NZ has an opp to present its case and I know we'll do so v strongly. So no need to panic yet. But consideration of some deal, or signs of movement towards more stringent measures on forced labour, may be required, regardless of the lack of economic logic here. 5/5

US has never raised this as a concern for NZ in its annual 'National Trade Estimates' doc where it lists trade/reg beefs with each country. And it's usually not shy in flagging gripes, no matter their merits. So this is a very novel line of attack. Grasping at straws? 4/5

But that doesn't stack up IMHO: - NZ is too small a market to cause material harm to US firms - There are limited prods where China and US might compete *and* where forced labour is a concern - NZ does a lot to encourage high labour stds outside of a ban (e.g. ILO, FTAs) 3/5

US argument could be: - US makes goods that China also produces using forced labour - by *not* banning those imports, NZ gives an unfair advantage to Chinese firms over US firms - this is injurious to US firms - we'll slap on a tariff on [some] NZ exports cos that sucks 2/5

NZ is named amongst 60 countries to be investigated. More tariff uncertainty awaits. Sigh. But it's a big [yuuuge] stretch to say NZ's lack of a ban on forced labour imports burdens or restricts US commerce in any material sense. Here's why (non-legal take)... brief🧵 1/5

Hopefully NZ doesn't count as "a major trading partner" or Pharmac procurement (a longstanding bugbear of the US) doesn't trigger s301 tariffs.

Beef excluded.

Key govt objective now is to avoid NZ-specific s301 (should be fine - we don't really have unfair trade practices) and hope s232 (national security) is not used on more of our key exports. Latter seems low risk outside steel & aluminium but no doubt creative arguments may emerge

Excellent summary of alternative tariff options the President could use. None are as flexible as the way Trump used IEEPA tariffs, but all have potential to affect NZ.

Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, on which Trump’s 10% tariff is based, does not apply in the current macro environment. A balance of payments deficit is not the same thing as a trade deficit. You cannot have a balance of payments if you have a flexible exchange rate, as the US

Yeah the Deadliest Catch crews face some gnarly Baring Sea conditions but they've never faced recycling night in a Wellington 'summer'.

Excellent take ⬇️ from @asianewzealand here - we don't need to throw foreign policy babies out with the bathwater; flexibility and agility matter more in the current mayhem.

Wrong. - Due to an 'MFN clause' on wine negotiated in our FTA, NZ automatically gets the best access India offers to any FTA partner. - So NZ just got an extra tariff cut on wine due to the EU's negotiating strength.

Seriously smart negotiating work by NZ officials: - The EU-India FTA reduces Indian wine tariffs to as low as 20% over 7 years (from 150% now) - This is better than NZ achieved in our FTA (25-50% over 10 years) - So this is bad for NZ wine exporters' competitiveness, right?

The kids are back to school. The sun is out in Wellington. Today is a good day.

Trump's fantasy world. Extra investment in the US isn't even going to happen if the EU trade deal goes ahead. But this is why appeasement is the wrong word for dealing with him - the better analogy is playground games. It is all pretend with this US.

Funny way to describe tariffs but not inaccurate

More Tongue, less Head

Tariffs cuts in the NZ-India FTA will benefit some exporters immediately, esp🍏🥝🪵 My updated calcs suggest duty savings of ~$39m as soon as it enters into force, >50% of current duties paid. As exports rise & tariffs phased out over next 7-10 years, savings will increase.

New Zealand-India FTA landed. What's interesting to these European eyes is how much NZ is benchmarking against Australia and Chile. By contrast the UK has much less obvious targets in its FTAs.