Big win for apple exporters

17 comments on “Big win for apple exporters ”

• Comments are now closed

1. mickysavage 1

   13 April 2010 at 10:06 am

   The Herald’s article (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10638033) suggests that the application was that of the growers rather than of the Government. And no mention of Phil Goff or the work that he did.

   He should receive some credit if the decision goes the way that it appears to have gone.
   • Draco T Bastard 1.1

     13 April 2010 at 10:59 am

     You don’t really expect the NZHerald to report facts do you? Especially ones that show the NACT government do nothing to help NZ business.
2. r0b 2

   13 April 2010 at 10:06 am

   [yes. this whole post was just to get in that pun at the end]

   Well it was a plum pun zet, well worth the effort. For too long our growers have been pining-apples. Now all is good – until Oz decides to banana-other fruit….
3. hmmmmm 3

   13 April 2010 at 10:15 am

   some history.

   http://theyworkforyou.co.nz/portfolios/trade/2007/jul/25/apples
   
   [lprent: g: I’ll let that through because it is interesting. ]
4. kiwinewt 4

   13 April 2010 at 10:37 am

   Aaand of course National will take all the credit. Not too shabby a pun though… It’s growing on me 🙂
   • MikeG 4.1

     13 April 2010 at 11:58 am

     Agreed, in the same way that the current Transport Minister is happy to go around opening new train stations!
5. Gooner 5

   13 April 2010 at 11:37 am

   I agree that Labour governments are much bolder than National ones, with resultant dividends. That was especially so in the mid to late 80’s, where their reforms have benefited NZ immeasurably.
6. Nick C 6

   13 April 2010 at 11:42 am

   Im suprised you even support this, isnt it an example of evil globalisation which will put all the local aussie apple growers out of business, costing jobs etc?
   • Bright Red 6.1

     13 April 2010 at 11:46 am

     the left doesn’t support protectionism. we support fair trade.

     there’s no sense in having arbitrary protections that shelter inefficent producers – that just leads to a poor allocation of our world’s limited resources.

     However, we shouldn’t let trade lead to a race to the bottom. We should keep trade barriers against countries that don’t respect rights of workers and protect the environment.

     Bit of knowledge goes a long why, Nick C.
   • Ari 6.2

     14 April 2010 at 6:21 pm

     Global trade is fine when it doesn’t encourage pillaging the environment, destroying local production or manufacturing, lowering our wages rather than lifting everyone else’s, lowering employee benefits, or lowering ethical standards.

     In short, trade should be fair, not just free.
7. prism 7

   13 April 2010 at 12:03 pm

   The apple and pear guy was still going on about keeping the ban going when interviewed this morning. Are Ozzies our best mates? Or just OK people closer than other countries who speak the same language. They certainly can kick us in sensitive places when the impulse moves them.

   We manage to have a thriving apple business even with some fireblight, it’s not the end of theirs if some did get through. I haven’t forgotten the occasion where a NZ plant scientist found some on a cotoneaster bush I think it was, in a park in Oz and they accused us of ‘planting’ it there.
   • Bright Red 7.1

     13 April 2010 at 12:06 pm

     “Are Ozzies our best mates? Or just OK people closer than other countries who speak the same language.”

     perhaps that’s all a best mate ever is… 🙂
8. Hamish Gray 8

   13 April 2010 at 2:55 pm

   Um, escalating these types of things to the level of the WTO usually follows a diplomatic process of negotiating and then multiple round of official dom providing advice and edging things along, all requiring consultation with other governments, industry etc.

   If you understood this process, you’d know that, while the ultimate decision is for the government of the day (which both parties actually support), getting it to that point is largely a bureaucratic process that takes years. But you evidently don’t understand it. The last major effort to get this ban overturned was in 1995 – oh look, National was government then.

   So nice try (not really) in claiming this is a go-getter Labour initiative and nothing else.
   • Bright Red 8.1

     13 April 2010 at 3:06 pm

     did National’s efforts in 1995 result in the ban being broken?

     No.

     Did Labour’s?

     Yes.
     • luva 8.1.1

       14 April 2010 at 12:15 am

       “Taking Aussie to the WTO over the fireblight ban is an example of Labour’s forethought. They knew the results were years away. Had the guts to stand up against our best mates when they had it wrong.”

       Could you guys take your blinkers off for 1 second. Sometimes we come together from both sides of the bitter yet ludicrous polical divide and fight the good fight together. The apple growers led this fight against our neighbours and they were at all times supported by both political parties.

       Sometimes it isn’t just Labour Good – National Bad.
9. Hamish Gray 9

   13 April 2010 at 6:54 pm

   Did National try? Yes. What was the basis of winning this time? New scientific evidence. That’s right – NEW. As in, evidence that did not exist in 1995. Turning this into a political win is bizarre given it’s had domestic bipartisan support since, well, forever. Perhaps you can set ideology aside for a moment.
10. Salsy 10

    13 April 2010 at 11:02 pm

    Im not so sure about this, its another case of us exporting to an already oversaturated market, undercutting their own farmers and selling at low, low prices. Its a dumb idea, New Zealnd needs to get past “the shifting bulk commodity” thinking and into a value added mentality. I guess we can always say these come with free fireblight…

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS