Kiwiblog

AP reports:

China’s Health Ministry has ordered a hospital to stop using electric shock therapy to cure youths of Internet addiction, saying there was no scientific evidence it worked.

No kidding.

Chinese psychologists say symptoms of Internet addiction include being online more than six hours a day – playing games and looking at pornography rather than working or studying – and getting angry when unable to get online.

Well I’d say most Kiwiblog commenters fit that definition

Shuyun said it was only part of the overall program to treat patients, which also included medicine and psychological counseling. Patients are charged 5,500 yuan ($NZ1290) a month.

You pay $1,290 a month to get electrocuted? Man that is the best cyber scam yet.

I almost didn’t blog these, because they are so positive, but it is probably worth doing so, as Key is new to Foreign Affairs. First we have Fran O’Sullivan:

The Prime Minister’s diplomatic team skilfully orchestrated the visit so that New Zealand’s vital business interests in China were enhanced.

Wen made clear that China has drawn a line under the tainted milk affair at Fonterra’s now bankrupt Sanlu joint venture and welcomed increased participation in its fledgling agriculture industry.

Air New Zealand has also won a departure slot at Beijing International Airport that will help it encourage more Chinese visitors to come to Auckland, arriving at around 6am rather than just before 3am.

Key’s meetings with the prime Chinese customers of some of New Zealand’s major firms will also help in easing some barriers to doing business.

Clark’s own high-level political skills and feel for international affairs enabled New Zealand to secure last year’s historic free trade deal with China. But now the FTA is into the “implementation phase”, Key’s business skill-set is proving valuable.

It is good Key is continuing Clark’s fine work with China.

And the NZ Herald Editorial:

John Key’s state visit to China was a potentially tricky one. The 12 months after the signing of a momentous free trade deal have not been plain sailing. Most notably, New Zealand was implicated in the contaminated milk scandal that swept through China, thanks to Fonterra’s involvement in the now-bankrupt Sanlu joint venture. It is a feather in the cap of the Prime Minister and this country’s diplomats that the Chinese say they see no reason to allow this issue to undermine relations. …

Premier Wen Jiabao told Mr Key he regarded China’s relationship with New Zealand as the “very, very best” it had been. It is reassuring that a tie skilfully built by the previous government continues to flourish despite some unforeseen hiccups.

As the US buckles under the weight of Obama’s spending, the Chinese economy will become much more important to us.

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key has said he will meet the Dalai Lama when he comes to New Zealand next year – one week after China retaliated against the French president for doing the same.

The Dalai Lama will be visiting Auckland on December 6 next year to speak at Vector Arena and lead a session on Buddhist teachings.

“The Prime Minister will treat the Dalai Lama in the same way as any other significant visitor, and will meet the Dalai Lama should his diary permit,” said a spokesman for Mr Key.

Good. We can not have a foreign country dictate who our PM can or can not meet.

An interesting article on the positive impact Chinese bloggers are having:

Tens of millions of mice over-ran China’s internet trap this year, swamping it with chatter, nibbling towards freedom of speech.

Riots in Tibet, the Sichuan earthquake, an under-age Olympic hero, poisoned milk, official corruption, and even a fake tiger sighting – China’s top news stories this year took on new life in the blogosphere.

The twisted reports and deliberate silence of the Communist Party’s traditional propaganda machine – state-owned newspapers and television – were held to ridicule by swift-moving mice that scrutinised, uncovered and spread little pieces of competing truth

Yay.

The number of bloggers in China doubled to 107 million in the six months to last June, according to the China Internet Network Information Centre. Total users rose 56 per cent from the previous year, to 253 million, giving China the largest online population in the world.

Mr Mao says he can see a tipping point coming. He believes that as a result of blogging, young Chinese brainwashed by their education system are now trying to think for themselves, work together and find smarter solutions.

Sounds hopeful.

There’s a fine line between predicting and being seen to advocate. I am not sure it is helpful for Phil Goff to have said:

Trade Minister Phil Goff expects severe punishment for those criminally responsible for China’s contaminated milk scandal – but he doesn’t think Fonterra’s representatives at San Lu should join the growing list of arrests made by Chinese authorities.

Fonterra has three directors who sit on the San Lu board and as arrests in the milk powder scandal multiplied yesterday, Mr Goff said it was “almost certain” the people who added the chemical melamine to milk would be executed.

I really don’t know why Goff thought it was necessary to say that, as the Chinese Government could see that as diplomatic code for condoning such executions.

China has made great strides in recent years, but one is reminded of how big the remaining gulf is, with the story over the fake singing at the Olympics opening:

The girl in the red dress with the pigtails, called Lin Miaoke, 9, and from a Beijing primary school, has become a national sensation since Friday night, giving interviews to all the most popular newspapers.

But the show’s musical designer felt forced to set the record straight. He gave an interview to Beijing radio saying the real singer was a seven-year-old girl who had won a gruelling competition to perform the anthem, a patriotic song called “Hymn to the Motherland”.

At the last moment a member of the Chinese politburo who was watching a rehearsal pronounced that the winner, a girl called Yang Peiyi, might have a perfect voice but was unsuited to the lead role because of her buck teeth.

So, on the night, while a pre-recording of Yang Peiyi singing was played, Lin Miaoke, who has already featured in television advertisements, was seen but not heard.

The one good thing is that the musical designer who revealed this, felt he was able to do so without disappearing into the night as once would have been he case.

But really to have politburo members choosing the child singer!

And the fireworks were also faked in part:

Officials have already admitted that the pictures of giant firework footprints which marched across Beijing towards the stadium on Friday night were prerecorded, digitally enhanced and inserted into footage beamed across the world.

Now again the good thing is through blogs and elsewhere Chinese citizens are able to debate whether or not they think these actions were good, or not. But they do do real damage.

People like me wonder if the hosts are so willing to fake the singing and fake the fireworks, how much confidence can you have in them to have discouraged steroid use and the like? The technology is always somewhat ahead of the detection, so even the best efforts of international authorities will be limited if a host country condones anything in its desire to be the best.

Parliament did some good yesterday and passed into law the legislation necessary to implement the free trade agreement with China.

The New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill passed its third reading on a vote of 104 to 17, strongly supported by the National Party and opposed by the Greens, New Zealand First and the Maori Party.

I really wonder why those parties are against our export sector being able to export more goods and services to China?

As Phil Goff says:

Mr Goff said that would give New Zealand companies a unique competitive advantage in the world’s fastest growing economy.

“Our exports to China, currently at more than $2 billion a year, are estimated to grow by between $230-350 million a year faster than they would have without an FTA.”

The FTA is a win-win – good for New Zealand and good for China.

This comes from the BBC. Good on the enterprising factory owner for not letting politics get in the way of business!

The Herald have reported that the Labour Department says Air NZ is not breaking the law by paying Shanghai based staff less than the minimum wage on international flights.

The legal minimum wage is $12 an hour but the Labour department report said it was not applicable to Air NZ as “it would appear Chinese employment law applied to the agreement between Air New Zealand and the Chinese Air crew”.

But not quite that clear:

However, in a statement last night the Department of Labour corrected “an assertion” in a media release from Air New Zealand on the issue.

The statement was in response to a release from the airline that stated that the department had found that Chinese law applied to the agreement between Air New Zealand and the Chinese cabin crew.

“What we said in our briefing to Labour Minister Trevor Mallard was that “it would appear that Chinese employment law applied”, workplace deputy secretary Andrew Annakin said.

“This is an important point of difference, as the department cannot definitively determine what employment law applies in a particular factual situation, particularly outside New Zealand.”

It would be a very interesting test case if taken to court. If the staff worked in China, there would be no doubt Chinese law applied. But when on an international flight, the law of the air generally tends to point to the law of the country the aircraft is registered in. However I know that flights into the US also have US Federal Law apply, so definitely not clear cut.

Winston Peters demanded the media grovel and apologise for the report that Phil Goff had described Peters’ attack on the free trade deal as Bullshit.

The Government then conceded that Goff has used the term “bullshit” but only in relation to criticism of the FTA, but somehow mytically this excludes Winston’s criticism.

Today the NZ Herald reports a business leader on the record confirming that Goff did indeed use the word “bullshit” about Peters’ criticisms of the deal.

No Right Turn blogs that he believes the NZ First advertisements do breach the Electoral Finance Act as “a reasonable person would regard it as an encouragement to vote for NZ First”. I agree. As Idiot/Savant says it is not a survey, it lays out policy and encourages approval of it.

Poneke has more on the BBC story on climate change which got modified. The reporter denied he did it under pressure, but an activist has blogged she successfully pressured him to change it.

The visible hand in economics looks at fixed vs floating exchange rates.

The DAFT Party has a solution for China over Tibet. It is to rename China to Tibet, and declare they are all Tibetians. The PRC Government should see the sense of this now they are running a market economy – you replace a tarnished brand with a more positive brand!

Bernard Hickey has video and a blog post on Alan Bollard’s speech suggesting we are talking ourselves into a recession. Bernard says we’re not, and if we do have a recession, it is because we deserve it! Them’s fighting words! It’s a lengthy excellent post with many graphs.

The Herald reports that calls for Peters to be sacked as Foreign Minister (he could be moved to another portfolio) are growing. Business representatives who are still in China are said to be furious and Phil Goff has been trying to calm them down, agreeing it was a “bullshit” situation. Those effectively calling for him to go include:

• Northern Employers and Manufacturers Association chief executive Alasdair Thompson
• Bob Fenwick, a past president of the NZ Export Institute
• Revenue Minister Peter Dunne

The fact Peters is not just quietly voting against (or abstaining) but has launched a high profile campaign  in NZ against it with newspaper ads is what has them fuming, plus his insistence he will state his views against it when overseas as Foreign Minister.

Martin Kay in the Dom Post covers in more detail the Revenue Minister’s views on Peters:

Mr Dunne, UnitedFuture’s leader and revenue minister, said Mr Peters would fly in the face of “all conventions about good government” if he spoke out against the FTA as a minister. “I can’t see how you stay on that basis.”

… Mr Dunne told Newstalk ZB the FTA was central to the Government’s foreign policy and Mr Peters had to represent that.

Kay also covers the issue of Labour’s about-face on this:

Dr Cullen’s insistence that it is all right for Mr Peters to speak against the deal contradicts comments he made soon after Mr Peters was appointed, when he said the FTA was one of the “highest foreign policy goals”.

His insistence that Mr Peters is free to criticise the deal overseas also appears at odds with a Cabinet circular that says he must speak for the Government “on all issues” when out of the country.

Colin Espiner in The Press also quotes Dr Cullen yesterday:

“I think that people understand very clearly that the confidence and supply agreement provides that Mr Peters is bound on matters purely of foreign policy …”

Now recall that in 2005, Dr Cullen stated in Parliament that the China FTA was one of the Government’s “highest foreign policy goals”.

I was also on ZB today, and was asked about National’s position on Winston as Foreign Minister. I said that I was disappointed in the response in that it missed an opportunity to differentiate National from Labour in terms of how far one would compromise good Government just to keep the numbers together.

What I would have liked John Key to say in response to the question of whether one could have Peters as a future Foreign Minister is:

“Look no one is ruled in or out of a portfolio in advance, but what I will say is that in a Government I lead, you will not be able to be Minister of Foreign Affairs unless you support the Government’s foreign policy, which obviously includes trade agreements”

Key was not wrong to not rule Peters out. The sad reality of MMP is you can’t rule most things in or out until you have the elction results. But I do think he missed a real opportunity to make it clear that while he could not rule a person (Peters) out, he could rule out unacceptable behaviour (the Foreign Minister saying he will criticise a trade agreement while overseas, and campaigning against it in NZ before the ink is even dry).

This whole episode shows us the problem with the ever increasing removal of collective responsibility. It has gone too far.  I am not saying it needs to go back to the days of every member of the Executive having to support the Government on every issue. But when you are having a debate about whether or not it is okay for the Foreign Affairs Minister to be personally heading up a newspaper campaign against a major foreign policy achievement with China, then things have gone too far. There shouldn’t even be a debate.

I mean we have the Foreign Affairs Minister campaigning on his opposition to trade with foreigners, his opposition to Asian foreigners being able to live here, and his opposition to people being able to sell property or shares to foreigners. Does Helen not think this might slightly undermine his ability to be an effective and respected Foreign Minister?

The Government is, to be blunt, lying when it says there is no need for the Foreign Affairs Minister to support the China Free Trade Agreement because trade agreements are somehow seperate from foreign policy.

To rebut this preposterous claim, let me quote the Rt Hon Helen Clark who just six months ago addressed the Oxford Union on the topic of “New Zealand Foreign Policy“:

A successful WTO round is our top trade priority. For it to succeed it must deliver on opening up agricultural trade. That is also in the interests of the developing world. But New Zealand has strong interests in negotiations on industrials and services too, and is looking for an outcome which delivers more openness across the board.

Meantime in our own region we are forging new trade links with APEC partner economies. Our first free trade agreement was with Australia over 24 years ago. Now we have FTAs with Singapore and Thailand, and a sub regional FTA with Chile, Singapore, and Brunei. We have completed fourteen rounds of FTA negotiations with China. Negotiations for an FTA are also going on between ASEAN and Australia and New Zealand.

Clark makes it absolutely clear trade policy is a subset of foreign policy. It is not a separate issue as Clark now tries to claim. It is like arguing overseas aid is not part of foreign policy.

To quote Helen Clark some more, in 2000 she said “As I have indicated, multilateral trade policy will continue to be a key focus of our foreign policy.”

And Dr Cullen in 2005 in Hansard said:

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, the Minister of Foreign Affairs accepts that seeking a free-trade deal with China is one of our highest foreign policy goals.  …

Cullen points out that Goff is Trade Minister, not Peters. But he very clearly states that the China free-trade deal is “one of our highest foreign policy goals”.

Now Clark yesterday has tried to pretend it is not foreign policy, but trade policy only, as reported on TV3:

She did not believe that China or anyone else would find it strange for the foreign minister to attack trade policy.

But as Dr Cullen and herself and Goff have said on many occasions, it is a key foreign policy goal.

Now even worse, Peters has said he will criticise the deal when overseas as Foreign Minister.  So the NZ Government will pay for their Foreign Minister to fly to other countries, and if asked about the China FTA, to say it is a bad deal which does not deliver enough to NZ. He will even say this to the Chinese Foreign Minister he claims.

Peters is also running advertisements today in newspapers attacking the China FTA.  These ads were placed *before* his Caucus claimed to have decided their position yesterday. That tells you something.

So in summary, we have multiple statements from the Government that the China FTA has been and is one of their top foreign policy goals. And you have their Foreign Minister:

• Stating he will criticise the FTA when overseas as Foreign Minister if asked
• Attacking the deal while the PM is still in China
• Basically attacking his own colleagues and MFAT staff as having failed to get a good enough deal
• Claiming not to have made his mind up on the deal as he hadn’t seen details, yet drawing up advertisements in newspapers attacking the deal before it had even been signed!
• also heading a party campaigning against Asian immigration to NZ

Now it is possible Peters is trying to get sacked.  Since he was re-elected to Parliament in 1984, he has never gone into an election backing the Government of the Day. He could have just announced his party will vote against but he will abstain in recognition of his responsibility to the Government he is Foreign Minister of.

But Clark’s credibility is one the line if she thinks it is not an issue that the NZ Foreign Affairs Minister is campaigning against the Government’s foreign policy, and allows him to do so.

What would we think if the US Secretary of State opposed the foreign and trade policy of the US Government? Or if any Foreign Minister anywhere in the world denounced and ran advertisements against their own Government’s foreign policy?

The “agree to disagree” clause in the agreements between Labour and NZ First can not and does not extend to the Foreign Minister able to campaign against and denounce overseas the foreign policy of the Government. It is the equivalent of the Finance Minister voting against tax cuts in the Budget (something Cullen probably wishes he could do) on the grounds tax is a matter for the Minister of Revenue, not the Minister of Finance.

Peters can not continue as Foreign Affairs Minister and be sent by the NZ taxpayer to countries around the world, where he will then criticise and attack the New Zealand Government foreign policy and achievements (by way of giving personal opinions on questions) rather than advocate on behalf of the Government he is the Foreign Minister for. That is a bauble too far.

Ben Thomas in the NBR takes a look at the double standards when you look at the China FTA (which I support and Govt does) and the Canadian proposal to purchase some shares off existing private owners in Auckland International Airport, with a maximum 25% voting strength (which I support, but the Govt will turn down):

There’s one footnote to FTA. The two internationalists, Clark and Goff, know that back in New Zealand, there are politicians who are less expansive in their views on free trade and other cultures.

They are ready to stir up xenophobia to take advantage of the electorate’s insecurities, and boost their polling chances.

Your correspondent refers, of course, to Michael Cullen. The finance minister this week will be waiting with baited breath for the decision of his junior ministers (David Parker and Clayton Cosgrove) on whether the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board can buy 39.5 per cent of Auckland International Airport shares.

Cullen was the driving force – or at least, the public face – of government opposition to the possibility of the Canadians acquiring a “strategic asset” like the airport.

He fronted the decision to amend the Overseas Investment Agency’s test to make the Canadians’ bid for 39.5 per cent of the airport (now only 24.9 per cent of votes) more difficult.

Why does Dr Cullen oppose the Canadian deal so vehemently?

Perhaps one concern is Canada’s poor record on human rights: the country only passed entrenched human rights legislation in the late 1970s.

Perhaps it is the Canadians continued oppression of their French-speaking minority, and refusal to grant the outlying province of Quebec greater autonomy.

Or perhaps, to paraphrase Enoch Powell and more latterly New Zealand First’s Peter Brown, Dr Cullen fears that opening the door to Canadian investment will lead to cultural disharmony and “rivers of maple syrup” in the street.

Very good points. The Govt gets full marks for the FTA, but their behaviour over a mere 25% voting strength in what is already a privately owned airport is petty political posturing.

Mike Moore makes some excellent arguments:

There are some who oppose New Zealand’s trade deal with China, and want a boycott of the Olympics. It’s precisely because China depends on the global trading system that world opinion on human rights now matters to the Chinese.

Thirty million people perished during the cultural revolution and Mao’s great leap backwards. World opinion didn’t matter to the Chinese then. Now it does, and that’s a good thing.

China is going through the same process as Japan, Singapore, and places like Taiwan. As living standards rise, a middle class emerges that seeks out better social outcomes. Wages in the Pearl River delta in China rose 13 per cent last year.

Seven thousand factories will close this year because wages have moved up and these jobs will head inland, or to Vietnam, even Africa. This is the virtue of free markets and globalisation.

For the first time the Chinese Government is answerable to its own laws – you can now sue the Government.

It’s no longer an atheist state; there are the beginnings of freedom of religion. Over 10,000 Chinese Muslims were allowed to go to the Haj in Mecca. Christians sued the Shanghai Government for wrongful arrest when they expressed their religious beliefs. This is an imperfect and uneven progress that should be celebrated.

All this is healthy and Prime Minister Helen Clark has hit the right note. …

The New Zealand /China trade deal is to be welcomed. Would our competitors turn it down? In fact, our advantage will last only a few years, if that, as others sign up.

All this exposes something else about New Zealand’s political process. Our Foreign Minister, Winston Peters, says he’s not a member of Government except when overseas and may not vote for it. How is this possible?

Peter Dunne has said he will vote for the deal but has the Chinese shaking in their boots by saying he won’t go to the reception. The Maori Party has taken different positions, but one MP said we shouldn’t trade with countries that pay lower wages than NZ. That means we can’t trade with Samoa, forcing them to pay more for goods from anywhere else.

At last the adults in the Labour and National Parties have taken control for a short time and done what is right for New Zealand. This deal is worth a few hundred million dollars to New Zealand, small compared to the Uruguay Trade round, and tiny compared to what this country will get from the Doha Trade round.

Why is it so small? Because the terms of China’s accession to the World Trade Organisation collapsed tariffs in agriculture by 90 per cent. Isn’t it a good thing that China is now inside the WTO and answerable to its rules, obligations, and binding legal disputes system? The WTO and the Doha Round is still the biggest global game.

But New Zealand can do a deal with China and advance the WTO. It’s a melancholy fact the best thing I ever did was leave New Zealand to run the World Trade Organisation. China joined the WTO and the Doha Trade round was launched in my time. Modesty prevents me from pointing this out.

Completing the Doha round would be a better achievement, but to be fair to Moore he can’t be held responsible for that not happening!

Helen Clark has said she did raise the issue of Tibet with the Chinese Premier. Good.

If you want to send a message to your Government to pressure China to enter into a dialogue over Tibet, you can do so at this website, which I found through the BNI Blog.

NZ First have confirmed they will vote against the Free Trade Agreement with China.  So the NZ Government is going to have its own Foreign Minister vote and advocate against their most important foreign policy achievement.  What next? Will Helen Clark allow the Minister of Finance to vote against the Budget?

NZ First are saying there are not enough concessions from the Chinese side. This is absolute nonsense. Professional negotiators such as Tim Groser are saying that it is one of the cleanest (ie few hold out areas) FTAs around.  Considering our relative sizes, NZ has negotiated a great deal.

Anyway NZ First have made their decision, which puts the ball in Clark’s court. Does she regard it as acceptable her Foreign Minister votes against and advocates against her Government’s most important foreign policy achievement?

NZPA reports some minor criticism of the FTA with regard to Working Holiday Visas:

Under the agreement up to 1000 Chinese aged between 18 and 30 can enter New Zealand for a temporary time to work in the tourism industry or other work.

The scheme is similar to that offered to a number of other countries that New Zealand is keen to build links with.

In China’s case this deal has not been offered in return.

Miss Clark said China has a legal framework did not make that possible.

“That hasn’t been largely of concern to us,” Miss Clark said.

“Where we think it is in New Zealand’s interests to have a working holiday scheme with another country we will do it unilaterally, as we have with the United States.”

Miss Clark said it was possible China could reciprocate in the future, but New Zealand had found that with such schemes there had been greater interest in young people from emerging economies coming to work in New Zealand than the other way round.

This was probably due to the fact that developing economies paid lower wages than young New Zealanders could earn in other countries.

The PM is dead right in this regard. I can’t imagine there are great numbers of Kiwis wanting to do a working holiday in China, because the amount they will earn would be so limited.

I think it is vital NZ tries to expand working holiday opportunities in Europe and North America especially. The moves by the UK to remove traditional working rights for young New Zealanders is of great concern. But the lack of a formal programme with China is not.

Whale Oil has started a caption contest, so I am extending it here. You can submit here or there. As usual, entries should be funny, not nasty. Photo is from NZ Herald.

If Winston Peters wants to vote against the free trade agreement with China, then he must resign as Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The arrangement he has with Clark where he is Foreign Affairs Minister, but not formally part of the Government, has already stretched the concept of collective responsibility. But this is about more than semantics.

The China FTA is not just a trade agreement – it has been and is a major foreign policy goal for the Government. Just listen to Helen:

Prime Minister Helen Clark and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao described the agreement as a major step that would deepen New Zealand’s relations with the emerging economic superpower.

How the hell can Peters remain Foreign Minister if he votes on the record against an agreement that deepens our relationship with such an important country and trading partner?

This isn’t about voting against a minor policy in an unrelated policy area. This is about voting against a policy which will help define our future relationship with China, and sits at the heart of foreign policy.

Can Peters credibly represent the NZ Government to China, if he goes and votes against this agreement? Not at all, especially when combined with rhetoric from his deputy leader about how horrified he is about a horde (1,600 skilled workers) of Chinese flooding the country under this deal.

Details are now flowing via NZPA:

• Tariffs on 96% of exports to China to be eliminated
• On 1 October 2008, tariffs removed on $200 million of exports, making 35% of exports tariff free
• By 2013, 66% will be tariff free
• By 2019 all but $80 million will be tariff free
• If any future trade deal gives a country better access rights, we automatically get those also
• All NZ tariffs on imports to be gone by 2016
• 1,800 skilled Chinese workers can be in NZ at any one time (poor Peter Brown!)
• Those workers will be in areas where we are lacking skills such as mandarin language teachers, Chinese chefs, nurses and plumbers

The time taken for some barriers to go is slower than many would want, but for me it is the end position which is most important, and that is having 96% of exports tariff free.

UPDATE: The Govt website on the FTA is now live.

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:

1. It will removes tariffs on 95% of NZ exports to China, saving exporters $115 million a year.
2. The tariff reduction is projected to increase exports to China by $225 to $350 million a year.
3. The vast majority of Chinese imports to NZ already have no tariffs on them.
4.  Consumers will benefit with cheaper prices in those areas where tariffs are to be removed.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.

The Greens raised in Parliament yesterday the case of Capital Chinese News editor Nick Wang, who had been denied a visa to cover the signing of the China FTA by Helen Clark.

Wang is a critic of China’s policies, and in a shameful display last year was evicted from a press conference hosted by Cullen, after Chinese authorities objected to his presence.

If the Government is willing to let China dictate policy for press conferences in NZ, I suppose it is no surprise they will not object to China setting policy for press conferences in China. Still – would have been nice to at least stand up for the Kiwi journalist.

But instead Dr Cullen says this:

Cullen said: “No New Zealand citizen has a right to enter China. China, like every other country, reserves the right to withhold entry across its own borders.

“New Zealand does exactly the same thing, and indeed this Government … declined to give a visa for the entry into New Zealand of David Irving in the past.”

David Irving is a vile holocaust denier. The comparison of Nick Wang to David Irving is appalling.

John Roughan in the Weekend Herald looked more closely at Tibet. He notes:

It has been strategically important to China for centuries. The economy is dirt poor, the people tribal and deeply loyal to a Buddhist theocracy which was actually installed from Beijing by the Mongol empire 800 years ago.

Thereafter the Dalai Lamas held absolute power except for periods when Tibet was ruled by monk regents or by agents sent by the Chinese government.

Early last century, after the fall of China’s last imperial dynasty, Tibet enjoyed de facto independence for 37 years. In 1950, with the advent of communism, it was incorporated in the Chinese state.

So far, so good. But then Roughan makes what I think is an unfortunate comparison:

It is curious that we unquestioningly support secession movements everywhere but at home. Independence seekers have only to raise their flag in Kosovo, Kurdistan, Chechnya, Darfur, Taiwan or Timor, and our sympathies are with them. Part of this reflects our dislike of the state they would escape.

We are not quite as sympathetic to rebels in Kashmir, Quebec or Catalonia. But even there we find it hard to understand the determination of nations to keep a disaffected region.

Catalonia is a province of Spain.  Spain is a democracy, and doesn’t shoot protesters. And Catalonia has significant autonomy from Spain. Plus the Catalonian independence party got only 14% of the vote in the last elections. And polls show only 32% of Catalonians favour independence
Likewise Quebec is a province of a democratic Canada. Canada doesn’t oppress Quebec, which has very significant autonomy. And the Quebec independence parties have not won a vote on secession. If they do, then they will

Kashmir is basically a territorial dispute with Pakistan, than a real secessionist movement.  It can’t be solved by secession – it needs more than one country to agree. Interestingly the only poll done in Kashmir shows 61% wanting to stay Indian citizens.

Now when was the last time there was a vote or even a poll in Tibet? Tibet is ruled by a repressive regime, that gives no opportunity at all for self determination. That is why so many support them – Roughan to be fair does refer the dislike of the state they seek to escape as a factor.

Roughan then asks how we would feel about a Tuhoe nation in the Ureweras:

We might never have been to the Ureweras, have no plans ever to go and not much idea of what the nation might lose, but we would fight for its integrity. Why then is it so hard to credit China’s attitude to Tibet, Sudan’s to Darfur or, closer to home, Indonesia’s to East Timor?

Again, China, Sudan and Indonesia (to a lesser degree) are repressive undemocratic regimes that enslave or kill in their conquered territories.

As for Tuhoe, I’ve never seen any evidence that a majority or even a significant minority of Tuhoe want independence. Tame Iti is not all of Tuhoe.

I’d also point out that sensitivities over borders are somewhat different in small islands, compared to large continents. In Europe and Asia most countries already have multiple neighbours. In NZ we have none – we have no land borders to worry about. So a new country would be a massive change for us.

But what if the Chatham Islands wanted independence? Would any of us give a damn? I doubt it.