Jane Kelsey

Jane Kelsey scores $600k of government money to research opposition to our trade and economic policies

Jane Kelsey must be blessed. She has scored $600,000 of taxpayer money to study “Transcending embedded neoliberalism in international economic regulation: options and strategies”.


The government is paying her to research opposition to our trade and economic policies?


Note the word “international” in the title. You can do a lot of “international” air travel for $600k, and not in cattle class.

Perhaps the Taxpayers’ Union should get an academic onboard and then ask for $600,000 for research on international sugar taxes?

This is just an outrageous amount of money so this shrieking harpy can mount protests all over the country and get things massively wrong.   Read more »

Auckland University law Professor Jane Kelsey is wrong

Specifically, she is wrong with her constant criticism of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. For years she has pumped out press releases and opinion pieces and given endless interviews to scare us witless about the evils of the TPPA. …

Kelsey doesn’t believe TPPA proponents are wrong or misguided, but are conspiratorial in favouring the profits of big corporates at the expense of the health and well-being of everyday people – especially the poor.

The conspiracy must extend to former Prime Minister Helen Clark who, contrary to Labour leader Andrew Little, declared it “unthinkable” for New Zealand to be left out of the TPPA.

Well, the deal has now been agreed. And miracle of miracles, the sun still shines. The agreement covers two-fifths of the global economy and eliminates or reduces about 18,000 tariffs, taxes and non-tariff barriers.

It’s a huge boost to world trade and prosperity. The only criticism is that it does not go far enough.

As a country that has already been through the pain thanks to a Mr Roger Douglas, it’s kind of easy for us to want more.  But doing so will wipe out heavily protected local industries.  Rome wasn’t built in a day.   Read more »


This just in from the GCSB

This just came in from my good friends in the GCSB.


From Wellington

To Moscow

Personal message from Ambassador to President, not for normal distribution


Mr President

Can I thank you personally for agreeing to my recommendation that New Zealand be exempted from the sanctions that were imposed yesterday.  This will drive a useful wedge between the 5 eyes nations and cause some to question further whether New Zealand should remain part of the club.

Our strategy on the ground here is working well.  The support provided years ago to Comrade Kim to set up his internet piracy operation is paying enormous dividends.  As you can see from this video his funding of our Comrades in the New Zealand Communist movement has New Zealand on the cusp of revolution and the overthrow of the old Zionist controlled order is at hand. Read more »

The Four Failures of David Cunliffe

Corporate whore and shill for Just Water, Mathew Hooton, has written at NBR about the four failures of David Cunliffe.

This week Mr Cunliffe managed no fewer than four foreign-policy fails.

First was his bizarre attack on Mr Key for not sufficiently reversing Helen Clark’s agreement with John Howard over social support for New Zealanders living in Australia.

Ms Clark’s deal in the early 2000s was atrocious.  As former Labour Party president Mike Williams observed, she got away with murder politically only because National was then too divided to adequately draw attention to it.

Undeterred, Mr Cunliffe moved on to Labour’s second foreign-policy blunder after Mr Key announced the government had cancelled the passports of New Zealand citizens, who are neither guilty nor even suspected of any crime but who wish to fight the fascist Assad regime in Syria.

Mr Goff quickly adopted the principled liberal position, invoking the Spanish civil war and saying New Zealanders had a right to travel abroad to fight tyranny. He condemned the cancelling of passports, especially of citizens who have committed no crime.

Mr Cunliffe contradicted him and called on Mr Key to consider jail for those who fight abroad.

Phil Goff was at odds with Cunliffe twice on that day. Is the leader really in charge?  Read more »

An email from a new reader about distractions

I’ve had a few like this in the past few days. It is from a new reader and we welcome new readers.

He does raise some valid points but what do the old hands think, beyond the obvious that this polite new reader has no idea about my politics.

Good day,

I have recently ‘found’ WOBH and find that it … as well as mainstream media … seems to be distracted with the unimportant.

Where is the ongoing and cutting analysis of TPPA, for instance. To have American BIG business dictate and TPPA countries lose their sovereignty, is surely more urgent than jumping on the ‘change the flag’ bandwagon, or publishing a photo of Mr Cunliffe’s screwed up face, or Scooping Scoop.  Read more »

Zip It Sweetie, Ctd

In Penny Macdonald’s piece on Jane Kelsey this morning on newzealandinc.com she has some choice stuff to say on Jane Kelsey which I think you will all enjoy:

What I have heard is…….Jane Kelsey. Jane Kelsey. Jane Kelsey. Jane Kelsey. Self-professed trade expert. Alleged (at least practicing) academic. Champion of “the little people” (except hobbits) and someone – I’m assuming given how she gets around – with an air-points account which would be the envy of many. She talks up the fact that stakeholders are excluded from the venue without noting that the reason for that is because some of her companions have behaved so appallingly and threateningly that it’s not possible to have them there (thanks for shutting us all out Jane). She says the negotiations are being conducted in secret and everything should be public when she’s made misguided media mischief with any information made available (thanks for removing the mature information exchange Jane). She says that New Zealand will lose from a trade deal because it must be bad (thanks for biased absolutely spurious commentary Jane). My enduring memory of her dates from the earlier TPP round that New Zealand hosted. She was popping in to the function at the Maritime Museum to swig a glass of wine before heading back outside to join the protesters for a spell. “We hate this process…..just a splash more please…must rush…placards to pose with.”

Her point that it all should be open is particularly naïve. Would you buy a house and go along to the vendor saying “the most I could pay is $300,000, I’d ideally like to pay $200,000, I could consider $250,000, I’ll be pointing out some of the faults to get a discount and pretending to be disinterested so you don’t think I really want it. Ready to sign?”

It’s a negotiation, not a university debate.

Kelsey forgets to take exaggeration pill

Far-left, tenured activist Jane Kelsey told TV3 this morning that no one will get to see the TPP before it is ratified, and then New Zealand won’t be able to pull out if we do sign, and it will control all our policy for 100 years. (On the link, corporate whore Matthew Hooton is on before her, so fast forward through that bit.)

She must have forgotten to take her exaggeration pill this morning. As Farrar points out, all a country has to do to pull out of the TPP is send a letter under
clause 20.8 saying they want to.

Even then, before it gets ratified, parliament gets to look into it in detail before it becomes binding.

There’s a polite way of describing what Kelsey was saying, but the better way is to say she’s full of shit.

Trotter on Crafar

Chris Trotter has written about the Crafar Farms decision:

AT THE RISK of being branded a “traitor”, I’m declaring my support for the Crafar Farms sale. Not because I like seeing productive New Zealand farmland pass into the hands of foreigners, I don’t. The reason I’m in favour of the sale is because I believe New Zealanders should keep their promises and fulfil their undertakings.

In 2008 this country ratified a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the Peoples’ Republic of China. That agreement was hailed as the most important foreign policy and trade achievement of the Helen Clark-led government of 1999-2008. Not only was it the first such agreement to be signed between China and a western-style democracy, but it also offered New Zealand businesses immense economic opportunities.

Those opportunities were, of course, reciprocal. The Chinese have been merchants and traders for the best part of three thousand years. They needed no reminding that in this world you don’t get something without giving something in return. And what we gave China was “Most Favoured Nation” (MFN) status.

In the context of the Crafar Farms Sale, MFN means: “If it’s okay to sell New Zealand farmland to Americans, Englishmen, Germans and Indonesians, then it must also be okay to sell farmland to the Chinese.” Under the terms of the NZ-China FTA, the Peoples’ Republic is legally entitled to no lesser consideration than that shown to the most favoured of our trading partners.

That’s what Prime Minister John Key meant when he said “our hands are tied”. It’s what New Zealand’s leading critic of the NZ-China FTA, Professor Jane Kelsey, meant when she stated:

“If the New Zealand government had declined the Shanghai Pengxin purchase of the Crafar farm it could have faced an international law suit for breaching its free trade agreement with China […] The government cannot treat applications from Chinese investors differently from similar applications from other countries’ investors under what is known as the ‘most-favoured-nation’ or MFN rule.”

And that’s not all. Had the application from Shanghai Pengxin been declined by the Overseas Investment Office that decision would almost certainly have been challenged in a New Zealand court. And rightly so. We’d have broken our own rules.

This is why I read and enjoy Chris Trotter’s writing. He is partisan but not so blinkered that he can actually see reality before him.

The strange world of knee jerk politics

The Crafar Farms sale decision has thrown up some very strange politics.

There was Winston Peters supporting Michael Fay, which is utterly strange in itself. But nothing could be stranger than seeing Labour pursuing the prospect of being sued by China – over an FTA signed by Phil Goff…

Labour says its opposition to the sale of the Crafar farms to a Chinese company is not racist.

Labour leader David Shearer claimed yesterday that Prime Minister John Key and Land Information Maurice Williamson have accused the party of being racist.

“I have been called much worse,” Mr Shearer said.

What concerned him was that by implication, National was labelling every New Zealand opposed to the sale as anti-Chinese and possibly racist when what they opposed was “the sale of profitable New Zealand-owned assets to foreign interests.”

Predictably assorted crazies, including Jane Kelsey have waded into the dispute. Despite being a raving lefty who opposes all FTAs and the fact that she tries very hard to stick it to the Government the bottom line is that Phil Goff’s FTA with China pretty much guaranteed that Maurice Williamson and Jonathan Coleman were always going to approve a bid that fully complied with the law, rather than react to knee-jerk xenophobia from politicians desperate for traction.

Enhanced by Zemanta