provide access to essential medicines – particularly in respect of HIV/AIDs, malaria, and tuberculosis. Moreover, there must be protection against drug profiteering and price gouging in any trade agreement. There should be strong measures against the abuse of intellectual property rights. The dispute over Turing Pharmaceuticals AG and Daraprim is an important cautionary warning in respect of some of the dangers present in the secret negotiations in respect of the TPP. There is a need to preserve consumer rights, competition policy, and public health in trade negotiations over an agreement covering the Pacific Rim.

Now the real international fight begins for the Trans-Pacific Partnership

In Atlanta, the trade ministers of a dozen countries across the Pacific Rim announced that they had successfully reached a concluded agreement upon the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The debate over the TPP will now play out in legislatures across the Pacific Rim, where sentiment towards the deal is much more mixed. The ministers insisted: “After more than five years of intensive negotiations, we have come to an agreement that will support jobs, drive sustainable growth, foster inclusive development, and promote innovation across the Asia-Pacific region … The agreement achieves the goal we set forth of an ambitious, comprehensive, high standard and balanced agreement that will benefit our nation’s citizens … We expect this historic agreement to promote economic growth, support higher-paying jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and to promote transparency, good governance, and strong labor and environmental protections.” But there has been fierce criticism of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, because of both its secrecy and its substance. Nobel Laureate Professor Joseph Stiglitz has warned that the agreement is not about free trade, but about the protection of corporate monopolies. The intellectual property chapter provides for longer and stronger protection of intellectual property rights. The investment chapter provides foreign investors with the power to challenge governments under an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime. The environment chapter is weak and toothless, and seems to be little more than an exercise in greenwashing. The health annex — and many other parts of the agreement — strengthen the power of pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology developers. The text on state-owned enterprises raises concerns about public ownership of postal services, broadcasters and national broadband services.

Greenwashing the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Fossil fuels, the environment, and climate change

There has been much controversy over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a plurilateral trade agreement involving a dozen nations from throughout the Pacific Rim – and its impact upon the environment, biodiversity, and climate change. The secretive treaty negotiations involve Australia and New Zealand; countries from South East Asia such as Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, and Japan; the South American nations of Peru and Chile; and the members of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Canada, Mexico and the United States. There was an agreement reached between the parties in October 2015. The participants asserted: ‘We expect this historic agreement to promote economic growth, support higher-paying jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and to promote transparency, good governance, and strong labor and environmental protections.’ The final texts of the agreement were published in November 2015. There has been discussion as to whether other countries – such as Indonesia, the Philippines, and South Korea – will join the deal. There has been much debate about the impact of this proposed treaty upon intellectual property, the environment, biodiversity and climate change. There have been similar concerns about the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – a proposed trade agreement between the United States and the European Union. In 2011, the United States Trade Representative developed a Green Paper on trade, conservation, and the environment in the context of the TPP. In its rhetoric, the United States Trade Representative has maintained that it has been pushing for strong, enforceable environmental standards in the TPP. In a key statement in 2014, the United States Trade Representative Mike Froman insisted: ‘The United States’ position on the environment in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.’ The United States Trade Representative maintained: ‘Our proposals in the TPP are centered around the enforcement of environmental laws, including those implementing multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in TPP partner countries, and also around trailblazing, first-ever conservation proposals that will raise standards across the region’. Moreover, the United States Trade Representative asserted: ‘Furthermore, our proposals would enhance international cooperation and create new opportunities for public participation in environmental governance and enforcement.’ The United States Trade Representative has provided this public outline of the Environment Chapter of the TPP: A meaningful outcome on environment will ensure that the agreement appropriately addresses important trade and environment challenges and enhances the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment. The Trans-Pacific Partnership countries share the view that the environment text should include effective provisions on trade-related issues that would help to reinforce environmental protection and are discussing an effective institutional arrangement to oversee implementation and a specific cooperation framework for addressing capacity building needs. They also are discussing proposals on new issues, such as marine fisheries and other conservation issues, biodiversity, invasive alien species, climate change, and environmental goods and services. Mark Linscott, an assistant Trade Representative testified: ‘An environment chapter in the TPP should strengthen country commitments to enforce their environmental laws and regulations, including in areas related to ocean and fisheries governance, through the effective enforcement obligation subject to dispute settlement.’ Inside US Trade has commented: ‘While not initially expected to be among the most difficult areas, the environment chapter has emerged as a formidable challenge, partly due to disagreement over the United States proposal to make environmental obligations binding under the TPP dispute settlement mechanism’. Joshua Meltzer from the Brookings Institute contended that the trade agreement could be a boon for the protection of the environment in the Pacific Rim: Whether it is depleting fisheries, declining biodiversity or reduced space in the atmosphere for Greenhouse Gas emissions, the underlying issue is resource scarcity. And in a world where an additional 3 billion people are expected to enter the middle class over the next 15 years, countries need to find new and creative ways to cooperate in order to satisfy the legitimate needs of their population for growth and opportunity while using resources in a manner that is sustainable for current and future generations. The TPP parties already represent a diverse range of developed and developing countries. Should the TPP become a free trade agreement of the Asia-Pacific region, it will include the main developed and developing countries and will be a strong basis for building a global consensus on these trade and environmental issues. The TPP has been promoted by its proponents as a boon to the environment. The United States Trade Representative has maintained that the TPP will protect the environment: ‘The United States’ position on the environment in the TPP negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.’ The United States Trade Representative discussed ‘Trade for a Greener World’ on World Environment Day. Andrew Robb, at the time the Australian Trade and Investment Minister, vowed that the TPP will contain safeguards for the protection of the environment. In November 2015, after the release of the TPP text, Rohan Patel, the Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, sought to defend the environmental credentials of the TPP. He contended that the deal had been supported by the Nature Conservancy, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, the World Wildlife Fund, and World Animal Protection. The United States Congress, though, has been conflicted by the United States Trade Representative’s arguments about the TPP and the environment. In 2012, members of the United States Congress - including Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and John Kerry (D-MA) – wrote a letter, arguing that the trade agreement needs to provide strong protection for the environment: ‘We believe that a '21st century agreement' must have an environment chapter that guarantees ongoing sustainable trade and creates jobs, and this is what American businesses and consumers want and expect also.’ The group stressed that ‘A binding and enforceable TPP environment chapter that stands up for American interests is critical to our support of the TPP’. The Congressional leaders maintained: ‘We believe the 2007 bipartisan congressional consensus on environmental provisions included in recent trade agreements should serve as the framework for the environment chapter of the TPP.’ In 2013, senior members of the Democratic leadership expressed their opposition to granting President Barack Obama a fast-track authority in respect of the TPP House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said: ‘No on fast-track – Camp-Baucus – out of the question.’ Senator Majority leader Harry Reid commented: ‘I’m against Fast-Track: Everyone would be well-advised to push this right now.’ Senator Elizabeth Warren has been particularly critical of the process and the substance of the negotiations in the TPP: From what I hear, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom, big polluters and outsourcers are all salivating at the chance to rig the deal in the upcoming trade talks. So the question is, Why are the trade talks secret? You’ll love this answer. Boy, the things you learn on Capitol Hill. I actually have had supporters of the deal say to me ‘They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them, they would be opposed. Think about that. Real people, people whose jobs are at stake, small-business owners who don’t want to compete with overseas companies that dump their waste in rivers and hire workers for a dollar a day—those people, people without an army of lobbyists—they would be opposed. I believe if people across this country would be opposed to a particular trade agreement, then maybe that trade agreement should not happen. The Finance Committee in the United States Congress deliberated over the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations in 2014. The new chair Ron Wyden has argued that there needs to be greater transparency in trade. Nonetheless, he has mooted the possibility of a ‘smart-track’ to reconcile the competing demands of the Obama Administration, and United States Congress. Wyden insisted: ‘The new breed of trade challenges spawned over the last generation must be addressed in imaginative new policies and locked into enforceable, ambitious, job-generating trade agreements.’ He emphasized that such agreements ‘must reflect the need for a free and open Internet, strong labor rights and environmental protections.’ Elder Democrat Sander Levin warned that the TPP failed to provide proper protection for the environment: The TPP parties are considering a different structure to protect the environment than the one adopted in the May 10 Agreement, which directly incorporated seven multilateral environmental agreements into the text of past trade agreements. While the form is less important than the substance, the TPP must provide an overall level of environmental protection that upholds and builds upon the May 10 standard, including fully enforceable obligations. But many of our trading partners are actively seeking to weaken the text to the point of falling short of that standard, including on key issues like conservation. Nonetheless, 2015, President Barack Obama was able to secure the overall support of the United States Congress for his ‘fast-track’ authority. This was made possible by the Republicans and dissident Democrats. Notably, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden switched sides, and was transformed from a critic of the TPP to an apologist for the TPP. For their part, green political parties and civil society organisations have been concerned about the secretive nature of the negotiations; and the substantive implications of the treaty for the environment. Environmental groups and climate advocates have been sceptical of the environmental claims made by the White House for the TPP. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, the Australian Greens and the Green Party of Canada have released a joint declaration on the TPP observing: ‘More than just another trade agreement, the TPP provisions could hinder access to safe, affordable medicines, weaken local content rules for media, stifle high-tech innovation, and even restrict the ability of future governments to legislate for the good of public health and the environment’. In the United States, civil society groups such as the Sierra Club, Public Citizen, WWF, the Friends of the Earth, the Rainforest Action Network and 350.org have raised concerns about the TPP and the environment. Allison Chin, President of the Sierra Club, complained about the lack of transparency, due process, and public participation in the TPP talks: ‘This is a stealth affront to the principles of our democracy.’ Maude Barlow’s The Council of Canadians has also been concerned about the TPP and environmental justice. New Zealand Sustainability Council executive director Simon Terry said the agreement showed ‘minimal real gains for nature’. A number of organisations have joined a grand coalition of civil society organisations, which are opposed to the grant of a fast-track. On the 15th January 2013, WikiLeaks released the draft Environment Chapter of the TPP - along with a report by the Chairs of the Environmental Working Group. Julian Assange, WikiLeaks' publisher, stated: ‘Today's WikiLeaks release shows that the public sweetener in the TPP is just media sugar water.’ He observed: ‘The fabled TPP environmental chapter turns out to be a toothless public relations exercise with no enforcement mechanism.’ This article provides a critical examination of the draft Environment Chapter of the TPP. The overall argument of the article is that the Environment Chapter of the TPP is an exercise in greenwashing – it is a public relations exercise by the United States Trade Representative, rather than a substantive regime for the protection of the environment in the Pacific Rim. Greenwashing has long been a problem in commerce, in which companies making misleading and deceptive claims about the environment. In his 2012 book, Greenwash: Big Brands and Carbon Scams, Guy Pearse considers the rise of green marketing and greenwashing. Government greenwashing is also a significant issue. In his book Storms of My Grandchildren, the climate scientist James Hansen raises his concerns about government greenwashing. Such a problem is apparent with the TPP – in which there was a gap between the assertions of the United States Government, and the reality of the agreement. This article contends that the TPP fails to meet the expectations created by President Barack Obama, the White House, and the United States Trade Representative about the environmental value of the agreement. First, this piece considers the relationship of the TPP to multilateral environmental treaties. Second, it explores whether the provisions in respect of the environment are enforceable. Third, this article examines the treatment of trade and biodiversity in the TPP. Fourth, this study considers the question of marine capture fisheries. Fifth, there is an evaluation of the cursory text in the TPP on conservation. Sixth, the article considers trade in environmental services under the TPP. Seventh, this article highlights the tensions between the TPP and substantive international climate action. It is submitted that the TPP undermines effective and meaningful government action and regulation in respect of climate change. The conclusion also highlights that a number of other chapters of the TPP will impact upon the protection of the environment – including the Investment Chapter, the Intellectual Property Chapter, the Technical Barriers to Trade Chapter, and the text on public procurement.