Some interesting analysis from the ANZ Bank newsletter on the TPP. They make the point:

FTAs aren’t solely about tariff elimination. They are also about the ability to trade with as few impediments as possible. In this respect, TPP looks comprehensive at first glance, with the promise to breakdown compliance and non-tariff barriers across the Pacific Rim. These benefits are significant, especially for smaller economies and companies.

Also:

Closer connectivity with the major players on the trade and investment scene adds another string to our bow. The likes of the United States, Japan and Canada have some of the highest incomes and thus purchasing power of all countries. New Zealand isn’t the lowest cost producer in many sectors anymore and needs access better market access to wealthy consumers to capture margin, and to deliver on the “value-add” strategies that many sectors are pursuing.

But what I found interesting was their analysis of estimated tariff savings as a proportion of current earnings per industry. They are:

1. Meat 3.1%
2. Dairy 2.2%
3. Fruit & Vegetables 2.2%
4. Fish & Fish products 1.4%
5. Wine 1.2%
6. Other agricultural goods 1.1%
7. Forestry 0.6%
8. Wool, leather and textiles 0.6%
9. Manufactured goods 0.1%

So when people say dairy was such a bad deal, actually the dairy sector gets the second largest savings as a proportion of current earnings. The dairy deal was a lot less than what full tariff removal would have been, but the savings are actually higher than most other sectors.

ANZ make the point again it is not just about the tariff reductions:

1. We can create new markets where tariff levels have previously been prohibitive to trade;
2. Gain parity with competitors who have already obtained free-trade concessions;
3. Increase competitiveness through reducing or eliminating tariff costs, compliance and other non-tariff costs. The elimination of non-tariff barriers and streamlining of compliance requirements is particularly beneficial for many of New Zealand’s smaller exporting companies;
4. Increase access through harmonising or eliminating technical standards; and
5. Increase confidence in New Zealand products as a result of closer economic cooperation. Indeed, one of the key noted features is a platform for regional integration, with the potential to add additional countries in the future.

And finally:

There is a raft of empirical evidence suggests trade liberalisation benefits overall welfare and lifts nationwide GDP, particularly for open trade dependent economies like New Zealand. Studies by the Peterson Institute suggested that the gains to New Zealand from TPP would cumulate to around 2% of GDP by 2025. Some of the numbers being bandied around by Government officials look a little on the high side, but considering the surge in two-way trade between New Zealand and China following the signing of the FTA less than a decade ago it leaves little doubt as to benefits on overall trade (and GDP) from increasing trade liberalisation.

Also NZIER have done an analysis here. Their conclusion:

Our negotiators have delivered a good deal, given the hand they have been playing. Their skill and the way they have clearly respected the fundamental interests of the community, while gaining real returns, is now evident. The end result is that, outside of some dairy products and beef into Japan, all of New Zealand’s goods’ exports to all TPP countries will see tariffs completely removed over time.2 New Zealand’s exports of fruit, vegetables, wine, seafood, forestry products, wool and manufactured goods, which account for around 65% of our $20 billion of goods exports to TPP countries, will all enjoy tariff-free access to TPP markets over time.

The Veteran blogs at No Minister:

Over the last little while I have been inundated with e-mails and phone calls from the veteran community (and beyond) asking me if I was aware of the canard being promoted with the Waitangi Tribunal agreeing to hear the claim Wai 2500 the ‘Military Veterans kaupapa inquiry’.  

I was not  … I am now; the ‘claim’ has to be outed for the canard it is and the nonsense stopped.

Wai 2500 morphed out of the initial claim by the late Primate of New Zealand, the Most Rev Wakahuihui Vercoe, himself a Vietnam veteran, that the Maori Vietnam veteran community had outstanding grievances that needed to be addressed.    Wai 2500 extends that to cover all Maori veterans and argues that the NZ Government has failed to meet it’s Treaty obligations by not recognising the unique nature of the service rendered by Maori as Maori.   At least one of the claimants is seeking an across the board payment of $30,000 to each and every Maori ex-serviceman and and ex-servicewoman as compensation.    This is wrong.

I have accessed a number of the documents relating to the claim.    They are full of myths and legend and, like many war stories told and retold over a pint of beer, they have grown with every telling.

Take for example the statement in the original claim that two thirds of those who served in Vietnam were Maori. Total myth.   To the best of my knowledge the NZDF did not at that time categorize servicemen/women by race (they may to now, nothing surprises me).   But a cursory look at the ‘Flinkenburg List’ (the nominal roll of those who served in Vietnam) would suggest the figure is wrong and this is born out when I look at my own command.    It comprised a mix of Pakeha, Maori, Aussies and Poms.   Two out of my seven NCOs were Maori as were three of my private soldiers.   That works out at 15%.     Some commands would have had a higher percentage of Maori and some lower but two thirds, never … and, in the final analysis, so what?   We served as soldiers.   We shared the same danger, we ate the same food, were exposed to the same Agent Orange, we laughed together, we cried together, our blood shed was was not Maori or Pakeha blood … it was A pos or O neg or whatever.

The claims continue.   The fact that a Maori family could not conceive is hardly the fault of government.   It happens to both Maori and Pakeha regardless of whether they served or not.    The list goes on.   The assertions continue.   They do not stand objective analysis.   It’s as if every misfortune that has ever visited on the claimants can be directly attributed to their military service.

The Veteran has a long and distinguished record of advocating for veterans and getting them a better treatment from the Government.

He knows how harmful it is to have a claim that would see Maori veterans treated differently to other veterans.

But my real concern is twofold.    The first is that it drives a wedge between Pakeha and Maori veterans.     For better or worse we are a family.    In the Vietnam veteran community we look after each other.    Help is given on the basis of service and not on the colour of skin.   

And also:

But more importantly, the claim gives false hope (of the John Frum Cargo Cult variety) to our more vulnerable veterans that ‘manna’ is about to tumble down from above.   The reality is that no matter the Waitangi Tribunal ‘recommendation’ (and I accept the Tribunal is capable of anything), no Government is going to accept a recommendation that gives Maori veterans additional support over and above that available to their non-Maori colleagues.  To do so would be electoral suicide.   Hopes will be dashed, tears will be shed and our vulnerable veterans will be the losers per courtesy of a Tribunal that has exceeded its mandate.

I think the Waitangi Tribunal has played a useful role in researching and reporting on historic treaty claims. As these are close to concluding, the question is do we need the Waitangi Tribunal going forward?

I think we do need a body that can hear contemporary claims, and judge if something the Government is doing is in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. Without such a body, there is no way to adjudicate the merit of claims and it would encourage shall we say more direct action.

But I’m not convinced it should be the Waitangi Tribunal. Their acceptance of such dubious and even harmful claims makes me wonder if they are just creating work for themselves and the legion of lawyers who appear before them.

What I would do is abolish the Waitangi Tribunal, once the last historical claim is settled, and instead give the High Court the power to hear cases alleging a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. Like the Waitangi Tribunal, they would not have powers of enforcement – they could just make declaratory judgments (like with the Bill of Rights), which would have moral pressure on the Government and Parliament..

I’d trust the rigor of the High Court more than I do the Waitangi Tribunal, as it entertains claims such as this.  I suspect the Government would also. A finding of a treaty breach by the High Court would be more politically powerful than a finding by the Waitangi Tribunal, which has become almost embarrassing in recent times.

NewstalkZB reports:

A complaint has been lodged with the police over the planned Boobs on Bikes parade in Auckland.

The parade, which features bare-chested women on motorcycles parading down Queen Street, is scheduled for Wednesday as part of the Erotica Expo.

Conservative lobby group Family First have lodged the complaint.

Best publicity the organisers could hope for. Most people would ave been unaware of the parade, but now thousands will flock to see it, thanks to the free publicity.

“We believe it’s shocking that an offensive parade, which is basically promoting the pornography industry is allowed to go down a main street in Auckland during school holidays.”

“There’ll be lots of families, lots of kids, and it will be highly offensive.”

If it is on Queen Street, can’t say I’ve ever noticed many families or kids there.

The Guardian reports:

California will become the fifth state to allow terminally ill patients to legally end their lives using doctor-prescribed drugs after Governor Jerry Brown announced Monday he signed one of the most emotionally charged bills of the year.

Brown, a lifelong Catholic and former Jesuit seminarian, announced he signed the legislation after thoroughly considering all opinions and discussing the issue with many people, including a Catholic bishop and two of Brown’s doctors.

“In the end, I was left to reflect on what I would want in the face of my own death,” the governor wrote in a signing statement that accompanied his signature on the legislation. “I do not know what I would do if I were dying in prolonged and excruciating pain. I am certain, however, that it would be a comfort to be able to consider the options afforded by this bill.

Fascinating that a staunch Catholic decided not to veto the bill.

I’ll predict that within two decades, most states in the US will allow euthanasia.

TUANZ have announced:

Building on 30 years of representing telecommunications users, TUANZ is setting out in a new strategic direction to ensure New Zealanders can make the most of the digitally connected world.

TUANZ vision is to work collaboratively with industry and government to make sure that by 2020 New Zealand is among the top ten countries for business use of digital technology.[1]

TUANZ Chair Pat O’Connell says TUANZ has always been and will remain an independent and professional organisation that represents the interests of the users of digital technology.

“Our role will continue to be to put the business user at the centre of industry and government decision making in a sector that is going to define our economy for the foreseeable future”, says O’Connell.

This is a sensible new direction for TUANZ.

Since the 1980s TUANZ has been at the forefront of advocating for better deals for businesses and consumers in telecommunications. They’ve played a big role in helping us get to where we are where we pay a fraction of what we used to.

But the major regulatory battles are won. Local loop unbundling is done and dusted. Telecom has had first operational and now structural separation. Mobile phone interconnection rates have fallen away. Competition is not perfect, but our regulatory settings are now pretty good.

So a shift in emphasis from the regulatory issues to usage and technology is sensible.

A guest post by Cheryl Parsons who was on NZ80 from Hong Kong on 3 October:

I was one of the unfortunate 311 aboard flight NZ80 from Hong Kong to Auckland on 2/3 October.   Newspaper reports have covered the flight reasonably well but I have a few comments of my own to add.

I was pretty surprised at the sloppy way AirNZ handled this flight.   Being cooped up in an aircraft for 2 hours while the technical people tried to sort out the problem (I gathered something cropped up in the flight check) was no excuse for the cabin crew to do nothing.   One and a half  hours into the delay we were still getting half hourly messages from the flight deck that a longer delay was imminent plus a rather crabby hostie telling off passengers at the rear of the plane that their cellphones must be switched while in the aircraft.  

Which we all did because we know what happened to Bob Jones when he broke the rules.   (And I doubt that any of us in cattle class could thumb our noses at AirNZ and buy our own plane for future travel.)

To her credit she did return shortly afterwards to apologise and tell us that using cellphones was OK but was it that unreasonable for people to start texting and phoning family members to tell them of the delay when there was nothing else to do?

During this time I was unaware of any service by cabin crew.   Shortly before the cancellation announcement two staff walked down the aisles with a water jug and plastic glasses but they were too fast for anyone in my row to get water even though we did respond positively to the offer.   Too fast and too late.   Nothing else was offered so I assume there must have been some regulation that prevented them serving us dinner while we waited.

After about two hours we were told that we weren’t going anywhere on that flight which was now officially cancelled and that we were to return to the departure gate following which we would be collecting our luggage and put up in hotels overnight.   Unfortunately this was not to be.

For almost two hours we sat in the departure lounge with little information.   Passengers who lived in HongKong were sent home for the night and told to return the next day.  Announcements made were in Chinese and English but were difficult to understand as they were competing with announcements for other boarding gates and general announcements about local health issues etc.   During this time some of the more savvy passengers got onto the internet and found their own accommodation and left.    Being a transit passenger I hung in there along with other hopefuls.

It was a shambles.   Travellers with young children were left to themselves and a couple of passengers looked quite unwell.   Eventually we were told that first and business class passengers were being put up in hotels, then they would deal with travellers with young children and the elderly.  

At one stage I approached the ground staff to ask that water and something to eat be made available to us but she indicated that she did not have authority to do this.  

At about 10.30 pm we were told that we could collect food vouchers for a meal but this turned out to be a list of airport restaurants with HK$80 scrawled on it and told that on presentation of our boarding pass we would get a meal.   For me this was not to be.   I tried two places with the “voucher” and ended up purchasing my own meal.   I did speak to two passengers who used their “vouchers” and several who did not get a meal as they were told that their “vouchers” were not acceptable.  

At about 11.30 pm when they got around to rooms for the elderly, I finally owned up to my age, told them that I am a pensioner and asked for one of the elderly/family rooms.   Ground staff found seven hotel rooms for us and 1-1/2 hours later after lengthy queues at immigration and the taxi rank, we were on our way.   A 36.1km taxi ride finally got us to our destination hotel at about 2.30 am.    Some of our group had no money on them as they were in transit and had not eaten since lunchtime Friday.   We all felt grizzly and tired.  

After a shower and about 3-4 hours sleep we were down to breakfast in the hotel and in taxis at 9 am (Sunday) on our way back to the airport to check-in for the new flight.   By this stage the hotel had delivered to each of us a written message from AirNZ advising that we were scheduled to depart at 1.50 pm that day.  

Check-in went well with staff on hand to reimburse us (on presentation of receipts) for our dinner the previous night and breakfast that morning.    Then it was back to the boarding gate, onto the aircraft and back in NZ just after 6 am this morning.  

I have absolutely no complaints about the ground staff at the airport.   They were mostly young and conscientious.   But there was no leadership and the staff didn’t seem to know what to do.   I don’t think they had any authority to make decisions and I am sure, from what I saw, that there was no procedure in place for such a situation.  

But there must be – accidents happen, planes break down, crew get sick.  It happens all the time.  In fact AirNZ had a delay with this same flight about a week ago when a pilot was sick and they had a lengthy delay.     They just didn’t appear to have a plan for this situation.

I left NZ on 8 September for a 3-1/2 week tour of Turkey.   I flew Auckland-Singapore on Singapore Airlines and then from Singapore to Frankfurt with Lufthansa.   I was then due to fly on Lufthansa from Frankfurt to Istanbul arriving on 9 September.   However, on arrival in Frankfurt I learnt that all Lufthansa pilots were on strike and all flights were cancelled.   But they had a plan…..

On arrival at the boarding gate for my Istanbul flight I was redirected to an area set aside for all affected Lufthansa customers.    They had about 15 staff at counters to handle onward bookings and we were given ticket numbers and asked to sit down and wait.   I remember I was No. 340 but they must have dealt with hundreds of people that day.   While I was waiting, trolleys with water, cold drinks, sandwiches, savoury snacks and chocolate were wheeled in for customers to help themselves.   After a wait of about two hours I was booked on a Turkish Airlines flight, directed to German immigration and downstairs to Turkish Airlines to pickup my boarding pass so I could be on my way.   I arrived in Istanbul that evening although my bag took a couple of days to catch up with me.  

I was never meant to be in HongKong on 2 October.   I only got there because my return journey from Istanbul to Frankfurt on Lufthansa due to leave at 1 pm on 2 October was delayed which meant that I missed my connecting flight from Frankfurt to Shanghai on Lufthansa later that afternoon.    Again, the delay was handled quickly and without fuss.  A visit to the Lufthansa Service Centre at the airport saw me booked on a Lufthansa flight from Frankfurt to HongKong to connect with the AirNZ flight from HongKong to Auckland.   They also gave me three things – E5 voucher for refreshments, E10 voucher for food and a pamphlet setting out my rights as a passenger when things go wrong.   They got it right.

If only Air New Zealand could be so efficient.

Cheryl Parsons is semi-retired and lives in Auckland.   She ran a small business for a number of years and is involved in the National Party in Maungakiekie Electorate.   She doesn’t like owning up to being a pensioner but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do…..

UPDATE: A response from Air New Zealand:

The disruption of NZ80 occurred at the same time as a national holiday in Hong Kong as well as bad weather in the region which caused other carriers to cancel flights out of Hong Kong and this resulted in very little accommodation being available in the city.

We did manage to find whatever rooms we could across three hotels for 25 passengers, with priority given to those who were either elderly, in wheelchairs, feeling unwell or with an infant. A number of Hong Kong locals returned to their own homes for the evening but unfortunately around 80 customers who we were unable to accommodate remained in the terminal overnight. We provided them with blankets and pillows as well as water and snacks and have also offered them a cash payment as a gesture of goodwill for their inconvenience.

This year we have invested in additional systems and people to enable us to provide better and more timely communication to our customers. While this was a reasonably unique set of circumstances for a disruption we appreciate there was room for improvement on this occasion and we apologise to our customers for the inconvenience caused to them. We will be reviewing all elements of the event including the feedback received from customers to ensure we can address and refine our processes where required.  

Graeme Edgeler has looked at offending and re-offending rates before and after the three strikes law.

First offending:

Between 1 June 2005 and 31 May 2010, 6809 people received convictions for strike offences that occurred between 1 June 2005 and 31 May 2010.

Between 1 June 2010 and 31 May 2015, 5422 people received convictions for strike offences that occurred between 1 June 2010 and 31 May 2015.

So strike crime is down around 20% since three strikes came into effect. Claiming cause and effect over something like that is the type of intractable debate that you get into over the effect of longer prison sentences.

A 20% reduction in serious violent and sexual offences is a good thing, as that means 20% fewer people have been bashed, raped, assaulted or killed.

I agree with Graeme that you can’t claim the reduction is caused by three strikes. There are lost of factors involved. I would note though the following trend for violent (non lethal) offending.

• Fairly constant from 1996 to 2004
• Increased from a rate of 77.9 to 105.1 from 2004 to 2009
• Has reduced since 2009 from 105.1 to 87.8

It is not true that the violent crime rate has been decreasing for 20 years. Overall crime yes, but not violent.

Anyway onto the most interesting aspect – reoffending:

But what we are looking at is not the general deterrent effect of three strikes (fear of punishment in the public at large), but specific deterrence: fear of punishment by those who have a conviction for strike offending who have been personally warned by a judge that further strike offending is treated very seriously.

The idea being that when a judge tells you the next serious offence will mean no parole, it may deter you.

We know there were 81 second strikes in the first five years of three strikes. These are people who have been convicted for committing a strike offence after the law came into force, and subsequent to that conviction, been convicted of a further strike offence, itself committed after their earlier conviction occurred. The pre-strike comparison therefore needs to be people convicted of an offence committed after 1 June 2005 (but before 31 May 2010), who were then convicted before 31 May 2010 of a further offence committed after that conviction.

So this is comparing apples with apples. Both the offence and the conviction had to occur within the same five year period.

And it turn out that that number is a lot higher. Had the three strikes law been in place on 1 June 2005, the following five years would have seen 256 offenders receive second strikes.

Now, strike crime is down in general, but the ~20% fall in strike offending is dwarfed by the ~62% fall in strike recidivism.

A 62% drop in serious violent and sexual reoffending is terrific – both for victims, and for perpetrators.

Some will claim this drop has nothing to do with three strikes, and it is because we’ve just magically got better at rehabilitating serious offenders.

But I suspect those people will never accept any evidence that contradicts their world view.

Labour and Greens are vowing to scrap three strikes. I have no hope that anything would convince the Greens to change their minds, but hopefully Labour will see sense and not scrap a law which has seen serious violent and sexual reoffending rates drop 62%.

The NZ Herald editorial:

Sometimes it takes someone a little removed from the fray to put the right perspective on an issue.

New Zealanders have sorely needed such insight on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, so deeply polarised are they about its potential benefit to this country.

And there could be few people better placed to supply this than former Prime Minister Helen Clark. …

Ms Clark’s statement, a rare one on a domestic issue since she became the Administrator of the UN Development Programme, emphasised how foolish that would be.

What had always haunted her as prime minister, she said, was the development of a series of trade blocs of which New Zealand was not part. That would be “unthinkable” for this country as an export-orientated, small trading nation.

“So, of course, New Zealand has to be in on the action with the TPP and go for the very best deal it can as the agreement expands beyond the original four economies to a wider regional agreement.” …

Ms Clark’s statement also carried a message for her former Labour colleagues.

Curiously for a party that formerly embraced free trade, it has insisted its support for the TPP is contingent on the meeting of several “non-negotiable bottom lines”.

Labour may imagine this plays well with those people adamantly opposed to the pact.

But most importantly, as its former leader implies, it reveals a failure to to appreciate the big picture. That dictates a small trading nation cannot afford to stand aside from an agreement of such magnitude for the Asia-Pacific region.

The partisan part of me wants Labour to vote against TPP, as I think it will continue their descent away from electability. But actually it would be a bad thing for NZ to lose its long-standing bipartisan support for trade deals.

Liam Hehir writes:

When Helen Clark came out in broad endorsement of New Zealand’s participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, she lifted the lid on what is going to become a real headache for Andrew Little. If negotiation of the mammoth trade treaty is completed (which could well have occurred by the time you read this) the Labour Party is going to have to make a decision about whether or not it will throw its support behind New Zealand joining the bloc.

Until now, Labour has been assiduously ambiguous on the subject. This seems to be because some swivel-eyed members of the party base are convinced that the treaty is a sinister National Party scheme to outsource sovereignty to Halliburton, Pfizer and the Rothschild family. Not wishing to alienate these noisy activists, the party has been careful to avoid expressing any enthusiasm for the deal.

Yet …

But at the same time, it has not ruled out supporting the deal should agreement be reached. A significant chunk of Labour’s parliamentary caucus is serious about governing. They care more about pragmatism than party slogans and, when pushed, they care more about the national interest than they do about oppositional politics.

But are there enough of them? I’m not sure there are.

The problem is that weasel words will only get you so far. Complaining about the secret negotiating process won’t cut it once the negotiations have been wrapped up and the terms of the deal have been laid bare. The debate then has nowhere to go but to the ultimate merits of the thing.

Despite persistent claims to the contrary, joining the TPP is going to require the enactment of implementing legislation. When those votes are called, Labour MPs will need to make a call on turning its back on vastly improved access to markets representing nearly 40 per cent of the world’s GDP. Whatever decision is made, somebody is going to have to be disappointed.

I think it will be the party activists. If the TPP represents a halfway-decent deal for New Zealand, my bet is that Labour MPs will give it their blessing. There will be some public handwringing, of course, and reservations will be loudly stated. Unlike NZ First or the Greens, however, Labour is simply too integral to our political system to indulge in fantasies of the country prospering as a hermit kingdom closed off from the world economy.

I hope Liam is right, but I am less optimistic. They have abandoned bipartisan support for stable monetary policy that targets inflation, and in recent elections have had a policy of effective nationalisation of electricity generators.

For Helen Clark, the only Labour leader to have won a general election in almost 30 years, to say that “of course” we should “be in on the action with the TPP” starkly exposes the reality of the situation. Labour is a serious, mainstream party. It is inclined to deal with the world as it is.

If Labour don’t support TPP, I can see a number of election ads quoting her words back to them!

Just published the monthly polling newsletter. The executive summary is:

There were three political voting polls in September – a Roy Morgan, a One News Colmar Brunton and a 3 News Reid Research.

 The average of the public polls has National 14% ahead of Labour in September, down 8% from August back to what it was in July. The current seat projection is centre-right 58 seats, centre-left 54 which would see NZ First holding the balance of power.

We show the current New Zealand poll averages for party vote, country direction and preferred PM compared to three months ago, a year ago, three years ago and nine years ago. This allows easy comparisons between terms and Governments.

In the United States Hillary Clinton’s favourability continues to drop, reaching -13%. Donald Trump also has falling favourability hitting -20%. Both Clinton and Trump remains the leaders in the polls for their nominations though.

In the UK Jeremy Corbyn faces considerable challenges with 32% of Labour voters saying they think David Cameron would be a better Prime Minister than Corbyn. Personal beliefs of Corbyn such as withdrawing from NATO have only 9% support. Also in a significant change there is now a plurality in favour of leaving the EU, in the wake of the refugee crisis.

In Australia Malcolm Turnbull has a honeymoon. The Coalition has gained a net 10% on the two party preferred vote. Turnbull has a net approval rating of +34% compared to his predecessor Abbott who had -33% and Opposition Leader Shorten on -25%.

In Canada a fairy dramatic change with the campaign underway, seeing the Conservatives gain 5% and retake the lead. However projections still have them well off getting a majority.

We also carry details of polls on the NZ Flag, private prisons, Labour Deputy Leadership, foreign investment, the TPP plus the normal business and consumer confidence polls.

This newsletter is normally only available by e-mail.  If you would like to receive future issues, please go to http://curia.us10.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=e9168e04adbaaaf75e062779e&id=8507431512 to subscribe yourself.

“Let us never forget this fundamental truth: the State has no source of money other than money which people earn themselves. If the State wishes to spend more is can do so only by borrowing your savings or by taxing you more. It is no good thinking that someone else will pay – that ‘someone else’ is you. There is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers’ money.” 

– Margaret Thatcher

The quote of the week is brought to you by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union. To support the Union’s campaign for lower taxes and less government waste, click here.

It’s taken eight years, but the TPP negotiations have now been concluded. They started under Labour and Phil Goff in early 2008 and it has expanded from five countries (the original P4 and USA) to 12 countries, with another six saying they may join also.

Before I look at the substance, I think it is worth reflecting that just getting an agreement is significant. The Doha round of WTO multi-lateral negotiations has been going on for 15 years, and is far from complete (and may never complete). This is the largest trade agreement since the Uruguay round completed in 1994.

The New Zealand Government has had many negotiators working on this for the last eight years – from MFAT, and from other agencies such as MBIE. This has been their life month in and month out with 19 rounds of negotiations.and 23 meetings of chief negotiators and/or ministers. I’ve got to meet a few of them over the years and they’re extremely dedicated and effective public servants, who will be very pleased to see this work complete.

In terms of the substance, there seem to be three broad themes.

1. Eventual elimination of all tariffs in all industries except beef and dairy
2. Minor concessions from Canada on dairy but better deal with Japan on beef (tariff dropping from 40% to 9%)
3. Most of the potentially “bad” stuff has been resisted (change to Pharmac model, the US demands on ISP liability for copyright, tobacco companies can’t use ISDS provisions)

This is not a gold plated deal, as was the aspiration. Canada and Japan especially have been unwilling to fully open up their markets to competition. Canada has almost a soviet style dairy system where a 30 cow farm has a quota worth $1 million. Some cows sell for almost $200,000 due to the law restricting either domestic or international competition. So incumbents quota owners fight hard against losing their quota, just as taxi firms fight hard against Uber.

With the benefit of hindsight, it may have been better to not allow Canada and Japan to join the TPP. They promised in joining that they understood the aim was the elimination of all tariffs. But their domestic pressures were too great. However the argument to have them in, is that the US would have been less able to get fast track approval through Congress without those two large economies as part of the deal.

But while the benefits are less than what they could have been, it will still be a beneficial agreement for NZ. As Helen Clark said, you’d be basically nuts to walk away from a deal with 40% of the world’s economy. And the net benefit to the NZ economy through the tariff removals and overall agreement is (I understand) in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

There are always some dead rats to swallow in deals, but we appear to have avoided the larger nastier ones. When the full text is released in a month, we’ll have a clearer idea, but the US Trade Representative has a summary of each of the 30 chapters. The removal of tobacco companies from ISDS provisions will reassure many, the US failed to get much progress on extending drug patents, the Pharmac model is unchanged, and the early US demands on Internet and intellectual property issues (some of which were deeply concerning) appear to have fallen away, and the current chapter seems reasonably palatable. That is not to say there won’t be some stuff in there which we’d rather not have at all. For example the length of term of copyright looks set to be extended by 20 years. This is stupid, when in fact copyright terms (life + 50 years) are already too long in NZ. But from what I can see the negatives in the TPP are outweighed by the positives by a very considerable margin.

The FTA with China has been hugely beneficial to New Zealand. Parties such as NZ First and the Greens which opposed it should be embarrassed, as exports to China skyrocketed since the FTA, resulting in billions of extra dollars into the NZ economy. The history of our trade deals is that the benefits and increases in exports have almost always been far greater than anticipated.

UPDATE: The Beehive site has some details on the deal. The savings on tariffs, once full implemented by sector are:

• Dairy $102 million
• Meat $72 million
• Fruit and vegetables $26 million
• Other agriculture $18 million
• Wine $10 million
• Manufacturing $10 million
• Forestry $9 million
• Fish $8 million
• Wool $4 million

In the last week, I’ve noticed that when I book a Wellington Combined cab, I now get a text from them as the taxi is about to arrive.

This is a good innovation from them, and no doubt driven by the fact that passengers have shown with Uber they really appreciate getting alerted to when their vehicle is near.

This is how you should respond to a competitor with a new business model – by changing your own. The text alert isn’t quite as good as seeing the car’s location on a map, but it is a good improvement. Certainly makes a difference on wet days, not having to go outside until the car is here.

The Guardian reports:

MPs are moving towards a consensus in favour of military action against Islamic State in Syria, Philip Hammond has said.

Speaking at the Conservative party conference in Manchester, the foreign secretary declared there was a growing feeling in parliament that something must be done to tackle Isis in its Syrian stronghold as well as Iraq.

“We have made a very clear commitment that before we get involved in airstrikes in Syria – other than very targeted cases where we are dealing with direct threats to the UK – yes, we would come back to parliament and get the authorisation,” he told the BBC after addressing the main hall.

“And I think there is a sense that there is a beginning of consensus now in parliament that this has to be dealt with, that we have to take the fight with IS to Raqqa in Syria, rather than just attacking them in Iraq.”

His comments suggest the government is feeling more confident about calling a vote in the Commons, which David Cameron will only do if he knows he can win. The prime minister would need to rely on some Labour votes, given the number of his own party who would be likely to rebel.

Although the Labour conference voted not to support strikes without UN backing, many of the party’s MPs are known to be sympathetic to the government’s aims as long as a good case is made to parliament.

It will be fascinating to see how many Labour MPs vote in favour, and how many Conservative MPs vote against. The last time the Commons voted, the motion was lost. But it looks like the growing threat of ISIL has changed things.

Stuff reports:

Labour deputy leader Annette King said the fact the Government has put the brakes on legislation around plain packaging for cigarettes, while it waits to see whether Australia is successfully sued by a tobacco company, has put doubt in people’s minds.

“It must also be in the Government’s mind at this point because why wouldn’t we pass (the legislation) if we can’t be sued.”

King is being deliberately misleading, The lawsuit in Australia  that NZ is waiting to see the outcome of, is not under an investor state dispute settlement provision of an free trade agreement.  It is under WTO rules and is not a company but a country suing – Ukraine, Honduras, Indonesia, Dominican Republic and Cuba.

These are the same dispute settlement provisions that allowed us to get a WTO ruling that Australia can’t block NZ apple imports on phony biosecurity grounds.

King said the Government had done an “appalling” job of handling public confidence and public information over the deal.

“Yes, everyone understands you don’t give away all the things you’re negotiating…but there has been a very high handed and arrogant approach.

“The vacuum (the Government) left by not bringing along the public in some respects has been filled by people who have got information from other sources. It’s their own fault they’ve ended up with a divided public over a deal that they tell us is going to be a high quality deal,” she said.

I love this – Labour scaremongers for months over the TPP, and then says it is the Government’s fault the public has had misleading information!

Oliver Hartwich writes:

As far as corporate scandals go, they do not come bigger than the Volkswagen affair. Yes, other companies make mistakes too. Except Volkswagen’s sin was no mistake. It was the deliberate deception of their customers, regulators and the general public.

In fact, it was worse. Volkswagen wilfully risked contributing to widespread health problems by allowing its fleet to emit several times the allowed levels of pollutants.

There is no excuse for what Volkswagen has done, not even that the German carmaker is unlikely to be the only one cheating emissions tests.

As someone who generally favours free markets, I am outraged by Volkswagen’s behaviour. It is precisely this kind of arrogant and potentially criminal behaviour that can give capitalism a bad name.

Markets are subject to rules, and market participants must play by them. No company has the right to put itself above the law.

I agree.

And this was so flagrant. Special software that would show lower emissions during tests. That is not something one rogue employee can do. This must have been signed off at very high levels.

There is, however, some consolation in the Volkswagen case for free-marketers. The market’s reaction to the Volkswagen scandal has been exemplary: Before even a cent of compensation or fines had to be paid, Volkswagen’s punishment has already arrived in the form of a battered share price.

Volkswagen’s share price crash shows that markets are working. The crashed share price reflects not only future liabilities but also the loss of reputation and reduced demand for VW cars. It thus shows that companies behaving unethically ultimately face the toughest judge there is: their customers. This should serve as a warning to other companies.

At least with markets, we have a chance to punish those who behave unethically by withdrawing our custom from them. We cannot do likewise when we are dealing with government agencies. If a government department, a council or a Crown agency behaved criminally or irresponsibly, we often cannot switch providers but we are stuck with them.

Very true.

The shareholders of VW will demand blood from those responsible, as they have destroyed billions of dollars of value from their investment.

You’d think after our own ignominious exits from various Rugby World Cups, that we’d spare a thought for the Poms; ejected unceremoniously from their very own RWC. Yeah nah. Not happening.

I was born in England and came to NZ as a young child. I have family there and a deep respect for English culture and history. Then there’s that famous aphorism seen on T shirts in NZ “I cheer for the All Blacks and any team playing Australia”. Whilst it was exciting to see England fight back in the second half and make a contest of it (if only for a portion of the game), I can’t hide the fact that I was rooting for Australia AND thrilled to see the Poms beaten. For most kiwis, this is a no brainer but when you have residual ties to England and I normally am quite pleased when anyone beats the arrogant Aussies, there is a special package of reasons why I personally was so pleased to see England out.

The English players, coaches, selectors and media went into a frenzy when England beat the All Blacks so comprehensively at the end of the Northern Hemisphere tour in December 2012. Steve Hansen gave the hysteria more legs when he opined that England were 2015 RWC title contenders. Since then, the inevitability of England hoisting the Webb Ellis trophy has been the arrogant assumption of English rugby at every level. By the time the tournament started, we were all sick of the smug arrogance of Lancaster and his players who talked about their chances at Fortress Twickenham and of their 2012 victory over New Zealand as if they’d beaten us 5 times in a row!

But it goes deeper than that. Australia rugby writers love the Wallabies and Aussie TV commentary is suitably and typically one eyed – but amongst those who commentate knowledgeably on rugby in Australia, there is a deep and abiding respect for the All Blacks. Not so with the Pommy media scribes. Not only is there far less respect but there is the persistent drum beat of vituperative attacks on key All Blacks the most obvious being the oft repeated claims by English rugby writers that Richie McCaw is a cheat.

As I analysed my glee at seeing what was effectively my own countrymen going down, I reflected on the boorish English crowds. I was at the fateful semi final game in Sydney for the 2003 RWC. I had an All Blacks shirt on so I was fair game for the mostly Australian spectators as I left. There was virtually no taunting or mocking – elation for sure that Australia was in the final, but belying this attitude was the respect Australian rugby fans have for the ABs. Not so English crowds. I’ve never been to Twickers but a good mate now resident in London goes there often to watch internationals and he says the crowds are awful to visiting teams and most especially to New Zealand.

Part of my ambivalence to English rugby is borne of the stultifying, sluggish forwards dominated style of rugby that prevails in England courtesy of their sodden muddy fields which has given us decades of ugly English rugby. But it goes further – it’s the whistle happy pedantic refereeing style that emanates from England and, via England’s historical dominance of the IRB, spills over to almost all the northern hemisphere referees. I’ve come up hard against that as a referee here in the US where English style whistle happy pedantry is the cultural norm among the US raised referees.

Finally, at a gut almost visceral level, we in New Zealand love to see our former colonial masters, the mother country who brought us our national game and who still arrogantly influence the governance of the game internationally, finally not just beaten but utterly humiliated. Roll on a great Australia New Zealand final!!

Pool A

Australia and Wales both on 13 points with a game to go. Have to favour Australia in their head to head.

Pool B

South Africa 11, Scotland 10 and Japan 8 all with a game to go.

South Africa should get bonus point vs USA and finish top.

Scotland should beat Samoa so likely 2nd.

Pool C

NZ 14 and Argentina 10 with a game to go each.

Pool D

France 14 and Ireland 10 but Ireland has two games to go. They are currently just ahead vs Italy though!

Assume France beats Ireland and Ireland beats Italy.

So the four QFs still look like:

1. South Africa vs Wales
2. NZ vs Ireland
3. France vs Argentina
4. Australia vs Scotland

News.com.au reports:

“We believe that his actions were politically motivated and therefore linked to terrorism,” NSW Police Commissioner, Andrew Scipione told reporters in Sydney

The teenager, a naturalised Australian who arrived with his family from Iran, had walked to the police headquarters in Charles Street from his home in North Parramatta before opening fire on a civilian police employee, who has been identified as Curtis Cheng.

Islamist inspired terrorist attacks are becoming a regular event in Australia. I hope I’m wrong, but it is probably just a matter of time until we get them here.

The Herald reports:

Two men have appeared in court in connection with an incident in which an Auckland office was stormed and staff forcefully dragged out by a group in an apparent land claim.

John Wanoa, 66, and John Murray Monga, 50, both of South Auckland, were arrested on Friday following the the drama at the Tournament Parking office on Cook Street on Monday.

The two men faced charges of trespass, forcible entry and assault, police said. Police are continuing to search for a number of others in relation to the incident and further arrests are anticipated.

Good. Peaceful protest is one thing. Violent evictions are another.

The men appeared seperately at Auckland District Court. They represented themselves and protested loudly during their appearance. The pair were remanded in jail to reappear on Monday morning.

Excellent – consequences.

Well thank goodness we’re not in the pool of death, or we may be dead.

Three games down, and all pretty scratchy. One against a mid-level country, and two against minnows. And they all scored tries against us, and we never looked dominant.

Credit to Georgia for playing so well. I do love how the World Cup inspires the less ranked countries to put in their best performances.

Tonga could push us quite hard next weekend.

The pools are looking interesting.

Pool A – Australia probably to top and Wales may come second unless England beat them. The two bonus points for England should see them through if they do.

Pool B – South Africa should still top followed by Scotland

Pool C -All Blacks and probably Argentina

Pool D – France followed by Ireland

So quarter-finals may be:

1. South Africa vs Wales
2. NZ vs Ireland
3. France vs Argentina
4. Australia vs Scotland

Possible semis are:

1. South Africa vs NZ
2. France vs Australia

Not even going to predict the final!