Radio NZ reports:

Mr Joyce yesterday claimed Labour had mistakenly not accounted for rolling out operational allowances year on year.

Labour said the figures were robust and the claim was a cynical attempt to distract voters.

Mr Joyce insisted today that outside of laying down its spending on health and education, Labour had left no allocation for increased spending in any other area of government.

“Either they’ve mucked up the allowances and it’s an $11.7 billion hole, or they’ve just ignored the expenditure they’d have to make over the next four years – which is also an $11.7 billion hole.”

Now they quote a number of people saying there is no hole when it comes to the allowances such as:

The New Zealand Initiative – a libertarian think tank – said National appeared to have made a basic accounting error in its criticism.

Research fellow Sam Warburton said it looked like Mr Joyce had zeroed in on one line in Labour’s plan and ignored 16 other lines.

“When you take one part of the equation and don’t include the other part … you’re going to get the wrong answer.

“It’s not my position to say whether it’s a good or bad budget, but [the numbers] add up, they balance, and in that sense, they are sound.”

So the numbers add up. But are they in any sense realistic?

ANZ chief economist Cameron Bagrie also suggested Mr Joyce went too far in saying there was a “hole” and said that term was “too strong”.

I agree.

But he did say it would be a challenge for Labour to govern within its budget.

“They just haven’t left themselves any money in the kitty for the 2019 and 2020 budget.

“There is some leeway … quite a big uplift in health and education spending, but if you look beyond that – law and order, core government services – the working assumption is they are not going to get anything.”

So yes if you assume that a Labour Government would not announce any new spending in 2019 and 2020, then the numbers add up. But what most in the media are missing is that is a ridiculous, almost insane, assumption. Of course they will need money for the out years – that is what the operating allowances are for. And Labour have basically allocated them all already.

So calling it a “hole” was too strong but that doesn’t mean the fiscal plan is realistic or achievable.

Stuff reports:

The Wall Street Journal has compared Labour leader Jacinda Ardern to US President Donald Trump for her stance on immigration.

In a Tweet posted on Tuesday the Wall Street Journal said Ardern was New Zealand’s version of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, except she’s more like Trump when it came to immigration.

“Meet New Zealand’s Justin Trudeau – except she’s more like Trump on immigration,” it said.  

Well Labour’s policy is about as nonsensical as Trump’s with their claims they will cut net immigration by 30,000 to 50,000 a year.

Stuff reports:

Labour leader Jacinda Ardern says abortion should not be in the Crimes Act and she would change the law.

Access to abortion is governed by the Crimes Act 1961 and the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977.

The law has not been changed since 1977, although there have been calls for it to be liberalised. 

During the Newshub debate on Monday night, Ardern said she would change the law if she became Prime Minister.

This is a significant change as traditionally abortion is a conscience issue but Ardern has said she will change the law if elected. This implies all Labour MPs will have to vote for a law change.

I support changing the law. The current law doesn’t reflect what happens and forces women to go through a fiction of claiming danger to their mental health if they don’t have an abortion.

I believe the law should allow abortion on demand. The main issue for me is for how long. My view is that it should be uncontested up until the point the foetus could survive if born.

Abortion is an issue with extremely strong feelings on both sides. It will be a highly polarising law change, which is probably why no Giovernment has tried to change the law since 1977.

Mike Yardley writes:

Have you noticed how Jacinda Ardern’s campaign optics seem to have reached into the American playbook? Just like the Democrats under Hillary Clinton, Ardern draws deep from a fawning coterie of liberal actors and comedians. A celebrified Auckland circle of swooning self-importance.

And Labour’s campaign tactics bare an uncanny resemblance to the dumbed-down simplicity that swept Donald Trump to an improbable victory. Not that they’d ever admit it. It’s all about sloganeering and threadbare policies. “Better healthcare, better schools, better jobs . . .”

An astute observation.

But beyond the aspirational rhetoric, the sizzle and soundbites, the substance is glaringly lacking – just as it was for Trump. Labour has opted to paper over its policy detail dearth, by simply fire-hosing its election platform with $19 billion in new spending.

It’s all very well to splash the cash like drunken sailors, whether it’s on bribing tertiary students or young parents, but undecided voters who wish to make a considered decision deserve a policy programme from Labour that carries depth. Not everyone now has the concentration span of an earwig.

And if you’ve been paying attention, the campaign to date, has increasingly exposed the lack of sausage in Labour’s roll. Are the policy wonks on paid leave? Where is the filling? Labour’s campaign narrative seems to be a case of “spend it, tax it or review it.” And all three categories seem to have been stripped of any granular detail.

Spend it, tax it or review it. What a good summary.

Take the water tax. Most Kiwis are happy for royalties to be slapped on commercial bottled water producers, but the downstream effects of any such imposition on irrigators remains very murky. And of course, Labour has conveniently deferred making any clear decisions until after they’ve held a review.

Yet, at a recent candidates meeting in Temuka, Labour’s Rangitata candidate Jo Luxton indicated that local councils could use water tax revenues to fund their roading projects. So much for this cash cow being deployed on cleaning up our rivers.

But it’s the taxation working group review that is increasingly looking like a calculated sham to mask Labour’s true intentions and deflect the hard questions. 

It is obvious that Labour wants to impose a capital gains tax. They are just refusing to say so, because then they would have to give details of how it would work.

It’s completely unacceptable that a major political party, seeking a mandate to govern, continues to exude such a confused, contradicting and opaque message on taxation. 

Will the CGT apply to your parents home when they die, making it a de facto estate tax?

Ardern should either commit to imposing a capital gains tax in her first term, and outline its scope, or commit to delaying any such imposition until it’s been put to the people at the next election. Kicking for touch via the taxation review not only looks gutless, but is gutless. And shifty.

I actually support a CGT, so long as it is broad based with no exemptions and other taxes are decreased so it is revenue neutral. But Labour is being gutless and shifty by refusing to be honest about its intentions.

Stuff reports:

Labour leader Jacinda Ardern is standing by her pledge that she would resign rather than raise the NZ Super age.

During the second leaders debate on Monday night, Ardern was asked whether she would raise the eligibility age for NZ Superannuation.

She said she wouldn’t, and when pushed, said she would resign before raising the age from 65.

Bad enough Key made this pledge in 2008, but worse for Ardern to make it now as there is absolutely no pressure for her to do so.

National leader Bill English bit back, saying Ardern, who is 37, was letting down her generation, “because they are going to have to pay the bill for that”.

It is head in sand territory.

It wasn’t irresponsible to leave the age of eligibility at 65, despite New Zealand’s growing population, she said.

“It’s irresponsible not to save for it.”

In the past, there was good return on investment on the NZ Superannuation Fund – about 10 per cent, she said.

The Super Fund has a minor impact on affordability of future NZ Super – will eventually cover just 14% of the cost.

Here’s what the age will be in other countries:

• Australia – 67 by 2023
• Belgium – 67 by 2030
• Denmark – 67 by 2022 and then increase by 20% of average life expectancy increase
• France – 67 by 2023
• Germany – 67 by 2023
• Ireland – 68 by 2028
• Netherlands – 67 by 2024 and then increase linked to average life expectancy increase
• Norway – 67
• UK – 68 by 2037
• US – 67 by 2027

The only way superannuation will be affordable at age 65 in the future will be by massive tax increases.

The Herald reports:

National has pledged to introduce new urban planning laws separate from the Resource Management Act – something it says will enable faster development of housing and other infrastructure.

Infrastructure spokesman Steven Joyce said the “fit-for-purpose” legislation would be passed if National was re-elected.

The Government passed RMA reforms in April, but those did not go as far as National wanted after it struggled to get other parties’ support because of controversial environmental changes.

“The RMA’s one-size-fits-all approach has restrained the development of our cities, dragged on their economic performance, and restricted the supply of much-needed housing and infrastructure,” Joyce said.

 “So National will establish a fit-for-purpose planning system that allows our cities to evolve in a way that improves the quality of the local environment, and makes them great places to live and work.”

Removing urban planning from the RMA will make a huge difference. The Productivity Commission and NZ Initiative have both championed as one of the most important things you can do for housing affordability.

Hamish Rutherford has a good piece looking at the debate over whether Labour’s sums add up. The TLDR version is that it is possible to argue Labour’s sums add up – but only if you believe that they will not announce any significant new spending in their first three Budgets (if elected).

The core of the arguments is over what is called the operating allowance in the Budgets. It is the provision that Governments make for future spending increases (or tax cuts).

Now these allowances are cumulative. If you increase say health spending by $800 million in year 1 you don’t take that away a year later. It gets added to the baseline.

The current allowance is $1.8 billion a year. Over four years that represents $18 billion of extra expenditure.

Now Labour has pre-allocated almost all of that in their fiscal plan. You might say, well that’s fine. But think about the reality. Do you imagine Labour in 2018, 2019 and 2020 is going to deliver a Budget speech saying hey there is no extra spending beyond what we announced in 2017? Grant Robertson’s Budget speech would be one minute long.

Labour’s record is of huge increases in the operating allowances when they were in Government. From 2004 to 2007 it was around $3 billion a year and in 2008 it was a massive $7 billion (which is why we had a massive deficit when tax revenue dropped away). It simply is not credible to think they will spend three years in Government (if elected) and not agree to any extra spending proposals.

When u say always 1 July, do u mean since lunchtime today? pic.twitter.com/0cNxmlWL2P

— Steven Joyce (@stevenljoyce) September 4, 2017

Oh this is a great gotcha.

National pointed out that Labour had costed their family package to start 1 July 2018 when their policy said it would start on 1 April 2018.

Labour replied that their policy was always for it to start on 1 July 2018.

Steven Joyce replied with screenshots from the Labour website showing it saying 1 April 2018 at 10.17 am today and then saying 1 July 2018 at 2.43 pm today.

So Labour caught out not only lying but covering up also.

This is a guest post by a Kiwblog reader. I urge people to read this to understand how massive a change there will be if Labour win. 

Ardern and Andrew Little (remember him – he’s the ashen union man who will be in charge of small business and ‘new economy’ in NZ)  are going to make NZ workers and businesses an offer they can’t refuse.

Ardern didn’t want to talk about Labour’s industrial relations manifesto in the first debate. For very good reason. Adern and Little are dragging NZ back to the dank, grey 1970’s. Whether we like it or not. We’re going back to a Lotto strike economy. Labour are handing NZ gift-wrapped in red tape back to the unions.

Here is what Labour’s announced detailed industrial relations manifesto says:

Within 12 months labour will create a statutory regime of union bargaining powers and National Awards which will set union minimums for every detail of employment in industries: wages, allowances, weekend rates, hours of work, leave, ‘fair overtime’ etc.

Labour are calling these ‘Fair Pay Agreements’. This is an offer industry cannot refuse. They either take a seat at the table, or not. National awards are going ahead. You can ‘opt out’ if you change industry. At least until it’s that industries turn to be called to the table.

Every business in or outside National Awards is going to be playing Labour’s union lotto strike because the manifesto says, within 100 days of government, Labour will on behalf of members:

• “Restore unions’ rights to initiate collective bargaining in advance of employers” – so unions can use the law to start the strike machine to get what they want without an employer’s agreement.
• “Restore the duty on parties…in collective bargaining…to reach an agreement…” – so if the unions start it, the employer must finish it, by law – and the minimums will be set by national industry awards. So I suppose if employer’s don’t want to accept the offer they can’t refuse, they’ll be taken to court. If your particular business cannot meet those minimums, I suppose you’ll have to shut down, fire your employees, be smart, and join a union.

Every business is going to be de facto unionised, because within 100 days of government, Labour will also:

• “Protect the human right to belong to a union…” – Labour will allow forced union entry to workplaces
• “Ensure union workplace reps reasonable time within the workplace…to carry out their representative role“.
• Bring in tough ‘anti-discrimination’ laws to allow union membership; and
• Ensure new workers ‘have access to’ unions at the commencement of employment.

If you’re a scab outside the union you get nothing, because within 100 days Labour have said they will “…strengthen the integrity of collective bargaining by tightening the rules on employers automatically passing on terms and conditions to non-union workers“.

They are serious about this because “within the first 12 months in Government labour will (also)”:

“Review bargaining fee arrangements to ensure they are fair to workers, the union and employers for the extension of collective bargaining outcomes to non-unionised workers“. It’s very clear and stark if you’re a worker. If you want your coal, you’ll pay the toll. If you want to get ahead, you’re going to have to play the game.

Even without all the coercion, it’s a cascade. Once one industry has it’s national award, every other industry must follow or lose workers. Once the unions start the train, everyone has to join and pay the fees and go to the meetings or they won’t get the spoils.

Labour are making an offer workers and NZ businesses cannot refuse.

How extensive will Ardern and Little’s ‘new economy’ be? From BrandNZ to UnionNZ?

Within 12 months Labour are:

• extending collective bargaining rights to contractors who sell their labour.

The biggest industry of labouring contractors is construction. So NZ’s construction industry is going to be like that photo of 20 orange vests watching one in green dig the hole when we’re meant to be building 100k houses. The other biggest industries are tourism, agriculture, manufacturing, and IT. Labour also are going to:

• “Investigate measures that improve job security for people in precarious forms of employment” – they list labour hire, casual, seasonal, contracted or sub-contracted workers. So forget about new-fangled commercial ideas like KPI’s and contractual milestones, termination clauses and risk allocation. Labour is replacing all of that with what Grant says, which is what the unions say. Labour are extending de-facto unionism to every class of work there is.

So the unionization of NZ will be all-encompassing, and inescapable. It’s a secret offer NZ cannot refuse.

There is even more. Labour will “abolish youth rates“. It’s bad enough paying a 17 year old the same as their mum for a job the mum has 20 years experience doing. Now the 17 year old presumably will get the National award. This is going to carve out a swathe of youth unemployment.

Labour will ensure “people who work over 40 hours a week receive adequate remuneration“. So Labour are getting rid of the ‘salary’ concept, and are going to micro-manage all overtime. Also this will not extend to business owners, who as everyone knows, work 35 hour weeks for ‘adequate remuneration’.

Labour are going to “double the number of inspectors from 55 to 110 over our first term” and increase their resourcing to enforce union law and prosecute breaches.

Labour are also going to “regardless of size or industry” force all businesses to allow “workers to elect a health and safety representative…”. So if you employ one worker who sells pens – he’s your H&S rep.

There’s NZ nicely gift wrapped in red tape.

Perhaps the most incredible assertion of incoming union power and control over New Zealand’s economy is this. Within the first 100 days Labour will:

“Require all state agencies to only contract with organizations that comply with good employer practices, have a history of adhering to employment legislation, and respect the right of their workers to join a union and bargain collectively“.

Blatant, open, jobs for the boys. Who can be the most union friendly? If you play Labour’s lotto strike by their rules, you might get the lotto prize of a government contract. If you resist, onto the black-list and no tender win, into the courts or the newly empowered ERA, and strikes.

Labour have also said they will only work with organizations that can pay a living wage “begin work with organisations that have regular and ongoing service contracts…to ensure they are Living Wage employers”.

So Labour is only going to work with the union favorites, and with the big players. Small businesses that can’t afford to pay whatever Grant decides is a living wage are gone.

All of this is something utterly different to the government’s recent work with Kristine Bartlett. That was only government. This is a fundamental forced, secret transformation of NZ’s entire economy back to the 1970’s. Labour also plan apparently to pay ECE teachers the same as engineers via ‘pay equity’.

This is far in excess of Labour under Clark. This is something unprecedented. What is certain is inflation, unemployment, business failures, and strikes – a NZ we haven’t seen since 1970. Ardern is a 37 year old taking us back to 1947 Australia, and she may not even realise it.

2 industries per year as Ardern put it in the debate, might cover the construction industry and hospo industry. Within 2 years it’s most of the important parts of the economy.  Ardern said ‘no strikes’. Labour’s actual policy says not only mass strikes, but much, much, more. This is not scare-mongering. This. Is. What. It. Says.

The most amazing thing? Even after the National awards, the union can still strike or use the courts for more, and they will. That’s what happens in Australia. Nothing can get done without the union cut.

Ardern guaranteed there will be no strikes.

Labour’s actual established detailed policy, written by its union funders, absolutely 100% guarantees strikes, and worse, being taken to court and blacklisted from govt contracts. How can Ardern guarantee no strikes when the strikes are the entire point of collective bargaining. Maybe she just means the union can sue everyone into oblivion.

Unions have a role to play. But forcing everyone into a union and handing unions the government and the economy again, like 50 years ago, is a massive retrograde error. We had to get past this as a country, and it was extremely painful. We’re being given a secret offer we can’t refuse to go back to 1947.

Stuff reports:

North Korea’s sixth nuclear test was expected. The timing speaks of leader Kim Jong Un’s willingness to provoke China; and an attempt to seize the moment to wedge South Korea and US President Donald Trump.

A military response from the United States appears less likely than a decision by China to finally reach for its biggest gun – cutting the oil pipeline to North Korea. …

The United States has been urging China to cripple North Korea by cutting its energy supply. China has to date resisted and Chinese foreign policy analysts have said this is because Beijing had to keep one card up its sleeve for the day Pyongyang crossed its red line.

China hates nuclear tests on its border the way the US hates an intercontinental ballistic missile test that could potentially reach the US mainland. 

I certainly hope that China takes action, because if they don’t then it is more likely the US will.

Stuff reports:

Deputy Prime Minister Paula Bennett has promised an $82 million methamphetamine and gang crackdown if National is re-elected.

The funding – spread over four years – would go towards “tough measures” towards some drug dealers that Bennett believes have “fewer human rights than others”, as well as more drug rehabilitation places.

The enforcement measures, costing $42 million, would give police new powers to search cars and houses of “serious criminal” gang members at any time with no warrant to ensure they don’t have firearms, double the number of drug dog teams, increase penalties for synthetic cannabis, put new restrictions on gang members on benefits, and introduce a new charge for those who damage a property with meth production or consumption.

$40 million would go toward 1500 additional drug treatment places and community treatment.

I like the mixture of rehab and treatment and stricter law enforcement measures.

Police would be able to search the houses and cars of known gang members with a previous serious violent conviction at any time with no warrant under the new law, which Bennett admitted presented a human rights issue.

“It probably does breach the rights of some of those criminals but they have to have had a serious violent offence behind them already and a firearm charge and on the basis of that we are going ahead with it,” Bennett said.

Asked point blank whether she believed criminals had human rights, Bennett replied “some have fewer human rights than others when they are creating a string of victims behind them.”

I would not say they have fewer human rights – human rights are universal. But once you are a convicted criminal you can face more onerous requirements for stuff such as bail, parole and ability to access firearms etc. Likewise if you are serving a sentence you lost some rights such as liberty. But such restrictions should be proprtional.

I don’t like using gang membership as a proxy for serious offenders. There may be a case for allowing warantless searches of people with a string of serious convictions – but that should be regardless of membership of a gang.

Stuff reports:

Nelson MP and Environment Minister Nick Smith says he has laid a complaint with police after rat poison was rubbed in his face and his family was threatened.

Smith said he was not harmed by the incident, which happened about 11am on Saturday at the Nelson Market.

“It was blue rat poison,” he said. “I went and had a shower afterwards.”

The incident came as the first of three planned drops of bait laced with brodifacoum got under way at the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary, near Nelson.

Smith said a man and a woman protesting over the operation threw poison at him.

“The situation became quite frightening when it escalated from verbal abuse and throwing rat poison at myself and volunteers to physical shoving and rubbing rat poison over my face and clothes,” he said.

It was at that point, police were called and the pair walked away “but continued threats to poison myself and my family”.

This is just disgraceful and those responsible should be charged.

The latest Newshub Reid Research poll is at Curia.

It shows National 4% ahead of Labour, with NZ First holding the balance of power. However National could govern alone with NZ First while Labour would need Greens also.

Not all good for Winston though as he has dropped to 6.6%, down 2.6%. I suspect this is because he has spent most of the last week talking about himself and trying to make himself a victim. This may be a fatal mistake to make in the election campaign.

If NZ First drop below 6% in a public poll then a lot of interest will get focused on Northland.

AUSA announced that their members voted that the “Pro Life Club” should be disaffiliated and “any clubs with similiar ideology” be banned from affiliating in the future.

Auckland University should be ashamed they fund an organisation so intolerent of different viewpoints.

Where does it stop? Next they’ll ban the Young Nationals or Young NZ First from affiliating.

Universities should be a place that welcome divergent views and the challenge of idea. I disagree with the views of the Pro Life Club but I’d defend their rights to express the views to the death.

If AUSA doesn’t wish to be representative of all students, then they should not be funded by all students through Auckland University.

ACT announced:

“Good teachers help children grow, develop, and reach their full potential which is vital to their future success,” says ACT Leader David Seymour.

“Unfortunately, because of union contracts, teachers hit maximum pay after ten years, schools can’t reward successful teachers, and teaching is not regarded as a strong career choice for our brightest graduates.

“Right now the best teachers earn the same as the worst teachers. Graduates are deserting Auckland schools or deserting teaching altogether. Teachers can only earn more by taking on administrative work, and spending less time actually teaching kids.

“ACT says this is crazy. We want the best teachers to stay in the profession and in the classroom.

It is crazy. A principal should be able to pay more money to great teachers and less money to not so good teachers. Just as in almost all other workplaces, those who are great at their jobs get paid more than those who are not.

“With the current government surplus at $3.7 billion, ACT will give principals $975 million to pay good teachers more, without cutting government services or raising taxes. But the schools will only be eligible for this funding if they abandon nationally-negotiated union contracts. This will make it easier for principals to replace bad teachers with great ones.

“ACT’s Good Teacher Grants will boost teachers’ pay by $20,000 on average, and elevate teaching as a profession, to attract the best graduates to teach our children and keep the most capable teachers in the classroom.”

A lot more people would go into teaching if they could earn more, rather than hix their maximum cap after 10 years.

Currently schools get between $50,000 and $73,000 a teacher based on how many years they have been working. ACT would give every school a whopping $93,000 per teacher to allocate as they see best. So even not very good teachers might still get say $65,000 while a great teacher might get $125,000.

The latest costing of parties spending pledges:

1. NZ First $23 billion or $13,324/household
2. Labour $19.4 billion or $11,242/household
3. Maori Party $12.1 billion or $7,060/household
4. TOP $10.7 billion or $6,199/household
5. Greens $8.5 billion or $4,939/household
6. National $6.8 billion or $3,920/household
7. ACT -$5.4 billion or -$3,103/household

So if you had a Labour/NZ First Government where says Labour gets 90% of their spending and NZ First gets 50%, the cost per househould would be almost $17,000 over the next three years.

They have also given each party a transparency rating for providing enough detail to allow the policiesto be costed. The ratings are:

• 5 stars – Greens, National
• 4 stars – Labour, TOP
• 3 stars – ACT
• 1 star – Maori Party
• 0 stars – NZ First

The Civilian blogs:

In an effort to help reassure voters about its tax plans, Labour has introduced a new tax calculator on its website that will help to clarify what New Zealanders will pay if it wins the election on September 23rd.

The calculator lets you put in your income and assets, or those of your whole family, if you wish. You then click a button labelled “calculate”, which will form a working group that will deliberate for two years on what you should pay.

This would be even funnier if it wasn’t true!

Vote Labour and in two years you may find out that your parents home gets whacked with a 33% death tax when they die.

Or you may find out that the family farm has a huge tax bill when it gets divided up between children.

Or Labour may go for a land tax and everyone will be taxed on the value of their land.

The only certanity is that Labour won’t be reducing any existing taxes to compensate for their new taxes.

Matthew Beveridge has profiled Nicholas Smith, the 7th ranked candidate for the Internet Party.

Here’s a couple of the memes he has posted:

So the Jewish banks are responsible for North Korea!

And the Jewish banks are responsible for pretty much every war ever.

Incidentially 500 trillion dollars (take that Dr Evil) is twice the world’s wealth.

The charming Mr Smith also advocates lynching Bill English and Paula Bennett.

And this guy is their 7th ranked candidate.

The 9.4% gender pay gap in the 2017 data has NZ as one of the lowest gender pay gaps in the world. The OECD data is:

1. Costa Rica 3.7%
2. Denmark 5.8%
3. Greece 6.2%
4. Norway 7.1%
5. NZ 9.4% (2017)
6. Hungary 9.5%
7. Iceland 9.9%
8. Colombia 11.1%
9. Australia 13.0%
10. Slovak Republic 13.4%

Other countries:

• Ireland 14.4%
• UK 17.1%
• Finland 18.1%
• Canada 18.6%
• US 18.9%

So little old NZ doing pretty well compared to most places.

Stuff reports:

Exporters are disappointed at Queensland’s tough crack-down on trade that is likely to take effect on Friday.

The Australian state’s Buy Queensland First policy favours local suppliers even if they charge up to 30 per cent more than an outside bidder.

Export NZ executive director Catherine Beard said Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk’s policy was “disappointing” and would disadvantage both New Zealand and Australian exporters.

“It’s not a good policy. If the best deal is coming from outside that’s what they should be doing for Queensland’s people in terms of getting best value for money.”

Protecting industries that can’t compete doesn’t actually help them. The wine industry in NZ used to be protected and because of that they produced cheap wine for under $10 a bottle as tariffs meant imported wine would always cost more than that.

Once protectionism was removed, people predicted the NZ industry would die unable to compete with cheap imports. Instead it flourished as it then focused on quality, and has now become a major export earner.