First steps of Buy Kiwi Made approved
Yesterday Cabinet approved a paper detailing the first stage of the Buy Kiwi Made programme, which is to kick off on 8 November with an event commemorating the one-year anniversary of Rod’s death, kiwi made champion that he was. It will be a showcase of the types of goods that will be promoted by the large consumer media marketing campaign next year, and will be followed by a series of similar events around New Zealand.
It’s exciting to see the programme taking shape, and to have it confirmed that the definition of ‘New Zealand Made’ used for the programme will be the same as the one used by the existing Buy New Zealand Made campaign; ie that the process that gives the goods their essential character must take place in New Zealand for them to qualify. (It sounds like the Government is going to run a wider ‘New Zealand Inc.’ campaign to possibly take into account a broader range of products than the Buy Kiwi Made scheme). Buy Kiwi Made and the existing Buy New Zealand Made campaign will be linked, and the famous ‘kiwi in the triangle’ logo will be a major part of the new programme.
Sue B was on Morning Report this morning talking about the announcement, and you can read the press release here.
October 10th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Looks like we’re getting there, despite the kiwi-made-kafuffle.
Good on Sue Bradford for hanging in there against all the pressure from Labour to water it down.
October 10th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Nice to see we’re getting something out of it all. I agree with you Toad, well done to Ms Bradford… and may this be a sign that we are getting out of the post-election doldrums.
respectfully
BJ
October 10th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
ANY REASON WHY THE GREENS HAVENT RELEASED A STATEMENT ON THE NUCLEAR TEST????? OR DOES IT ONLY MATTER IF THE PERSON DOING IT IS WHITE??
October 10th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
dimebag - A: Don’t shout. B: We have. Perhaps you were too busy thinking ill of us to listen?
BJ
October 11th, 2006 at 8:23 am
dimebag: see Green Party joins condemnation of North Korea nuclear test, released at 12.45pm yesterday afternoon.
October 11th, 2006 at 10:17 am
How about having a Buy US Made campaign? With untold billions of dollars necessary to maintain the Iraqi liberation force, the polls tracking down for the Republicans, and the Iranians and North Koreans getting stroppy, my old mate George needs a bit of a hand at the moment.
October 11th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
What a waste of money. A poorly thought out scheme showing once again that the Greens appear to have few clues about business.
Manufacturing is one aspect of the value chain, and an aspect that we do poorly and others do well. We, however, and much better at high-level strategy,marketing,branding etc. It makes far more sense to concentrate on the top end of the value chain, not the bottom, and that is where NZs future lies. In does not lie in low-value manufacturing.
There’s an old adage in the software business: don’t compete with Microsoft. In manufacturing, don’t compete with China.
Unless you’re so blinkered by your ideology that you can’t see the wood for the trees….
October 11th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
PeterExitsLeft Says:
There’s an old adage in the software business: don’t compete with Microsoft. In manufacturing, don’t compete with China.
Unless you’re so blinkered by your ideology that you can’t see the wood for the trees….
So why is it that Microsoft products (with the exception of Excel) are crap?
And how many trees do you plan to plant, PeterExitsLeft, to compensate for the CO2 generated by shipping NZ wool to China to have your clothes manufactured there, and then shipping the clothes back for you to purchase here?
Of course we shouldn’t be trying to compete with China indiscriminately in manufacturing. But this is not about dishing out subsidies willy nilly to otherwise uneconomic NZ manufacturers. It’s about identifiying the manufacturing we can do well in New Zealand, and having a marketing campaign to promote it.
October 11th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
PeterExitsLeft wrote:
“We, however, and much better at high-level strategy,marketing,branding etc. It makes far more sense to concentrate on the top end of the value chain, not the bottom”
So, we have an economy almost entirely based on primary production and processing of these products, but we should “concentrate on the top end of the value chain, not the bottom”? Ahaa….and this is some immutible law of business is it? So, any country whose costs are higher than China should give up manufacturing? I see…
BTW, could you give us some proof that we are “much better at high-level strategy, marketing, branding etc.”? Better than whom? Just curious…
October 11th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
I was quite pleased to be able to buy a perfectly servicable dress suit made in New Zealand. (Not pleased TOO much because I suspect it to have been made by the EB, but I have no way to know that
)
In any case, the point is that there is plenty of semi-skilled labour here, and not a lot of the high-end technologies that would enable us to compete in building circuit-boards or jet engines or high-efficiency diesels. Those we HAVE to import. The suit is something we do NOT have to import. The tech is within our reach and the market is reasonable for the quantities we can manufacture. Not perfect, but not too bad.
respectfully
BJ
October 11th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Buy EB Made! Sadly, it didn’t work for me.
October 11th, 2006 at 11:05 pm
Good work on getting the campaign approved, it’s great that we’re seeing some benefits of coalition. However, it also highlights some concerns I’ve had for a while (but never moved to post about until now):
1. We worked hard to squeeze $11m out of Labour for this campaign but they instantly pull another $11m or so out of the hat to satisfy their own constituency and at the same time threaten to undermine the integrity of the Buy Kiwi Made campaign. Are we expected to go out and sell the message in favour of goods manufactured here while Labour simultaneously says it actually doesn’t matter if the goods are made in China? It seems like Labour negotiated (again) in bad faith.
2. Will environmental considerations be built into the scheme? What use is it promoting NZ goods if their affect on the environment is more severe than alternatives? I understand the argument about export miles, but what about the use of recycled material and sustainable resources?
I hope these questions stimulate some discussion.
October 12th, 2006 at 11:16 am
People will buy NZ made when it makes sense from them to do so, and most will purchase based on value decisions.
This campaign is an advertising subsidy, and a not-so-subtle vote against trade. A campaign like this assumes that NZ manufacturing is a universal good, when it may not be.
How would you feel about an advertising campaign, funded by the taxpayer, instigated by the far-right, that promotes overseas businesses, on the basis that free trade is a universal good? Understand that and you’ll understand my issues with Bradfords campaign.
Good on Labour for providing balance.
>>an economy almost entirely based on primary production and processing of these products
Clinging to an aquarian past, are we? High time to move on. The future is about IP, and ownership thereof.
October 12th, 2006 at 11:58 am
“Clinging to an aquarian past, are we? High time to move on. The future is about IP, and ownership thereof.”
Hello there? Reality? Ever heard of it?
No clinging done or implied by me.
Just stating the simple facts. Don’t like them?
So sad. Just run along then and hide in your parallel universe. I’m sure you’ll feel much better.
(BTW, I’m not an aquarian anyway.)
October 12th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
It’s called strategy. Requires forward thinking.
October 12th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
“The future is about IP, and ownership thereof. ”
Possibly true. The way to be good at owning Intellectual Property is to have zillions of dollars at your disposal in order to buy good ideas and hire the people that have them, regardless of where the people and ideas come from.
Not being too strong in this area (having zillions odf dollars), or in any other area for that matter, the best option for NZ is probably to relax, learn to get on with each other, create a pleasant living environment, avoid industrialisation, commodity fetishism and the rat race and hopefully keep a few people here who like that sort of thing. Alternatively, we could close the country down now, and all move to somewhere more economically viable.
October 12th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
As I understand it, mainstream economics at a very basic level says that it is optimal for different economies to specialise and trade according to their efficiencies. However, as I see it there are extant issues around:
(1) environmental externalities (such as greenhouse gas emissions) involved in trade, not incorporated into the pinciple at its basic level.
(2) morality of some efficiencies, e.g. relatively poor pay and conditions for workers in cheap-labour countries.
.. and possibly other issues, like how the world could be planning ahead for peak oil. In my view, the issues are not negligible. It seems to me that the Greens care about (1) and (2).
I think that a very prominent economist, who was until recently very pro-free-trade, may have recently said publicly that he has changed his mind in some significant way about the benefits of free trade. Anyone?
It would be interesting to see relevant Cabinet paper(s) for the Buy Kiwi Made programme, if available online. It might help clarify what is happening, and expectations around benefits of the programme.
I like the thought of people generally relaxing somewhat from the rat race. The book “Affluenza” goes into some ideas around that. Also
http://www.wellbeingmanifesto.net/ .
October 12th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Sam
Well said!
Actually we have several long term advantages. Copious amounts of fresh water (it falls on us purty regler here in Welly), a vast renewable resource in terms of wind generation of electricity, and possibly a tidal generator in the strait, not TOO many people for our agriculture to support…. I could go on a little. None of these translate well into an advantage in commerce in a world that doesn’t count the indirect costs (external costs) of trade and transport. They have nothing to do with IP or IT or high-end manufacturing … well almost. The electrical surplus is darned useful form making aluminium.
The fact that we are by ourselves, a small and isolated market, gives us some advantages in a world that is on the verge of being short of just about every single thing that is necessary to its survival. Fresh water is a much bigger nascent problem than peak oil… but when it hits the breadbasket of the USA and the farmers in India and China it will make a far larger dent in the confidence of the growth-is-good crowd than running out of oil is going to do. You can, to some extent, use energy to correct almost any material shortage/problem, If you are also short of energy the population reductions begin… one way or another.
As for you, mr exitsleft, the consumer who wishes to make a choice based on something OTHER than simple money concerns is currently without a tool to do so. It is almost impossible to work out what is kiwi made and what is not, and that lack of choice is the worst of the problem. I don’t give a rats rear about the advertising, but the information is essential to those of us who, since the external environmental concerns are not currently priced into the market, wish to preserve the environment by buying local products when such will serve… even at a slight disadvantage of actual price. This is what you get when you stop the price mechanism from actually including the price of destroying the commons. You get the folks with the concern doing whatever ELSE they can to get the environmental information into the market, if only as a symbol on the wrapper.
It might actually be more effective without any advertising. A whisper campaign in a nation obsessively concerned with rumours? Oh yeah….
respectfully
BJ
October 12th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
>>zillions of dollars
Big money isn’t required. R&D and a highly educated, inventive population are required.
>>create a pleasant living environment..commodity fetishism
If some people want to live in huts and grow potatoes, they are free to do so now. Each to their own. Wonder what they do for expensive, imported medicine?
I prefer a somewhat higher standard of living. Thanks to sound free-market, centre-right policy, NZers enjoy the benefits of both worlds.
October 12th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
BJ,
Question: There are two products. One is made by company A, who pump effluent into a nearby stream on the quiet, the boss is a bit of a tyrant, and his prices are uncompetitive. Company B are model citizens, and their prices are competitive.
Which do you support?
October 12th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
PeterExitsLeft wrote:
“It’s called strategy. Requires forward thinking”.
Oh, I see.
So pretending our economy is not almost entirely based on primary production is called “strategy”.
I’m glad you’ve cleared that up.
October 12th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
PeterExitsLeft wrote:
“If some people want to live in huts and grow potatoes, they are free to do so now.”
Can you show me where anyone here mentioned potatoes and huts?
Thanks in advance!
October 12th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
>>Can you show me where anyone here mentioned potatoes and huts?
Certainly. I did. It’s a dig (ha!) Perhaps this is the wrong site for humour, given that the sky is always falling, and we’re about to be warmed to death. I live in Wellington, so quite frankly, global warming can’t come soon enough, as it gets rather cold here in winter.
I digress.
Can someone answer my questions? How are you going to get hold of expensive medicines and health treatment, and which company do you support, A or B?
Both are real NZ companies, btw, but I’m guessing you clever people are one step ahead of me. Company A is delighted about their marketing subsidy, company B is less impressed.
October 12th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
“So pretending our economy is not almost entirely based on primary production”
You’d be talking about wood, cheese and meat, then.
October 12th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
PeterExitsLeft -
I think that your huts and potatoes example takes things to an extreme that others in the discussion would not imply. Personally, I think that international trade can be a good thing, but let’s not get carried away by an extreme view there either by ignoring environmental or social/moral issues.
Your company A/B question appears to confuse the issue by bringing in other factors. These could have their own solutions via independent mechanisms. As it was initially stated, I do not think it was clear that the question even related to the trade issue at all. However, if it does, perhaps we can agree that it is generally difficult to set up programmes that ensure perfect outcomes!
What do you think of the “Fair Trade” concept?
And what do people think about the points that Tinker has raised above? I think that the environmental point is particularly interesting. I don’t have any answers but would be keen to be informed!
October 20th, 2006 at 10:30 am
>>zillions of dollars
“Big money isn’t required. R&D and a highly educated, inventive population are required. ”
So long as people overseas with big money don’t hire the best of the inventive and educated people, or buy their patents or companies. Are you advocating emigration restrictions and restrictions on trade in intellectual property?