United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I move, That the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

It is a pleasure to move in support of this bill. Following the bill’s first reading in July, the bill was referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, where it was extensively examined. The committee considered the bill between 26 July and 20 October, and it recommended that the bill proceed with a limited number of amendments related to Part 5 of the bill: the apple transitional export quota. Further technical amendments were also made for further clarity and consistency.

I want to express my thanks to all those involved in this important examination process, from members of the committee to civil society and business representatives. The New Zealand - United Kingdom free-trade agreement (FTA) is a high-quality, inclusive, and precedent-setting free-trade agreement that will provide real benefits for New Zealand.

The global economy is confronting the realities of the largest war in Europe since World War II, whose impacts are reverberating around the world. This, of course, comes on the back of a COVID-19 pandemic that triggered a major global shock over the past two years which continues to affect economies around the world. Nations are grappling with the interlinked challenges of high inflation, tightening financial conditions, and continuing pressure on supply chains.

New Zealand’s Trade Recovery Strategy recognises that trade is a key driver of our recovery from the economic impacts of COVID-19. Trade is also important for building a high-wage, low-emissions economy that supports economic security. New Zealand has worked to provide strategic trade debt through concluding a series of free-trade agreements with key partners, providing New Zealanders with as many trading options as possible.

The UK FTA and our recently concluded free-trade agreement with the European Union are key components of the Trade Recovery Strategy. Both agreements provide new and meaningful access into large, high-value consumer markets where exporters have previously faced high barriers. These free-trade agreements will support New Zealand’s businesses to reconnect with partners, customers, and markets overseas. They will improve our exporters’ competitiveness through reduced tariffs and increased market access, and will create opportunities for exporters to diversify products and markets.

New Zealand’s most recently concluded free-trade agreement with the European Union has been a long-sought objective by successive Governments. Once implemented, this agreement will create a level playing field for most New Zealand exporters and significantly improved access to the large and high-value EU market of 450 million consumers. New Zealand is working with the European Commission to secure speedy signature and ratification of the New Zealand - EU FTA, and signature could occur by mid-2023 and ratification of the free-trade agreement in 2024.

In the UK free-trade agreement, New Zealand was able to capitalise on being in the first tranche of the UK’s new FTAs after it left the EU, as well as on the UK’s intention to demonstrate the success of its independent trade policy and its credentials to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. The UK FTA is one of the best deals New Zealand has signed. Our two countries have a uniquely close bond, including the significant connection between Māori and the UK, given the role of the British Crown as one of the original signatories of the Treaty of Waitangi.

This FTA will assist the development of stronger trade, economic, cultural and people-to-people links between our two countries. Importantly, it will restore a level playing field for New Zealand exporters for the first time since the UK entered the European Union 30 years ago. New Zealand and the UK share deep interests in the Indo-Pacific as an open and inclusive region of sovereign, resilient, and prosperous States underpinned by the utmost respect for international rules and norms. As a piece of architecture, this free-trade agreement creates an enduring link that draws the UK towards our region and makes a contribution to an open, rules-based system that goes beyond bilateral trade.

The market access package we have agreed is among the very best New Zealand has secured in an FTA. At full implementation, the UK will eliminate all tariffs on New Zealand exports. The FTA is expected to boost New Zealand’s economy by between $700 million and $1 billion at full implementation, with New Zealand annual exports to the UK estimated to grow by over 50 percent, or up to $2.2 billion. The FTA provides New Zealand exporters with immediate, comprehensive, and commercially meaningful access into the UK market, including for our primary sector, and 99.5 percent of New Zealand’s current exports will enter the UK duty-free on entry into force of the FTA.

Tariff elimination has been prioritised for a range of key products, including those of interest to Māori, such as honey, horticultural goods, and seafood. For products where tariffs will be phased out over a number of years, such as dairy, beef, and sheep meat, we have secured sizable duty-free quotas that offer commercially meaningful access into the market.

The FTA contains significant outcomes for matters of interest to Māori, including a dedicated trade and economic cooperation chapter and far-reaching commitments on trade and environment. Importantly, the preamble to the FTA recognises the unique relationship between Māori and the British Crown as an original signatory to Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi. As with all FTAs since 2001, this agreement includes New Zealand’s Treaty of Waitangi exception that ensures that nothing in the free-trade agreement will prevent the New Zealand Government from meeting its obligations to Māori.

Beyond new market access, the deal offers more certainty for our services exporters, for investors, and for Kiwi businesses wanting to access the UK’s Government procurement market. We’ve also agreed to cooperate with the UK in a range of areas, including in digital trade, to assist our growing tech sector.

As the first FTA launched and concluded under New Zealand’s Trade for All agenda, this FTA sets high-ambition commitments in inclusive and sustainable trade. It is New Zealand’s first bilateral FTA to include dedicated chapters on trade and gender, and consumer protection. We have secured quality outcomes on trade and development, small and medium sized enterprises, trade and labour, and anti-corruption. The FTA also includes far-reaching commitments on trade and the environment, including concrete steps to eliminate subsidies on fossil fuels, provisions to combat overfishing, and specific articles on climate change. The environment chapter will also prioritise the elimination of tariffs on over 290 environmentally beneficial products. This is the largest environmental goods list agreed in any FTA to date.

Once ratified, the UK and EU FTAs will mean that the percentage of our exports to markets covered by an FTA will rise to nearly 75 percent, up from 52 percent in 2017. This significant expansion of New Zealand’s FTA network will contribute to New Zealand’s diversified trade portfolio and assist New Zealand’s recovery from the economic impacts of COVID-19.

With the UK FTA signed in February this year, both New Zealand and the UK are working to bring the agreement into force as soon as possible. There are a limited number of legislative and regulatory amendments that are required to align New Zealand’s domestic law with certain obligations in the UK FTA. The United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill will enable New Zealand to implement its obligations under the FTA and the legislation necessary to bring the FTA into force. New Zealand is aiming to complete domestic ratification processes this year. The United Kingdom is completing its own domestic process, including the passing of legislation. Once both countries have concluded the necessary steps, we will be ready to bring the FTA into force.

As noted by the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand has secured this deal with the UK at a crucial time in our recovery from the economic impacts of COVID-19. The New Zealand - UK FTA serves our economy and exporters well as we reconnect, rebuild, recover, and look into the future. I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Madam Speaker, thank you very much. I’ve left my notes behind, so I won’t read my speech.

Largely, I want to start by thanking the officials for their dedication and extreme hard work over a long period of time. You know, Governments come and go in this place. Different Governments claim responsibility for start, middle, or end of trade negotiations. Largely, though, it’s the officials that do the hard work, the graft, and they are there through successive Governments.

In the case of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, I think we have some of the best trade negotiators in the world. In fact, I know that’s the case, because when we were in Government and the UK left the European Union, we arranged—or “helped” or “allowed” or whatever the term may be—for one of New Zealand’s most successful trade negotiators to be linked to them; in fact, to go and work for them as they created a trade department, the ability to negotiate.

Much of what the UK now does was based on the early steps that the National Government came to support them, to share information with them, to open our trade negotiation trade book so that they could get ready to negotiate with the world and the European Union and with others.

One of the most important things that happened during that period of time, you know, was the UK trade Minister, Liam Fox, made a commitment that New Zealand would be one of the first cabs off the rank—along with Australia—to do a free-trade agreement (FTA). I remember having discussions in the media there, both with their farming groups and their politicians, about how they needed to look further afield than the European Union. Surely the farmers of the United Kingdom didn’t vote to leave the European Union just to be protectionist when it came to the rest of the world. And they had an opportunity to join New Zealand and any other like-minded country that believes a rules-based system with few restrictions actually grows economies, allows countries to join together, work more closely together, creates jobs and income, and lifts countries up, economies up, and people up. Then, actually, that was what they should do.

I’m very pleased to say that the efforts of our officials and those officials we lent them—or that they hired away from us—have done their job very well. Because as far as this agreement is concerned and from what the UK has done, they are much more like New Zealand than they are like the European Union when they were part of the European Union. I think our exporters in the future will benefit quite greatly and quite significantly from that.

The Minister made comparisons between the UK FTA and the EU FTA, and he talked about the percentage of goods that would be covered by free-trade agreements as a result of that going from about 50 percent to 75 percent. Sadly, there is not great comparison between the quality of the UK FTA that our officials delivered and the EU FTA. The reason for that is two of our largest exports—in meat and dairy—have largely, and as far as free trade is concerned, been excluded from the EU deal. And that’s a great shame, because it means we have missed an opportunity to help the European Union understand the benefits of free trade, to pull down protection, and to join the UK and New Zealand and others in realising that fewer barriers, when it comes to trade, delivers for economies.

In that respect, I think the Government hasn’t done the job that they might have with a Minister who also has a primary industry portfolio, because our sheep farmers and our beef farmers and our dairy farmers largely have been left out in the cold with the EU deal compared to what has happened with the UK deal.

We’ll have an opportunity to discuss that in the House and in the committee and submissions will come in. But I think it’s very important to draw attention to what the Minister tried to say—75 percent of tradeable goods may be covered by FTAs, but when you come to the value of our exports, in as far as the EU is concerned, it won’t be at that level, because in the most substantial exports that we have to the EU, they are largely excluded or they are restricted based on quota or still have tariffs upon them.

There was one bright light there, though. For some reason, we can export onions to the European Union without tariff. The three onion farmers I’ve spoken to will be delighted, but it won’t do much for the dairy farmers up and down the country.

And as far as trade with the UK is concerned, the committee did its job judiciously. We wanted to get through our part of this as quickly as we could under your direction and chairmanship, Madam Speaker. The reason for this is: the sooner we get to do our job here, which is get this through the House, the sooner we can get on and sign it, and if there is an opportunity to do that this year, we should do it. We shouldn’t take our time and say, “Well, I guess we’ll have to do it next year”—conveniently at an election year. Actually, it doesn’t matter; what we should do is get this under way as quickly as we can. And with the new Prime Minister in the United Kingdom—who, by all intents and purposes, believes strongly in free trade—we should be talking to them about speeding the process up.

Forget the politics of this; the moment it enters into force, our exporters get to export more. When we export more, and where we have an advantage—because with the UK, our exporters do have an advantage over others who will want to trade there and haven’t got their FTAs yet; we will be on a level playing field with the European Union in that market—then, actually, what that does is it means New Zealand exporters earn more for the same amount of work, it grows the economy, and they get to employ more. It is a very, very good thing.

The final thing I wanted to say is that if we now have a level playing field in the UK market with the European Union, New Zealand exporters do not have a level playing field in the European Union with UK exporters, and that’s the problem with the EU deal that’s been done. Too much was left on the table, and it’s a shame that the Government didn’t say, “We’re going to put politics aside because the Prime Minister is overseas.” We need an announcement. If they had continued to discuss and talk, then I think we would have got more. Time will tell—the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The Australians are holding back and are still negotiating. If Australia gets more than we got, it’s not, in the end, that their negotiators are better than ours—they’re not—I think their Ministers and their politicians are better. We will see. The final thing I want to say—the Minister talked about diversifying and not being reliant upon any market. Well, actually, we were reliant upon the UK many years ago. They joined the European communities, our access all but disappeared, and we had to fight for it, to get it back. We now have restored that with the UK—that’s a good thing.

But I’ve got to say it’s with great disappointment that we see that this Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have announced publicly that they are giving up and walking away on a free-trade agreement with India because it’s just too hard. And here’s the problem with that: if we are saying it’s too hard to do a free-trade agreement with countries that are not used to opening their borders, then who is going to make that case in the world? It won’t be the European Union. It could well be the UK. It has been Australia, who have done a deal—not a perfect one, but they’ve got a free-trade agreement. I just don’t understand why the Minister would come to the House, saying that the UK FTA is one of the best that we’ve seen; the EU is, he says, as good. “It helps us diversify so we’re not reliant on any one market—China or anywhere else in the world.”

But in the very same breath, just a week or so ago, the Government said they are giving up on the FTA negotiation with India. That doesn’t mean we diversify more; it actually means that we are more reliant upon a few markets in the world, and it sends a signal to those who choose to protect their borders through restriction, through tariff, and through subsidy that New Zealanders are no longer the people who are out there talking about the benefits of free trade. If it’s too hard, we’ll give up. Well, very clearly to our exporters throughout New Zealand: a National Government wouldn’t give up. We would continue to argue the case for a high-quality deal with India and many other countries.

And I say to the Minister, it is good that our officials have been able to work hard and deliver on this. The EU deal is a step in the direction—it just wasn’t good enough—but he now needs to get out on the world stage and start filling that pipeline up again. The deals that have been done over the last few years were started many years ago, before this Government got here, and the success of New Zealand is having that pipeline of potential deals full so we can continue to work through them. It’s not very full at the moment; in fact, there are very few new deals that have been announced or spoken of, and that will mean at some stage our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials won’t have as much to do. I guess, since they are the world’s best and they’ve delivered this high-quality agreement, they could well look to go and work for other countries, as some of them did with the UK. That wouldn’t be good for New Zealand or the New Zealand economy. The Minister needs to go out and start filling that pipeline. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Unlike the previous member, the Hon Todd McClay, I’m going to speak about the New Zealand - United Kingdom free-trade agreement (FTA), not the EU one. And I know he wanted to speak about the EU one because he knew that the UK one is actually of a gold standard and there’s not much to criticise about it. The EU one, it’s a little bit like comparing apples and pears, and I have to say everybody in this House knows that the EU is particularly stringent in its negotiations around climate change and I would like to see the Opposition try to get a better EU deal over the line than what we are achieving currently.

I would also remind the previous speaker that National concluded only four FTAs in their nine years in office, and when it comes to economic management, FTAs are about what we can export. We are an exporting nation and they’re critical. Labour gets FTAs over the line. We’ve got the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, the upgraded China and Singapore FTAs, and we’ve got them over the line because for us these are about relationships. We understand relationships because they are about people, they’re about trade, and they’re about defence; it is not just transactional stuff. And what was able to be achieved with this was a gold-standard FTA with the UK for all the reasons stated by the Minister. The UK is the fifth-biggest exporter. We have exports to them worth $1.7 billion per year and we have achieved incredibly good market access, and that is thanks to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), the iwi team within MFAT, iwis outside of MFAT who I spoke to, the former High Commissioner Laura Clarke—who did an excellent job in addressing the issue of colonisation and being able to mend some bridges there—and her team. And it was a real win-win-win result.

Friendships these days are important. When countries do trade with each other, they get to understand the value base, the supply chains, the way of doing business, and that’s incredibly important during these tricky times. I’m reminded of that today on the national day of celebration of Hungary’s 1956 freedom fight, which went on for 13 days. And in that time, Hungary was crushed by Russia. We’re seeing similar things happen with the Ukraine and so our friends are more important than ever. So a shout-out to our Hungarian New Zealanders who came over as refugees after that time, and also to our Ukraine population. And just appreciating that we have got very good friends in the UK and in the EU, and I commend this bill to the House.

I call on Simon O’Connor.

Chris Penk: Oh, this’ll be better!

Well, I’m not sure, but, hey. Look, thank you very much. I don’t know whether I should confess to the House, with recent events in the United Kingdom, but one of my most excellent meetings when I was the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee was with Liz Truss, actually. She and I had a wonderful private lunch together, talking, primarily, trade. I do want to make it very clear I gave no advice beyond trade! But, actually, we had a really excellent discussion at that time—actually, echoing a lot of what speakers prior have just brought out, which is the deep relationship and respect between our two countries. And with all due respect to Ms Truss and everything that she’s been through, I would have to say that when she was the trade Minister, at that time she saw the real value of that New Zealand agreement. I think that’s been passed on to subsequent trade Ministers, obviously both in the Governments here—to use the plural—in New Zealand and then certainly through the UK itself.

Look, as I say, it’s been a deep respect and I suppose it’s our intertwined histories which have helped to a degree, but I think as well, and, obviously, I can’t speak for the UK, that they can see the strategic advantage in getting these good deals over the line with the likes of New Zealand and Australia. So it’s a good deal and no one on this side of the House disputes that. The fact that so many tariffs will fall away relatively quickly is quite positive. And in order to make sure I am not erroneous—that’s probably not very plain, is it? So that I don’t get things wrong—

Chris Penk: Oh, careful!

SIMON O’CONNOR: Careful, sorry. Pulling back—pull back. It’s obviously going to go right across our sectors, as they’ve got here. Apples, their tariffs are going to fall away—will be tariff-free within three years—milk is going to be over four years; cheese and butter over five years, which if one reflects on the time it takes to sort of cure these things it sort of makes sense; and beef and lamb is going to be over 15 years. Obviously—

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

SIMON O’CONNOR: I know that was just a terrible, terrible joke. It’s late at night. But long and short, this is a good deal. This is a very, very positive deal.

So, as others have done, I think it’s rightful even at a second reading speech to acknowledge, within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), and Trade and Enterprise, all those involved with these negotiations, they’ve done an excellent job and they should be thanked. It doesn’t take away from the work of the Minister, the Government of the day, and Governments, actually, who have contributed to this, but I think the team at MFAT can take a bow.

I’ll echo also what Todd McClay was saying. When I was last in the UK, I went to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office and was quite stunned as well at the number of New Zealanders there and particularly in the trade section. I don’t think it should be understated the contribution that New Zealanders have made to the United Kingdom in its ability to engage with us. I have absolutely no doubt—in fact, I sort of feel weird to even have to say it—that the New Zealand negotiators in New Zealand have argued the best deal and the New Zealanders working in the UK have absolutely pursued the best for the UK. But perhaps what we can see is that the understanding, the cooperation, the language, the jargon, and the use of plain and useful English has been beneficial and we have this deal here and now.

Look, it is good that there is cooperation or agreement, I think, largely across the House. I do have to point out to members on the other side in Government that they were, at one point, protesting the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and simply putting the word “comprehensive” in front of it doesn’t change things. So I don’t think we need to—for want of a better term and, again, a bad pun—cry over spilt milk, which will soon be tariff-free. It’s just a sign, actually, that bipartisanship on trade needs to continue. We’ve had a blip on the road when it came to the TPP and I just hope all in this House have learnt from that. We must, I believe, keep that bipartisan approach to trade in our foreign affairs space as much as we can, and certainly as we’ve seen earlier in the House around our national security.

Well, actually, that’s a thought. Now that I’ve mentioned TPP, we’ve got this trade deal with the UK. So firstly, on that, we do need to get this ratified as soon as possible. There’s no need to delay and I think I do need to echo what others are saying. We shouldn’t allow the politics particularly of New Zealand to get in the way. Strike now and strike quickly. Get the UK across the line.

Again, in a recent trip—granted, to America, but I was talking to MPs from the Commons and Lords. Strangely enough, from the Lords—they’re keen; they’re supportive. Let’s run with that. Yep, there can certainly be, I expect, an advantage for a Prime Minister to be in the UK next year signing the deal, but, actually, our farmers, growers, and others need this relief now. So the quicker we can get this done, the better. And kudos for the select committee moving this through swiftly. Having gone through the report, it absolutely makes sense—again, for viewers at home to really understand that the select committee and this Parliament does not change the negotiated treaty. That’s a power for the executive. That’s what the Government does. The treaty is negotiated. What we’re discussing tonight is the domestic legislation which brings this deal into reality. I think the sharp eyes of your committee, Madam Chair, are well and truly present, including not wanting to give the Governor-General, with no disrespect to her, too much power; it’s always good that a Governor-General acts on the advice of Ministers.

So our last couple of thoughts—one within the arts realm and one within sort of some suggestions of how we might move further. There’s an artist resale scheme. So I’m putting on my arts, culture, and heritage hat. I think this House is going to have to have a lot of discussion around that. I’m very aware that the legislation tonight does not—repeat: does not—include legislation around that scheme, but it has to be implemented within two years. I will signal to the House with my somewhat, and so far, limited discussions with the sector, there’s a variety of views around that resale scheme. Again, for those tuned in at home—probably all two of them: my father and mother; hi, mum and dad, I’ll call you at some point—the artist resale scheme is something that the UK has asked that New Zealand bring about. It’s not something that New Zealand is asking for; this is, if you will, an imposition through the deal. I think that has to be approached really, really carefully. So I’m looking forward to that legislation coming into the House.

We also have to, via this trade deal, extend our copyright terms from, I think, 50 to 70 years. I think it brings New Zealand in line with pretty much everyone else. That’s going to have a un-comfortability, Madam Chair—Madam Speaker; I apologise as I’m switching between your dual roles—but I think that’s going to take a little bit of conversation, as well. But I think, from my personal view, aligning New Zealand’s copyright laws and various rights terms with the rest of the world makes sense and will actually make us a better and easier approach when we deal with the EU.

Look, a quick comment on that, I think it’s really important that New Zealand maintains its negotiation strong stance with the EU. I know that they’ll be listening to these speeches tonight from across the House. We want a good deal with the EU. They’re an important trading partner. We want that to happen, but I think it’s also important for this House to understand—and those across the Realm, across New Zealand, to understand—that, actually, there is a difference in the deals, and the UK deal at this point is better—much, much better—than it is with the EU. So there’s, in my opinion, room for improvement there.

I think, too, we absolutely must—and this is an encouragement to the Government—look to engage further trade deals, and, yes, India is one of them. They are a massive superpower. They are a massive economic power. We are gifted, I think, in this country, with a wonderful Indian - New Zealand community, who themselves have said to us really clearly that they want to help engage that. It’s so, and so, important. It won’t surprise people who know my views around the likes of China, we cannot have all of our trade in one basket. Our trade with China is important. That’s a respectful trading relationship. I want to see that continue, but we cannot solely depend on that. New Zealand must diversify, and we are doing that tonight by this free-trade agreement with the United Kingdom. We are doing it as we seek a deal with the EU. But we must, must go much wider.

My last thoughts, if I might, are actually just an encouragement for us to go further. I’m a great supporter of something called “CANZUK”—this is a suggested agreement between the likes of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom; five Realms, all who share a similar head of State and Government. Actually, there can be a lot more cooperation, particularly in the movement of people. I know it’s not formally within this agreement, but, boy, what a day that will be when New Zealanders, Aussies, Canadians, and those from the United Kingdom can actually travel to one another’s countries without visas—we can travel freely, work freely. I think that will be an excellent day. It’s my hope that this trade deal is just one step in that direction.

But as I started, and to bookend this speech, thank you to all of those involved and I acknowledge you and your committee for the hard work taken.

Hon Member: Whoo!

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. That was a surprise.

New Zealand is a nation of trade and export, and this free-trade agreement with the UK is huge for our country. It’s huge for our exporters, and predominately a lot of those are our primary producing exporters. What we’re going to see with this free-trade agreement is most tariffs are going to be eliminated off our exports into the UK. I did note that, with one of those in particular—and Ms Grigg might be interested in this one, given her comment around wine today—there’ll be $14 million worth of tariffs removed immediately for our wine exporters. So I think that’s just one example of the benefits that we will see from this UK free-trade agreement.

What this piece of legislation does is it implements—it’s necessary for us to be able to implement and to ratify our free-trade agreement with the UK. One of the things that I noted around this, with reducing the tariffs, is that it’s going to boost our GDP by between $700 million and $1 billion for New Zealand, and I think that’s fantastic. As I said, a lot of that is around for our primary producers. And I think this is a really big thing for our primary producers here in New Zealand because, after all, it is our primary producers and our exporters that pretty much kept us going throughout the COVID pandemic. So anything that helps reduce barriers to trading for them with the UK is a good thing, in my view.

I do note that the products such as dairy, beef, and sheep—where the tariffs are going to be phased in over time—whilst they may not have quite what they wanted, those tariffs are going to be phased in over time, and I think that that’s a good thing; whilst they might not get it straight away, that it will come into play.

This is an important bill in order to ensure that we can implement and ratify the UK free-trade agreement. I think we should get on with it, and I commend this bill to the House.

I call on Golriz Ghahraman.

Hon Member: Oh, here we go!

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the enthusiasm of my colleagues across the House. I also would like to acknowledge you, Madam Speaker, as the chair of our Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in working with us so diligently on trade issues that often happen under some great secrecy. It’s often hard to get information, and we try our best to act as a parliamentary oversight mechanism together across the House. Of course, we also have to deal with all the submitters, with all the love and care that they bring to these issues, and often it’s with great frustration that those members of our community come to our committee.

I know that others across the House tonight have raised that great big umbrella trade agreement that we all talk about now as either an incredible win or an incredible win that already existed, or whatever it is, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). I want to start there too, because the previous Labour-led Government last term agreed and signed on to the “comprehensive progressive” TPP, as I will always call it, minutes into becoming Government. It was a shock. It was a shock because many of us had stood shoulder to shoulder to protest that agreement, and because the Government did pass it—and there is a connection with this bill I am getting to—we ended up having the Government agree to the Trade for All agenda. That was forming an expert, community-led, Māori-led, environmentalist, union-led body that would tell our Government and future Governments what fair, sustainable trade should look like. The Government agreed that all future trade agreements would abide by the recommendations of the Trade for All agenda.

That came about because of the CPTPP, because that agreement did not meet those baseline standards. It represented a trade agreement that came from an archaic global financial system that had already failed. It had failed workers, it had failed the environment, it had failed indigenous people, and it had actually failed the global economy. It had collapsed. So that model was recognised as being not particularly ambitious, if not harmful and detrimental to our communities. So we had the Trade for All agenda. We had endless inquiry, and we had these experts, in good faith, engage with us, and they told us what we needed.

Now we have this UK free-trade agreement. Since then, we’ve also had the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, we’ve had the EU trade agreement, and all of these agreements have come with the enlightened recommendations of the Trade for All agenda. So it is with great disappointment and sorrow that I note that this agreement does not meet the requirements of the Trade for All agenda. It was not brought to us as a committee in a democratic way with the ability to change, to engage, or to recommend anything to do with the outcome of this agreement, as was recommended. The submitters had no opportunity to engage with the mandate of trade negotiators or the content of what was on the table before we were able to hear their submissions.

Most importantly, when we look at what has been celebrated by the Minister as the “Treaty of Waitangi clause”, Māori leaders in trade sat outside of that negotiation, didn’t know the content of either the mandate or the draft agreement, and they told us that at select committee. I don’t think I’ll ever forget that day that the late great Moana Jackson was due to tell us all about that, and we have the damning submission in writing but we never got to see him because he passed away in the night.

So we have a responsibility to say that what a sustainable, fair, inclusive trade agreement looks like is not this. Why else would the Government have responded to the criticism that came after the agreement to the CPTPP, to have the Trade for All agenda drawn up, if we weren’t going to abide by it, if we weren’t going to include workers’ rights—and we heard that from the unions who came and submitted—if we weren’t going to include Māori interests in the actual negotiation of this trade agreement? Why would we do that?

But there are good things about this trade agreement. It does have more on the environment than we’ve ever had before, though it remains to be seen whether the environmental chapter is, in fact, enforceable because we’ve never had an environmental chapter that was enforceable. We keep talking about having environmental clauses in trade agreements, but we don’t actually make them enforceable. As a lawyer, I have to say that that’s all that really matters. The investor chapters are expressed in great detail. The rights and privileges of investors, foreign investors, are enunciated in legally enforceable terms here. The environmental chapter remains to be litigated. We don’t know. It does have more detail than we’ve ever seen before, but it’s still pretty broad.

Workers’ rights—again, the unions are the experts on that, and they don’t find those adequate. The Waitangi Tribunal has found the standard-form inclusion of the Waitangi clause in here that’s being celebrated by the Minister to fall short of what’s needed. Again, we didn’t have Māori engagement in the negotiation itself.

We do have a women’s trade chapter here. That’s great. Recognition that there are marginalised communities that may be excluded from international trade and that the benefits of international trade may not always “trickle down”—so to speak—to all communities is great. It’s a starting point. Again, to recognise the need for women’s inclusion in trade is not to say that those chapters are enforceable, that they include detail that is legally binding, but it is included and it is an aspirational statement that, you know, we do need.

With the breaches that I’ve just noted in indigenous rights and in Te Tiriti o Waitangi issues, and, in particular, in workers’ rights and in terms of knowing whether or not the environmental chapter can be enforced against international traders, it is a disappointing agreement. In particular, in light of the fact that we have the recommendations of the Trade for All agenda in front of us, that we waited for them, that we engaged with them, that we had our communities put their hearts and souls into ensuring that those recommendations were fit for purpose for a future in trade that actually does benefit our nation and not just an elite few global multinationals. So that is disappointing, and for that reason, the Green Party will not be commending this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill. I know, as the hours get a bit longer in the evening, and I’m being collegial, what a bleak, rather dark speech from the Green member Golriz Ghahraman—rather disappointing, actually. It’s seldom that we hear something, at this time of the night, that is pretty much universally agreed to. The United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill, as the ACT Party has it, is a good piece of legislation. This bill seeks to amend New Zealand law in order to enable New Zealand to implement its obligations under the free-trade agreement (FTA) between both New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

The bill amends the Copyright Act 1994—I’ve got the legislation in front of me. It amends the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001—well, there you go. It speaks to amending the Overseas Investment Act 2005. Suffice it to say, there is a lot in that detail. And several other pieces of legislation, speaking to Part 4 and Part 5—several amendments, including the apple transitional export quota. All good stuff. ACT fully supports the ability to strengthen our trade ties and address these issues directly. As was canvassed previously by other members in the House, the ACT Party, and parties generally, don’t see any notable negative impacts from this agreement. Whether it’s imports or exports, whether it’s concerns around health or immigration or our small and medium sized businesses and enterprise, the overall economy stands to benefit from this free-trade agreement.

As has already been well articulated, the United Kingdom and New Zealand—the economies in both countries—share a common bond. The United Kingdom economy is the fifth-largest in the world. It speaks to billions and billions of dollars in terms of GDP. This FTA could further improve the economic relationship between both New Zealand and the United Kingdom, and this has been previously canvassed in the House this evening. Ultimately, we believe this FTA could deliver and boost real GDP numbers by more than $700 million. And I think there were other members in the House that articulated up to a billion dollars in GDP revenue. ACT has always been a party that supports free markets. We articulate that routinely. Enterprise and opportunities to expand our tradable footprint around the world can only be seen as a good thing.

An amendment to enable the application of the preferential tariff rates and agree to the New Zealand and the UK trade agreement moving forward. An amendment to provide for the Transitional New Zealand UK Free Trade Agreement Safeguard Mechanism—I’m not quite sure I understand fully what that means, but I’m sure it’s a good thing procedurally—moving forward. An amendment to give effect to the extension of the copyright term and, as some previous members in the House have articulated, the importance of that moving from a 50- to a 70-year period, I believe. This free-trade agreement provides New Zealand 50 years to implement that reality. As was clearly articulated by my colleague Brooke van Velden, the ACT Party believes that our foreign party speaks to our values on the world stage, and signing such deals are a reflection of the interests of New Zealand and the reflections of the United Kingdom. Ultimately, it’s good for the New Zealand economy, and the economies of both countries, in fact.

We all accept a long history has been shared with the United Kingdom. It is a liberal, democratic country, one that New Zealand’s values of democracy are shared hand in glove. ACT has a happy relationship and seeks to have this piece of legislation ratified into law. Ultimately, free-trade agreements help New Zealand grow business opportunities, create jobs and higher-paying wages, and, by virtue of what we’ve canvassed tonight, that could only be a good thing. Such FTAs that push down tariff barriers create an unlimited access to market goods under the right circumstances and, ultimately, lead to better economic outcomes for all those involved. Industrial sectors like the beef and sheep trade will see their duty-free quotas for New Zealand beef be incentivised in annual instalments from, I believe, 12,000 metric tonnes to 60,000 tonnes in a 15-year roll-out period. Then, to speak of free-trade tariffs for the sheep meat transitional quota which would reach 50,000 metric tonnes for a year, from a five-year through a 15-year period.

Sadly, if one makes the comparison between the success of the FTA with the United Kingdom and the economic lethargy of the FTA between New Zealand and the European Union, it becomes abundantly clear, to those that have listened in this House beforehand, that the real economic stimulus in this piece of legislation was nothing more than an economic trickle in the EU - New Zealand agreement.

In the end, the ACT Party recognises that as our geopolitical landscapes are constantly shifting around the world, and economics around the world constantly jostle with one another, as they transition out of the economic woes of COVID-19, trade agreements like this one are going to be tantamount to good economic outcomes and, ultimately, create this economic low-hanging fruit that we all so desperately need. The ACT Party fully supports this piece of legislation.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s been a good day: first, fair pay, and now free trade. I’d like to start by very sincerely commending and acknowledging the Minister, the Hon Damien O’Connor, and all of the officials, as has been mentioned tonight, many of whom have worked hard and comprehensively and applied their incredible skills over a period of time to bring this home. Also, I’d like to acknowledge the diligent work of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, who no doubt very diligently examined this bill and, as a result, the committee made only a limited number of recommendations—mainly relating to Part 5 of the bill, with respect to the apple transitional export quota.

There were several submissions, and I think two that stood out in particular were from the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand, and Fonterra. Just to very briefly summarise: the former said that the free-trade agreement (FTA) “demonstrates [the highest] level of ambition in agricultural trade liberalisation for a developed OECD economy since the implementation of the New Zealand Australia Closer Economic partnership”, which is high praise. And Fonterra noted that this FTA “provides a critical and welcome level of certainty for a two-way dairy trade between New Zealand and the UK.”

But, amongst the many admirable chapters that are included in this agreement—in a first for New Zealand, alongside the climate change chapter—there is one on animal welfare, and the FTA includes the chapter that recognises what is a high priority, that we afford animal welfare in our farming practice, and that’s something that we, obviously, share with the UK. The chapter also sets out how both countries now will work together, as they have done, but to do so more comprehensively and cooperatively, including in those international standard-setting bodies that we both belong to, to continue to promote animal welfare practices.

This is a gold-standard FTA; it’s one of the best FTAs that New Zealand has ever had negotiated. The reduction of tariffs and the increase in market access is estimated to grow our exports to the UK by over 50 percent; so that’s certainly nothing to sniff at. We’re very pleased, on this side of the House, that this Government has brought it home and got it over the line successfully, and, with no further ado, I’m happy to commend it to the House and get on with it. Thank you.

The next call is a split call. I call on Nicola Grigg for five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Like my other colleagues, I rise in support of this United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill, as we near the final point in what has been a very long journey, very ably begun by the National Government. When Labour was still on the picket lines, decrying the supposed evils of free and equal trade, National was pushing this thing through.

It has been, and is, as has been observed by other speakers in this Chamber this evening, one of the best free-trade agreements (FTAs) that has been struck in our history, and, I would say, particularly pleasing for the agricultural sector, which I am so very proud to represent.

Simon O’Connor: What about onion growers?

NICOLA GRIGG: Simon O’Connor, my colleague, is also wanting to call out the onion growers, of which I have a brother-in-law who is one, so I do hope he is pleased by this too.

But the work on this agreement started under the John Key Government in 2017, where we put the work in to commit to a framework for a fully comprehensive, ambitious free-trade agreement, obviously in preparation for Britain’s exit from the EU. It is good to see this evening that Labour have finally come back from the picket lines and put down their picket signs of opposition, and they’ve come around to realising that free trade is a good thing. My colleagues and I were just discussing before how much this party, the National Party, loves trade. We love capitalism, and we couldn’t help but remember the comments made by Jacinda Ardern when she first became Prime Minister of New Zealand that capitalism has failed this country. Well, to that I would say, “Look where we are now.”

So we are very pleased that this thing is getting near to getting over the line and getting near to getting ratified. It does stand as a shining example, I think, in the global international community, and, you know, as an example of what good can occur in a country when we put economy first.

It is, of course, an entrée for the United Kingdom’s accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—again, another deal that the Labour Party members stood on the picket lines, as did their friends in the Greens. But we’re friends with them too, so we won’t be too mean to them this evening. But, of course, the UK is our seventh-largest trading partner, and that must not be ignored in a world where everybody is trying to emerge from this post-COVID malaise and, indeed, looming recession for many like economies as ours. We must look to every opportunity to build the wealth of this nation, because it is by building the wealth of this nation that we look after people who need to be looked after. It is, as the Minister has mentioned, a deal worth well over a billion dollars when it does come into full ratification.

But, of course, the main goal of any FTA is that slow but sure and gradual elimination of tariffs, because that does, of course, allow our exporters an even playing field and better market access. Much has been made of the quite slow progression of the tariff elimination, particularly for dairy and meat, but we do celebrate those sectors that have got almost immediate accession. It does, of course, mean that 99.5 percent of products will become tariff-free upon entry into force, and we do celebrate that and we do look forward to that day. Of course, we will stand alongside the Government and celebrate that, and particularly, as has been mentioned, all the hard work that has gone in by our officials over at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. They are among the world’s best. They are highly regarded, and that is why we’re here discussing this deal as gold standard, as many have mentioned.

Of particular note—not much has been said, but I think it does need to be observed—is the lifting of the investment screening threshold from $100 million to $200 million for those non-Government investors from the UK. I know I’ve quoted him many times in this House, and I will do it again; as John Key said, “We do not get rich by selling to ourselves.” This country has to go out and be really aggressive in its pursuit of foreign direct investment, of foreign capital. We are a very small island nation. Trade is in our lifeblood, so as well as chasing good, strong, ambitious, aggressive trade agreements like this, we do need to roll out the red carpet to foreign investors and welcome them to our shores. So we very much look forward to the third and final reading of this bill. We, of course, will be supporting it all the way through. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, te Māngai o te Whare. I rise very briefly to say what a superb bill and what a wonderful deal we on this side of the House have concluded. I almost feel sorry for the poor old Opposition who are standing there saying, “We had a hand, we had a hand.” when they look at our record of bringing home these big, important deals that are going to protect us. It must feel a little bit sad to them but I’m glad to hear that they found that there’s some part of the puzzle that they had a stake in, too. But the wonderful winners in this, and the real stake in it are New Zealand and New Zealand businesses. I’m delighted. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was going to get up and defend my colleague across the House Nicola Grigg about our shared love of New Zealand wine. And having just travelled around the globe with Ms Grigg, what I can say—and I’m not going to say this about the UK, but New Zealand wine is definitely the best. This trade agreement delivers very well for our viticulture industry.

I just want to make a couple of quick points about a couple of matters in the bill that I think are worth noting in particular. The first is that there has been a specific section in the bill around the importance of indigenous Māori rights in terms of trade. That is a first, and I just want to note that significant work was done by officials in order to get that into the agreement. It was noted quite heavily in the first reading of this bill, but I wanted to make sure that was put on record tonight.

The second is for my electorate of Nelson, there are some big wins for fish and seafood. I just want to note that over the next seven years, we will eventually get to a complete removal of tariffs on fish and seafood for that industry in Nelson, and that is very, very good for our region. You know, I just note that our seafood industry is critical to our particular region.

This is an excellent agreement; it’s an excellent bill. I want to acknowledge the Minister, officials who worked on it, and yourself and your select committee, Madam Chair. And I commend it to the House.

Oh, thank you, Madam Speaker, what a good choice. Now, we in the National Party are unashamedly pro - free trade and capitalism and the benefits of people working hard and getting benefit from it and being able to make profit, because profit pays taxes—and that is an excellent thing.

Anna Lorck: And fair pay to the workers—fair pay to the workers!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The left are very upset about this.

So we’ve heard from Emily Henderson, MP for Whangārei, who is very keen—very keen—to bring this home. We’re very keen to bring home Whangārei, Ms Henderson, and we will be, because we’re quite good at doing that.

We have a brilliant opportunity in this House to come together and to celebrate the hard work that has gone on for many years by our officials and with the support of both the National Government, starting in 2017, and now this Government that has finally decided that free trade is a good thing.

I think it’s good to note that apparently the Hon Damien O’Connor, the Minister for Trade and Export Growth, and the Rt Hon Liz Truss struck up a very good relationship, I’m told. I thought she did really well as the trade Minister for the UK; gave an opportunity for the UK to get out of that sort of negativity and restrictive-type attitude they’d taken to free trade with New Zealand since about the 1970s, and embraced countries like ours that actually survive on trade.

I know that the Green Party can’t bring themselves to vote for this. That’s a shame, because they’re not actually evil people; they’re just a bit deluded. They’re not awful. They’re very pleasant one on one; just not in a group. I find that their attitude to free trade makes me know that we are so on the right side, because they don’t seem to understand that without trade, without free trade, we end up having 40 million people’s worth of food that we have to have ourselves or dump. So I don’t think that that is where we want to be.

We should also note that this party on the other side, the Government at the moment—for only a short period of time, thankfully—they were protesting against free trade, they were protesting against a free-trade deal that included the United States. They were out there—Jacinda Ardern was out there—saying that this would bring down New Zealand working standards. New Zealand’s standards of employment have all increased every time New Zealand gets richer. New Zealand gets richer on free trade. That’s how we do it. Whether it’s free trade in dairying, whether it’s free trade in anything else, whether it’s free trade in technology, that’s how we make our money. New Zealand workers get better—better—results because of that trade. We cut that trade, we end up with people unemployed, unable to work, or actually having to take whatever job there is available, rather than having the choice that they as free human beings should be able to make.

That’s why trade is so important to us. It is the lifeblood not only of our economy but the lifeblood of the economy that pays for health, that pays for education, that pays for the police, that pays for our justice system, that pays for everything that’s provided by taxpayer funding. That’s where it comes from; there is nothing else. That’s it. So, yes, we are unashamedly pro - free trade.

It is nice that the Labour Party has finally come back from that very far-left position that they took under the Cunliffe and the Little eras, and the Ardern, and they’ve come back into the light on this issue.

This particular free-trade agreement is a very comprehensive free-trade agreement. That’s because in 2017, that was the way it was set up. And we’re really pleased with that—in stark contrast to the EU free-trade agreement, which I think really helps if one is an onion grower, a kiwifruit grower, and my colleague Nicola Grigg so passionately mentioned the fact that there is a family interest in onion growing, and I’m very pleased that she brought that issue up so it didn’t become a story!

But we also should think that, actually, dairy and meat, which are our biggest exports, really have been pushed aside somewhat in the rush to the EU. And I don’t wish to criticise these countries in the EU, because they have had a lifetime of feeling that they are a closed shop, and they are only now starting to find their way through to looking more to free trade. And we should thank them for that and congratulate them on it. But when we get down to what someone can call “feta cheese”, I mean, I have to say, frankly, if your livelihood depends on whether or not you can call feta cheese “feta”, there is a serious problem in the economy. And that’s, you know, obviously, a situation where Greece was very passionate about that. And, you know, good for them for finally getting along and being part of that deal. But, really, come on, let’s think a bit bigger than that; let’s think a bit more—

Karen Chhour: Let’s be ambitious.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —out in the world. A little bit more ambitious, as has been said tonight. A little bit more thinking about what we could do, not what we can’t do.

And when I look at the foreign investment, direct foreign investment; how utterly important that is to this economy—how utterly important. It shouldn’t just be about planting pine trees. It shouldn’t be about buying farms. What it should be about is putting it into technology. It should be about putting it into science. It should be about growing our economy in a way that hasn’t been done for a long time. What it should be about is saying, you know, “No longer.”

Remember that whole campaign in 2017 about Chinese-sounding names? Remember when the Labour Party ran that campaign? The ACT Party certainly remembers. We certainly remember—we certainly remember that. Going through, having one of their chief advisers—a Mr Salmond—going through looking for people on the property register who had Chinese-sounding names. Oh, thanks very much. What does that say? What does that say to the ethnic diversity quotient that they’re so fascinated about?

By the way, talking about the UK and this free-trade agreement, isn’t it great to see that the Conservative Party in the UK, a party that is not—

Anna Lorck: Oh ho, here we go! Talk about the leaders.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —fussed on people’s—and here’s Anna Lorck. My word, she certainly can squawk. And let’s have a look at the Conservative Party of the UK. Isn’t it wonderful that for a party that is not fascinated by everyone’s identity, they’re the first party in Britain to have three Prime Ministers who are women, and now the very first Prime Minister of Asian descent? Well, fancy that. And all the time, the Labour Party—they can’t get past the fact that they want to treat people of ethnicities other than the white Anglo-Saxon one as being in need of special help, and of women as having to be helped through on some sort of quota. I think that says volumes.

And, of course, we know that Liz Truss did not have a great time as the Prime Minister, but, unlike Ms Anna Lorck, at least she was the Prime Minister. And I think that she also should be congratulated for working so closely, I’m told by those in the know, with Damien O’Connor to help bring this deal through. And Ms Lorck might think she should laugh at someone who has done that, but, actually, I don’t. And Ms Lorck might find that there’s another seat about to be brought home, too, called Tukituki, which will also come home, because we like bringing things home. And it is so time for a National-led Government, working with our friends in the ACT Party, to make sure that this country does not squander the next three years, six years, nine years, like it squandered under five years of failure under this Government.

On behalf of the Labour Government, I have the pleasure of commending this bill, the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill, to the House.

The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Pō mārie.

The House adjourned at 10.01 p.m.