spinofflive
global

PoliticsOctober 30, 2017

How international issues could gatecrash the Ardern honeymoon

global

Attempts to renegotiate the TPP provide the immediate task, but defence also looms as a big challenge for a government with three key internationally focused positions filled by NZ First MPs, writes the director of the Centre for Strategic Studies, David Capie

One of the biggest surprises to emerge from talks to form a new government last week was the allocation of three international roles to New Zealand First. Winston Peters returns to the foreign minister’s job he held during Helen Clark’s third term, former soldier Ron Mark takes on defence, and Fletcher Tabuteau gets the job of under-secretary for foreign affairs, a position outside cabinet.

For NZ First to take one of the important outward-facing jobs might have been unremarkable, but to get three set Wellington tongues wagging. After an election dominated by domestic issues such as housing, health and child poverty, some wondered if the allocation of these portfolios to the junior coalition member meant we should expect a more introspective government with reduced attention to international issues.

There is no doubt Labour will have its hands full advancing an ambitious domestic agenda and drafting a mini-budget before Christmas. But Jacinda Ardern is an internationalist in the Helen Clark mould and never likely to take a hands-off attitude to New Zealand’s wider interests. Even if she were minded to focus on Labour’s domestic-focused 100-day action plan, international issues have a found way to gatecrash the new government’s honeymoon. Indeed, the next few weeks promise to be a fascinating test of its policy settings and the cohesion of the new three-party governing arrangement.

The new foreign minister, Winston Peters, and the prime minister, Jacinda Ardern. Photo: Labour Party

First up will be a series of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum meetings in Vietnam from 5-11 November followed by the East Asia Summit in the Philippines a few days later. As it did for John Key in Lima in 2008, APEC will provide the new prime minister with a remarkable opportunity to get the measure of her regional and global counterparts. Ardern is assured of glowing coverage as she shares the limelight with presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping, as well as more like-minded partners such as Justin Trudeau of Canada and Michelle Bachelet of Chile. But away from the cameras, APEC and the East Asia Summit will also provide the prime minister and her foreign minister with the chance to set out the government’s positions on a host of regional security issues like the South China Sea and North Korea, and on various proposals for bilateral and regional economic integration. Foreign counterparts will be carefully scrutinising Ardern’s language to see if there is any shift from the Key-English government’s settings.

The biggest challenge will come in how the government responds to the pressure to conclude a TPP-11 by the time leaders meet on the sidelines of APEC on 10 November. Labour has strong credentials in support of free trade but wants to renegotiate the Trans Pacific Partnership, now absent the US, to allow NZ to restrict foreign ownership of housing. Winston Peters has similar concerns and has also criticised TPP’s Investor States Dispute Settlement process (ISDS) – a position he shares with the Greens, whose members loathe almost everything about the agreement.

Trade negotiators are holding their final round of meetings in Japan today to see if they can settle on a final deal to take to trade ministers. There are various ways to skin the cat of foreign ownership, but opening up negotiations to revise the ISDS provisions looks harder. When Peru raised the possibility of making changes recently, Japanese officials bluntly warned them they’d go with a TPP-10 if necessary.

This will put significant pressure on David Parker to find a compromise that can be sold to the three governing parties and their diverse supporters. The new trade minister’s most recent comments suggest the government thinks it may be able to introduce legislation to restrict foreign buyers before a TPP deal comes into force. But Parker was notably less firm on the ISDS, saying only that he’d asked New Zealand’s negotiators to use their “best endeavours” to get the clause out.

It’s hard to imagine a New Zealand government walking away from a deal that would offer a long-sought FTA with Japan, especially at a time when protectionism is on the march globally. But if a renegotiation isn’t possible, Prime Minister Ardern will find herself with a difficult decision: opt out and raise questions about New Zealand’s commitment to trade liberalisation or opt in and disappoint some of her supporters just a few months into her term. Comments blaming the former government for the predicament New Zealand finds itself in suggest the ground might be being prepared for the latter.

If trade will provide the new government with one big call to make, other challenges lie in defence. On national security, New Zealand First’s instincts are to the right of National, and prior to the election its MPs talked of doubling defence spending and restoring an offensive capability to the Air Force. In contrast, Labour’s Grant Robertson hinted that there might be cuts, calling planned acquisitions “a $20 billion wish list” and saying he wants to take a close look to make sure New Zealand is getting value for money.

The Labour-New Zealand First coalition agreement squares this circle by including an ambiguous commitment to “re-examine the Defence procurement programme in the context of the 2016 Defence Capability Plan budget”. Officials will be keen to find out what this means, but they already know Ron Mark as a long-standing critic of defence procurement. He is certain to want to take another look at prospective purchases, the most urgent of which is the replacement for the ancient P-3K Orions.

None of the parties in government will see any advantage in announcing billions in new defence spending so soon after an election focused on dealing with domestic problems. Some sort of strategic review – potentially even a new Defence White Paper – looks likely to buy time and reassess priorities. But there is a looming logjam in defence modernisation: maritime surveillance is only one of several big-ticket items coming up for replacement. If the dark economic clouds Winston Peters has warned about come to pass, then a major rethink in the structure of New Zealand’s defence force might be in the offing.

Handing three internationally-focused positions to New Zealand First was one of the bigger surprises to come out of last week’s announcement, but it plainly does not signal a coalition government disengaged from global and regional affairs. Rather, there are some early signs from the coalition of a pragmatic approach to international issues that Helen Clark would recognise. There will be change, but for the most part there won’t be a dramatic departure from what we’ve seen over the last nine years. However, TPP and defence could yet be the exceptions to the rule. It may be that dealing with international issues is where the new prime minister’s formidable political and communication skills are going to be needed most.

Keep going!
Angry driver shouting out car window, presumably at high petrol prices (File photo)
Angry driver shouting out car window, presumably at high petrol prices (File photo)

AucklandOctober 30, 2017

How to calm down if you’re mad at the Auckland fuel tax

Angry driver shouting out car window, presumably at high petrol prices (File photo)
Angry driver shouting out car window, presumably at high petrol prices (File photo)

If you’re anything like the Herald’s readers, you’ve spent most of the last week weeping about Labour’s fuel tax. Hayden Donnell provides some good reasons to rein in your grief.

Labour has announced it will raise taxes on fuel in Auckland by roughly 10c a litre, and everyone is freaking out. People are screaming that they won’t pay an extra cent in tax to fix Auckland’s broken public transport system, which is broken because for decades people have been screaming that they won’t pay a cent more tax to fix it. Many of them would rather leave the city than pay the cost of an extra coffee every week for something resembling a functional rail network.

The rage has been stoked by National Party MPs. Their actions are a sobering glimpse at the party’s strategy for the next three years, which seems to be rallying an army of Herald and Stuff commenters and riding into Parliament atop a tidal wave of pure idiocy.

The good news though is that everyone can calm down. I’ve taken the time to address all of your fears individually.

Judith Collins

If you’re Judith Collins, and you oppose “trolleys” going to the airport, you need to remind yourself your own Government supported “trolleys” to the airport in its transport plan for Auckland. The only difference between Labour’s plan and your Auckland Transport Alignment Plan (ATAP) is the timeframe. ATAP set the finish date on light rail at roughly 30 years from now. Labour wants to fast-track it.

But maybe you’ve familiarised yourself with your own Government’s policies and you still feel a roiling rage over trolleys. “If trolleys are so great, why won’t they pay for themselves?” you think as you dissect a series of still-squirming lizards on your kitchen bench.

If that’s the case, maybe remember the Roads of National Significance your Government funded. All of them cost more money than they earned, then kept costing money, and continue to cost money today. Think of the East-West Link, which your Government promised to fund despite the fact it was literally a gigantic black hole sucking in wads of cash.

Light rail to the airport has a better business case than any of those projects. So maybe consider that you’re either a gigantic hypocrite or it’s not fiscal prudence you’re concerned about.

David Seymour

If you’re David Seymour, come to realise that this is one of those arguments that seems smart on the surface but reveals itself to be pant-crappingly stupid after roughly four seconds’ thought. It’s kind of like arguing that if people buy cigarettes, the tax on their cigarettes should go toward helping them buy more cigarettes.

People are paying the fuel tax because decades of underfunding and backwards-looking transport policy have left them with little choice but to drive. That’s bad because roads are a good way to use space inefficiently and warm the planet, while paying a lot of money at the same time. The fuel tax will help give people another option.

Even if this is unconvincing, you could reflect on tax as a whole. Is it normal for someone who’s not sick to pay tax so that people who are sick can get care? For people who aren’t in school to pay for children to get education? Is it actually kind of normal to pay tax for things you don’t personally benefit from?

Homeowners

Your house rose in value by an average of 85% in the four years to 2016. Think of the $4-10 extra you spend each week on fuel as giving up roughly 2% of the annual untaxed profit on your house to make sure people who don’t have houses can at least take an electrified train home to their uninsulated garage.

If that thought enrages you, it’s possible you own more than one house, and are one of the…

Property investors

You’ve made approximately $4 trillion in untaxed capital gains in the last 10 years, systematically pricing lower income families out of the market, and now you’re shouting about how a fuel tax will hurt “low income families”. Have you no shame, sir?

Herald commenters threatening to leave Auckland

Ah crap, you’re right! The fuel tax is going to ruin your life! Leave now!

Mid-to-high-income non-homeowners

This will cost you like half the price of the avocado on toast you love to eat instead of saving for a home deposit, you insufferable latté-drinking, podcast-listening, AA-calling excuse for an adult.

Low-income families

This seems fair. The fuel tax could hurt low-income families, especially in the period where public transport infrastructure is still being developed. Targeted road tolls could be a fairer option, but they’re costly and time-consuming to implement. However, Labour is also raising the minimum wage, which should have flow-on effects for low-income earners, and extending Working For Families. Both could help people get through the time while the Government is still busy making up for the borderline criminal negligence of past administrations.

 

The Spinoff Auckland is sponsored by Heart of the City, the business association dedicated to the growth of downtown Auckland as a vibrant centre for entertainment, retail, hospitality and business.

Politics