Higher than forecast tax revenues are the primary reason the Government accounts for the first five months of the financial year are ahead of forecast, Finance Minister Steven Joyce says.

The Government’s financial accounts to 30 November 2016 were released today, and they show that the Crown’s Operating Balance before Gains and Losses (OBEGAL) was a deficit of $768 million, which was $936 million better than the Treasury projected at the Half Year Fiscal Update (HYEFU).

"Stronger economic growth is flowing through to the Government's tax take'" Mr Joyce says. "Tax revenue for the five months to November is $460 million ahead of forecast in the Half-Year Update, and $1.4 billion ahead of Budget 2016 forecasts."

Mr Joyce says that it is appropriate to remain very cautious in terms of what the increased tax receipts might mean for the full-year financial result.

“Treasury's Half-Year Update forecast a $473 million surplus for the whole 2016/17 year,” Mr Joyce says. “It is far too early to say whether that surplus will be able to be achieved.

"These accounts include the first tranche of the Government's expenses related to the Kaikōura earthquake, with just under $700 million of EQC estimated costs being included. It will still be some time before the full cost of the recovery is known."

"The Earthquake again demonstrates the importance of the National-led Government’s prudent financial management. Getting back to surplus and repaying debt in the good times means we are in a position to support communities at times like this when they're in need.

“More generally these accounts underline the importance of strong fiscal discipline as we continue to build up our financial resilience in a relatively uncertain world. We need to remember that Budget 2016 forecast only a small surplus for the full financial year.”

| A Beehive release  |  January 26, 2017  ||

Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Michael Woodhouse is pleased to announce the appointment of Jenni-Maree Trotman as a new Member of the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority).

The Authority performs a very important role in New Zealand’s employment relations system, investigating and working to resolve employment relationship problems.

“Ms Trotman is an experienced employment lawyer who will join the Auckland office for a term of three years,” says Mr Woodhouse.

“The breadth of Ms Trotman’s work and particular strength in commercial law will be a real asset to the Authority.

“I have no doubt that her skills will complement those of the current members and I wish her all the best in her new role.”

Background information on appointee:

Jenni-Maree Trotman has been a Barrister Sole since October 2005 and in legal practice for nearly 18 years. As a barrister, she specialises in employment law, litigation and building disputes. She holds an LLB and a BA from the University of Auckland.

|  A Beehive release  |  January 25, 2017  ||

Trade Minister Todd McClay has said that New Zealand’s ongoing and future trade relationship with the United Kingdom is in good shape following agreement on the next steps for the newly established NZ-UK Trade Policy Dialogue.

The progress was made during a meeting between Minister McClay and his UK counterpart, Secretary of State for International Trade Liam Fox at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

“This is an important day for trade relations between our two countries as the Trade Policy Dialogue will ensure there is no disruption to trading conditions as a result of Britain leaving the European Union,” Mr McClay says.

Minister McClay has offered to host a meeting in New Zealand when Secretary Fox visits in the first half of this year.

Discussions will include market access, trade and investment, World Trade Organisation processes and prospective negotiations.

“Preferential access to high value export markets is important for New Zealand’s strong economic performance. An ongoing focus on promoting fairer trade and investment rules is key to our prosperity as a nation and the Trade Policy Dialogue will be a part of this,” Mr McClay says.

|  Beehive, January 20, 2017  |

UAE, January 18, 2017 - H.E. Eng. Sultan bin Saeed Al Mansoori, UAE Minister of Economy (MOE), affirmed that the economic relations between the UAE and New Zealand continue to grow and are expected to develop further as the two countries aspire to strengthen cooperation in a number of economic sectors of common interest and prioritized within their respective development plans.

The announcement came during a meeting between the UAE Minister of Economy and H.E. Todd McClay, New Zealand Minister of Trade, and his accompanying delegation at the MOE’s Dubai headquarters. Both parties demonstrated the potentials of increasing trade and strengthening cooperation in a number of areas, most notably agriculture and food, renewable energy, innovation, civil aviation, and tourism. The officials also discussed the current status of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the GCC and New Zealand. They touched on major issues that could be raised at the next meeting of the Joint Economic Committee which is set to take place this year in New Zealand.

Among the MOE officials who attended the meeting were H.E. Eng. Mohammed Ahmed Bin Abdulaziz Al-Shehhi, Undersecretary for Economic Affairs; H.E. Humaid bin Butti Al Muhairi, Assistant Undersecretary for the Corporate Sector and Consumer Protection; Abdullah Sultan AlFan AlShamsi, Assistant Undersecretary for Industrial Affairs; and other senior officials and advisers. New Zealand was represented by Jeremy Clarke-Watson, New Zealand's Ambassador to the UAE; H.E. Kevin John Mckenna, Consul General of New Zealand; and the New Zealand Embassy Deputy Head of Mission, Rebecca Wood.

H.E. Eng. Al Mansoori stated that the country's leadership prioritizes innovation and thus places great importance on the National Innovation Strategy. He highlighted the strong interest of the UAE Ministry of Economy to closely work and cooperate with New Zealand on innovation initiatives, as it looks to complete the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between the parties.

The Minister further explained that the next meeting, the 6th session of the Joint Economic Committee, will be an important platform for accelerating the pace of current cooperative agreements. The session will also facilitate discussions on ways to increase development opportunities and overcome potential challenges that may affect the productive bilateral relations, particularly their economic, trade, and investment ties and partnerships with the private sector.

The UAE Minister of Economy added that cooperation in the agricultural and food industries and enabling the UAE's agricultural investments in New Zealand through the latest innovative tools top the list of the Committee’s agenda for its upcoming meeting given their major roles in addressing the country’s food security. The meeting will also focus on cooperation in civil aviation, which is a key factor for the mutual development of trade, investment and tourism.

Both Ministers discussed the latest updates on the FTA between New Zealand and the GCC, with H.E. Eng. Al Mansoori clarifying that the agreement is now in its final stages and is currently undergoing legal review by some of the GCC countries before final approval. He noted the importance of the agreement in enhancing trade and investment exchange between the two parties.

H.E. McClay expressed his country’s paramount interest on the approval of the FTA because of its significant impact on increasing trade volumes with the countries in the region, and commended the UAE’s major role through the Ministry of Economy in making this agreement a reality.

The Minister also discussed the possibility of bilateral cooperation in gaining access to new regional markets by capitalizing on the economic benefits and the strategic geographical location of both countries. The UAE Minister noted the importance of the UAE as a commercial gateway that ably facilitates New Zealand’s trade access to the Middle East, African and European markets, and New Zealand’s value as a significant link for the UAE to access South American markets. He called for sustained communication to open up more trade prospects for both countries.

Total foreign trade between the UAE and New Zealand reached USD 1.6 billion in 2016, and is expected to increase dramatically in the coming years as both countries continue to push bilateral trade and economic cooperation initiatives.

H.E. McClay said that New Zealand will soon push ahead with the development and expansion of hospitality projects in several cities, noting that this move opens an important opportunity for UAE investments that have successfully built a global reputation in this sector.

In response, H.E. Eng. Al Mansoori urged New Zealand companies to explore the prospects of doing business in the UAE which offers an advanced economic environment, facilities, benefits and development incentives particularly conducive to the growth of high-value industries.

H.E. Eng. Al Mansoori said that these form part of the government’s directives towards establishing a knowledge-based economy focused on innovation, creativity and technology, particularly in transport, renewable energy, infrastructure, and small- and medium-sized enterprises.

• Brexit is being driven as much by fear of immigration as passion for free trade
• We need to embrace Africa and Latin America, not just our old and slow-growing friends
• Britain must genuinely open up to all corners of a fast-changing world

Theresa May yesterday gave the clearest indication of Britain’s future direction of travel. Her mantra is “Global Britain” – a phrase we will hear endlessly over coming years. The referendum was a vote “to become even more global and internationalist in action and in spirit”, she said.

Certainly, it was good to hear May speak passionately about the power of free trade, not least as the lethally protectionist Donald Trump becomes president of the United States.

But this flies in face of quitting the single market – collectively the world’s biggest economy and destination for almost half of Britain’s exports. Indeed, there was deep irony that May’s speech was in the same venue, Lancaster House, where Margaret Thatcher once extolled this noble concept of unfettered access.

The truth is that for all May’s fine words, there are significant problems with her vision of “Global Britain”.

The first is in the timescale. No one should doubt that sorting out extraction from the European Union and creating scores of new trading arrangements is a mind-bogglingly complex, delicate process with massive consequences

Yet as the clock ticks on Britain’s departure from the European Union, there will be fierce pressure on the Prime Minister to prove her country can stand alone. Already she has been attacked, often unfairly, for obfuscation.

The danger in trying to rush through the kind of deals that will be needed – both with the EU 27 and others – was put to me by a senior cabinet minister recently.

He gave the example of the bilateral trade deal between China and Switzerland. Concluded just under three years ago, it was hailed as the first between the planet’s emerging superpower and a leading Western economy, the culmination of nine rounds of negotiations, starting in 2010.

But while the deal gave 99.7 per cent of Chinese goods tariff-free access to Swiss markets, it was significantly less generous for trade heading in the opposite direction.

Shortly before conclusion of the talks, the chief Swiss negotiator pleaded for a special dispensation for watchmakers selling to their third biggest market, pointing out that China did not produce luxury timepieces.

His Chinese counterpart smiled. “You may have the watches,” he replied. “But we have time on our side.”

Despite Mrs May’s brave talk of dispensing with a deal if it is on the wrong terms, she is the leader needing to find solutions far more than those she faces over the negotiating table. This means she is more likely to grant the greater concessions.

Similarly, Mrs May talked yesterday of ensuring Britain is a world centre for science and innovation, pledging to continue collaboration with Europe. Quite right, too. Yet already such partnerships are fraying following last year’s vote.

Europe may also have other ideas, focusing on internal collaboration rather than aiding a turncoat. Note how a Swiss threat to end single market participation led to the instant severing of academic ties three years ago.

Yet there is a far more fundamental problem with the prime minister’s plan – which is that its vision of a Global Britain appears to be blurred, to put it kindly.

One of the main factors forcing Britain from the single market, and probably the customs union, is not a desire to embrace free trade. It is Mrs May’s antipathy to immigration, fostered in the Home Office and fuelled by last year’s referendum.

To her credit, she has at least made it clear that controlling immigration comes first. This follows her constriction of border controls at the Home Office and her refusal to exclude students from the Government’s immigration cap, to the detriment of both Britain’s businesses and its world-beating universities.

So it is clear, despite promises of some campaigners, that Brexit will not lead to a significantly more liberal stance for migrants from outside Europe.

Mrs May talked also in grand terms about creating a more global Britain “not for ourselves, but for those who follow. For the country’s children and grandchildren”.

Already we hear much talk of the Anglosphere, as traditionalists promote the cause of deeper alliances with the likes of Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

British and New Zealand leaders have talked of a “high quality” deal, with international trade secretary Liam Fox being despatched to Wellington in coming months. Meanwhile, a few glib words from a slippery president-elect led to huge excitement among Brexiteers.

But if the nation is really focusing on long-term prizes – a sensible idea, given the short-term disruption to business that will follow even a benign Brexit – where is the effort to woo the powerhouses of the future in the developing world?

Not just China and India, important as they are, but the rapidly-growing nations of Africa and Latin America?

Australia, Canada and New Zealand are today worth about $3 trillion, and growing at the same unexciting speed as other mature nations – perhaps 2 per cent over coming decades. New Zealand is smaller economically than Romania, let alone the likes of Argentina, Iran or Nigeria.

As the economist Charles Robertson explained in his book The Fastest Billion, Nigeria alone will be worth $6 trillion by 2050. The entire African continent – its population due to double to two billion by that date – will be worth almost $30 trillion.

To put this figure in perspective, it is bigger than the combined economies of the United States and Eurozone.Elsewhere on CapX

Yet Britain, obsessed with aid not trade, is seeing its share of that growth slip while others from China to India, Brazil and Turkey move in on fast-expanding consumer societies.

This is highly damaging, not least given Britain’s historic links to these areas – the shared language in many parts, the immense soft power of our culture, and even our Premier League football.

Nigerians, for example, are among biggest per capita spenders in our shops – and like several other African nations including Ghana and Kenya, are keen consumers of British education.

Yet from businesspeople to tourists, many Africans have found the costs of obtaining British visas soaring, the hurdles of hostile officialdom rising ever higher, and the consequent attraction of dealing with other nations increasing.

Having been involved in bringing musicians from all over Africa into Britain, I am well aware of visa horrors endured even by some of the continent’s most famous names. And I have heard frequently from middle-class Africans about their disgust at being treated with such disdain by our suspicious system.

So where is the effort to push deals with African countries, despite several being among the world’s fastest-growing economies in recent years? Or a Latin American giant such as Brazil?

Where, in other words, is the focus on the countries and emerging economies that will dominate the future – not just those places that have been our old friends in the past? Where is the recognition that these countries will need access to Britain not just for their goods but for their students and businesspeople, their thinkers and tourists?

If I really thought Brexit would lead to a genuinely global shift in British attitudes, then I would feel far more optimistic about these tumultuous events – and about some of the sentiments in May’s landmark speech.

But at the moment, the self-defeating focus on immigration limits any sense of a genuine global stance.

If Britain really wants to make the most of Brexit, to truly fulfil the Prime Minister’s promise “to become even more global and internationalist in action and in spirit”, it needs to shed the hostility to foreigners that drove so much of the Brexit debate – and genuinely open up to all corners of a fast-changing world.

| A CAPX release  by Ian Birrell  |  January 18, 2017  |

The experience of a New Zealander who served in three White House Administrations suggests Chris Liddell will have a front row seat to history while working as an assistant to Donald Trump.

Peter S Watson grew up in Mt Eden and attended Auckland Grammar, but a career in law later spanned top US law firms and saw him become involved in politics.

Watson worked for George Bush Snr's Administration as a director of Asian Affairs for the United States National Security Council, and later held top posts in the George W. Bush Administration.

A Republican, he was appointed chairman of the high-powered US International Trade Commission by the Clinton Administration.Chris Liddell. New Zealand Herald Photograph by Doug Sherring. Chris Liddell. New Zealand Herald Photograph by Doug Sherring.

Back in New Zealand in 2007, Watson - now president of the Dwight Group, a Washington, D.C.-based investment bank - told the Herald of the experience and pressures of working in the White House, at times directly reporting to the President.

As Asian director of the National Security Council - the advisory group to the President - Watson's role covered South East Asia, Indochina and the South West Pacific.

He played a part in efforts to end the rule of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and had to respond to coup attempts against the then Philippine president Corazon Aquino.

Watson, a dual citizen of New Zealand and the US, recounted being in the situation room when rebel forces were strafing Aquino's presidential palace.

"When these crises are evolving, you always have to keep in the back of your mind a sort of DNA reference of what you stand for long term," he said of the experience.

Associate Professor Stephen Hoadley, international relations scholar at the University of Auckland, said a New Zealander being appointed to the sort of positions held by Watson and now Liddell was unusual.

That was despite a large number of foreigners working in Government in the US, which was an "amazing open system", Hoadley said.

As well as his business experience, Liddell was previously chairman of Project Crimson, a charitable trust that aims to protect New Zealand's endangered pohutukawa and rata trees.

"He does have a green inclination - like all New Zealanders do - and that may in fact put him at odds with Trump's 'drill baby, drill' and 'climate change is a hoax' approach," Hoadley said.

"He will be his own man - he has been chairman of Xero and he is pretty strong minded individual. He won't be bulldozed by Trump's somewhat misdirected urges."

Hoadley said Liddell had the chance to make a difference.

"The good thing about Trump - if there is any good thing about him - is he does want governmental reform, he wants change, he wants efficiency like a well-run business.

"If Liddell can contribute to tidying up the apparatus of US Government that must be good for everyone."

|  MyInforms.com  |  January 18, 2017  |

Watchdog is determined to extract Foreign Aid facts

The determination of the public spending watchdog the Taxpayers Union collective to extract from the government an explanation for its foreign aid donations to the Clinton fund has only increased with the dissolution of the Clinton Foundation when a final pledge of $5.5. million from New Zealand is still due.

Foreign aid remains a substantially unquestioned sector of public expenditure with the political class only differing on the extent of the budgetary increases.

Each year the proclamation is made by this non-productive sector that New Zealand’s aid expenditure is well below that of other nations which are said to be more conscious of their responsibilities.

In fact New Zealand’s annual aid contribution is generous in comparison with that of these nations being 0.27% of GNI.

Britain for example has only just met its 0.7 percent GNI target for the first time.

New Zealand’s 0.27 percent meanwhile remains a substantially more generous aid budget in terms of GNI than the budgets among other nations of the United States, Japan, Italy, or in Nordic terms, even Iceland.

The Clinton fund donations have something in common with the Taxpayers Union’s other bone of contention which it similarly refuses to let go of.

This is the Middle East stock handling and processing depot designed to offset the National government’s surprise decision, for Gulf importers, to veto licences for the export of live sheep to the Middle East.

In both these instances the public contributions via the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade might reasonably be considered by accounting standards to fall into the insurance category of expenditure.

The insurance being to ensure a favourable attitude to New Zealand in the event of the Clinton family re-occupying the White House, and in the instance of the Gulf states to ensure against a boycott of New Zealand exports.

Deliberately overlooked in New Zealand’s foreign aid expenditure is the matter of New Zealand having no foreign possessions in which to invest its aid.

For example a major Pacific recipient of British aid remains the Pitcairn Islands which are classified as a British overseas territory and which contain immense strategic value in terms of the sea area that the Pitcairn Islands command.

|  From the MSCNewsWire reporters' desk  |  Wednesday 18 January 2017  |

The spirit of unanimity in which the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 2334 on December 23 stands in sharp contrast to the condemnation and accusations that have dominated subsequent commentary from Israel and that country's supporters.

New Zealanders deserve to know why the issue of settlements has become so challenging, and why it came before the council in December 2016.

At the heart of this whole debate is whether we will see a future in which two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace and security. This two state solution has been the accepted basis for resolving the Palestinian question for many decades now, enshrined in various negotiated accords and UN Security Council resolutions, and the focus for several unsuccessful attempts to broker final agreement between the parties,

The most recent attempt was led by US Secretary of State John Kerry. After showing great promise those talks broke down in 2014.

No one should underestimate the challenges associated with negotiating the terms for a two state solution. Significant compromises are required of both sides, and the domestic political challenges for both are formidable.

But there has been agreement in principle on the key components, security guarantees for Israel and a state for Palestinians based on the 1967 borders but with negotiated land swaps, including a negotiated approach to managing Jerusalem's holy sites. Resolution 2334 reinforces the international community's commitment to this negotiated outcome.

Resolution 2334 condemns the obstacles to a negotiated two state solution: incitement and acts of violence and terror against civilians of all sides, and the ongoing settlements programme which carves ever more deeply into the land available for a Palestinian state on the West Bank.

There have been some misleading and irresponsible claims made by critics of the resolution: that it somehow predetermines negotiations between the parties, affects the rights of Israelis to access certain religious sites, or changes the legal status of the West Bank. None of those claims is correct. New Zealand would not have supported it if those assertions were correct, and the US would most certainly not have allowed the resolution to pass.

The focal point for much of the critics' anger is the direct call for a halt to the settlements. But that call by the council was clear and deliberate because continuing settlement growth at anything like the current rate will render the two state solution a purely academic concept. There will be nothing left to negotiate.

The other reality is that without a two state solution, demographic and security considerations will pose a serious challenge to the future character of Israel. Kerry put it starkly in his statement the week after the adoption of Resolution 2334, "If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic - it cannot be both - and it won't ever really be at peace."

Those who doubt the seriousness of the settlements issue should read the report of the Middle East Quartet of July 1, 2016. The Quartet comprises the European Union, Russia, the United Nations and the United States. Its report outlines in a careful and factual way the impact of ongoing settlement activity, and more recent moves by the Israeli Parliament to retrospectively legalise settlements developed in contravention of Israeli law.

In Israel this is a politically difficult topic. The settler movement is very influential in the current government, and its leaders occupy a number of key Cabinet posts.

For the whole of New Zealand's two year term on the Security Council, the Secretary-General and his Special Co-ordinator have expressed alarm that the forces of incitement and violence and the relentless progress of the settlement programme were undermining the two state solution.

Some quite exotic theories have been advanced as to why this resolution was dealt with in the final month of New Zealand's council membership. The truth is: the United States would not accept any resolution on this topic until after US presidential elections in November. The domestic politics would have been too difficult.

In late 2014 three quarters of the countries in the United Nations voted for New Zealand's election to the Security Council. They did so because New Zealand has a long standing and respected record for fairness. They also knew of New Zealand's long standing bi-partisan support for the two state solution as a basis for resolving the Palestinian question.

Against that background it would be very difficult to explain why we would not support a resolution seeking to reinforce the notion of two states living peacefully, side by side, and which called for an end to the incitement, violence and the settlements that pose such a serious threat to it.

|  Murray McCully  Foreign Affairs  | January 12, 2017  |

PrivacyAccessibilityCopyrightwww.govt.nz

Lieutenant Tom Gilbert is leading a 35-member New Zealand Defence Force engineering contingent that left today for the Sinai Peninsula to build a security fence for an international peacekeeping force.  In high school, Tom Gilbert led fellow students.

Now the former deputy head boy of Central Hawke’s Bay College is leading a 35-member New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) engineering contingent bound for the Sinai Peninsula.

“It is a massive honour to lead NZDF personnel on operations overseas,” Lieutenant Gilbert, a Troop Commander in the New Zealand Army’s 2nd Field Squadron, said.“A position of leadership comes with a unique set of challenges, which I very much look forward to. Every officer aspires to lead soldiers on operations and few get this opportunity.

“I am very humbled to be chosen to lead the contingent. It is my last year of troop command, so this deployment is the perfect way to finish my term as troop commander.”

Lieutenant Gilbert is leading a contingent comprising combat engineers, carpenters, plumbers, maintenance fitters and electricians from the New Zealand Army’s 2nd Engineer Regiment. The contingent left this morning to build a security fence around the Multinational Force and Observers’ (MFO) South Camp over the next six months.

The MFO is an international organisation with peacekeeping responsibilities in the Sinai Peninsula. After operating at North Camp for more than 30 years, the mission’s headquarters and a number of troops from the 12 nations that make up the MFO’s Force moved to South Camp in mid-2016 because of the deteriorating security situation in North Sinai.

The MFO is building new facilities to accommodate the influx into South Camp and requested assistance from New Zealand and other countries with some of the infrastructure projects.

“I had my sights set on becoming an engineer, and leading sappers on operations exceeds any expectations I had when I joined,” said Lieutenant Gilbert, 23, who enlisted in the Army in 2012 straight from high school.

A number of his relatives served in the Army and the Navy and he regularly heard captivating stories of their wartime experiences while growing up.

“My soldiers motivate me to do well in my role. As troop commander, my success has a direct impact on them,” he said.

“My family has been extremely supportive and that is another big motivation for me. We have a strong history with the military and I work hard to succeed in my role to honour them and make them proud.”

|  An NZDF release  |  January 13, 2017  |

WELLINGTON， Jan. 13 (Xinhua) -- New Zealand Trade Minister Todd McClay will be in Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) next week in another bid to finalize a free trade agreement (FTA) with the Gulf states.

MClay said Friday he would be pressing for a conclusion to the negotiations between New Zealand and the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)， which began back in 2009.

McClay would meet bilaterally with ministerial counterparts and business leaders， including UAE Minister of Economy Sultan bin Saeed Al Mansoor and Kuwaiti Minister of Commerce Khalid Nasser Al Roudhan.

"This is my third visit to the region since becoming trade minister and it is important that we continue to lobby for the conclusion of the agreement. Progress on a GCC FTA will offer greater opportunity for New Zealand companies in this highly competitive market，" McClay said in a statement.

The GCC comprising Saudi Arabia， the UAE， Kuwait， Qatar， Bahrain and Oman was New Zealand's eighth largest trading partner， with annual two-way trade exceeding 3.5 billion NZ dollars (2.49 billion U.S. dollars).

In September last year， New Zealand and Saudi Arabian leaders appeared to have overcome stumbling blocks towards a long-anticipated FTA， after McClay held talks with Saudi Minister of Commerce and Investment Dr Majid bin Abdullah Al Qasabi and they agreed to work towards its early completion.

In 2015， then New Zealand Prime Minister John Key visited the GCC states， and said Saudi Arabia was going to be the stumbling block to the deal.

It was believed that Saudi government took umbrage over New Zealand's ban on exports of live sheep a trade in which Saudi businesses had invested heavily.

McClay would travel to Switzerland on Jan. 19 and 20 to attend a meeting of key World Trade Organization (WTO) trade ministers to discuss developments in the multilateral trading system and prospects for progress ahead of the 11th WTO Ministerial meeting in Buenos Aires.

|  A SINA release  |  January 13, 2017  |