Kiwiblog

The Herald reports:

India and New Zealand have begun negotiations for a free trade agreement which Trade Minister Tim Groser says will put New Zealand in a prime place to benefit from India’s economic growth. …

Mr Groser said a deal held “great promise” for New Zealand businesses and negotiators would target the high barriers to trade. India had a population of more than one billion and was expected to be the third-largest economy in the world by 2025.

India’s GDP currently is US1.2 trillion – around ten times the size of New Zealand’s

He expected negotiations to be prolonged. India was not one of New Zealand’s traditional trading partners, partly because the high trade barriers on major New Zealand exports, such as wood products and agriculture, had held back trade.

That suggests the benefits of an FTA with India could be a lot larger than with countries with relatively low barriers.

Vernon Small reports on the conclusion of a free trade agreement with Hong Kong. So it got me thinking what are the countries we have an FTA wth, or are negotiating. The answers are:

1. Australia, since 1983
2. Singapore since 2001
3. Thailand since 2005
4. Trans-Pacific (Brunei/Chile/Singapore) since 2005
5. China since 2008
6. ASEAN (Brunei/Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam)
7. Malaysia
8. Gulf Co-operation Council (Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar)
9. Hong Kong
10. Korea

Now who are our biggest trading partners:

1. Australia $18.7b – in force
2. USA $9.0b – zip
3. China $8.9b – in force
4. Japan $7.6b – some momentum
5. Singapore – $3.1b – in force
6. Germany – $3.0b – zip
7. Malaysia $2.9b – finalised
8. UK $2.8b – zip
9. Korea $2.7b – under negotiation

Also the total value of trade with ASEAN is $12.2b and GCC $4.3b.

So while progress on Doha remains stalled, we’re doing pretty well. The big gaps are USA, Japan and the EU. The EU are hopeless. Japan is showing some signs of life and in a very welcome move, President Obama a few minutes ago said the United States would seek to join the Trans-Pac agreement.

I’m delighted his protectionist election rhetoric, may have been just that – rhetoric. I started writing this blog post unaware of Obama’s announcement – how is that for good timing!

The Herald reports:

New Zealand has successfully concluded negotiations for a free trade agreement with six oil-rich Gulf states, Trade Minister Tim Groser announced yesterday.

The Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC), made up of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar and Bahrain, is New Zealand’s seventh-largest trading partner with bilateral trade worth $3.85 billion.

Not bad. Mind you I don’t think Groser should be given time off until we have free trade agreements with every country on Earth, bar North Korea.

The Herald has some details:

• Malaysia is NZ’s eighth-largest market.
• NZ exports to it were worth $1 billion last year, and has grown 80% since 2004
• 99.5 per cent of NZ exports will be duty free within seven years.
• Kiwifruit exports will be duty free by 2012 – current tariff is 15%
• A “most favoured nation” clause which means Malaysia will automatically extend to New Zealand exporters the benefits of any other concessions it makes in subsequent free trade deals with other partners

The FTA negotiation started under Labour in 2005 and was concluded this year.

The Herald reports:

A year ago today New Zealand’s free trade agreement with China came into effect.

The results so far show it to be a big success, says New Zealand Trade and Enterprise’s general manager for North Asia, Rod McKenzie.

New Zealand exports to China climbed to more than $3.3 billion in the year to June 30 – an increase of 61 per cent on the previous year.

Clark and Goff did very very well with the China FTA. I regard it as their finest foreign policy achievement, even though their own Foreign Minister campaigned against it.

As the USA and Europe goes protectionist (or remains it), thank God for Asia. Tim Groser has just announced the FTA with Malaysia has been concluded.

“Malaysia is our seventh largest trading partner – last year we exported nearly a billion dollars worth of goods to Malaysia with two-way trade worth nearly three billion. Goods exports alone have grown 34 per cent a year since 2005.

I didn’t realise they were 7th.

With NZ First out of Parliament, the only party that will vote against will probably be the Greens.

The Herald reports:

The United States has put on hold scheduled talks with the grouping of Trans Pacific Partnership countries – including New Zealand – while key appointments are being made to the Trade Representative’s office, including congressional confirmation of US Trade Representative Ron Kirk.

President Barack Obama’s new Administration also wants to review its position on free trade before beginning talks which the US signed up to last September when George W. Bush was still in office.

If the delay is only due to the first factor – key appointments not yet made – then it is not a big problem.

It is the second factor – the review of the US position on free trade – that is far more of a threat.

Obama’s rhetoric was strongly protectionist during the Democratic primaries. If that represents his true position, then we have real problems.

However a senior Obama staffer was exposed telling the Canadian Government to ignore what he says about NAFTA, which suggests it may have been rhetoric only.

I admire John McCain’s free trade stance – he supported free trade agreemenets with basically every country on Earth, only excluding those they have security issues with (half a dozen countries such as North Korea, Cuba, Iran etc).

Bush had free trade rhetoric, but would ofen go protectionist to appease domestic pressures. McCain was a wonderful opportunity to actually turn the US away from protectionism.

If the US and Europe dropped their tariffs on goods from Africa, that would do more to lift many in Africa out of poverty than any amount of aid.

John Key and the President of Korea have announced they will begin work on a Korea – New Zealand Free Trade Agreement. This is excellent – Korea is a major trading partner.

This is no surprise, as work started on this last year with an economic study into the benefits of having an FTA. But good to see NZ making such good progress with Asian countries on trade issues.

The economies that are scaring me are the EU and the US. The EU is under massive pressure with tensions between old and new Europe. And some countries may end up being forced out of the Euro. And the US just looks set to drown in a mountain of debt.

We may turn out to be grateful of our location down under.

Steven Joyce is quoted in the Herald as saying:

“I completely understand where people are coming from on both sides of the debate,” says Joyce – speaking before the delay was announced – “but there are some wider trade-offs for the country around this stuff as well.” Overseas trade agreements require New Zealand to have such a law, although he thinks the Labour-led government, which passed the Act in its dying days, went too far.

Several people have made this argument, but it is overlooking a rather salient point – namely that we do not have an FTA with the United States – in fact we are not even in the queue to have one. And as far as I know, no current FTA or treaty requires us to have such a law.

So let us look at what will happen, if one day the US does sit down to negotiate a FTA with NZ. It is quite correct that the US will demand our laws reflect the demands of their intellectual property industry.

But think of the damage we have done to our negotiating ability, by already giving them everything they wanted – before we even are in the frame for an FTA.

If we ever do get to negotiate an FTA, this is what you want:

US Govt: Now we turn to your intellectual property laws. We want you to force ISPs to terminate Internet users who we think infringe copyright from our struggling Hollywood music and movie studios.

Tim Groser: Well that will be very unpopular back home. Our Government would get a lot of flak for that.

US Govt: But this is crucial. We insist that you have such laws.

Tim Groser: Well I can try selling this to Cabinet and Parliament, but I need some real wins to counter it.

US Govt: Like what.

Tim Groser: Well this will piss off around 80% of NZ – every NZers who uses the Internet. That is around 3 million people. Now you have only 1.2 million beef farmers and 1.5 million sheep farmers, so if you agree to all tariffs on beef and lamb disappearing by 2015, then I think I can sell this back home.

US Govt: Good try. We can’t do 2015, but how about lamb goes to zero tariff by 2018 and beef by 2023.

Tim Groser: I think we have a deal

You get the general idea. You don’t give away one of your strongest negotiating points, years in advance of even negotiating the free trade agreement. That is not in NZ’s national interest.

The reason we will be hit hard by the global recession is our trading partners are going to buy less of our exports.

Hence it is very good news that despite the recession, NZ is making good steps towards reducing trade barriers. Trade Minister Tim Groser is earnign his pay!

The agreement to start FTA negotiations with India is exciting, but of more immediate impact is the signing of an FTA with Asean nations, initiated by the previous Government.

Trade Minister Tim Groser, who was in Thailand to sign the agreement negotiated under the previous government, said 99 per cent of New Zealand’s trade to those countries would be duty-free within 12 years. When fully implemented, it would mean annual duty savings of about $50 million.

The real gain isn’t just the savings, but also that it prevents those countries hiking up tariffs against us, as a protectionist measure. The current tariffs are quite low, but as I understand it could be lifted to up to 50% before this agreement takes force.

This looks very promising. The P4 free trade deal between New Zealand, Singapore, Chile and Brunei is the deal the United States may join. And now Australia and Peru are keen to join it, as maybe other APEC economies.

Some very good news for Tim Groser’s first week as Trade Minister.

The one good thing that may come out of the credit crisis is a renewed determination to lower trade barriers.

It is also looking promising that Obama’s protectionist rhetoric was for the campaign only. This will be one flip-flop I welcome if he does stick with the P4 negotiations.

Dear TV3,

Scott Campbell on Three News tonight in reporting on the PM’s reaction to the possible free trade agreement with the US, said she was  “quite literally blown her away”.

Do I need to point out how silly this statement is.

Unless of course there has been a cyclone you forgot to report on.

It would be churlish not to acknowledge that the visit to NZ of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was a good thing, and primarily happened due to Winston’s personal efforts.

Peters said he wanted to focus on improving relations with the US, and he has suceeded in this to a reasonable degree. Some of it is fortunate timing (as China gets more aggressive in the Pacific we become more useful to Washington) but he has been able to pursue a closer relationship in a way a Labour Minister would not and could not have.

Rice even referred to NZ as an ally. Now that may not be a change of policy, but it still has some significance. As we fight with the US in Afghanistan it is ludicrous we can not officially train with them, and it is time for the US to drop the silly little ban which is againgst their own interests.

Less likely is significant movement on a free trade agreement. Rice has just six months left in office. Obama appears to be against free trade, and even if McCain wins the new Congress is looking to be highly protectionist.

Having the US use NZ, and specifically Winston, as a small non threatenign proxy for the West in dealing with North Korea was quite inspired and again Peters did well there.

So Winston was at his best charming Dr Rice this weekend. I am unsure if he will do so well on Tuesday trying to charm Sir Robert Jones!

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.

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.

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!

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.