David have you read the TPP agreement and if so can you please share it with us?
If not why are you supporting something you've not been privileged to get the full details of?
And why do you expect us to support something were not allowed to know anything about?
Should we not consider this article contempt for us as Australians?
Do you think we were not taught to read the fine print?
David we all know you take money from anyone for anything.
Cigarette companies, Monsanto etc...

To be fair, before a lot of big trade agreements, one average wage could provide for a decent house on a few acres and a large family. But nowadays, we seem to have a low birth rate and live up against neighbours which is weird.

The only thing that is certain about TPP is that it will generate winners & losers.

The winners will be the industry & workers in low production costs, losers will be those in a country or industry that has high production costs. What are our chances of being winners?

The winners will be in countries that are not top heavy with academia, quangos, & tribunals & a huge bureaucracy, all sucking on the public teat, forcing up the cost of government squashing private enterprise. What are our chances of being winners?

The winners will have the lowest possible number of restrictions, regulations & interference on private enterprise, with only enough to maintain a civil society. What are our chances of being winners?

We need to fight tooth & nail against trade agreements,negotiated from our side by idiots, all trying to bring us down to the lowest common denominator as quickly as possible.

We need industrial protection to maintain our living standards & an axe taken to the teat suckers, to give us time to allow the world to catch up, rather than force us down as quickly as possible. What are our chances of winning that?

Stuff all I'd say.

David Leyonhjelm like most journalists in the Australian“meeja” muddies the waters when presenting his case. At least five times.

1. He claims that Hillary Clinton is dead against the TPP. Oh really? She is now. But as Secretary of State she was in favour of it. Which Hillary are the American people to believe?

2. Alluding to the TPP, he states: “later this century it is likely to become clear that western civilisation has fallen into decline”. Not so senator. History will record that our civilisation ground to a halt not if or when the TPP was/will be jettisoned. It ground to a halt when a nobody from Chicago became President of the United States. In his eight years, he (and his pals HRC and Mr Theresa Heinz) not once recorded a foreign policy victory. Not in the Middle East (where they supported the Muslim Brotherhood), not in Asia (where they spoke against China’s activities in the South China Sea, but their anger amounted to little more than a hill of beans) and not in Europe (where they saw Russia reconnect with its renegade Ukrainian province of Crimea and will soon see eastern Ukraine too return to the bosom of the Mother Russia).

3. The senator argues, “The TPP is about trade”. Really? So why would a rational Australian government agree to an agreement that specifically excludes our biggest trading partner: China?

4. He goes on: “[opponents] object to the TPP because it requires member countries to impose the same laws on foreign investors as are imposed on domestic investors…” Not so senator. Investor State Dispute Settlement is an instrument of international public law, not domestic legislation. Such disputes take place under sponsorship of international arbitral tribunals governed by different rules or institutions to domestic codes.

5. The senator carries on: ”But there is no doubt the TPP offers net benefits for Australia”. You don’t say? Please elaborate. Better yet, share with us the cost benefit study proving this point. What? No such study was undertaken? Hmm.