Russel Norman: speech to parliament on FTA with China

This trade agreement between New Zealand and China fails to protect the sovereignty of the democratically elected Government of New Zealand, and it places significant restrictions on the future ability of the New Zealand Government and Parliament to pass regulations to protect the people and environment of Aotearoa New Zealand.

There are many reasons why the New Zealand Government should not have signed this preferential trade agreement with China, not least of which is the fact that New Zealand signed this agreement while China was involved in the murderous oppression of the people of Tibet. It is also of grave concern that this agreement has no binding labour or environmental standards. The lower wages and standards in China will effectively be a non-tariff barrier to fair trade, giving corporations that pollute or pay inhumane wages a competitive advantage over those that do not.

Continue

Hone Harawira on the FTA with China

Hone Harawira, MP for Te Tai Tokerau

24 July 2008

I tera wiki, i whakanuitia ana a Rererangi Aotearoa e te Minita Tapoi e Damien O’Connor, i te whakatuwheratanga o te rere-kotahi, mai i a Beijing, ki Tamaki Makaurau.

Last week, Tourism Minister Damien O’Connor was heaping praises upon Air New Zealand as they launched the first non-stop service between Auckland and Beijing.

E mea ana te minita, “he marea hokohoko tino nui ki Haina, mo ake tonu”.

“This very important long-term Chinese market” was how the Minister put it.

Continue

GPJA submission on FTA with China

Submission to the government by Global Peace & Justice Auckland (GPJA) on the Free Trade Agreement between the government of New Zealand and the regime of the People’s Republic of China.

7 May 2008 1. Global Peace and Justice Auckland is a network of Auckland based groups and individuals concerned to promote justice and peace both around the world and within New Zealand. 2. We are strongly opposed to the Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Peoples’ Republic of China because the agreement is bad for New Zealand workers, bad for Chinese workers and is a slap in the face for Tibetans struggling under China’s yoke. 3. We appreciate there will be increases in trade on paper with the result our economy will grow. However as we have seen over the past eight years, growth does not mean those in greatest need will benefit. New Zealand still has 180,000 children locked into poverty despite what the Prime Minister describes as the most sustained period of economic growth for a generation. 4. The economic growth predicted as a result of the FTA will likewise not improve the standard of living for the most vulnerable New Zealanders but it will instead decrease the standard of living for tens of thousands of New Zealand workers. 5. We should remember the trade surplus New Zealand enjoyed with China in the mid 1980s. In other words we exported more to China than we imported. However this reversed dramatically when import tariffs were removed or phased out. There was a flood of cheap imports from China which turned the trade surplus into a billion dollar deficit. When the government began negotiations for the free trade agreement in December 2004 the deficit with China was $1.5 billion. A year later it had grown to over $2 billion. Over 20 years our exports stagnated while China flooded New Zealand with sweated imports. 6. As a direct result tens of thousands of jobs were lost from our manufacturing sector as New Zealand companies went to the wall. Some survived only by shifting their manufacturing base to China. Others transformed into importing companies and helped fill the shelves of the Warehouse with cheap low-quality products. But these bargain goods carry a very high price. 7. The Ministry of Economic Development has estimated 16 jobs are lost for every one million dollars of imported products we could make here. A simple calculation shows about 50,000 jobs lost to Chinese imports alone. As more tariffs are phased out under the free trade agreement we can expect as many as 20,000 more New Zealand workers to lose their jobs with many more families driven below the poverty line. 8. We should also expect many more New Zealand workers to suffer in industries which struggle to compete. We have the example of Air New Zealand (owned by the New Zealand government) which forced New Zealand workers in aircraft maintenance to accept reduced working conditions as the price for retaining the jobs in New Zealand. 9. None of this seems to concern the Labour government. To our Labour politicians this is free trade on one of those fictitious level playing fields. 10. The Chinese economy is built on long hours, child labour, forced labour and poverty wages. Is it free trade when New Zealand workers are expected to compete with workers paid less than $1 an hour for 16-hour days? Is it free trade when China operates prison labour camps where as many as seven million inmates work without pay and nothing in the way of health and safety standards to produce goods to compete with New Zealand products? China has repeatedly refused to sign up to even the most basic of labour standards under the International Labour Organisation such as bans on forced labour and the right to organise independent trade unions. Those Chinese who dare to speak out are silenced. 11. Why would New Zealand give preferential trade status to a brutal, repressive regime like this? The answer is that the FTA with China benefits already wealthy corporate interests. 12. Through the FTA New Zealand increasingly is outsourcing its manufacturing sector to China. This prevents us developing manufacturing here at a time when global warming and high fuel prices will increasingly make international trade (from a country as far away from markets as New Zealand) much more expensive. We are putting too many eggs in one basket through relying more heavily on farming products for future prosperity. 13. Back in 1998 our Prime Minister had a different view. She criticised the then Prime Minister, National leader Jenny Shipley, for putting trade ahead of human rights and said “…we have had this pitiful simpering about there being a distinction between business issues and issues of human rights and democracy. If that value had been applied in 19th century England and North America, then we would still have slavery, because the representatives of those who employed slaves would claim that there was no connection between that issue and their business values.” 14. A year later in the speech from the throne the newly elected Labour government told us “legitimate issues of labour standards and environmental concerns need to be integrated better with trade agreements.”

15. But all this has gone out the window. They are meaningless platitudes. Through this FTA the government is saying it is happy for New Zealand to deal with these 21st century slave-owners, buying their products at reduced rates. 16. There can be no doubt also that the FTA is helping the Chinese regime bolster its stranglehold on democracy and human rights. The FTA legitimises the regime and turns a blind eye to its anti-worker and anti-union policies. 17. And what about the Tibetans? At a time when there have been renewed calls for autonomy from the people of Tibet and greater levels of violence and repression against the people it sends all the wrong messages for New Zealand to sign an FTA with the country. 18. Finally it is a travesty of democracy here in New Zealand for this FTA to have been agreed and signed by the government before New Zealanders (aside from a few in business and compliant trade union leadership) have had the opportunity to see and discuss it and its ramifications. 19. We wish to be heard by the committee in support of this submission. John Minto Spokesperson Ph (09) 8463173 (H) (09) 8469496 (W) www.gpja.org.nz

NZ Labour - a party without principle

A recent headline in The Guardian (18 April) reads: ‘Chinese ship carries arms cargo to Mugabe regime’. Here we have a ship full of arms for Robert Mugabe so he can repress the democratic revolt in Zimbabwe, supplied by the same Chinese regime which the Labour government in New Zealand has embraced in a free trade deal, held up by a dockers’ strike in South Africa which, if done in New Zealand, would be illegal under the Employment Relations Act passed by Helen Clark's administration in 2000. Makes you think doesn’t it? This series of events on the on other side of the world highlights just how far Labour is from a progressive politics grounded in basic human rights. It’s all about the almighty dollar, and to hang with basic principles like democracy and workers’ right to strike. To secure a free trade agreement with China that will boost the profits of Fonterra and other NZ companies, Labour is willing to turn a blind eye to human rights abuses in China. And what chance that Helen Clark is going to loudly condemn gun-running by China to help a despotic Zimbabwe regime crush a broad based democratic movement? Not likely. This is the tangled world of pro-corporate profit driven politics without principle that the Labour Party has embraced. The party is no longer a progressive force in New Zealand.

Chinese ship carries arms cargo to Mugabe regime by David Beresford in Johannesburg The Guardian 18 April 2008 A Chinese cargo ship believed to be carrying 77 tonnes of small arms, including more than 3m rounds of ammunition, AK47 assault rifles, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, has docked in the South African port of Durban for transportation of the weapons to Zimbabwe, the South African government confirmed yesterday. It claimed it was powerless to intervene as long as the ship's papers were in order. Copies of the documentation for the Chinese ship, the An Yue Jiang, show that the weapons were sent from Beijing to the ministry of defence in Harare. Headed "Dangerous goods description and container packing certificate", the document was issued on April 1, three days after Zimbabwe's election. It lists the consignment as including 3.5m rounds of ammunition for AK47 assault rifles and for small arms, 1,500 40mm rockets, 2,500 mortar shells of 60mm and 81mm calibre, as well as 93 cases of mortar tubes. The carrier is listed as the Cosco shipping company in China. Continue

Rod Donald was right

Chinese free trade deal will cost human rights and environment

from Green Weekly 16 April 2004 Like a free lunch with Roger Douglas, there is no such thing as ‘free trade’ with China. “Business will go out of business, workers will be put out of work and Labour will lose the support of labour,” said Rod Donald. China’s labour standards make Dickensian sweatshops look enlightened with the number of work related deaths per year equivalent to the population of Greater Wellington. The list of human rights violations are long and include; exporting goods made by bonded and prison labour; prohibiting strikes; repressing attempts to organise unions apart from one government controlled entity; and not ratifying international conventions eliminating forced labour and guaranteeing workers the right to organise. “Free trade means we’ll be forced into a ‘race to the bottom’, as our own labour and environmental standards will be compromised, and our trade deficit with China will balloon past the present $1.3 billion,” said Rod.

Beijing: Clark's gold(en?) medal

by ROD ORAM From Sunday Star Times Sunday, 13 April 2008 http://www.stuff.co.nz/emailafriend/4478130a1865.html With questions from UNITYblog. Rod : The very best thing about the free trade agreement with China is the overwhelmingly positive response from business leaders. No question about this. Rod: For the first time in more than a decade they are actually excited and ambitious about a big opportunity that will improve New Zealand's fortunes. If they follow through with bold strategies and excellent execution, they will start to solve our two biggest economic problems, one external and one internal. Rightly, the government is cautious about the impact of the FTA. It estimates it will generate some $350m a year in trade benefits plus a further $115m in tariff savings. This, though, would be an easy target to beat if business got serious about using the FTA to help New Zealand overcome its weak external performance... Similarly, the FTA could help overcome a serious internal weakness in our economy. As a tiny country far from our main markets, we are drastically short of the people, capital and plants we need to grow faster in more productive, less inflationary ways. By more productive, does Rod mean more exploitative? By less inflationary, does Rod mean less wage increases? Rod: The impact of inbound investment from China will be far greater. It already totalled $1.66b as of March 2006, and much more is expected. For example, the Chinese state electricity grid company is reported to be planning a joint bid with Cheung Kong Infrastructure, a Hong Kong company, for the Wellington electricity lines business being sold by Vector. Will the new Chinese bosses be able to run this contract with cheap indentured Chinese labour, outside New Zealand Labour Laws? Rod: The FTA will have a big impact on our internal economic constraints if New Zealand businesses grasp the opportunity of doing more with China in two ways. The first, is by investing there to get access to the country's abundant industrial resources. Once approved, New Zealand companies will be treated like domestic ones. Will the Chinese workers of these New Zealand companies also be treated in the same brutal manner as they domestic ones? Rod: So far only Fonterra, Nuplex, Skellerup, Glidepath and a handful of other companies have invested in China. Their commitment totalled $333m as of March 2006, the latest figures available. But the FTA will help open up China to many more businesses by giving them a bit more comfort and predictability. Will this greater comfit and predictability for business, be at the experience, of greater discomfit and insecurity for workers, here and in China? Rod: For example, Icebreaker, the Wellington-based clothing company, buys around one-third of the New Zealand merino clip. The wool is processed and made into garments - 1.5m last year - in a cluster of very large, high-technology plants in Shanghai, owned by overseas companies. Has anyone in the government ever investigated the conditions and pay of those working for Icebreaker in these Chinese plants? Do they even care? Rod: That's a very challenging business model that eludes most New Zealand companies. But if more of them began to see such opportunities, they would be far less gloomy than they are currently about their prospects in this tightly constrained domestic market. What are the domestic constraints Rod Oram says makes NZ companies gloomy, why doesn't he mention them? Could these constraints be environmental protections, union rights, labour laws, or safety regulations? Rod: Such a very rare sense of optimism emanated from the 190 business people who travelled with Prime Minister Helen Clark to Beijing for the FTA signing. Travel always works wonders for changing perceptions. The trip might change business perceptions of the prime Minister. Many of the delegates would have seen her up close for the first time. They would have appreciated her deep knowledge of many NZ businesses, her keen interest in their ambitions and strategic issues and her excellent skills communicating and negotiating on their behalf with foreign leaders. Why is a so called Labour Prime Minister negotiating on behalf of business, rather than on behalf of the workers who voted for her? When did our Prime Minister last show a keen interest in the ambitions and strategic issues important to workers? Or ever use her excellent skills communicating and negotiating on their behalf with anybody? Could it be that our Labour Government is only labour in name? Rod: A senior European trade diplomat who saw her in action on a New Zealand trade mission to India in October 2004 once told this columnist that Helen Clark was the best politician he had seen play that role, with the exception of the-then finance minister of Ireland. Our free trade agreement with China is testament to that. But does anyone know who Rod Oram is comparing Helen Clark to? Is this mysteriously unnamed finance minister of Ireland an extreme neo-liberal rightwing fanatic?

NZ jobs must come before free trade

RAM - Residents Action Movement Media release 17 April 2008 "It is obvious that free trade is devastating New Zealand's manufacturing sector and its jobs," said Oliver Woods, co-organiser of RAM - Residents Action Movement. "The latest casualties have come with Fisher & Paykel's decision to close its plant in Dunedin as a consequence of New Zealand's free trade deals with China and Thailand. The corporation will relocate the work overseas to low-wage economies that return higher profits to an already-profitable business that made $61 million after tax last year. " "The NZ government signs a free trade deal with the dictatorial Chinese regime and then stands idly by as Kiwi families struggle with job losses and rising food prices. Meanwhile hardworking taxpayers fund cabinet ministers going on cocktail-fueled free trade missionary expeditions to distant capitals. There is something wrong with this picture!" said Mr Woods. "Workers are caught between the big corporations like Fisher & Paykel who put greater profits before job security, and the big political parties like Labour and National that worship at the altar of free trade, the almighty dollar and radical free market economics. Fisher & Paykel's behaviour is an indicment on the corporate politics of this country!" "RAM stands with the workers who are going to lose their jobs in Dunedin, and their families and their community who are going to suffer with them. New Zealand must put people before profit, and allow workers the dignity of stable, well-paid jobs," said Mr Woods. For more information, contact: Oliver Woods Co-organiser of RAM - Residents Action Movement 021 072 4647 oliver.woods@gmail.com

China FTA - A win win situation for the bosses

The bilateral Free Trade Agreement with China, as well as being generally quarantined from New Zealand Regulation, has a "national treatment" penalty provision. "Each party shall accord to investments and activities associated with such investments, with respect to management, conduct, operation, maintenance, use, enjoyment or disposal, by the investors of the other party treatment no less favourable than that accorded, in like circumstances, to the investments and associated activities by its own investors." This could set the scene for compensation to be paid to Chinese investors for any restrictions are put on their investment, with the proviso that unless these restrictions "may be reasonably justified in the protection of the public welfare, including public health, safety and the environment". As this slim escape clause does not mention employment law, it is probable that the indentured Chinese work teams that NZ employers want to bring here, will be working at grossly inferior rates and conditions to New Zealand locals. It works the other way, like for example Air New Zealand employing Chinese stewards. New Zealand employers will be able to pay much less for these contracts, relying on the brutal enforcement of low wages by their Chinese contractor. The bulk of the money will go to the contractor and not the workers. As the bosses like to say: “a win win situation”.

Principled opposition to FTA with China

We are living in interesting times. The debate on the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with China is one that will either swing to the right or the left. Inside the Labour Party opposition to the FTA is being cast as a racist stance. When the Maori Party opposed the FTA Phil Goff made a statement on TV 3 news that the Maori Party were "prejudiced". Immediately TV3 news went straight into a story about anti-Chinese racism. This harsh and unfair criticism of the Maori Party's principled opposition to the FTA was in sharp contrast to both Labour and National's response to New Zealand First’s belated opposition, which was based on racism and opportunist scapegoating. Instead Labour and National's response to NZ First was conciliatory and even supportive, both parties said they wanted to keep him on as Foreign Minister. In fact Peter's stance has helped them in spreading their fiction that all opposition to the FTA is based on xenophobia. Goff went as far as saying that Peters’ opposition was bullshit – which is true. According to Fran O'Sullivan he did everything to clear the path for the FTA, including calling on people not to be harsh on China over Tibet. And also manipulating the NZ First caucus to postpone their meeting to decide and announce their opposition until after the deal had been signed. The danger of NZ First pandering to anti-Chinese racism, and so gaining kudos for the right, is a real and present danger. Particularly as we predict the costs for working people of this deal will be negative and possibly extremely so. For a racist right wing anti-union xenophobic party to be the beneficiary of Labour's betrayal of working people would be a tragic side-effect of the FTA. As Chinese and Kiwi workers would be pitted against each other. While big business here and in China laughs all the way to the bank. We should be explaining and arguing that the FTA is final proof that the Labour Party has gone from being the advocate of working people to being the advocate of big business. It’s the corporate elites who’ve been calling for the FTA and who will be its beneficiaries. We must make the argument that the FTA will harm both New Zealand and Chinese workers. And that rather than getting workers to compete against each other we should be putting our hand out to our Chinese brothers and sisters to frustrate the practical implementation of this deal. I’m promoting a call inside the union movement to demand that the Chinese indentured work gangs due to be brought here are paid no less than us and receive all the other work rights that we enjoy.

Labour government sticks it to Chinese and NZ workers by signing FTA

We shop until Chinese workers drop By Johann Hari From www.independent.co.uk Thursday, 3 May 2007 She was expected to work 360 days a year from 7.30am to 9.30pm with only a half-hour break. Over the past decade, an old word once used in the Maoist gulags has come back to China. It is "gulaosi" - and it is used to describe the men and women who are literally being worked to death producing clothes, electronics and toys for you and me. Wie Meiren was a standard-issue gulaosi, the kind you can find in every Chinese town. She was a 32-year-old woman with three kids who left her hungry village and travelled to Dongkeng, where she got a job assembling the toy cars for the British kids' market. There, she was expected to work 360 days a year, from 7.30am to as late as 9.30pm, with only a half-hour break for lunch and fines for taking too long on the toilet. As in many Chinese factories, military drills were often yelled: "Long live the company!" If anybody argued back to the managers, they could be punched in the face. One day, Meiren had a family crisis at home. She was forbidden by her bosses from going to take care of it - so she became angry and fainted. She forced herself to keep going to work for the next fortnight, but eventually she became so exhausted she collapsed - and died before she reached the hospital. The autopsy indicated gulaosi - heart and organ failure caused by extreme exhaustion. Some 50,000 fingers are sliced off in China's factories every month. Tao Chun Lan was a 20-year-old woman from Sichuan province at the heart of China who moved to Shenzhen and got a job working in a handicrafts factory. One night, she discovered the factory was filling with smoke - and the workers were locked inside. Some 84 workers were burned or trampled to death. Lan jumped out of a window, irreparably damaging her legs. She has received no compensation. "They don't care if I am crippled for life," she says. Last year, the Chinese dictatorship announced a new draft of labour laws designed finally to allow Chinese workers like her - too late - some basic rights. The new law would permit people like Lan and Meiren to join trade unions. It would give them the right to a written contract. It would give them the right to a severance payment. It would give them the right to change jobs freely. Where previously China's labour rules were diffuse, dispersed and barely enforced, now they would be drawn together and backed with big fines. The dissident-killing Chinese Communist Party didn't propose this change out of a sudden flush of benevolence. They did it because the Chinese people have in increasing numbers been refusing to be tethered serfs for the benefit of Western corporations. Last year, there were 300,000 illegal industrial actions in China, a huge spate of "factory kidnappings" of managers, and more than 85,000 protests. The Chinese people were showing they did not want to leap from a Maoist gulag to a market-fundamentalists' sweatshop. They demanded a sensible compromise: strong trade and markets to generate wealth, matched by strong trade unions to stop markets devouring them. They want an end to grinding poverty, but one that doesn't kill them as they get there. But they bumped into a huge obstacle. Groups representing Western corporations with factories in China sent armies of lobbyists to Beijing to cajole and threaten the dictatorship into abandoning these new workers' protections. The American Chamber of Commerce - representing Microsoft, Nike, Ford, Dell and others - listed 42 pages of objections. The laws were "unaffordable" and "dangerous", they declared. The European Chamber of Commerce backed them up. This is not the first time big business has militated to prevent basic freedoms from being extended to China. Bill Clinton came to office promising "an America that will not coddle dictators, from Beijing to Baghdad", and at first, he acted on this rhetoric, issuing an executive order that decreed trade with China could only grow if China in tandem increased its respect for human rights. Enraged American business executives subjected him to nuclear-strength lobbying - so Clinton ditched his executive order after a year. Ever since, Western governments have been justifying business with the Chinese dictatorship by saying our corporations and trade would inevitably and inexorably bring greater freedom to China. But now the corporations that they claimed would bring freedom and democracy are in fact lobbying to crush freedom and opposing the plain democratic will of the Chinese people. As James Mann, the former Los Angeles Times bureau chief in Beijing, puts it after years of observing the behaviour of big business in China: "The business communities of China and the United States [and, he might have added, Europe] do not harbour dreams of democracy. Both profit from a Chinese system that permits no political opposition, and both are content with it." Their lobbying seems to have paid off. The (unelected) Chinese National People's Congress is due to vote on the new labour laws in the next month or so, but the proposals have already been massively watered down. Scott Slipy, the director of human resources for Microsoft in China, bragged to BusinessWeek, "We have enough investment at stake that we can usually get someone to listen to us if we are passionate about an issue." It seems that Maoism is fine so long as its dictatorial urges are put to the service of Bill Gates and other billionaires, rather than one psychotic dictator. These Western corporations are explicitly seeking a China where a tiny number of extremely rich people are free to organise, but the vast majority of poor people are physically prevented from doing so by the state. Of course, these market fundamentalist economists claim this situation is in fact good for the Chinese people, because this system is the best way to enrich them. The obvious response is: let them decide. If they don't want to join trade unions, if they don't want workplace protections, nobody will force them. But give them the freedom to choose. Or are these economists saying the Chinese people are too stupid to know their own interests? The American and European campaigns showing that we are not all willing to accept their serfdom and profit from it have already had successes. The European Chamber of Commerce has been shamed into retracting its initial opposition to the laws. After lobbying from trade unions and human rights organisations, Nike has now denounced the position of the American Chambers of Commerce to which it belongs and backed the law. The remaining Wal-Martian corporations need to be damned one by one - and subject to legal sanctions - until they relent and accept the rights of Chinese workers. For the sake of millions of people like Lan and Meiren, we need to show these corporations that we refuse to shop until they drop.

Protest Against Free Trade Agreement in China

GLOBAL PEACE & JUSTICE AUCKLAND Media Release: 3 April 2008 Global Peace and Justice Auckland and Unite Union are jointly organising a protest against New Zealand’s Free Trade Agreement with China due to be signed by the Prime Minister on Monday. The protest will gather in Aotea Square, Auckland at 12 noon on Saturday – just two days before the deal is due to be signed. The FTA will be bad for New Zealand workers, bad for Chinese workers as well as bad for human rights and democracy in both countries. It will also be a slap in the face to the Tibetan people struggling for autonomy against oppressive Chinese rule. The proposed FTA has wide implications here. It will cause the further loss of quality jobs (particularly in the manufacturing sector) following the lost of hundreds of thousands of such jobs when tariffs were first slashed in the 1980s. It comes at a time of intense struggle by the people of Tibet against Chinese occupation. Chinese and multinational corporations are active in exploiting minerals in the region while the Tibetan people live under a brutal occupation. Meanwhile Chinese workers continue to work in slave-like conditions of long hours for pitiful pay while Chinese and international businesses make handsome profits. The only way this exploitation is possible is through violent, repressive state control of Chinese workers such as a ban on workers organising independent trade unions. The march will call for: “Free Tibet – not free trade” “Save jobs in New Zealand – Support workers rights in China” John Minto Spokesperson Ph (09) 8463173 (H) (09) 8469496 (W) Mike Treen National Director Unite Union Ph (09) 8452132 (W)

Hone Harawira on the FTA with China

Hone Harawira, MP for Te Tai Tokerau

24 July 2008

I tera wiki, i whakanuitia ana a Rererangi Aotearoa e te Minita Tapoi e Damien O’Connor, i te whakatuwheratanga o te rere-kotahi, mai i a Beijing, ki Tamaki Makaurau.

Last week, Tourism Minister Damien O’Connor was heaping praises upon Air New Zealand as they launched the first non-stop service between Auckland and Beijing.

E mea ana te minita, “he marea hokohoko tino nui ki Haina, mo ake tonu”.

“This very important long-term Chinese market” was how the Minister put it.

E toru ra ki muri, he tirohanga rereke mo tënei ‘marea hokohoko tino nui ki Haina, mo ake tonu’ – na Tatauranga Aotearoa.

Three days later, Statistics New Zealand gave another view about this very important long-term Chinese market.

I te marama o Pipiri, ko heke nga manuhiri no Haina i te 24% i temarama o Pipiri o tera tau, 1600 nga tangata.

Short term visitor arrivals from China in June 2008 were a massive 24 percent down- some 1600 people less than recorded in June 2007.

E rua marama atu i te hainatanga o te Kawenata Hokohoko Noa, kua kite tätou, kaore pea nga huamoni e rite ana ki nga tümanako.

Just two months after the Free Trade Agreement had been signed it appears the economic benefits of the FTA may not be as secure as first envisaged.

Ka matakite te pukapuka a ‘Tü Mai’, a ngä tau tekau e tu mai nei, 61 miriona nga turuhi no Haina, ka haere ki whenua ke. Ko te marea hokohoko whai rawa o Haina tënei, e whakaarohia ana e te Minita Tapoi.

Tü Mai Magazine estimated that in the next ten years, there is a possible 61 million Chinese outbound tourists heading off to distant places. This is the lucrative Chinese Market the Tourism Minister is thinking about.

Engari ko te pätai nui ki a tatou, me pehea te marea hokohoko nei e patari ai ki tenei whenua? He hinaki ranei e mau ai tatou?

But the big question that hangs over all of our heads is – what will it take, to lure this market to our shores? Or will it all be a one-way street?

Ko ngä kaimahi utu-iti, hei maunu ma ngä pakihi o Aotearoa, e raruraru ana i te kainga.

The lure of labour at cheap rates will be an irresistible pull factor for many New Zealand businesses who are struggling to hold it together at home.

Kia penei rawa a Aotearoa nei? Hei kura pae mo Haina?

Is that the type of Aotearoa we want? Just another link in the Made in China brand?

Kua tohutohu mai te ropu Rongomau me te Tika o te Ao, ko te utu ki a tatou, ko ngä turanga mahi rua tekau mano ka ngaro, ko te nuinga he mahi wheketere, i te mutunga o ngä taake hoko mai.

Global Peace and Justice have pointed out that the costs at home may extend up to more than twenty thousand jobs being lost – mostly in manufacturing – as tariffs are phased out and removed.

E maumahara tonu ana tatou ki ngä tau waru tekau – he parekura te whakawateatanga kia hokohoko noa, i pa kino nei ki ngä kaimahi, ara, ngä kaimahi Maori i ngä wheketere.

We all remember the reforms of the 1980s; the savage impact that trade liberalization had for workers, particularly Maori in manufacturing jobs.

E maumahara tonu ana tatou ki te MAI, me tona tahuhu, kia taetae noa mai ngä kamupene nunui o te ao, ki te hoko haere i a tatou rawa.

We remember the Multilateral Agreement on Investment which aimed to allow multi-billion dollar corporates open season on assets in Aotearoa.

A, e möhio anoki tatou, he aitua ki ngä kaimahi o konei, i te wa e whiwhi nui ana ngä kamupene nui o Haina, me ngä taniwha, penei i a Fonterra.

And we know that New Zealand workers will become collateral damage, while Chinese companies and international corporations such as Fonterra will score big time.

Ko ngä hua, e kore e eke ki te utu – engari, ehara te utu i te moni anake.

The stated return is simply not worth the risk – and the costs are not only in monetary terms.

I te wa e ngaro ana te waihanga taputapu ki Haina, ka heke to tatou mana, i etahi atu ahuatanga o tenei piringa, ki to tatou hoa hokohoko hou.

While our manufacturing needs will be outsourced to China, our international reputation will inevitably be tarnished by the other impacts of our relationships with our new trading partner.

I te timatanga o te whakatata haere ki Beijing, e titiro ana te ao ki Haina, kia kitea mena e hiahia ana te kawanatanga ki te whakatika i ana takahanga mana tangata, penei i te whakapai, i te paru ki te one.

As the buildup to Beijing starts cranking up, the international community is looking to China, to see evidence of any political will to clean up its human rights violations as comprehensively as it has got rid of the algae on its beaches.

Engari, aue taukuri e, e ai ki ngä korero a Amnesty International, ka whakawhiu tonu atu te käwanatanga, i ngä kaiwawao, mana tangata.

But sadly the reports from Amnesty International indicate that far from it the official persecution of human rights activists continues.

Kino atu i tera, kei te mauhere tonu ngä kaiwawao, ratou e tohu ana i ngä hara a te kawanatanga, kia tika katoa ai i mua o te timatanga o te Tauwhainga Olympic.

Worse yet, human rights defenders who are speaking out about violations are being detained, imprisoned as part of the pre-Olympics clean-up.

E maumahara ana au ki tetahi kauhau a te Pirimia i te Akoranga Rongomau i te Whare Wananga o Tamaki Makaurau, ka penei ia: “Kei te tino maharahara au, ina whakawaireka te kawanatanga Nahinara ki a ratou o Ahia, e kore e taea, ta ratou whakamaru mana tangata, te kite.”

I am reminded of a speech the Prime Minister once made to the Auckland University Centre for Peace Studies, in which she said, and I quote: “I am very concerned that the National government has chosen a path of ingratiation with those in Asia whose human rights record is poor”.

Kia marama ai tatou, na te tino kino te takahi mana tangata o Haina, ka tuhi atu a Amnesty International i tetahi reta, i runga i ngä aue a te tini mano, huri noa i te ao, e karanga ana kia Haina, kia whakatikangia ngä mana tangata, kua roa ke, e taamia ana.

Just to make it quite clear – the human rights record in the People’s Republic of China is so poor that Amnesty International has sent a letter, inspired by what they describe as hundreds of thousands of voices from around the world, echoing the call to address the longstanding human rights concerns.

Tera ka mate ano te matauranga tuku iho a ngä tupuna, i ngä mahi whakawaireka a te kawanatanga.

Another likely victim of this political path of ingratiation is the risks inherent to intellectual and cultural heritage.

Kua tohu mai tera pukenga pakihi a Aroha Mead, kei totohu ngä toi Maori i te waipuke mai, o ngä taputapu noa.

Maori business senior lecturer, Aroha Mead, has warned about the likely threat that Maori art will become swamped by mass production.

Nana ano te whakatupato, kei waimeha te tohu mana o Toi Iho, i te nui o ngä taputapu tinihanga, e hokona ana.

She has also suggested that the toi iho trademark which protects quality Maori arts and crafts may well be devalued as the market becomes flooded with cheap, gaudy products.

I te wa o te Komiti Tirohanga, ka penei tonu ngä karanga a te Ropu Tapoi Maori o Aotearoa, a Toi Maori Aotearoa, a Ngä Aho Whakaari, ratou ko Kia Kaha (clothing), ko Huia (publishers) e tautoko ana.

During the select committee process, these same concerns came through loud and clear from the New Zealand Maori Tourism Society, Toi Maori Aotearoa, Nga Aho Whakaari (Maori in film, video and TV), supported by Kia Kaha clothing and Huia Publishers.

Ehara enei i te ihu hupe.

These are not lightweights by any means.

He umanga ta pukapuka a Huia kua whiwhi tohu, otira nana ano to matou mana o Aotearoa i whakapumau, na te whakamatau, na te whiriwhiri, na te whakaputa i taua mana motuhake ki te ao.

Huia is not only an award winning publisher but their works have made a significant contribution our identity as a nation - defining, creating and expressing our distinctive edge on the world stage.

Kei a Kia Kaha te tikanga o nga kakahu mo to tatou toa hauporo mo Cambo, mo nga kakahu hoki mo o tatou kapa ki nga tauwhainga o te ao, otira ka hokona atu a ratou kakahu ki Poihakena, ki Amerika, ki Uropi hoki.

Kia Kaha not only has the clothing contract for our top golfer Cambo, and previous Commonwealth Games uniforms, but boasts wholesale and retail customers in Australia, the UK, US and Europe.

Ko Nga Aho Whakaari te ropu o nga kaimahi Maori whakaata, nga kaiwhakatu whakaari, nga ringa tohu, nga kaimahi hangarau, nga kaituhi hoki, puta noa te ao.

Ngā Aho Whakaari is the national representative body for Māori working in film, video and television in New Zealand so includes internationally acclaimed actors, directors, producers, technicians and writers across its reach.

Tena, i te hui tahi ngä ropu nei, ki te tiaki i te rangatiratanga, me mataara te ao, me ki, to tatou ao Maori.

So when these groups get together, out of concern for the protection of rangatiratanga, the world needs to sit up and listen – well at least our world anyway.

I mea atu ratou ki te Komiti, me whakau ngä ture i te tikanga, kia tautoko te Karauna i te rangatiratanga Maori o ngä taonga katoa, tae atu ki te matauranga.

They told the select committee that the legislation needs to reflect the Crown’s active duty to protect Maori authority and control over taonga and matauranga.

E whakaae ana matou ki te take, i kokiritia e te Uru Kahikatea (FOMA), me tupu te ohanga whanui, kia ora ai ngä pakihi Maori.

While we acknowledge the points made by the Federation of Maori Authority, that economic growth is essential for Maori businesses to succeed, we cannot turn a blind eye to the risks and responsibilities we hold to argue for ethical investment.

Engari, e kore matou e whakaae, ki te whakaaro kuware o te Komiti, ma te whai rawa haere o Haina, ma te whakawhanaunga haere ki te ao whanui, e kaha ake ai ta ratou arai i ngä mana tangata.

We simply cannot accept the rather naïve excuse put up by the select committee, that growing prosperity and engagement with the outside world is likely to be linked with better human rights in China.

E kore matou e whakapono, ma te Kawenata Hokohoko Pokanoa me to tatou whenua iti nei, ka kitea a Haina i te maramatanga, kia huri ai rätou, ki te ara tika.
It simply doesn’t wash with us that the Free Trade Agreement China has signed up to with our little country, will make the mighty superpower see the light and change their ways.

Hei whakakapinga korero; i a tatou e whakatata ana ki te waru o ngä ra o Hereturikoka, e mohio ana tatou, kei te whakaaro ngä rangatira nunui o te ao, tera me huri tuara ratou ki te ra whakatuwheratanga o te Tauwhainga Olympic, hei tohu whakahe i te takahanga a Haina i ngä mana tangata, i te mana motuhake o Tibet.

Finally, as we count-down to August 8, we know that international leaders from across the globe are considering whether they might boycott the Olympics Opening ceremonies as a powerful criticism over China’s human rights record and security crackdown in Tibet.

Ka pera ano to tatou whakahe? – ka huri ranei tatou ki te whakawaireka i a Hori Puihi, i a ia e whakawaireka ana ki a Haina?

Will we be prepared to also show our concern - or will we instead be sidling up to President Bush as he in turn sidles up to China?

E kore matou o te Paati Maori e piupiu i te haki whakapono, ki te Kawenata Hokohoko Pokanoa.

We in the Maori Party will not be waving the flag of faith in the FTA.

Tuturu, e tautoko ana matou i te ohanga Maori, e kite ana matou i ngä painga ki ngä iwi e puta mai ana i te hokohoko kaimoana, mahi täpoi ki a Haina.

Of course we want every opportunity to support Maori economic advancement, and we recognize the opportunities that iwi see in China, particularly in the area of seafood exports and tourism.

Engari me pehea mätou, e huri ke i te taamitanga taikaha o ngä reo motuhake o Tibet, he takahanga tera i te tangata whenua?

But how can we with any conscience, overlook the brutal repression of dissent in Tibet which represents a callous disregard for the rights of indigenous peoples.

E mataara ana matou ki ngä tara koi i roto i te hokohoko pokanoa, pai ke ati ki a mätou, te hokohoko tika.

We remain concerned about the fish-hooks in free trade rather than the justice of fair trade.

E rapu ana matou i ngä huarahi e tiakina ai te taiao, ngä mana tangata, me ngä tikanga mahi.

We seek strategies which are about protection of the environment, human rights and worker rights.

I te tonga o te ra, he taumaha rawa te utu o ngä turanga mahi, ngä utu mahi, ngä matauranga mahi, te mana motuhake, e ngari katoa ai. E kore matou e tautoko i te Ture mo te Kawenata Hokohoko Pokanoa me Haina.

And in the long run, we calculate the costs of lost employment, lost wages, lost expertise, lost independence, as a cost too big to bear. We do not support the New Zealand China Free Trade legislation.

Russel Norman: speech to parliament on FTA with China

This trade agreement between New Zealand and China fails to protect the sovereignty of the democratically elected Government of New Zealand, and it places significant restrictions on the future ability of the New Zealand Government and Parliament to pass regulations to protect the people and environment of Aotearoa New Zealand. There are many reasons why the New Zealand Government should not have signed this preferential trade agreement with China, not least of which is the fact that New Zealand signed this agreement while China was involved in the murderous oppression of the people of Tibet. It is also of grave concern that this agreement has no binding labour or environmental standards. The lower wages and standards in China will effectively be a non-tariff barrier to fair trade, giving corporations that pollute or pay inhumane wages a competitive advantage over those that do not. However, here I wish to focus on the investment provisions and expose the risks to our people, our environment, and our sovereignty. The investment chapter of the agreement, chapter 11, taken together with the annex defining expropriation, annex 13, effectively forms a bilateral investment treaty between our two countries. This bilateral investment treaty inhibits the ability of the two Governments to regulate the businesses of foreign investors without compensating those investors for the cost of those regulations. The investment treaty means that a Chinese corporation operating in New Zealand can sue the New Zealand Government if the Government changes regulations, resulting in a loss of value for that corporation. And if there is a dispute between a Chinese investor and the New Zealand Government as to whether the Government should compensate the investor, and to what extent, then the dispute is to be resolved in an international forum established under the auspices of the World Bank or the United Nations. The effect of this investment treaty will be to place a chill over the ability or willingness of the New Zealand Government and Parliament to regulate the business activities of Chinese corporations operating in New Zealand, for fear of facing binding claims for compensation in international tribunals. This will make it much harder for our Government to carry out its duty to protect and advance the well-being of the people and environment of Aotearoa New Zealand. Bilateral investment treaties have received an increasing amount of attention in the international law literature. This is for the simple reason that more and more bilateral investment treaties are being signed, and more and more cases are ending up in international courts or tribunals of one description or another. Corporations are suing Governments in international judicial hearings on a regular basis. In Canada, the University of Victoria's Faculty of Law has an investment treaty arbitration website that provides access to all publicly available investment treaty awards, and lists over 200 cases since 1996. It was long standard fare for treaties to protect corporations from expropriation; from the direct acquisition of a company by a Government without compensation. What is new is that now corporations are successfully suing Governments for what they call "indirect expropriation". Indirect expropriation is where a Government changes laws or regulations, or acts in some way that impacts on a corporation's activities, resulting in loss of profits and hence value for that corporation. In these cases the owner's title to an asset is protected but the value of that asset declines. The New Zealand-China preferential trade deal contains two components that together constitute a bilateral investment treaty between New Zealand and China. Those are chapter 11 and annex 13. The core of chapter 11 is article 145, which, I imagine, almost none of the members of this House have read, except me. It says that the New Zealand Government cannot expropriate Chinese investors unless the expropriation is fully compensated, and vice versa. If there are any disputes between a Chinese investor and the New Zealand Government, the investor can seek redress at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes or through the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. Central to such disputes is the definition of "expropriation". This definition has been of critical importance to bilateral investment disputes overseas. There have been several cases where arbitrators have deemed that measures taken to protect the environment have expropriated investors, and that is extremely and directly applicable to this treaty. For example, in the case of Metalclad v Mexico, an international trade tribunal ruled that Mexico had violated the North American free-trade agreement in preventing Metalclad Corporation from opening a hazardous waste treatment and disposal site in Mexico. The tribunal found that local government opposition to the project amounted to expropriation of the company's profits. Public protest against Metalclad's approval for the waste treatment led to local authorities investigating the potential environmental impacts of the treatment site. An environmental impact assessment revealed that the site was on top of an ecologically sensitive underground alluvial stream. As a result, the governor refused to allow Metalclad to operate the facility, and later declared it part of an ecological zone. Metalclad claimed that this action effectively expropriated its future expected profits, and although it was awarded less than the $90 million in damages it sought, its claim was successful. There are more cases like this in international tribunals, and it is clear that measures taken by States to protect human health or the environment can be found by international arbitrators to be expropriation, resulting in large financial penalties. The key question is whether State action to regulate is considered a form of indirect expropriation. The definition of expropriation is addressed in annex 13, which I cannot imagine many other people here have read. This is really at the core of the agreement and what it might mean for the ability of the New Zealand Government to regulate without compensation. I will assess annex 13 from the perspective of its relationship to the ability of a State to regulate when such regulation results in the partial loss of value to a Chinese investor's asset. Annex 13 has five paragraphs. Paragraph 1 states: "An action or a series of actions by a Party cannot constitute an expropriation unless . . . it interferes with a property right". This is a simple test to meet. Most State actions would interfere with property investment when the State is trying to regulate, and it costs something. Paragraph 2(b) states that indirect expropriation occurs "when a state takes an investor's property in a manner equivalent to direct expropriation, in that it deprives the investor in substance of the use of the investor's property". The kind of State action where State regulation costs money to a corporation protecting the environment is exactly the kind that would be caught by paragraph 2. Paragraph 3 states: "In order to constitute indirect expropriation, the state's deprivation of the investor's property must be: (a) either severe or for an indefinite period; and (b) disproportionate to the public purpose." Clearly, if the State was trying to regulate to protect the environment it would be permanent, and the question of whether it would be disproportionate would be decided by an international panel. Whether the Government's judgment was allowed would be determined by an international disputes panel. Paragraph 4 states that if one targets a particular class of investor, one is very likely to get caught up in expropriating. That is an easy provision to meet if, for example, one targets a bunch of agricultural producers or dairy farmers and tries to clean them up. Paragraph 5 states-and this is probably what the Government is hoping will protect it-"such measures taken in the exercise of a state's regulatory powers as may be reasonably justified in the protection of the public welfare, including public health, safety and the environment, shall not constitute indirect expropriation." Paragraph 5 gives the appearance of protecting State action. It says that State actions to protect public welfare do not constitute indirect expropriation. But there is an important exemption and an important qualifier. The exemption is that it does not cover the kinds of actions where any particular industry or class of investors is targeted. The qualifier is the term "reasonably justified". Even if the State action does not meet the terms of paragraph 4-that is, targeting a class of investors-it must still be reasonably justified, and an international panel will decide whether the actions of the Government are reasonably justified. There is not even any guidance. Once the exemption and the qualifier in paragraph 5 are included, the protection to State action looks weak. This is why Professor Matthew Porterfield from Georgetown University, an international expert in trade law, said that in our agreement with China we are actually exposing ourselves to greater risk of legal action than the US Government faces under its investment clauses. So a close reading of chapter 11 and annex 13 makes it clear that any kind of New Zealand Government regulatory action that negatively affects the value of Chinese investors' assets is wide open to action being taken against the New Zealand Government by the Chinese investors. Where the New Zealand Government action particularly affects a class of investors, then the Government's only defence is to show that its actions were proportionate to the public purpose intended. It will be up to an international panel to decide whether the action was proportionate, regardless of the view of the people or Government of New Zealand. Where a State action does not affect a particular class of investors or is not in breach of a contract, then the Government has a better opportunity to win its case, but only if the tribunal agrees that the Government's action was reasonably justified to protect public welfare. Thus, the New Zealand Government will have two lines of defence, but both of them involve convincing a non-elected, international panel that the actions of the Government were proportionate or reasonable to achieve the public purpose desired.

NZ Labour - a party without principle

A recent headline in The Guardian (18 April) reads: ‘Chinese ship carries arms cargo to Mugabe regime’. Here we have a ship full of arms for Robert Mugabe so he can repress the democratic revolt in Zimbabwe, supplied by the same Chinese regime which the Labour government in New Zealand has embraced in a free trade deal, held up by a dockers’ strike in South Africa which, if done in New Zealand, would be illegal under the Employment Relations Act passed by Helen Clark's administration in 2000. Makes you think doesn’t it? This series of events on the on other side of the world highlights just how far Labour is from a progressive politics grounded in basic human rights. It’s all about the almighty dollar, and to hang with basic principles like democracy and workers’ right to strike. To secure a free trade agreement with China that will boost the profits of Fonterra and other NZ companies, Labour is willing to turn a blind eye to human rights abuses in China. And what chance that Helen Clark is going to loudly condemn gun-running by China to help a despotic Zimbabwe regime crush a broad based democratic movement? Not likely. This is the tangled world of pro-corporate profit driven politics without principle that the Labour Party has embraced. The party is no longer a progressive force in New Zealand.

Chinese ship carries arms cargo to Mugabe regime David Beresford in Johannesburg The Guardian 18 April 2008 A Chinese cargo ship believed to be carrying 77 tonnes of small arms, including more than 3m rounds of ammunition, AK47 assault rifles, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, has docked in the South African port of Durban for transportation of the weapons to Zimbabwe, the South African government confirmed yesterday. It claimed it was powerless to intervene as long as the ship's papers were in order. Copies of the documentation for the Chinese ship, the An Yue Jiang, show that the weapons were sent from Beijing to the ministry of defence in Harare. Headed "Dangerous goods description and container packing certificate", the document was issued on April 1, three days after Zimbabwe's election. It lists the consignment as including 3.5m rounds of ammunition for AK47 assault rifles and for small arms, 1,500 40mm rockets, 2,500 mortar shells of 60mm and 81mm calibre, as well as 93 cases of mortar tubes. The carrier is listed as the Cosco shipping company in China. South Africa's national conventional arms control committee issued a permit on Monday for the trans-shipment of the cargo from Durban to Harare. The head of government information in South Africa, Themba Maseko, said yesterday: "We are not in a position to act unilaterally and interfere in a trade deal between two countries." South Africa had to "tread very carefully", given the complexity of the situation in Zimbabwe, Maseko said. South Africa was not encouraging the purchase of weapons by Zimbabwe, he said, pointing out that there was no UN trade embargo against that country. But Tony Leon, the South African opposition foreign affairs spokesman, said the shipment was tantamount to "putting a fuse in a powder keg". Dockers in Durban were refusing last night to unload the ship. The SA Transport and Allied Workers Union's general secretary, Randall Howard, said: "Satawu does not agree with the position of the government not to intervene with this shipment of weapons. Our members will not unload this cargo, neither will any of our members in the truck-driving sector move this cargo by road." Despite international criticism, the Chinese government has been a longstanding backer of Zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe's authoritarian regime, supplying it with jet fighters, military vehicles and guns. China, or Chinese businesses, are reported to have sold radio-jamming devices to prevent independent stations from contradicting the state-controlled media, and have signed vital agriculture deals. Even the blue tiles on Mugabe's latest 25-bedroom mansion, reminiscent of Beijing's Forbidden City, were a gift from China. China has in the past used its veto at the UN security council to prevent the Zimbabwe issue from being raised, on the grounds that the country's problems were an internal matter. In Britain, William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, said last night: "The international community must speak with one voice on Zimbabwe. We call on China, as part of that community, to suspend arms sales to Zimbabwe. "The Mugabe regime continues to deny the right of the people of Zimbabwe to choose their leaders. To supply arms to it at time when opposition activists are being intimidated and attacked, not only sends the wrong signal, but will harm the reputation of China. "In addition, it is time that neighbouring states like South Africa made clear that such shipments are not welcome." The Foreign Office was more cautious. A spokeswoman said that Britain backed an EU ban on arms sales to Zimbabwe and was encouraging other governments to do the same. The FO said it was monitoring the situation and seeking to verify reports about the ship's cargo. A spokesman for China's foreign ministry said it was aware of the reports about the shipment, but needed more time to look into the matter. The disclosure about the ship's cargo follows claims by an official from the Zimbabwe opposition Movement for Democratic Change that Chinese soldiers had been seen in the country. There were some signs yesterday that South Africa may at last be bending under international pressure, when the cabinet joined calls for the release of Zimbabwe's election results. Zimbabwe's opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, called on South Africa's president, Thabo Mbeki, to stand down as the chief mediator in the country's election crisis, as the US criticised African governments for lack of action on the issue. "It is time for Africa to step up," the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, said. Tsvangirai told a news conference in Johannesburg: "President Mbeki needs to be relieved from his duty." Mbeki, is also under pressure from Jacob Zuma, the leader of the ruling African National Congress. Zuma has adopted a more hostile attitude towards Mugabe, saying that "the region cannot afford a deepening crisis in Zimbabwe".