Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697643692652.pdf (Australia)
The Trans-­‐Paci-ic Partnership Agreement (TPP) is a threat to national independence and can gravely limit our response to existential threats such as global warming.

It is recommended that the Agreement be rejected in its entirety.

Each country MUST be able to legislate in its own interest, without having to defer to foreign corporate interests.
For Australia to relinquish the fundamental right to national independence in favour of corporations is against the interests of the people, degrades the proper functioning of the parliaments and is arguably contrary to the constitution.

There is an urgent need for Australia to respond rapidly and comprehensively to the threat of global warming.

Any treaty that undermines that capacity is contrary to the national interest and the inalienable rights of future generations.
As a parliament, and as a people, we need to become acutely aware of the progress, over decades and even centuries, of our destructive impact on the planet and the necessity to radically change our laws, regulations and practices to reverse this process.

We need to maintain maximum freedom to act for the people, for the planet and for the future.

“We” are responsible for the 6th great extinction of life on Earth, the Anthropocene, which started with the Industrial Revolution.
Under ‘business -­‐ and politics -­‐ as usual’, the Anthropocene has resulted in climate change and global warming, possibly extending to human and even planetary extinction.

‘business as usual’, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report 2014 (IPCC AR5) prediction of up to 5.6ºC of global warming by 2100, especially in the case of in effect means civilisation collapse.
This is a conservative estimate, authorised and accepted by major governments, and should normally lead to government and corporate assumption of responsibility and appropriate risk management in the lifespan of present for an event schoolchildren.

The IPCC AR5 (given long research lead time) virtually ignored the exponential increase of Arctic methane starting in 2010.
The positive feedback process involved could advance the risk timeline for civilisation collapse to the lifetime of their grandchildren [see: present senior decision-­‐makers, not <www.earthsight.org> New Articles: “Arctic methane Earthsight” – it is very important for the reader to follow the links in the referenced papers to access the detailed facts that need to be considered.]

just The collective response to ‘our’ extinction event, the Anthropocene, has been woefully inadequate.
We now face our own species’ extinction and possible ‘futurecide’ – in .. our .. lifetime!

We have only to continue as we are [see: <www.earthsight.org> New Articles: “Futurecide”].

Treaty tabled on 9 February 2016Submission 125 Why are “we” not reacting with absolute urgency?

Entire populations have responded with urgency to a wide range of past catastrophes.

Why are we not responding now to an enormously greater catastrophe, even if there is only the slightest risk of it happening?
Although species extinction is important to us as individuals, organisations/ corporations/political parties are more concerned with their own continuity, which generally ignores the individual and the planet (externalities).

Creativity, the capacity for the totally new, is limited to the individual – as ‘alash of insight’.

Organisational creativity is only accessible as ‘multiple-­‐individual creativity’.

Each individual in an organisation can contribute – how?
See: <www.creativediscussion.org> Contents: Collective Deliberation: “Bringing Wisdom into Planetary Leadership” to experiment with forms of decision-­‐making where “I” can make a radical contribution to climate change strategy.

If governments and political parties so often seem incapable of acting in the interests of all citizens, present and future, each individual involved needs to take responsibility for their own involvement in group decision-­‐making.
Moving towards acceptance of the TPP is a tragic example of legislating for the proait of corporate interests, of overriding ‘groupthink’.

“I” am responsible for country.

Treaty tabled on 9 February 2016Submission 125