Yep - we're the guys from across the sea who will undercut your wage rates and working conditions, avoid your tariffs (see CER below) and generally set a bad example. Long live globalisation eh?
> >
> >I don't quite understand the CER and would appreciate a quick note on the
> >thing.
CER ("Closer Economic Relations") is a free trade agreement between Australia and New Zealand. It grew out of (the original!) NAFTA - the New Zealand Australia Free Trade Agreement - which didn't open things up enough for some, and so was extended. There is complete free trade in goods (since 1990).
A protocol was signed in 1988 for the progressive removal of restrictions on flows of services and investment. It is now getting into standards. For example there is an agreement that allows airlines in one the same rights in the other as they have at home ("Single Aviation Market"). There is an understanding to allow favourable treatment to investment between the two. New Zealand no longer has its own food standards: we're simply represented on the Australian authority; hence in practice - though we nominally have the right to opt out on individual standards - we have to accept Australian standards (which are lower in the area of food additives for example). The latest is an agreement for common recognition of all qualifications.
It is claimed here that most of the benefits of CER have gone to New Zealand. However in trade what has happened is that the volume of trade has increased, but the balance still runs in Australia's favour. There have been a number of examples in both directions of companies closing down and moving across the Tasman for cost advantages. Australian-based companies move here for lower costs; New Zealand based companies move there for subsidies and larger markets. I don't know if any studies have been done as to the overall trends.
However there has been massive investment from Australia in New Zealand: most of our major banks are now Australian owned for example - to the extent that our Reserve Bank has virtually abandoned any supervisory requirements because they can fall back on Australian ones. (That's not the only reason of course: it suits their deregulatory outlook, which is to "promote a sound and efficient financial system", rather than protect depositors.) The large Australian investment in New Zealand is an historic thing though - CER has further encouraged it. There is also considerable investment from New Zealand (notably corporate raiders) in Australia.
We're almost at the stage now where we might be better off economically to join Australia: we'd then at least benefit from the redistributive effects of the Australian tax system!
>
> Rob,
>
> Good to hear from you again. What in the name of Jesus is CER? The
> enemy are everywhere- one could get quite paranoid about all these
> abbreviations which usually mean 'doom'.
>
> Now do not be too pessimistic about the future. (Can't believe I
> wrote that!)
>
> I am convinced a general fight back is coming. NZ from what I have
> seen could turn very violent and a very difficult country to govern
> before any one could suspect it. They are much less Anglo and
> consequently a lot less moderate than Australians.
Interesting brand of racism this: I don't recognise the country you're talking about. Actually we're probably more Anglo than you: you've had much more variety in your sources of immigration.
Probably what you're referring to is the indigenous Maori population (1996 16% of the population). They (with excellent reason) are increasingly disaffected, due both to the treacherous colonial history of the country which cheated them of their land and self-determination, and to current economic policies which have impacted on them much more harshly (on every indicator) than the non-Maori ("Pakeha") population. A large part (but not all) of the latter can be accounted for by their overwhelmingly working-class and poverty-stricken rural backgrounds. This has produced increasingly militant reactions from some, and in many ways the only effective fight-back against government policies. On the other hand however the government has deliberately created a wealthy Maori capitalist class who have control of the proceeds of Treaty of Waitangi grievance settlements.
There's hope there, if there is some unity between Maori and Pakeha. There is certainly considerable sympathy amongst Pakeha for the way Maori have been treated. Maori have frequently been strong trade unionists, so there is considerable sympathy there. The backlash is currently being fanned by Roger Douglas's rump party, ACT, but is small as yet. Whether the sympathy goes as far as militant action is a different matter.
Bill
Bill Rosenberg, w.rosenberg at csc.canterbury.ac.nz. Ph 64 3 3642801. Fax 64 3 3642332. Room 211, Ext 6801