There has been many rounds of talks since 2014 when ASEAN countries proposed this. There must be some exposures during the past 6 years. The agreement now needs each country's domestic approval, so you can still have a say in it. The agreement is not in effect yet.

> it weakened our IP laws to that so they're comparable with the USA.

This statement literally makes no sense to me. Care to elaborate? As it stands, I have to admit that your statement suggests to me that you haven't the vaguest idea about U.S. versus NZ IP laws and perhaps have also gotten the idea of strong vs. weak IP laws entirely backwards. Enlighten me, please.

This is how negotiations work everywhere for any kind of deal. Think of some successful past legislation you support - I guarantee that it was negotiated behind closed doors.

Negotiation requires fluidly proposing alternatives in a give-and-take that ultimately leads to an agreement. When the items being given or taken are policies supported or opposed by members of the public, it would be self-sabotage for one half of the negotiation to expose its deliberations to public debate.

Imagine you’re a couple making an offer to buy a house. Do you think it would be smart to expose all your internal discussions about the purchase to the seller along with the offer? Do you think you’d ever succeed at buying a home at a good price if you always made such a disclosure?

I think this argument that a treaty was secretly negotiated is better understood as a general-purpose process argument that can be applied against any treaty or law, not as a meaningful criticism of any in particular. It’s just how the sausage is made.