I think there’s a real chance that Fonterra, and potentially other major agricultural exporters, will find themselves losing some of their EU access well before they gain any countervailing access to the UK. That could cause big problems for us, and we should be hedging ourselves against that possibility with haste.
The EU and the UK will have to negotiate over how the tariff quotas are divided up, then have to consult with other WTO members (including NZ) over the amendments.
Under WTO rules, the renegotiation process is meant to ensure that any changes are "not less favourable to trade ... prior to such negotiations". If not, compensation is required.
Now NZ is likely to be vulnerable to political machinations between the EU and the UK as the EU/UK tries to force the other to take on more of the quota.
But there should not be a net loss of market access for NZ exporters
The last year where we have real data now is 2014/5 (released today), when house prices rose 11.1%. As late as May 2015, when that fiscal year was already over, Treasury was forecasting house prices or only 6.8%. They were miles out, even after the fact.
For this year and the 2016/7 year, Treasury have had to continualy revise their forecsts up and up and up as we draw nearer.
For the 2015/6 year just ended, Treasury currently thinks house prices rose by 8.9%. A year ago, they thought that number would be 5.2%. A year before that, 4.3%. It’s the same story for the 2016/7 year, with the forecast price rises changing from 2.5% to 3% to 7.7% as we get closer to the time.
Minor point, but this year Treasury moved its economic forecasts from the March to June year to match up with fiscal forecasts.
The 8.9% forecast for 15/16 and the 11.1% actual for 14/15 published this week are both June years, not March.
To enable comparison with previous forecasts, Treasury included an additional table at the end of the online BEFU, which has a forecast 9.9% for the year to March 2016, and an actual increase of 9.0% in the year to March 2015.
some sort of pass system
A tax on buyers from other regions would do nicely.
In Colorado, buyers from outside the state can only purchase 1/4 oz at a time whereas residents can buy 1 oz.
Colorado model seems to be working the best so far in US states that have legalised. Think this is because recreational retail system was based upon a pre-existing and well functioning medical retail system. And age restrictions are enforced with far greater rigour than with alcohol, you can't even walk into a pot retail establishment without providing ID.
A similar model supported by the lessons learned from the Psychoactive Substances debacle is probably the best path forward for NZ.
There are huge holes in the Taxation (Land Information and Offshore Persons Information) Bill, because it only requires a local IRD number and bank account. It will also allow property purchases via trusts, which inevitably will have the effect of obscuring the level of foreign purchases. It doesn’t require a register of foreign property transactions, merely allows for the possibility that LINZ might at some point publish aggregated information.
You also have to provide the tax identification number from your home country if you are NZ nonresident.
Another loophole is the exemption for purchasers of 'main homes' from supplying an IRD number, which the IRD explicitly advised against.
IRD also said the requirement for a NZ bank account was superfluous as the Anti-Money Laundering screening they do when issuing an IRD number is as stringent as that of a bank issuing an account.
What I'd like to know ... is why all these list members of Parliament, who were elected at-large and support proportional representation in Parliament, are now speaking out against a proposal to bring that sort of election to Auckland...
Er, because the proposed Auckland system is not proportional representation?
It has more in common with a Mixed Supplementary Member type system than MMP.
Don't really wish to be a negative nancy, but wouldn't it be prudent to at least wait until March 27 before declaring "victory"?
The TCF policy is still in draft form, so the implementation of 92A was always going to have to be delayed by the Government to protect the large telcos until they sort their shit out.
Granted Stephen Franks is going to lose Wgtn Central anyway, but could this be our own 'macaca' moment?
And despite Agenda's baseless accusation, James has no affiliation with the Labour Party, he's a Green Party Member.
I don't think this is true: if Winston won the Tauranga seat then Labour's nemesis - the Nats - would have lost a seat in Parliament. Given how incredibly tight the numbers in the house were for the last three years, Winston winning his seat through the courts would have been a massive coup for the Labour government.
Trivial point, but if Winston had won his case, wouldn't there have been a by-election in Tauranga rather than Winston being awarded the seat?
The Dems only ran one anti-Quayle TV ad in 1988, and it turned out to be one more than they needed.
I think the same gloves-off approach with the VP candidate will work this time as well.