Posts
I have little deal that (as Jane Kelsey pointed out at a talk I went to) that this deal will be signed by New Zealand with little or nothing to show for in it in terms of trade concessions.
America has a history of forcing small nations to compl with its wishes and this government is not going to do anything to upset its boss.
Sure as sunrise, New Zealand will sign up to the TPP if a deal is on offer
America has a history of forcing small nations to compl with its wishes and this government is not going to do anything to upset its boss.
Sure as sunrise, New Zealand will sign up to the TPP if a deal is on offer
Vernon
Small
30
July, 2015
OPINION:
Based on previous observations the sun will more than likely come up
tomorrow and New Zealand will sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP) trade deal if, as appears likely, it is finalised this week.
Actually
it will sign it whatever week it is finalised. The Government has far
too much skin in the game to walk away.
When
ministers say they would reject the TPP if it is not in New Zealand's
best interests, unless there is a good deal on dairy, unless, unless,
unless ... there is only really one response. Yeah, right.
It
is inconceivable it would walk away from a 12-nation free-trade deal
that includes Japan and the United States - the holy grail for
free-trade negotiators since before this country's anti- nuclear
policy turned it into a pawn of trade diplomacy.
When
Key made it clear a few weeks ago that the TPP would deliver a net
benefit to New Zealand if the clock stopped on talks now - even
though the dairy deal was not as good as hoped - the game was up. At
that point there was no more bluffing - we were signing.
Against
that background - and in the absence of the necessary detail to form
a view on where the talks are going - Labour has come under pressure
to take a stand against the TPP. And in the past week it has...
though not without some very fuzzy edges.
Labour's
angst goes back to its 2013 annual conference in Christchurch where
internal divisions were "kicked down the road".
One
group, led by Phil Goff was strongly in favour of TPP, believing it
would bring broad benefits. Another group argued it surrendered too
much sovereignty.
To
paper over the cracks, Labour built a halfway house: Withhold support
until the text was released and it was clearly shown to be in the
broad national interest to sign up.
Last
week's statement was a step away from that - while being loose enough
to keep the cracks firmly under wraps.
It
set five non-negotiable bottom lines for Labour's support.
They
were that the centralised drug agency Pharmac must be protected,
corporations would not be able to "successfully" sue the
Government for regulating in the public interest, meaningful gains
were made for farmers on tariff reductions and market access, the
Treaty must be upheld and - the biggie - New Zealand must retain the
right to restrict sales of farm land and housing to non-resident
foreign buyers.
In
doing so it brought together two strands; public unease over the TPP
(contrasted with the radical opposition to free trade that would
never be satisfied with Labour short of a complete rejection of the
TPP) and the party's "wedge" argument against foreign house
purchases.
The
link to its campaign against foreign (Chinese) resident buyers of
Auckland houses is complex, given China is not yet part of the TPP.
The
argument runs that through the "most favoured nation"
clauses in the China FTA, negotiated by Labour, China must be offered
the same investment rights as other subsequent trade deals.
So
while the pre-existing Closer Economic Realtions (CER) deal with
Australia would not trigger that clause, the TPP would.
But
it gets more complex still.
When
it signed up to the recent trade deal with South Korean the
Government failed to secure the right to add new categories of land -
such as residential houses - to existing restrictions. That now flows
backwards to the China deal.
(It
says a lot for John Key's chutzpah that he is prepared to blame
Labour's free-trade deal with China, with its most favoured nation
clause, for the fact that the current deal with Korea will flow back
into the China deal. But that's politics, folks.)
A
similar approach to the TPP only exacerbates the problem. Fast
forward to some future time when Labour is in Government and tries to
tries to renegotiate the TPP to allow a ban on foreign house buyers.
It
is unlikely Japan and the United States would be overly concerned,
but the principle of a renegotiation would be a major hurdle.
And
if a future Labour Government was successful then the new TPP would
be out of step with the South Korean deal.
Yet
there may not be an actual - as opposed to theoretical or
in-principle - problem here anyway.
If
New Zealand did restrict foreign buyers in future and it was in
breach of a free-trade deal, then a lawsuit would be extremely
unlikely, given the cost to a property investor and the difficulty of
proving loss.
If,
at this point, your head hurts you are not alone.
But,
the simple point is that Labour wants to highlight what it sees as
the Government's failure to preserve "New Zealand for New
Zealanders".
It
is by far the most politically potent of Labour's "bottom line"
non-negotiable positions, despite the furore around Pharmac this
week.
Key's
admission that the TPP would likely extend patent protection for
medicines, pushing up the cost to New Zealand and Pharmac, drew a
quick response from Little.
Labour,
he said, had pledged to oppose the TPP if Pharmac, and its model of
purchasing, were not protected.
"Extending
the patents does not protect Pharmac's purchasing model."
That
sounded unequivocal enough, though arguable.
But
it also risks pulling the wallpaper off one of the deepest fissures
in the caucus, where some see an extension of patents as
inevitable... and quite acceptable.
TPP
talks stumbling on dairy hurdle
29
July, 2015
Dairy
is proving to be a difficult hurdle at Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP) discussions in Hawaii this week, with some countries cautious
about New Zealand's competitive dairy industry.
Reuters
has reported a major sticking point in the talks is dairy, with
Mexico under pressure to give Australia and New Zealand more access
to its markets. However, Canada was resisting demands to open up its
protected local industry.
ASB
rural economist Nathan Penny said based on information about the TPP
talks, it seemed the United States, Canada and Japan were all
resistant to opening up their agricultural sectors to foreign
competition.
He
said Japan's dairy industry does not produce enough for the country's
needs, but they have yet to reduce barriers to trade.
From
New Zealand's point of view, Japan would be a good market due to its
size, lack of competition, the older farming population and the
shortage in some dairy products, Penny said.
"We
are much more efficient than Japanese producers. It would be a huge
opportunity for us, hence Japanese producers in part are heavily
lobbying their own government to ensure that protection remains in
place. Their industry would go through a structural change if opened
up to competition," he said.
New
Zealand Trade Minister Tim Groser told TV3's The Nation that he was
looking for "commercially meaningful access" for New
Zealand's dairy industry into other markets.
"I'm
not going to be dogmatic about how to define that, but there's
nothing on the table yet that allows me to recommend to the cabinet
that we should sign this deal at this point," he said.
The
Canadian dairy industry was also highly protected - the Business News
Network in Canada reported dairy was protected from foreign
competition by tariffs that can run as high as 246 per cent.
Without
a quid pro quo from Canada, the US was also unlikely to open up,
Penny said.
"We're
reliant on two deals to get one."
Without
knowing the details of the agreement, Penny said it was difficult to
determine how much the New Zealand dairy industry would affect those
of other countries.
"For
us, from an opportunity point of view, dairy is a big one. If we
don't get a good deal on agriculture, then it's not really doing the
job for us."
A
better dairy deal was essential for New Zealand dairy industry
representatives, with chairmen of the Dairy Companies Association of
New Zealand (DCANZ) and DairyNZ urging TPP governments to give dairy
as good an outcome as that of other goods.
DairyNZ
chairman Hon John Luxton said there was no good reason for dairy to
be left behind.
"I
urge ministers to remember that this is an agreement to grow trade
and support economic prosperity. Not one to maintain protection and
distortion," he said.
"We
are a small country, of four million people, where dairy is very
important to our economic wellbeing. But we are not asking for a
handout, our farmers are not subsidised, we do not protect our
market. We just want a level playing field."
The
"Saudi Arabia of milk"
The
Wall Street Journal dubbed New Zealand the "Saudi Arabia of
milk" in 2008, likening its dairy industry to the oil industry
in Saudi Arabia, and it is a title that has stuck.
New
Zealand is a giant in the dairy industry, with Fonterra the world's
largest global milk processor and dairy exporter.
New
Zealand's exports of milk powder, butter and cheese were worth about
$12 billion in the 12 months to June 30, down 24 per cent on the
previous June year.
Penny
said New Zealand was still the one producer of dairy products that
could influence global prices.
"The
world prices of milk powders in particular, we're probably the
dominant exporter in that sense. Where our production goes prices do
tend to follow," he said.
Jane Kelsey was interviewed on Radio NZ this morning, She's about the only spokeperson talking sense. Winston Peters is another.
Jane Kelsey was interviewed on Radio NZ this morning, She's about the only spokeperson talking sense. Winston Peters is another.
AUDIO: More bad news to come on the TPPA - opponent
Listen to Jane Kelsey on Radio Live HEREHere is the latest from Wikileaks
Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) Treaty: State-Owned Enterprises (SOE) Issues for Ministerial Guidance
Today, 29 July 2015, WikiLeaks releases a secret letter from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP or TPPA) Ministerial Meeting in December 2013, along with a comprehensive expert analysis of the document.
The letter indicates a wide-ranging privatisation and globalisation strategy within the Agreement which aims to severely restrict "state-owned enterprises" (SOEs). Even an SOE that exists to fulfil a public function neglected by the market or which is a natural monopoly would nevertheless be forced to act "on the basis of commercial considerations" and would be prohibited from discriminating in favour of local businesses in purchases and sales. Foreign companies would be given standing to sue SOEs in domestic courts for perceived departures from the strictures of the TPP, and countries could even be sued by other TPP countries, or by private companies from those countries. Developing countries such as Vietnam, which employs a large number of SOEs as part of its economic infrastructure, would be affected most. SOEs continue to fulfil vital public functions in even the most privatised countries, such as Canada and Australia.
The TPP is the world's largest economic trade agreement and will, if it comes into force, encompass more than 40 per cent of the world's GDP. Despite its wide-ranging effects on the global population, the TPP is currently being negotiated in total secrecy by 12 countries. Few people, even within the negotiating countries' governments, have access to the full text of the draft agreement, and the public – who it will affect most – none at all. Large corporations, however, are able to see portions of the text, generating a powerful lobby to effect changes on behalf of these groups and bringing developing countries reduced force, while the public at large gets no say.
The TPP is part of the TPP-TISA-TTIP mega-treaty package, which together proposes to encompass more than two-thirds of global GDP.
WikiLeaks' editor, Julian Assange, said: "The TPP erects a 'one size fits all' economic system designed to advantage the largest transnational corporations. In this leak we see the radical effects the TPP will have, not only on developing countries, but on states very close to the centre of the Western system. If we are to restructure our societies into an ultra-neoliberal legal and economic block that will last for the next 50 years then this should be said openly and debated."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.