Well done Helen & Phil
Today’s signing of a free trade agreement (at 3.30 pm NZST) with China is a very good day for New Zealand. And while there are many many people who have contributed to its successful conclusion, the two primary ones are Helen Clark and Phil Goff.
Goff deserves our thanks for being the primary negotiating Minister, and never dropping the ball on this. This is a highlight of his nine years as Foreign and Trade Minister.
Clark also should be praised by supporters of free trade. Those on the right instinctively support free trade. On the left it has always been treated with far more scepticism, or often hostility. Clark has led her party away from its protectionism instincts and has embraced globalisation rather than tried to fight it like King Canute. The political risks for her has not been insignificant, especially in terms of doing a deal with China – a country so easy to criticise for so many things. She deserves our thanks for putting NZ’s interests first. Her legacy will be not just the FTA with New Zealand, but a modern Labour Party not stuck in the protectionist past.
Why is this free trade deal a good thing – both economically, and politically? My reasons:
- It will removes tariffs on 95% of NZ exports to China, saving exporters $115 million a year.
- The tariff reduction is projected to increase exports to China by $225 to $350 million a year.
- The vast majority of Chinese imports to NZ already have no tariffs on them.
- Consumers will benefit with cheaper prices in those areas where tariffs are to be removed.
- While employees in some areas which have protection removed can and do experience short-term pain, moving capital and labour into areas where we have a competitive advantage is good for employers and employees in the medium to long term.
- Industries can become more wealthy with the loss of protection. When we used to have large duties on wine imports, the NZ wine industry produced cheap low quality wine as no imported wine could compete on price. As protectionism was removed, the wine industry generally went from trying to compete on price in the domestic market only to competing on quality globally. From 1987 to 1997 exports as a percentage of production went from 3% to 29%, and both production and staff levels increased. This has continued today with exports of wine in 2007 totalling 84 million litres selling for$760 million.
- Free Trade lifts people out of poverty. I am amazed that people argue against free trade agreements on the grounds that (for example) it means people in China are working for say NZ$1 an hour. Do they think that if we refuse to trade with them, that that person will be better off on NZ$0 an hour earning nothing? China has reduced the proportion of its population in absolute poverty from 64% in the 70s to 10% in 2004 and India has gone from 51% in 1978 to 28% in 2005. have between them lifted . Think how many people in Africa could be lifted out of poverty if the EU did not spend 50% of its budget on agricultural subsidies, if Japan did not spend US47 billion on agricultural subsidies (four times its foreign aid) and the US did not spend $4 billion a year subsidising cotton growers.
- We are first. China is a growing economic super-power and being the first developed country to sign a free trade agreement strengthens economic ties for the future.
- Dialogue and trade is better than the alternative. Yes the Chinese Government is a repressive regime, and has little regard for fundamental human rights. But a policy of shunning China is not likely to be effective, or help the Chinese people (why punish them for a Government they do not get to choose). And while there are still a million miles to go, China is gradually becoming a more free, not a less free, society. Exposing China to trade, to information, to market economies is more likely (no guarantees) to help bring about gradual improvements than refusing to deal with them, because we disapprove of their human rights record.
- NZ can criticise as a non threatening friend. I believe that the closer economic ties, will put NZ in a position where we can have some influence, precisely because we are so small and insignificant. When the US or Australia criticise China, they react with hostility as they regard those countries as having ambitions of influence globally or regionally. If a “friend” such as NZ is also there saying “Hey this is not a good idea, and makes it hard for us to deal with you”, I think that voice is listened to as we do have an excellent international reputation.
So I do regard this as a very good day for New Zealand (and China). And while I have many many things I disagree with the Government on, I do praise Clark and Goff especially for their leadership on this issue. As a small trading nation, we need barriers to trade to be lowered, and this is a great step forward.
April 7th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Agree with you on Free Trade, Farrar; but what is the moral message going to the rest of the world when NZ is one of the first to sign up to a FTA with China, and we haven’t done one with the USA, and what’s more, aren’t GOING to do one………
April 7th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Sorry, we ARE the first developed country to have a FTA with China. Now what was in it for China? I suspect that it is the moral statement that it makes, more than anything else.
April 7th, 2008 at 8:58 am
And is there no difference in terms of advantage to NZ, between having an FTA with a LOW WAGE superpower, and having one with the worlds HIGHEST WAGE superpower?
[DPF: I want both. Sadly China is more committed to free trade the the US]
April 7th, 2008 at 9:02 am
=moved msg because Phil keeps changing his message and posting new ones – messing up the thread=
April 7th, 2008 at 9:05 am
.
April 7th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Ok, Either Kiwiblog or Philbest haven’t reset for Daylight Savings, but the comments posted by Philbest stamped at 9.55am were actually posted at 8.55am and his false times are messing up the message order in the thread.
In anycase,
I reply to Philbest:
Phil, it’s more a case that the USA hasn’t done a free trade deal with us, and what’s more aren’t GOING to do one (at this stage).
April 7th, 2008 at 9:09 am
I agree with you DPF that it is a huge achievement. I quibble a little on your suggestion that Helen Clark dragged the Labour party away from protectionism to free trade – I think her predecessor Mike Moore had a fair bit to do with that.
[DPF: Oh he did, but she could have reversed that as they have reversed their stances on so many other policies they used to support]
April 7th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Nice future dating Phil. How did you manage that?
[DPF: I changed the UTC offset from +13 to +12 this morning when I realised I could change the setting myself]
April 7th, 2008 at 9:13 am
The benefit for china is that it looks like it is being proactive in terms of the global community, without doing anything that will dramatically affect its economy. In terms of a free trade agreement, they couldn’t have found an economy much smaller than ours in the developed world.
April 7th, 2008 at 9:16 am
I agree, it’s a high point for this government. The irony is that they are getting flack over it – just shows that popularity and good governance don’t always coincide (and I have little sympathy because if it was National signing up they would have, no doubt, rapidly rediscovered that they socialists and hate free trade particularly at the ‘expense of human rights’).
April 7th, 2008 at 9:21 am
DPF: Great to see you giving credit where it is due. Goff is an outstanding performer and probably one of the most underappreciated politicians in recent decades. Can’t imagine why Helen doesn’t make better use of his talents…
The US/Australian FTA received a mixed reception in Oz. The sugar industry wasn’t pleased at being left out, to say the least, and the entertainment industry feared being undercut and the progress made in Australia on the cultural front being stymied, and so on. In the year following the agreement, Australian exports to the U.S. declined, while U.S. exports to Australia increased. Take a close look at the agreement folks, and note that the U.S. didn’t do its closest ally any favours at all.
[DPF: The Aust/US FTA was more a free trade agreement in name than substance. While still somewhat positive it was overall quite disappointing]
April 7th, 2008 at 9:25 am
I am holding back and waiting to see the effects before saying good or bad. I am not so sure about what will happen (and truth be known dont know a lot of detail on these FTA things and haven’t read up – just too much info to take in in this info-world today, can’t take in everything).
I sit nervously tho wondering whether we will get swamped by Chinese buying up anything and everything and we end up being a tenant community, and therefore a weaker community (e.g. I oppose foreign ownership of land). Does the FTA make this sort of thing easier? How would we know when no details have been published? ???
2c
April 7th, 2008 at 9:25 am
This appears to be the only major political issue where the NZ Labour Party is not seriously behind the times compared to its international counterparts. Congratulating them is like congratulating the All Blacks for bothering to turn up and play rugby. Now can we have some tax cuts and healthcare reform?
April 7th, 2008 at 9:28 am
What GPTi said
Labout will cope flack over this because nobody trusts them anymore and rightly so. They have lied, stolen a cheated their way through 9 years. Their morals are a disgrace.
China are happy to throw a few crumbs our way because they know their payoff will be measured not in dollars but in power and global influence.
April 7th, 2008 at 9:29 am
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
If this deal looks too good to be true, then it probably is!
So why are the Chinese offering this to us?
And why is Helen so keen to broker a free trade deal with China,
Would she do the same with the much maligned and undemocratic Fiji?
Are our ethics only for sale to the highest bidder?
Obviously China, wants to associate with NZ because of our Clean Green Brand
That is all. (They are buying our brand)
There is no financial gain for them – they have already flooded the market in NZ with cheap, all too often
toxic goods.
Helen is so keen to get this deal, you can smell the stench of communism on her breath.
April 7th, 2008 at 9:39 am
No blood for kiwifruit! http://www.cafepress.com/nokiwifruit
Whats next, a free trade deal with Mugabe?
April 7th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Agree with Phil Best. That this is any kind of positive for New Zealand trade is yet to be proved. Meanwhile, its a timely coup for the Chinese on the world political stage, which is where the real essence of this agreement rests. The message is- NZ can’t get a free trade agreement with the most democratic country on earth, but is the first developed country to sign up with the Chicom Generals.
With the Olympics fiasco looming, the Chicoms really needed to do something to help their credibility, and Helen Klark has provided them with an opportunity to achieve in some small way that goal. There is growing global discontent with China among most of the free world. The impetus for change is under way. Then along come Klark and Goff with their smiles and handshakes and congratulations.
How does it feel New Zealanders, to be on the world stage with the Tiananmen square murderers? Right now, you reckon that’s the best place to be?
April 7th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Points to ponder:
China = commo
Klark = commo
China = corrupt
Klark = corrupt
Chinese = clever
Klark = nowhere near as clever
Is Klark going where she wants to go? Probably.
Is she taking us where we want to go? Past history suggests, probably not.
Wait until you’ve read the fine print.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:04 am
*cough* I might restrain my plaudits until there’s a little more on the table than selective leaks and hyperbole from Goff. As you’ve said yourself, DPF, the Australia/US FTA was “overall quite disappointing” and the devil, as usual, was all in the details.
You don’t have to be overly cynical or some protectionist dingbat, to wonder how many lobbyists in DC and Canberra had their fingerprints all over the damn thing.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:05 am
So, would all the people who oppose this agreement rather NZ First, or the Greens were running our trade policy? Because those are the only two parties that support this agreement.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:06 am
But Phil
The US has snubbed us.
How can we be criticized for not having a FTA with the US when they say naff off?
April 7th, 2008 at 10:07 am
DPF resetting the clock right in the middle of our exchange earlier has mucked up the meaning of half the comments in this thread.
[DPF: Yeah, sorry about that. This is why God doesn't let people time travel I guess!]
April 7th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Oh and BTW, if there ever is a revolution in China, and freedom and democracy is restored, (and that could happen any time and maybe soon), how do you think New Zealand will be viewed by those who have fought for freedom. How do you think the new Chinese government might feel about an insignificant little country that gave the Chicom generals a major free world credibility boost?
April 7th, 2008 at 10:09 am
And it all comes back to: Our Glorious nuclear-Free legislation? This makes about as much sense as being the only country in the world in, say, 1950, to have banned cars and continue to be banning them………
April 7th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Actually, it is LESS sensible, given the harm caused by cars compared to the harm caused by nuclear energy……..
April 7th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Agree, Redbaiter. That’s exactly what I meant with my “9.56 AM” comment that was actually posted at 8.56 AM, and disappeared when DPF reset the time clock.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Lance
Maybe we should look at WHY the USA has told us to naff off?
April 7th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Redbaiter: How does it feel New Zealanders, to be on the world stage with the Tiananmen square murderers? Right now, you reckon that’s the best place to be?
Agreed. Although I can see the positive points that DPF has highlighted and agree those are benefits, I do not believe it is wise for us as a nation to throw our fundamental principles of freedom aside to deal with one of the most repressive regimes in the world simply because it lines our back pockets.
I, personally, do not put my principles up for the highest bidder. Unlike this filthy Labour led Government.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:17 am
“freedom and democracy is restored”
Funny – the current government is probably the most liberal the Chinese have ever had, especially when you look at their history. Sure they could do better – but there is no “glorious past” to return to RB.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:18 am
pmp
“Maybe we should look at WHY the USA has told us to naff off?”
Since it was Labour that fucked that up… and I really really really do not like Labour… your point is?
April 7th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Couple of points:
“Yes the Chinese Government is a repressive regime, and has little regard for fundamental human rights.”
That is a bit of an understatement now isn’t it. China is one of the few countries in the world to maintain the use of forced labour camps – China’s are called the Laogai. Read “Bitter Winds” by Harry Wu. And name one political party in history that has killed more people than the Chinese Communist Party.
“But a policy of shunning China is not likely to be effective…”
So we are signing this trade agreement in order to criticise them? Give me a break. It has nothing to do with that, so your point is moot.
“Dialogue and trade is better than the alternative.”
In what regard? Better for whom? Trade is good for us. Dialogue has no impact. The alternative is shunning a brutal and corrupt government that abuses human rights and has never won an election. The correct moral position is to shun them; not cosy up to them and sign trade agreements. What legitimacy has the regime in Beijing got? On what grounds to they assert their right to speak for the people of China?
April 7th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Redbaiter Add karma Subtract karma +0 Says: April 7th, 2008 at 10:07 am “Oh and BTW, if there ever is a revolution in China, and freedom and democracy is restored…”
Redbaited’s grasp of history once again to the fore… Yep, they had a lot of freedom & democracy in China before 1949. That’s what those warlords were noted for!
April 7th, 2008 at 10:25 am
“While employees in some areas which have protection removed can and do experience short-term pain, moving capital and labour into areas where we have a competitive advantage is good for employers and employees in the medium to long term. ”
I love this one. Rolls off the political tongue so easily and the warm fuzzies it sends down the spin of the ideological speaker can’t be beat.
In english it means:
yes, if you’re struggling now you will go out of business soon and your employees will lose their jobs. That’s your fault not ours. We follow an ideology and you got in the way.
However if the shoe was on the other foot, and the free market was being shut down, the abuse and screeching would be deafening.
[DPF: Businesses open and close. There are no guarantees. Trying to freeze the economy to what it was in 1950 does not work. Dairies have closed as supermarkets pop up. Postal Mail volumes drop as E-mail catches on. It is not ideology - it is called a changing world. You might want to reflect on the fact NZ has the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD and also has the least protected economy.]
April 7th, 2008 at 10:25 am
“I, personally, do not put my principles up for the highest bidder. Unlike this filthy Labour led Government.”
Or the filthy Nats, who would have done the same thing and aren’t about to repudiate the FTA any time soon.
How about some consistency here if you lot are going to go charging around on your moral high horses?
April 7th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Our pathetic anti nuclear stance was the single biggest nail in the coffin of our once proud country.
Lange was the ultimate egotistical buffoon.
Helen arse licking with the Chinese now is an inevitable outcome.
Many people are feeling very uneasy about this deal and rightly so.
Where is a politician with the balls to announce the canning of the anti nuclear legislation, tell the Chinese to keep their crumbs and chuck out Kyoto while they’re at it.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:38 am
bwakile,
Dr Brash would have got rid of the anti-nuclear legislation given the chance, but the Nats got rid of him first.
I suspect that the likes of Murray McCully, Wayne Mapp, Maurice Williamson, Lockwood Smith et al would also like to see the back of the Anti-nuclear legislation and Kyoto.
Unfortunately the political climate in NZ needs to change before these views will be relflected in official policy and legislation.
As for the trade deal with China, you’ll have to look in the direction of Keith Locke and co to find pollies who are against it.
The reality is that protectionist trade policies benefit no one in the long term. They only benefit inefficient producers and provide political leverage in the short term, at the cost of long term wealth creation and wage growth.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:41 am
bwakile: ‘Where is a politician with the balls to announce the canning of the anti nuclear legislation, tell the Chinese to keep their crumbs and chuck out Kyoto while they’re at it?’
Feel free to stand for Parliament on that set fo policies, and see if you don’t get bwacked by the voters!
April 7th, 2008 at 10:42 am
jafapete: Or the filthy Nats, who would have done the same thing and aren’t about to repudiate the FTA any time soon.
A simple question for the intellectually impaired – who is responsible for this trade agreement? Who exactly signed it? You can speculate about what would have happened until the cows come home, but the simple fact is that it was our Labour led government that was responsible for this.
I know you’re caught up in the mindset that National is responsible for all evil, but for once, deal in realities please.
There is no moral high-horse. Or are you suggesting that signing a financially advantageous deal with a repressive regime that represents the opposite New Zealand claims to stand for is not hypocritical and a direct juxtaposition with our principles of freedom?
April 7th, 2008 at 10:45 am
bwakile: Where is a politician with the balls to announce the canning of the anti nuclear legislation, tell the Chinese to keep their crumbs and chuck out Kyoto while they’re at it.
As Redbaiter would say – there are none. They all pander to that hopelessly indoctrinated school of socialist public opinion which means none have the fortitude to stand up and do what is right. Instead, we are all forced to buy into the populist memes that end up costing us not only our international reputation but will eventually see us slide far enough down the OECD ladder that we’ll be off the bottom rung.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:45 am
[DPF: Businesses open and close. There are no guarantees. Trying to freeze the economy to what it was in 1950 does not work. Dairies have closed as supermarkets pop up. Postal Mail volumes drop as E-mail catches on. It is not ideology - it is called a changing world. You might want to reflect on the fact NZ has the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD and also has the least protected economy.]
I understand completely that you are not obliged to give a shit. Just can’t help thinking that there is a better way for the intelligent politician to say it. Selling a policy of reducing everyone’s quality of living is going to be an uphill battle. National have never won popular support by any such campaign.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:51 am
My mate tells me that N.Z.’s place in the free trade queue is due to the efforts of Rewi Alley back long ago, and his high profile work in China.
My mate used to live next door to Labour’s next darling, Jacinda Ardern. He had been on a dairy industry thing to Beijing, Inner Mongolia and Heilongjiang province in 1981 when no other countries were invited to get in there.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:53 am
goodgod: blocking trade and protecting a select few government favoured industry sectors only lines the pockets of the few, at the expense of everyone in the long term.
If a businessperson is struggling they either need to improve the way they do things, or if they are in a sunset industry, they need to change their line of business – same goes for employees.
Expecting the stroke of the legislative pen to protect outmoded business from the incoming tide and sunrise of new ones will not save them in the end.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:55 am
jafapete:”Yep, they had a lot of freedom & democracy in China before 1949. That’s what those warlords were noted for!”
Jafapete, NAME ONE NATION IN THE WORLD TODAY where the bloody Communists LOST the Civil War, that is NOT NOW a democracy………
April 7th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Point number 7 is also a strange mix of social liberalism (as long as it’s directed outward, not domestically) and shoulder shrugging freemarkeering.
We should protect the starving masses in China(social liberal), who are starving through their own decisions(a fact of life), but we should run down our domestic manufacturers to do it and cheapen our society as a result(freemarket cheerleading).
Give me a break. I am not responsible for starving masses in China. Socialists are big on wealth distribution, but social liberals seem to want to redistribute poverty and social problems.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:56 am
LA pete “Feel free to stand for Parliament on that set fo policies, and see if you don’t get bwacked by the voters”
“Bwacked” sounds like something only PantyBoy would enjoy.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:00 am
“If a businessperson is struggling they either need to improve the way they do things, or if they are in a sunset industry, they need to change their line of business – same goes for employees. ”
Unless you have a bottomless pit of money to turn into a much smaller fortune, or by some amazing twist of fate you discover the new wheel, you will struggle as a start up or expanding business at some time. FTA’s increase the loading.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:00 am
goodgod: you seem to want to redistribute wages from the pockets of those who earned them to the pockets of favoured inefficient industry sector captains by blocking people’s access to trade. Who put you in charge of deciding what goods people should be allowed to buy and from what producers, in what countries, with their own money that they earned through their own hard work?
April 7th, 2008 at 11:02 am
goodgod: FTA’s don’t increase the loading at all. In fact they provide a much larger market which allows smaller businesses to be more viable as they can target niche sectors that would not have been large enough to create a viable business with a smaller market.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:07 am
I still don’t like it. We’re still aligning ourselves with a Communist, repressive, regime. As I’ve said before, if it ever came about that China and the US declared war then with whom would we be allied? Surely we would be beholden to China. I just don’t like it. And I also don’t like that the facts aren’t that clear on the cheap labour that will be flooding NZ and taking jobs. Those are the two points that concern me the most.
I don’t think all the pros and cons have been thought out. It’s all been based on money and what we can get with no thought given to whether it’s actually wise to align so closely with a country whose ideology goes strongly against with most most NZers (and a lot of the world) consider right and moral.
New Zealand is going to have a new reputation: selling out our integrity for monetary gain, and it’s already begun, as witnessed by Helen’s interview on BBC World.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Fletch: Trading with a nation does not “align” ourselves with them. Refusing to trade with people will not do anything to change the “communist, repressive, regime” – it will only serve to cement it and give the leadership ammunition with which to convince their people that the outside world is evil.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Pascal: “A simple question for the intellectually impaired – who is responsible for this trade agreement? Who exactly signed it? You can speculate about what would have happened until the cows come home, but the simple fact is that it was our Labour led government that was responsible for this.”
Yes, but the Nats are quite entitled to announce that they will repudiate the FTA. They could even just say that it is inappropriate and not something they would have done. Nobody’s stopping them. Or are they just “hollow men”?
And anyone who has read what I write in my postings will know that I don’t think that National is responsible for ALL evil. I hope that I am a long way from simply being a mirror image of the kiwiblog right.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:16 am
New Zealand still needs to do more to help re-brand China because it it loosing consumer confidence. DAFT has a vision to help restore faith into the failing hands of China.
Simple answer = Re-brand
Having an FTA with a bad brand name is fashion suicide. The All Blacks went with Adidas after dropping the Canturbery brand. WHY? Because Adidas is sexy. China could be sexy too, we just need to help them out.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Maybe if Hu wore a tutu perhaps?
April 7th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Okay DAFT, but with a population ratio of 1:400 it’s going to be hard work helping them to be sexy. Still, I’m in…
April 7th, 2008 at 11:20 am
jafapete: Yes, but the Nats are quite entitled to announce that they will repudiate the FTA.
They can. And quite possibly they will not, I do not think any politician in NZ has the fortitude to do so. However – you are missing the point. What the National Party, the Green Party, the Maori Party, Libertarianz and ACT does is quite beside the point.
It is the New Zealand Labour Party that orchestrated this, saw it through and eventually signed it. They have aligned us with one of the most repressive regimes in the world. They are responsible for this.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:21 am
The China FTA is catch up time, as are the current FTAs being sought with Saudi Arabia and Burma. We missed out with the US because of scientific ignorance over nuclear power and political naivety, we missed an FTA with Chile, Sth Korea, India and Japan. Apart from the US, where we already have excellent access anyway, those other missed FTAs can and have hurt us.
China allows us to pull back some of the opportunities we missed.. suspicious minds might think because they had too strong a link with the US.. and may, in the longer term improve our credibility with traditional partners *if* China continues to grow and prosper, and doesn’t suffer too much unrest.
So, I applaud a belated start with FTAs and the chance to make up some ground in a difficult marketing environment.
JC
April 7th, 2008 at 11:34 am
How do you measure the benefits of an FTA?
April 7th, 2008 at 11:37 am
DAFT would measure the benefits by corelating the amount of NZ First voters who leave the country, with the amount, in $NZ, of trade.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:50 am
My goodness me, what a lot of overblown comment appearing here. Hearts bleeding all over the place. I think some people need to run off and join the Green Party and clearly there’s few posting here involved in exporting. Most of them are in Beijing right now I suppose:
http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Trade-and-Economic-Relations/Trade-Agreements/China/0-business-delegation-2008.php
If we stop trading with China on the basis of democracy / free political expression/human rights then we should also stop trading with:
Russia
Iran
Saudi Arabia
Kuwait
Yemen
Oman
Syria
Vietnam
Laos
Sri Lanka
South Korea
Libya
Tonga
Afghanistan
Kazakhstan
Uzbekistan
Pakistan
Egypt
Israel
Thailand
Singapore
Indonesia
Etc…..
All of these countries (and many more) have in one way or another found themselves mentioned in HumanRightsWatch.Org and Amnesty International reports in the past 3 years.
I understand there are also people who regularly write to Phil Goff demanding we stop trading with Japan because of whaling so we better stop trading with Japan as well.
Now, could someone tell me what we’re going to do for money since the US isn‘t interested????? Perhaps we can form fortified communes and revert to the food barter system?
April 7th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Pascal: A trade deal with China does not “Align” us with them. It merely allows the people of both countries to trade freely with one another instead of lining the pockets of tax collectors at the port and captains of inefficient industry inland.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:53 am
I agree a FTA with China is a good thing. Those who oppose it on human rights grounds (i.e. we shouldn’t trade with an authoritarian government) should, if they want to be consistent, refuse to buy any chinese goods at all.
What disgusts me is our silence on their human rights, in order to get the FTA. By all means we should have a free trade agreement, but not at the expense of the blood of tibetan and pro-democracy protesters, falun gong practiciners, and millions of chinese women having forced abortions in their one child policy. The reality is that China is a totalitarian state and the 21st century heir to the evil legcies of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
Much as I support free trade, today is a day of shame. Clark and Goff were willing to sell our conscience for a FTA, and show that our human rights conscience has a dollar tag on it. Shame on them.
Then again, with the Electoral Finance Act, and pledge card overspending, Clark and Goff don’t like democracy and free speech that much anyway. They thus have something in common with the Chinese government.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:56 am
battler: A trade deal with China does not “Align” us with them. It merely allows the people of both countries to trade freely with one another instead of lining the pockets of tax collectors at the port and captains of inefficient industry inland.
You do not believe lowering trade barriers and fostering closer relationships suggests an alignment between two nations? Ok then. But the other one has bells on it.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
It seems there are really only two camps, one that thinks the FTA will be beneficial to them is supporting it, and the other one thinks the FTA will disadvantage them is against it.
It will be interesting to see how they both will react when it turns out to be different from what they have hoped or feared.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
democacymum: “Obviously China, wants to associate with NZ because of our Clean Green Brand. That is all. (They are buying our brand)”
Strange, that. I thought it was just a trade deal between two countries. How exactly does China “buy our brand”? Who outside our own myopic little corner of the world will even notice?
If we really want to do something to protect our alleged “Clean Green Brand” we might pay some urgent attention to polluted lakes and rivers, to noxious weeds on farmland, to rabbits, possums, stoats & weasels, and to Transpower pylons disfiguring previously picturesque landscapes.
We might also care to confront (from an honest, intellectual perspective rather than on a basis of emotions alone) urgently-needed forward plans for nuclear generation of much of NZ’s future power needs.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Great post DPF, one of your best.
Labour does deserve credit for this. It is a mystery to me why they are for free international trade and yet so against it inside the country.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Pascal, if you think that chinese people should have to pay higher taxes to their communist authorities every time they buy some NZ wool or beef or milk powder that’s up to you.
Personally I think it’s a good thing that the chinese people will be paying less import tax to their communist authorities at the same time as getting a taste of the good produce that can come from un-subsidised industry.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
As soon as the (Dalai Lama = evil, violent and dangerous) agreement is signed will the Dalai Lama be banned from ever entering NZ? Has his travel status changed as we bow down to Helen’s only chance of a 4th term?
Have we sold our countries soul to make her look good ?
April 7th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
battler: they buy some NZ wool
I must applaud you for putting words in my mouth. Did you study at the hands of the Labour party for attributing statements to other people?
But no, I do not think they should have to pay their communist overlords a higher tax. I find that to be a sad thing, particularly considering my wife is Chinese and I have a first hand account of what life is like for our family over there.
However, the plight of people in China is not the responsibility of New Zealand in general. I do not believe we signed this FTA because we are overly concerned with the people of China. I do not think our Labour overlords are that philantropic. Do you?
P.S. Any Chinese that buys wool from NZ is neglecting the quality of their own produce. The wool from around Erdos (sp?) is very good, my mother-in-law sent me a few jerseys from there. Probably some of my favourite articles of clothing.
April 7th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Pascal
Your world seems to be one of contradictions.
On the one hand you have married a chinese lady. So you obviously have no problem with dealing with the chinese in finding a marriage partner and creating a new family with chinese people in spite of the communist government. Yet on the other hand you have a problem with a deal that allows chinese people and new zealand people being able to buy goods and services from one another without having to pay tribute to our governments on either side every time they do so?
In one post you cite the “repressive” regime in China as being the reason we shouldn’t do an FTA with China. Then in another post you say that “the plight of the people in China is not the responsibility of New Zealand in general”.
I can’t work you out.
April 7th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Oh well I suppose I will be training up Chinaman’s in the vineyard later this year on how to prune the vine? Open the flood gates thanks liarbour fools. Anybody with a brain will be selling up and joining the exodus. Friggin insanity, how dumb is this retard country?
It is a black ( yellow – red ) shameful day in New Zealand’s history or should I say the communists won on the day. Madness!!!
April 7th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
I agree with Richard Hurst, this thread reads to me like a whole bunch of people who have no vision of the opportunity the FTA presents and are drowning in a sea of their own prejudices. Just because Goff and Clark got the deal signed does not make it intrinsically evil or poor. Everything I have read and the people I have spoken to make me think this is a great opportunity for NZ. Provided we have the guts to grasp and exploit the opportunity, rather than bleating about perceived issues. Issues are opportunities in disguise.
April 7th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Richard, but there is trading and then there is trading. A Free Trade Deal is the difference between heavy petting and taking all your clothes off and getting in bed; sorry for the analogy but you are talking about is normal trading which ALL countries do.
April 7th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Did anybody else see dear leader (Helen Fraser, PM of NZ…ha ha) on TV last night?
She could not help but take the opportunity to put the boot into the Poms about the war in Iraq.
April 7th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Adam said “this thread reads to me like a whole bunch of people who have no vision of the opportunity the FTA presents and are drowning in a sea of their own prejudices ”
Be hell you idiot. I do not harbour any “prejudices ” just a genuine hatred towards massive human right atrocities committed by Mr Chinaman!!!!
April 7th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Is it un PC to say that I am not overly concerned about human rights in China?, all I want is for this deal to go through and hopefully all Kiwi’s will benefit.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Whaddya mean hopefully???
April 7th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
” hopefully ” about sums this retard deal up redbaiter.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
So on D4J’s basis we should not trade with:
Iran
Saudi Arabia
Israel
USA
Russia
Pakistan
Indonesia
Burma
Japan
Korea
Most African countries
Turkey
Australia
All of the above have major issues with regard to human rights.
Personally, I think your prejudices are blinding you to reality.
I have a greater interest in growing opportunity for NZ than indulging your paranoid ravings and those of your rabid friends.
Your dislike has I think much to do with your pathological hatred for Clark and Labour and like many Kiwis a fear of change
April 7th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Well Winston the Foreign Minister must also have laid the groundwork for this deal and deserves his share of the credit….I have just read the online edition of Xinhua Chinese news in English. They seem totally un-aware of this major event occurring in their country, there is no mention of New Zealand,Clark, or Free Trade Deal though they do note that Naomi Campbell was arrested for misbehaviour and a girl with two faces was recovering well from an Operation. Still the 200 N.Z.Business Ambassadors including Olive Oil Manufacturer Paul Holmes seem to agree it is the deal of the century. Lets hope it is. I note only skilled workers will be allowed into this country and maybe the Corrections Department will take note of the opportunity to fill their vacancies. Chinese Prison Wardens are reputedly the most efficient in the world and soon rectify any misbehaviour within the prisons…It is noteworthy that Business will benefit to the tune of around 300 Million dollars a year just short of the amount required to pay the Rotorua Maori there third full and final settlement for Colonial abuse though well short of what is required to settle the carbon credit shortfall in connection with the Global Warming Hoax.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Baxter,
According to Fran O’Sullivan’s account of the press conference in Beijing, Winston has now been given a copy of the agreement and is taking it away to study it in order to determine NZFirst’s response. Doesn’t sound like he had anything to do with it…
“But it wasn’t long before the Winston Peters factor came up. Just what will the Chinese think if our Foreign Minister and his party vote against the legislation was the question that took up nearly half the press conference time. The answer was telling.
“The question won’t arise because the deal will be signed by the NZ Trade Minister and the Commerce Minister of China and witnessed at the top level from both countries [Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and Prime Minister Helen Clark].”
“Mr Goff wasn’t out to inflame Mr Peters’ heightened sensitivities.
“He had briefed Mr Peters as part of the Cabinet consultative phase. Mr Peters had said he wanted to absorb the detail and then make a decision based on that.
“He’ll come to his own conclusions.”
April 7th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
So lets build a wall around fortress NZ like William Sutch et al wanted and not have anything to do with those evil nasty foreigners Geez you can tell the ones who havent travelled by their comments.
NZ is on a roll and God willing we will continue Helen Clark and Phil Goff and the others who have put this FTA together will be viewed by our ancestors as pioneers and architects of a prosperous NZ.
And this comes from one of their fervent and most outspoken critics.
But praise where praise is due.
Because of our geopolitical position we are favoured. Think about this. In all seriousness which countries in the world really regards us as an enemy and a threat. We are a contributor to peace keeping and aid iniatitives well above our size using any measure.
Hats off to the Socialists They deserve their day in the sun
However before they relax the battle for election 08 recommences tomorrow
April 7th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
“Personally, I think your prejudices are blinding you to reality.”
Nope. Your craven obsession with what you perceive as demonstrating a “liberal” mindset has blinded you to the points that I and Phil Best have tried to make. Just put your narcissism aside for a second and try and digest the real issue here. Its not about trade with China. Trade with China has been going on for yonks. Its about an agreement with the Chicom generals, and spiting the USA. Look back up the thread and try and address the real issues people have raised. Not the fake and manufactured issues you imagine you see through your prism of narcissistic self indulgence.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
“Your dislike has I think much to do with your pathological hatred for Clark and Labour and like many Kiwis a fear of change”
Yes I fear China a super power capable of human right abuses wherever it likes to do so. Who can stop them? Thanks Miss Klark you disgrace!!
April 7th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
# pushmepullu Add karma Subtract karma –1 Says: April 7th, 2008 at 10:05 am So, would all the people who oppose this agreement rather NZ First, or the Greens were running our trade policy? Because those are the only two parties that support this agreement.
Have now seen the Herald (NZ’s largest by far circulation daily newspaper), and Fran (the kiwiblog right’s favourite Herald columnist) reports that, “[Goff]’s got more than 100 votes in his pocket after the National Party agreed to support the legislation.”
So, Pascal et al. those filthy Communist tyrant-supporting Nats are morally implicated too.
And as for those who say that the devil is in the detail; true, but the exporters who have seen the detail are all saying what a great deal it is. Listen to the experts!
April 7th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Redbaiter – a one-paragraph rant is too short for two instances of a word like “Narcissism”.
Doing that makes it appear that you have just looked the word up in your thesaurus…
April 7th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Let’s just hope the Chinese don’t buy ALL our lamb, wine, dairy produce, etc, etc.
The cost of living is already dear enough.
April 7th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
“but the exporters who have seen the detail are all saying what a great deal it is.”
Example?
April 7th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Fairfacts – I believe we had pretty much that situation already, even without the FTA. A month or two ago tvnz interviewed one of the regional heads of the Dairy Association, and he said they already had sufficient overseas demand that his members could export 100% of their products if they wanted to. Hence why we are paying the world market price for cheese & butter etc.
And oh boy, did he ever have a smile on his face as he said that!
(Hence a marked lack of sympathy on my part when *the very next night* on the news the Waikato dairy farmers were all “poor us, we’re having a drought, we need help”…)
April 7th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Redbaited, Here’s something from your sainted Fran’s eyewitness account:
“Despite the jet lag (we didn’t get into Beijing to 1.30am yesterday morning) the delegation was still fizzing when Goff briefed them on the details of the free trade deal late yesterday. … the mood at last night’s cocktail function was celebratory. Fonterra chairman Henry van der Heyden was upbeat.”
Fonterra is NZ’s largest exporter.
The only time in the last twenty years that I’ve felt like quoting Fran O’Sullivan, so I’m making the most out of it.
PS I think that a later thread has superceded this one.
April 7th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
“Mr. Van Der Hayden was unable to comment about parts of the deal which allow China to slow down the tariff phase out if it does harm to their farmers or their markets are flooded with New Zealand milk.”
“PS I think that a later thread has superceded this one.”
A thread that has been almost totally fucked up by your idiot buddy Nome. As usual.
April 7th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Redbaited, That’s the first and last time I believe anything Fran O’Sullivan writes! Once bitten, twice shy.
April 7th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
See earlier message that got lost and then reappeared.
April 7th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
FFS, can people stop spelling Clark with a K? It makes me cringe every time I see it. What’s it supposed to prove?
April 7th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Klark Klark Klark Klark just for you – the c word nutbar !!!
April 7th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Let us be honest here, this is the deal National would be signing today, if they won the 2005 election. And they were consulted every step of the way on this.
This is the deal Rudd wants to sign before his re-election in three years time. And the Oz Liberals will be consulted every step of the way and agree with it.
And the only reason we do not have free trade with the USA is that we are a major farming economy (they have protectionist tendencies as those wanting a new WTO free trade round now realise) with a low size country demand for US exports (not much in it for them) and because OZ wanted to be politically/economically rewarded for being loyal and still in ANZUS (thus getting a free trade deal first).
April 7th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
SPC: “And the only reason we do not have free trade with the USA is that we are a major farming economy ….”
Nothing to do with NZ’s ideological policies directed almost entirely against the USA and the former ANZUS defence alliance? Nothing to do with PM Clark’s comments about whom she would have preferred to see in the White House?
Trade protectionist policies always impede the development of constructive FTAs, but it would be short-sighted to discount additional factors such as political slights aimed at a former very close friend and ally.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
1. The South Pacific nuclear free zone paved the way for the American-Russian nuclear disarmament in Europe. It was not against anyone (no one else had the neither confirm nor deny policy, which they valued more than the Enzed-USA relationship. That a generation of US “politically appointed bureacrats” got sour pussed about it, is however a minor matter in the politics of any free trade deal).
2. Congress is the problem on free trade, not the White House (though under Obama or Clinton that might change).
April 7th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
To be fair, it’s a lot easier to get things done with a one party state than it is to get things done with a trinitarian republic. I don’t think it’s more complicated than that. The US politicians have to appease voters and the Chinese don’t. So we get a free trade deal with the Chinese and not with the Americans.
Trade is not a weapon in the battle for a free China. To be against a FTA with China is the equivalent of saying that we have a better chance at winning a boxing gold medal if all the boxers wore straightjackets. It’s a nonsense. Let’s free up everybody’s hands and worry about free speech issues separate from the economic ones.
April 8th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I was watching the news here in Tokyo and saw Helen and the Chinese chap, with the headline that New Zealand is the first developed nation with which China has signed a FTA.
The news was aired in amongst other stories about protests at China over the Tibet matter.
Nicholas O’Kane has it exactly as it came across here on Japanese national TV.
April 9th, 2008 at 12:45 am
d@t
I suspect then it will increase our reputation as a country serious about doing business.