NZ Hit With 15% Trump Trade Tariff, Trade Minister Says He Will Push Back
The White House has revised its list of tariffs for particular countries and New Zealand has been put on a 15 percent base rate, up from the original 10 percent announced earlier.
Trade Minister Todd McClay told Midday Report 's Charlotte Cook that New Zealand was being unfairly penalised for what is a small trade deficit with the United States.
"It appears it has been done based upon countries that have a trade deficit with the US, who sell them more than they buy.
"In New Zealand's case, that's about half a billion US dollars and in a scheme the size of the US economy it's really not significant or meaningful."
McClay told Midday Report he had asked Treasury for urgent advice about Friday's development.
"Many of the exporters are saying they have been able to absorb the 10 percent, or in many cases pass it on, but at 15 percent it is going to start having a greater effect on our exporters.
"We sell about $9 billion worth of goods into the US every year and so a 15 percent tariff rate is meaningful, but again the difference in trade is not significant in the scheme of things."
He maintained New Zealand had good relations with the US.
"The first step will be to talk to them directly and we've been engaging a lot. In fact, it's been very good engagement, both at official level, [Foreign Minister] Winston Peters has been to Washington and I've met with my counterpart a number of times now."
McClay said he had put in a request for a call with Ambassador Jamieson Greer and would expect that to happen over the weekend so he could "start making the case" for a lower tariff rate.
US President Donald Trump announced the tariffs back in April and said he they would be imposed on more than 125 countries.
Tariffs are paid by importers of products from other countries to their own governments, like taxes, effectively making imported goods more expensive for local consumers.
Advocates say they protect local economies, while detractors say they reduce trade and push up prices.
In announcing the initial range of tariffs in April, Trump caused confusion when he held up a chart saying New Zealand charged US goods a 20 percent tariff, which the New Zealand government denied.
It ended up being 10 percent, which Finance Minister Nicola Willis at the time called "extraordinary". Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said New Zealand would not respond in kind.
Two-thirds of Kiwi businesses in a survey earlier this year thought the tariffs would have a more severe global impact than Covid-19 and the global financial crisis over the next 12 months.
Trump has repeatedly threatened a range of different tariffs on various nations since returning to the White House - most recently India, citing its own trade barriers and purchasing of energy and arms from Russia, and Canada, over its newfound support for Palestinian statehood.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
2 hours ago
- Newsroom
Lies and U-turns from Trump's team over the Epstein files
It's one scandal that US President Trump just can't shake. The Epstein scandal is following him everywhere – even when he went to Scotland to sign an EU trade deal last week, he was asked if he'd rushed to get the deal done to knock the Epstein story off the front pages. 'You gotta be kidding with that,' Trump replied. A few weeks earlier, he responded to another reporter by asking: 'are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This guy's been talked about for years … are people still talking about this guy, this creep?' The answer is yes: six years after his death in a New York jail, the world is still talking about him, and specifically, about Trump's connection to him. Today on The Detail we look at the chaotic, dramatic, ongoing saga of Donald Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, and the fallout that Trump's waffling on the issue has had on some of his far-right allies. The clamour to release the Epstein files became a MAGA movement obsession, when supporters of Trump became convinced they were full of the names of powerful Democrats, including ex-Presidents. QAnon used the files to push ideas about a deep state cover-up of a network of global pedophiles, and one of the people giving a nod and a wink to those theories was the now head of the FBI, Kash Patel. He made his living from spreading rumours such as Epstein actually being murdered by the Clintons, and that there is a cabal of satanic pedophiles within the Democratic party. On the election trail, Trump repeatedly said he would declassify the files. He became US President on January 20, and within short order, the Epstein files were back in the news cycle. But now it looks like Trump himself is in the files, backed up by evidence in conservative newspapers including the Wall Street Journal. You don't have to look hard to find pictures of the two together. They allegedly had a falling out in the early 2000s and hadn't spoken for years before Epstein's arrest in 2019. Suddenly, officials have tried to go quiet about Epstein's client list, variously saying it doesn't exist, or that there's nothing to see in there. But a small army of FBI agents have been diverted from other duties to comb through thousands of pages of documents taken from Epstein's residences, looking for Trump's name, and Patel has now testified that Epstein did in fact die by suicide. There are signs of Trump's supporter base turning on him over the issue, and Trump isn't helping calm them down with his attitude towards it. Jay Kuo is a former attorney based in New York who writes a political and legal newsletter called The Status Kuo. He says the more conspiracy-minded of the MAGA base have a lot to chew on, thanks to the Trump team's handling of the issue. 'They keep either making sloppy statements, or inconsistent statements, or riling up their base and then yanking the rug back. So it's sort of a roller coaster ride for the MAGA base.' Kuo says Trump-appointed officials spent years saying that once they were in power they would expose all these people and bring them down. 'That's why it's really interesting that now they find themselves in the position they have to disown a lot of that. It puts them in a very tough spot vis-a-vis their original audiences.' Trump's story, he says, keeps changing. 'What's interesting is the idea that the MAGA people have never put two and two together that Trump's name appears in the Epstein files, for example on the flight logs, I believe it's eight times.' Kuo says many just don't believe it's true, even though it's very clear that he is in there. But he says this has been the longest-lasting scandal involving the President and it's not going away. 'In this case though, he's lying to his base. The base that trusted him. He was supposed to bring the storm – that's the QAnon thing – he was going to come in, sweep out government and drain the swamp, and then arrest all these Democrat satanic pedophiles. 'It's absurd on its face but a good percentage of the American public actually is QAnon-believing or QAnon-adjacent. Sadly it's around 20 percent. 'The danger [Trump] faces is that he runs the risk of having this very, very emotionally charged, sort of imbalanced group of folks coming after him now for having failed them, made false promises to them. And the vitriol online and the outrage is like nothing the GOP has ever seen.' Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here. You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.
The Spinoff
2 hours ago
- The Spinoff
The politics of trust: What the wellbeing era got right (and wrong)
We throw around the phrase 'trust in institutions' like it means the same thing to everyone, but it doesn't. Who trusts, when and why is deeply political, and far from universal, writes Natalia Albert. God, we throw around trust in institutions like confetti. Trust in government, trust in the system, trust between groups, it's everywhere. It shows up in political speeches, policy frameworks, media headlines and academic papers. Last week, while reading a 2022 Treasury paper on social cohesion for my PhD research, I was struck by the language. It was wellbeing all the way down: the indicators, the frameworks, the aspirations. Just a few days later, I found myself at the Local Government New Zealand conference, where the tone couldn't have been more different. The buzz there was about the government removing the four wellbeings from the Local Government Act. In just a few years, wellbeing had gone from centrepiece to scrapheap. So, do people trust government more when it talks about wellbeing, kindness and social cohesion? Or do they feel more confident when the language is stripped back to cost control and going back to basics? Does trust rise and fall with policy frameworks or with political alignment? Do we even notice the difference, or do we only care when we feel left out? It seems we talk about trust in government as if it's a single, collective feeling, like we all either do or don't trust institutions as one big, unified public. But that just doesn't hold. It misses the messiness and nuance of a society as hyper-diverse and politically pluralistic as ours. Trust doesn't live at the national level, it lives in lived experience, and it shifts depending on identity, history, power and whose values are being reflected back through the system. When we talk about 'restoring trust', we often imagine it as a linear project. But what if the problem isn't that trust is broken, it's that we're measuring the wrong thing altogether? Trust is not easy to define or measure Defining and measuring trust in institutions is messy and very political. The OECD's 2023 Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions in New Zealand report found that responsiveness, openness and reliability are the biggest drivers of trust, but that trust looks very different depending on which institution you're talking about. People trust the police the most, the media the least, and local councillors sit somewhere near the bottom, which tracks with the conversations I heard at the conference. The biggest influence on trust isn't ideology, it's experience. Your personal experiences with government, or what's happened to your family or community, are what really shape whether or not you trust the system. Media matters less than you'd think, and abstract values like transparency or fairness only come into play if people actually experience them directly. Political scientists like Eric Uslaner argue that we need to stop lumping all kinds of trust together. He distinguishes between generalised trust (trust in strangers), particularised trust (trust in people like you), and political trust (trust in institutions). Political trust, he says, is the one that fluctuates most, and is most responsive to things like economic performance, political scandals and partisan divides. And then there's the causality problem. Do better-performing public services lead to more trust? Or do people who already trust government just rate services more highly? Academics like Steven Van de Walle and Geert Bouckaert say it's probably both, and that context, perception and political alignment all distort the feedback loop. In other words: if you already think government is useless, you'll probably see even decent services as underwhelming. The rise of 'Wellbeing' as a political project Back in 2017, Jacindamania hit us like a wall of bricks, or rose petals, depending on where you sit politically. That election didn't just usher in a new government; it brought with it a whole new language. 'Kindness' became a political virtue (personally, I never want to hear it again), and 'wellbeing' became the flagship policy concept of the Ardern government. There was the Wellbeing Budget, the Living Standards Framework from Treasury, the Social Cohesion Framework from MSD, and legislative changes like the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Act 2020. That act introduced a formal requirement for Treasury to regularly assess the state of wellbeing in New Zealand: how it's changing, how sustainable it is and what risks we face. It sits alongside the Long-Term Fiscal Statement and the Investment Statement as part of Treasury's big-picture reporting. Here's how Treasury themselves put it in the introduction to the Te Tai Waiora Wellbeing Report: 'The wellbeing report has the broadest scope of Treasury's strategic assessments. It must describe the state of wellbeing in New Zealand, how it's changed over time, and how sustainable it is. This is supported by a series of detailed background papers that explore indicators and provide introductory analysis on cohesion, sustainability and other key areas.' At the time, you could reasonably say these reforms were about rebuilding public trust in institutions. There was a sense, especially post-GFC and post-neoliberal consensus, that people had lost faith in government's ability to deliver something more than just economic growth. Wellbeing was meant to change that. But trust in institutions… according to who? The tricky thing is this: trust isn't universal, and it's not stable. It moves. It depends on who you are, where you sit politically, and which government is in charge. Right now, the 2025 coalition government is quietly dismantling much of the wellbeing agenda, among other flagship polices from the previous government. The Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Act is on the chopping block. The language of kindness and social cohesion is being swapped out for terms like 'efficiency' and 'core services'. And while some will see this as a loss, a regression, others will feel their trust in institutions increase. That's the key point: trust in institutions isn't something we all experience in the same way. It's a political variable. It shifts every election cycle. One group's 'accountable governance' is another's 'state overreach'. One person's 'meaningful wellbeing agenda' is another's 'woke box-ticking'. And yet, when we talk about trust in policy or the media, we often treat it like it's some kind of fixed, objective measure. But it's not. It's a seesaw. Take what's happening right now between local and central government. There's increasing tension, especially around who's responsible for managing cities, infrastructure and long-term planning. If you ask someone who trusts their council more than parliament, they'll say Wellington is meddling. Ask someone else, and they'll say local government is broken and needs reining in. Same institutions. Different trust profile. And this isn't just theoretical. Look at Stats NZ after the 2018 census – public confidence took a real hit. That kind of damage is hard to undo, especially when it intersects with other trust-fracturing events (like Covid, housing unaffordability or misinformation cycles). So when we say 'trust in institutions', we need to ask: which institutions, which groups and under what conditions? More Reading Media, perception, and the filter bubble effect Let's also talk about media, because that's a huge part of how trust is shaped. If you watch TVNZ believing it's neutral (when many would argue it has a soft centre-left lean), or you follow The Platform or Reality Check Radio thinking they're unbiased (when they very clearly lean libertarian or right-wing), your trust in the wider system will reflect that lens. Media isn't just reporting on trust in institutions, it's creating it. Or undermining it. If you're left-leaning, you probably felt more trust during the Ardern years and found meaning in the wellbeing agenda. If you're more conservative, it might've felt alienating or overly idealistic. Flip it around today, and the right may feel their values are being restored, while the left sees something important being gutted. So again, trust shifts depending on who's in power and how aligned you feel with the institutional tone. I'm not saying we should give up on trying to build trust. But we do need a more realistic and dynamic understanding of what trust actually is – politically, psychologically and socially. It's not static. It's not neutral. It's not equally held by all. We also need to ask: what groups trust institutions? When does that trust shift, and why? What role does media – and media literacy – play in those shifts? Can institutions be designed to be trusted across partisan lines? I don't have all the answers. But I do know we need to stop treating trust like a KPI and start treating it like the complex, shifting thing that it is. Because otherwise, we're just chasing shadows – and wondering why we always feel like we're either winning or losing, up or down, in or out.
Otago Daily Times
3 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
‘Wait and see' for building supplies
The proof of this pudding will most definitely be in the eating, with changes brought into the building supply chain. The government announced recently thousands of additional building products including plasterboard, cladding systems, external doors and windows will all be easier to access in construction sites across New Zealand. Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk said quality overseas building products have been given the green light for New Zealand construction, ending costly monopolies on a small number of products that are currently used in the country. Mr Penk said it was 50% more expensive to build a standalone home in New Zealand than in Australia, which he called outrageous. New Zealand Certified Builders Southland president Will Kennedy said it was good news for builders and hopefully the cost of a house but there were questions which remained. "It is going to be good for the industry, bringing all these extra products into the country which we can use," he said. "The issue is whether they are going to be up to standard. We have windows brought in for jobs from the designers and have noticed they do not meet the correct standards. "So I suppose it is not fair on the local manufacturers. But we are just going to have to wait and see what happens." The government wants to see more products on the market to bring competition and hopefully bring down the price. Price relief could not come soon enough, Mr Kennedy said. He said costs were continually going up. "Every week you would get an email saying something is going up. Everything goes up but not that much goes down. Steel has gone up, 5% this month for concrete. Gib went up 15% in January. "There are no real specific reasons they give. The cost per square metre now to build a house is $4000 per sqm. Back before Covid you were looking at say $2700." He said New Zealand being a small country was a big hinderance. "I think a lot of the manufacturers do not want to come here. "We are a long way away, not a big market, not a lot of money to make. Are they going to come all the way over to New Zealand to sell their parts?" At the moment there were not a lot of suppliers to pick from and builders were locked into one. A couple of years ago Gib was in short supply and the price skyrocketed with builders caught out with clients unable to afford the new prices. He said consent authorities would be aware of the new products coming into the country and would maintain their high standards. One of the main issues was building standards in New Zealand were the toughest in the world and that led to increased cost to build houses, he said. "We build houses which are 10 times better than than other parts of the world. Part of that is because of our geographical makeup, earthquakes and other stuff. But what they get away with overseas they would not get away with here. It does not, generally, come back at them."
