Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill

on behalf of the Minister of State for Trade and Export Growth: I present a legislative statement on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

It is a pleasure to move in support of the RCEP bill. Following the bill’s first reading in May, the bill was referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, where it was extensively examined until early in September. The committee tabled its report on 3 September, recommending that the bill proceed without any amendments.

I want to, firstly, thank all those involved in this process, from members of the committee to civil society and business representatives. Engagement by people representing various sectors and communities in New Zealand is an important stage for any bill, but this is especially welcome for the RCEP bill in light of our Trade for All agenda.

The select committee’s report highlights that unlike previous free-trade agreements, the obligations required in RCEP have predominantly already been met through New Zealand’s existing legal frameworks and policy regimes. None the less, in order for New Zealand to ratify RCEP and comply with our obligations under it, the RCEP bill makes a small number of technical, legislative, and regulatory amendments. Other matters were also raised during the select committee stage, and I will address some of these points throughout my speech.

RCEP should not be viewed in isolation. A major feature of the current international environment is unpredictability. There are significant headwinds for global trade and challenges for our exporters. We’ve seen increasing pressure on multilateralism, and especially on international trade. The system of trade rules has been under pressure on a number of fronts: protectionism, increasing tariffs and non-tariff measures, more overt geopolitical rivalries, and, after decades of sustained growth, the beginning of decline in global trade.

In responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for cooperation at the international level has never been so significant. We see the challenges in the distribution and access to vaccines and in the continuation of supply chains across the worlds, and especially from the rise of new variants, including Delta. As a Government, we’ve prioritised both the response to the initial crisis through increasing supply of personal protective equipment—PPE—and vaccines, while also maintaining access to supply chains for our exporters. But we also have been renewing our efforts to build on the trade architecture so as to assist the recovery. It is in the context of this challenging environment that diverse and robust trade relationships are more important than ever. They are important for the resilience of our supply chains and for the economic prosperity of New Zealand and our region. As a small, export-oriented economy, it is therefore hard to overstate the importance to New Zealand of a trading system which puts small countries like ours on an even footing with global powers.

RCEP is not just an important achievement in terms of the outcomes for New Zealand and our economy but it highlights New Zealand’s commitment to cooperation with other trading nations and our commitment to working with the broader Indo-Pacific region and ASEAN. It is no coincidence that all New Zealand’s free-trade agreements to date are in the Indo-Pacific region. At the core of RCEP is the Association of South-East Asian Nations. It is an ASEAN-led agreement and a demonstration of ASEAN’s ongoing commitment to regional economic integration and trade, and it is important that New Zealand continues to be part of that. After all, ASEAN has risen to become our fourth-largest trading bloc.

When looked at as a whole, the 15 RCEP countries are home to almost a third of the world’s population. It includes seven of our top trading partners. RCEP countries take over half of New Zealand’s total exports and provide more than half of our direct foreign investment. In the year ending December 2019, just before the COVID-19 pandemic started, New Zealand exported more than $36 billion worth of goods to RCEP countries, and nearly $12 billion of services. India’s withdrawal from RCEP negotiations late in 2019 was disappointing. Although a fast-track accession process for India exists should it wish to rejoin in the future, we value our relationship with India, and we will continue pursuing our aspirations to broaden and deepen the political, cultural, and trade links that we enjoy.

In the wake of the challenges from COVID-19, New Zealand exporters have proved remarkably resilient. Notwithstanding this, our trade recovery strategy has three main pillars: retooling support for exporters, refreshing the international trade architecture, and re-energising and refocusing our key trade relationships. Agreements like RCEP are, therefore, vital as we accelerate our recovery from COVID-19.

RCEP is critical to our trade-led recovery as an agreement that enables the reduction and removal of tariffs, new investment flow opportunities, and new markets for exports. The areas of services and investment are where the big gains will be made, as well as the lifting of non-tariff barriers with China and the largest ASEAN countries having made investment and market-access commitments to New Zealand for the very first time. Exporters of sheep meat, beef, fish, milk, cheese, honey, and avocadoes to Indonesia, the fourth-most populous country in the world, will see tariffs eliminated on their products above and beyond the current arrangements. On non-tariff barriers, RCEP creates an expectation that customs authorities will, for example, release perishable goods such as seafood within six hours of arrival, including the release of such goods outside normal business hours, which should reduce spoilage and save exporters money.

The trade effects are material. About half of New Zealand’s jobs come from the tradeable sector and, over time, the economic benefit to New Zealand from these changes will be considerable. Independent modelling predicts that once RCEP is fully in effect, New Zealand’s annual GDP will be between 0.3 percent and 0.6 percent larger as a result. That amounts to $1.5 billion to $3.2 billion in annual GDP.

RCEP is also important because of its comprehensive nature. RCEP promotes economic integration and keeps New Zealand central to the prosperity of our region. RCEP demonstrates that even in challenging times, Governments are able to come together, make compromises, and strike deals that will lift each other up. RCEP is more than a sum of its parts.

New Zealand is a proud international partner and we do our part, including by ratifying free-trade agreements promptly. Singapore has led the way as the first ASEAN country to ratify RCEP. China and Japan were the first non-ASEAN members to ratify. New Zealand’s swift ratification could quicken the implementation process as well as demonstrate our commitment to our region and ensure that RCEP will help accelerate the economic recovery for New Zealand and other parties.

Once fully implemented, RCEP will be the largest trade agreement in the world. Given the difficulties of COVID-19 and the challenges to the international trading system, this achievement cannot be underestimated, and it speaks to New Zealand’s long history of building diverse coalitions.

RCEP sends an important signal of New Zealand’s openness to trade and indicates our ability to progress other trade agreements. These expected benefits show why trade has been a central part of the Government’s plan to recover from COVID-19. It is not just about more and better trade links but also about helping our exporters make the most of the opportunities in overseas markets. I’m honoured to be part of a Government that in turbulent times is leading the way to ensuring that New Zealand is a responsible, proactive, and engaged global citizen. It is also a Government, however, that does not pursue trade cooperation simply for its own sake. RCEP provides for future cooperation across a number of trade and economic areas. It preserves New Zealand’s right to regulate for legitimate public policy purposes, and it upholds the Treaty of Waitangi. It will create new opportunities for international trade and other economic benefits, which will contribute to improving the wellbeing and living standards for all New Zealanders.

I was very proud and honoured as Associate Minister for trade, or Minister of State for Trade and Export Growth, to be able to play my part in what was a long negotiation. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank all the officials who worked so very hard through many years to get RCEP over the line. Thanks to them, it is now up to us as a nation to pick up the opportunities from this great agreement. Kia ora.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

I rise as the National Party spokesperson for trade and export growth. Very pleased to support, as the Minister’s just said, the swift ratification of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill.

I recently—thanks also to the Minister—had a fascinating conversation with one of New Zealand’s most senior trade negotiators, and he shared his view that after a 25-year agenda of aggressive free-trade agreement (FTA) negotiations, New Zealand is at the end of the golden weather. He used this expression to describe a current trade environment dealing with increasing geopolitical tension, rising protectionism, closed borders, a weakened World Trade Organization, and, frankly, the damage caused to New Zealand’s reputation as a stable, uncomplicated trading partner brought about by divided public and political sentiment over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

The very clear strategy, therefore, to return to those halcyon days is to secure diversified FTAs with high-end markets. As a small trading nation at the bottom of the Pacific, New Zealand must be outward-focused and work across the world to advance the values in trading interests to benefit all New Zealanders. To do this, we need to build on the strong bilateral and multilateral relationships we already have and seize new opportunities to advance the interests of New Zealanders across the globe.

Multilateralism has served New Zealand well. Successful multilateral action has enhanced our reputation, and, tonight, we’re here to discuss the RCEP, which is a part of that puzzle. It anchors New Zealand in a region that is the engine room of the global economy and reduces complexity and compliance costs for exporters through a single rulebook for all 15 markets.

The National Party worked hard in Government to advance RCEP as a significant opportunity to bring together many of the largest economies in Asia as well as ASEAN nations. As always, we must acknowledge the Hon Tim Groser for his efforts, because they will bring significant impact.

Unlike the unfortunate scenes the world witnessed from Labour MPs and activists as we negotiated the TPP, National will not play politics on trade, so much so that the scrutiny of this bill by the Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Trade Committee made virtually no changes. As the Minister noted, there are some technical changes that need to be made to some law to enact this legislation: simple things like the bill will enable preferential tariff rates under the partnership and make an amendment to provide for eight years of transitional safeguard mechanisms to provide temporary relief to domestic industries. It also makes minor technical changes to the Customs and Excise Act of 2018 that allow authorised third party certification bodies to operate for the purposes of the RCEP. It brings new market access for New Zealand exporters to Indonesia through tariff elimination on a number of products, including sheep meat, beef, fish, dairy, honey, and some horticulture.

Happily, we have some new services and investment market access commitments by some RCEP countries that go beyond existing free-trade agreements. Notably, China and the largest ASEAN nations have made investment commitments to New Zealand for the first time. We do note, though, with some disappointment, the withdrawal of India from RCEP and are pleased by the fast-tracked accession agreement in place, should the great nation of India change its mind. We don’t currently have an FTA with India, as this House will know, and this would present real gains for New Zealand exporters if they had been at the table. So I encourage the Government in the strongest terms possible to engage with India to ensure that we are advancing our economic relationship as much as possible.

Our country’s ability to recover from COVID will be determined by how well our exporters can continue to access traditional and new markets for goods and services. Equally, trade policy should not become a geopolitical football. If it does, New Zealand’s interests will be pushed to the sidelines, and that is the real, live risk that I mentioned earlier. It’s for this reason we support the expansion of Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) to all countries that are willing to comply with CPTPP’s high standards, whether they be China, the United Kingdom, or the United States. We need these large agreements to engage with our key trading partners to improve the environment for New Zealand exporters so that they can continue to thrive.

Trade agreements, though, are just a small part of what allows our exporters to succeed. The Government needs to urgently consider what we are doing to support exporters to make the most of these formal trade agreements. We are seeing increasing frustration from exporters who, since March last year, have not been able to travel to engage with their customers. Every day we see reports that they are missing out on opportunities to others who can spend time up in market and can then return to their home country. The managed isolation and quarantine system is throttling exporters’ ability to engage—

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: Is that in the bill?

—with their markets. Our exporters need that fixed urgently—not just very soon, Kris Faafoi. We look forward to the Government responding to those exporters’ needs so that by the time this bill is passed, they are fully geared up to begin trade with our partners through this agreement. The National Party is pleased to commend this bill to the House this evening.

Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. I must congratulate the speaker Nicola Grigg. I think that’s the best speech she’s read so far.

It is good to hear—the one good thing I did hear from over the other side—the usual cross-party approach on trade, because, obviously, we all have New Zealand’s interests at heart. The fact of the matter is that this is yet another plank, another piece of the puzzle, to make sure we’re a robust trading nation, that we are resilient, that we are not putting all of our eggs in one basket, and that we’re diversifying. Some of those South-east Asian nations are thriving economies. Vietnam’s a great example, and other emerging economies like Laos. They’re important parts of this agreement, along with the very major trading nations like China as well.

But the Minister’s done a great job. We know that in true cross-party fashion, we’re building on work that’s gone before, and there’s nothing wrong with that. So I absolutely commend this bill to the House. Great work, Minister.

Mr Speaker, thank you very much. It gives me pleasure to speak on this bill. Any trade bill that comes before the House that was started by the National Party is a good bill. But Duncan Webb, the last speaker, said how important trade was as part of a puzzle, and, about 3½ seconds later, he sat down, and therein lies the problem with the Labour Party when it comes to trade. When in Opposition, they are lions, but when it comes to Government, they become the things that New Zealanders want to sell overseas a lot, which is mutton or lamb or sheep. The challenge is that in this case, this is a good agreement for New Zealand, but it doesn’t go as far as it could have and it should have.

So here’s the problem you have with trade agreements. You’re only as good as your last one, not your next one, because when you next go to negotiate a trade agreement, the people you’re negotiating with look at the previous agreement and they decide to give you only that amount or less. I would say to the Government that I know it’s very difficult when all other countries are ready to settle and they want to move on because they are not free traders or trade is not as important to them as it is to New Zealand. But I do think that whilst this is a step forward, this step is not large enough and that the Government was not ambitious enough, and it almost feels like they settled.

I want to look at how many people have been involved in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). It was started by the Hon Tim Groser, who was a trade Minister for a very long period of time: 7½ years. I had the opportunity for a year and a half, as trade Minister, to also be involved in negotiations in RCEP. Now we have a new trade Minister who was there only a very short period of time and has had the pleasure to agree it and to sign it. Unfortunately, there was one trade Minister in the middle of that who didn’t get to sign any deals at all, and that was David Parker, and I suppose I think it could be because David Parker wanted to hold out for the very best deal he could get for New Zealand, or someone else’s deal and put the name “comprehensive” in front of it, it would do as well.

But, putting that aside, I do fear that whilst I look at the notes that have been distributed and the report from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and it talks up some of the benefits, we must see those benefits delivered. One of the areas the Government is very proud of is the opening of market access to Indonesia, a country that we would dearly like to have a bilateral free-trade agreement with, and it talked about areas where products will go in there more easily. Tariffs will be reduced for sheep meat and for other products. It is behovent upon the Government to make sure that that happens.

The thing is New Zealand always honours its obligations in trade. That’s one of the reasons why successive Governments have been able to negotiate high-quality trade agreements with large countries when we actually don’t have as much to offer them: a market of a mere 5 million people on the other side of the world. But when New Zealand says it will do something, it generally does it, or at least that is the reputation we had four years ago when the Labour Party took over. So it is important that they make sure that with the obligations that have been offered to us as we have given access and other things to countries overseas as part of RCEP, New Zealand exporters can benefit from them.

I want to just segue for a moment, and then I will come back to some of the provisions of RCEP. I did say a moment ago that you’re only as good as your last agreement, not your next one, and so if this is the last agreement that was signed, I really hope that when our trade Minister jumps on the plane, now we’ve learnt he’s about to go overseas, and heads off to Washington for a while, I understand, and then he goes to the United Kingdom, he brings back a deal that is good for New Zealand. It should be better than the deal that has already been agreed between the United Kingdom and Australia, but we’ll give him a bit of a break. It should at least be as good.

The reason for that is New Zealand was at the front of the queue with the United Kingdom, the first country that they agreed they wanted to do a free-trade deal with, and they said that New Zealand will be the first cab off the rank, along with Australia. They were secondary. We were first there. We were supportive of them. We were first through the door. We had the first-mover advantage. It concerns me almost as much as it concerns our agricultural sector in New Zealand that Australia has got a deal that they say is very, very, very good for them. Their expectations were lower than the deal the Australian trade Ministers were able to deliver and we have now missed the deadline that was imposed for reaching agreement by our trade Minister, and they’ve gone very quiet—the Government—about where we will head.

So the problem we have is if I was sitting over there as a trade negotiator with the Minister in the United Kingdom—and it’s his job to get the best he can for his exporters, and it’s the job of the New Zealand trade Minister to get the best that that person can for New Zealand exporters—he will be looking at RCEP and he’ll be looking at things that New Zealand agreed here, and, actually, it’s woefully short when it comes to market access. The officials would have given the Minister a piece of paper that talks about the tariff eradication and market access: up to 97 percent across all products. What he won’t tell this House is in the products that New Zealand exports—the ones we are most interested in—there is not enough liberalisation. So whilst it’s good that Indonesia may have a look at a couple of areas, across the board, where we have trade agreements with RCEP countries in place that they don’t go as far as we’d want them to, or with RCEP countries we don’t have a bilateral trade agreement with, in the items that New Zealand exports that are important to us, we don’t get enough.

Take, for example, when it comes to dairy and it comes to other agricultural products. There could be 98 percent tariff elimination under the RCEP agreement, but when it comes to the 3 percent that we don’t get the eradication we need, that could be 50 or 60 or 70 percent of our trade. So the devil is always in the detail. I say to the trade Minister—he’s about to jump on an aeroplane, fly off to the other side of the world, and then come back and probably take the places of some Kiwis who actually have a right and a strong desire with their family members to leave the United Kingdom and come back to New Zealand for Christmas who won’t get those managed isolation and quarantine places—that he needs to bring back a deal that he can be proud of. It needs to at least be, if not better, as good as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was, because a comprehensive TPP that the Labour Party is so proud of—the one they campaigned against—really only had the word “comprehensive” put in front of it. Everything else was the same. It made great inroads into markets that we had such restrictive access to—Japan is a very, very good example.

So I hope that when he goes to the other side of the world, flies all the way to the United Kingdom, he brings a deal back that is good for New Zealand exporters and is better than what we lost as a result of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union and that we will have free trade for agricultural products and our dairy products, our butter, go into there free—it doesn’t have to be on day one, but it must be done—that our lamb goes in there without restriction—maybe not on day one, but it gets there—and that it is better than the deal that Australia has got. If it is not better than the deal that Australia has got, there will be about as much worth to New Zealand exporters as RCEP is to some of the countries where we don’t get the access that we need, because a trade deal is only as good as your last one, not the next one, because you always start from the point of the last one.

The reason I say this is not to give a lesson to our new trade Minister. He knows a lot about agriculture, much, much more than I ever will. It’s because, actually, you only ever get one shot with this. What the officials will say, Minister, is “Why don’t we have a built-in agenda so we can keep negotiating in the future?” But the moment he walks away from the negotiating table with a deal, if it doesn’t deliver on the things that New Zealand exporters need, it will be an opportunity missed, and when he’s ready to go out and do one with the European Union, they’ll say, “Well, actually, you gave this to the United Kingdom and they didn’t give you much back. We’re much larger than they are. How about we offer you even less?”—because he’s also stopped talking about his trade deal with the EU.

We are a trading nation: 600,000 jobs directly and indirectly depend upon trade. We have produced enough food and fibre to feed up to 40 million people. We cannot consume it ourselves alone. If we want to rebuild our economy, if we want to pay back the debt that the Government is racking up as fast as they can in spending money on things they say are about COVID but are really not, we need high-quality trade deals that open the door so New Zealand exporters can go and do what we need them to, which is to say, “Government, thanks for your job. We don’t need you any more. We know how to go out and make money, and we will help rebuild the economy for you.” But if this trade Minister comes back from the European Union and the UK with a substandard deal, if he leaves it on the table, and if he doesn’t get the things he needs to—in fact, if it is not better than the Australian deal—he has let everybody down, and the debt they’ve racked up, which is almost $100 billion over two years, will be even harder for New Zealanders to pay.

We will be supporting RCEP because it is a step forward, but it’s not the giant step it should have been. Thank you.

Xiexie, Mr Speaker. I’d like to thank you for the ability to be able to take this call. It is quite ironic. I’m going to actually speak on the bill, as opposed to Todd McClay, the previous speaker, who, although he was giving us a lesson on Trade 101, he isn’t actually the spokesperson for trade. So I’d like to acknowledge the spokesperson for trade for her contribution to the bill.

I think it’s also appropriate, given it’s Chinese Language Week, that the bill that I arise to take a short call on is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill. This particular bill implements New Zealand’s obligations under RCEP, a free-trade agreement negotiated between New Zealand, Australia, China, Japan, South Korea, and 10 members of ASEAN.

Now, I wasn’t a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which scrutinised both the bill and the treaty, so I want to acknowledge the work of the chair, the Hon Jenny Salesa, who’s probably watching this from home, and other members of the committee. I note that the committee unanimously agreed to the recommended changes in the bill bar the one change around the application date, which is as a result of a recommendation from the Regulations Review Committee. So it’s good to see the system working as it’s needed.

One other item I did want to take note of within this particular bill is the futureproofing, which is around some of the commentary around e-commerce and cryptocurrency. I note one submitter who was supportive of the bill thought that the agreement would provide some opportunities around cryptocurrency. The bill doesn’t actually have specific cryptocurrency provisions, but it does allow for e-commerce. As a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which currently has an inquiry on cryptocurrency, I thank the committee for bringing this to our attention. It is something that I’ll take back to note as part of our select committee, and I commend this bill to the House.

Ni hao. Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I’m pleased to take a call on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill, and can I acknowledge the Greens’ global affairs and trade spokesperson, Golriz Ghahraman, who’d normally be taking this call.

The Green Party will be voting against the bill. RCEP is, of course, a multilateral trade agreement which focuses on reducing tariffs and improving market access. We’ve got a number of reasons for voting against the bill, which I will explain.

The agreement has taken nearly 10 years to negotiate and we certainly acknowledge that it’s got a market size five times larger than the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (CPTPPA). Of course, member countries must ratify the agreement before it comes into force, and this bill is providing for that ratification process through amending the Tariff Act, creating some transitional provisions, and legislating for rules of origin and some product specific rules for goods from RCEP countries.

So in terms of the commentary around the bill, because we’ve already got free-trade agreements with other RCEP countries which have led to the removal of tariffs, this bill won’t be creating access to a larger market that other free-trade agreements have, because the tariffs have already been reviewed and removed, except in the case of Indonesia, where I understand it will remove the tariffs on beef and sheep meat and fish products. So the commentators have suggested that the largest benefits from the agreement will, in fact, come from non-tariff measures—things like phytosanitary measures to protect against pests, issues around import and export licences, and, as the Minister noted, making customs procedures much easier, which will certainly benefit exporters in the horticultural sector, enabling things like fruit and vegetables and flowers, if they have to be transitioned through customs within six hours, to arrive fresh at the market. So those sorts of practical things will certainly be of benefit.

We’d also just like to put on record, because some in other parties claim that the Greens don’t favour trade, that we do. We’ve recognised that we depend on trade—it’s a crucial generator of our economic and social wellbeing—as far back as the late Rod Donald, who came to be co-leader of the Greens from a background with Trade Aid Aotearoa. But we don’t like neo-liberal trade agreements. We want trade agreements that focus on protecting human rights. They’re all about sustainability, and they protect climate justice and inspire climate justice.

So that’s why, because we wanted a new regime for trade, we were strongly engaged with the Government’s trade agenda last term and the work that was done by the Trade for All Advisory Board and its comprehensive 2019 report, which recommended quite significant changes in how Aotearoa New Zealand both negotiates and ratifies our trade agreements, and the Trade for All agenda recognises that we need really strong social foundations to have widespread and enduring public support for trade agreements. They must reflect our country’s social and cultural values and the full range of our economic, environmental, and social interests, and particularly our partnership with Māori under Te Tiriti. The widespread opposition that we saw to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA) reflected the fact that New Zealanders didn’t think that that agreement reflected our values as a country and that it cut across our democracy in undermining our legislation.

So that’s why it’s really good to see in the RCEP agreement that we don’t have the heinous investor-State dispute resolution procedures that we see in the CPTPPA, because those are very controversial settlement clauses. They allow foreign investors to sue the Government for adopting a law or a policy that may uphold the public good but may impact on corporate profits. So that was one of the key things in the Trade for All agenda—not to have those clauses—and it is good that Government has now got a policy of opposing such clauses, and there is not one in the RCEP agreement.

One of the ways that Government could improve public confidence in our trade agreements is to just negotiate a new framework for them that is based on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, that recognises the urgency of the economic transformation that we need around climate change, and that facilitates the development of international trade rules which meet indigenous peoples’ rights and aspirations, particularly in terms of intellectual and cultural property rights, and so this agreement, we don’t think, matches up there. But one other positive thing is that it does exclude pharmaceuticals. So that protects our Pharmac model of securing public access to affordable and publicly regulated pharmaceuticals, and that’s particularly important because of the context of COVID, of course.

The other reasons we’re opposing the bill is that RCEP has no strong chapters on environmental or workers’ rights and, as such, is based on the same neo-liberal paradigm that gave us the TPPA. If anything, RCEP represents a step back from the CPTPPA, because it doesn’t have that strong carve-out to protect our environmental legislation and the regulation that that puts in place. There’s no environmental chapter at all. Similarly, the agreement doesn’t include a workers’ rights chapter. Even the TPPA had a very loose workers’ rights chapter which recognised that trade agreements could impact on workers’ rights and those rights needed to be protected, and that’s particularly unfortunate in this agreement because of the amount of manufacturing that occurs in the Asian region and the need to protect workers’ rights.

Another reason we are opposing RCEP is because the Trade for All Advisory Board recommended that trade agreements be negotiated in a much more transparent and democratic way, and that didn’t happen with this agreement. As a House of Representatives elected to represent the people of Aotearoa New Zealand, we have a 500-page, 20-chapter agreement that was negotiated in secret that had input from multinational, big corporations, but didn’t have that same input from the public or civil society—that same substantive input that the corporates had.

The people of Aotearoa New Zealand should have known what was going on, what was in the mandate for the negotiating team, and what was being negotiated, and should have had a say on whether or not it was, in fact, a good trade agreement. They were denied that opportunity. So the Government needs to be pushing for much more transparency around these negotiations, as the Trade for All agenda provides. We wouldn’t, obviously, disclose our bottom line, but negotiating text should be released, and there should be much more inclusion of representatives of non-governmental organisations and civil society in the negotiation delegations.

The other issue is the whole thing around national assessments and Trade for All recommending that there be independent national interest assessments undertaken of trade agreements. At the moment, you have the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) determining whether it’s in Aotearoa’s interests and identifying those interests before negotiations start, MFAT leading the negotiations, and then MFAT evaluating the results of its work. That’s not appropriate, and given the marginal economic benefit to Aotearoa of this agreement because it is largely around non-tariff measures and because India isn’t currently included with the large market it would provide for agricultural products, it’s even more important that there should have been such a national interest assessment undertaken.

The final reason we are opposing this is, while there is a carve-out clause to protect the Crown’s obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, it’s the standard clause which the Waitangi Tribunal has said does not fully recognise the Crown’s responsibilities under Te Tiriti. So the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade says it does, but then it’s the ministry that drafted the clause, so it’s a bit rich to accept their assurances that the commitment is adequate.

So for those reasons, the Green Party will be opposing the RCEP bill. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is my pleasure to take a short call tonight on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the second reading of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill.

The ACT Party believes that our foreign policy should uphold the safety of its citizens but also should help to reflect our interests and our values on the international stage for the benefit of all New Zealanders under our democracy, and I think we have to acknowledge that New Zealand is a small trading nation. There is an importance to having a rules-based order that we are a part of and that we can also help to shape. That’s important for our peace and security, not just in New Zealand but for our regional security and peace in the Asia-Pacific. It’s also for the stability of our businesses. As we know, a lot of businesses wish to export to larger and growing markets, and there’s an importance for us to be able to provide agreements that support them in their business opportunities. So that is the importance of trade agreements and of signing more of them for New Zealand.

We are a small trading nation, and those opportunities are not only for small businesses. If we actually look at what that means, people every day, up and down New Zealand, start new businesses. They start small companies. It might just be one or two people, or could even be up to a hundred people—there are so many different business opportunities. But, as we see them grow, it helps to create more jobs and more opportunities for a whole range of New Zealanders who may have never had that opportunity. So signing these agreements and allowing for more market access not only helps a small business but it helps employment opportunities in New Zealand for people who may not have had a job opportunity beforehand. So it can only be good for all of us and for all of society.

But, importantly, signing regional trade agreements also helps us to not be at threat from other countries who may seek to wish us harm. So for a geopolitical perspective, this means that New Zealand is less vulnerable to other big players who might decide that, one day, they don’t like the way New Zealand is doing its democratically elected role and they wish to seek us harm. It is important for financial stability. It’s important for those small-business owners that there are people acting in their interests to make sure that we have stability, so that is why we agree with the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) being signed. It’s for protectionism for New Zealand but also because we’re seeing that protectionism from around the world as people start to become more enclosed. So we need to be ensuring agreements cross-party. It sends a message to a whole range of different countries that New Zealand is open for business and that we are open for opportunities and we’re open for trade.

That brings me to what actually is RCEP. Well, RCEP anchors us in a regional agreement with around 30 percent of the world’s population, which is 2.3 billion people, and around 30 percent of the world’s GDP. More than half of New Zealand’s trade and foreign direct investment flow through the Asia Pacific, so this is a very big opportunity for us to become part of this regional agreement because it provides a framework and set of rules for how these countries will operate trade going forward.

I have to take a moment to disagree with the previous speaker who said that because we already have free-trade agreements with a range of different countries within RCEP, it doesn’t matter. Well, I’d completely disagree. I believe that the consequence of not being part of this agreement would actually end up with us being excluded from regional agreements, going forward, because of value chains. So if you take, for example, the rules of origin that are within RCEP’s agreement, we may find ourselves being discouraged from having input in non-RCEP countries because we aren’t part of the same collective agreement, and that would lead to a loss of economic opportunity. Also, not being part of RCEP means that if RCEP decides in the future to create new rules then we wouldn’t be able to be part of the negotiating for those rules and would be unable to influence them, and that can only be a bad thing if we go back to ACT’s original position on the importance of our foreign policy to uphold our values internationally. We need to be a player—we need to be at the table—in order to have influence in these international agreements.

So, in conclusion, the ACT Party recognises the importance of free-trade agreements. They’ve pulled billions of people from poverty but, in New Zealand’s context, they provide more opportunities and more jobs for New Zealanders here at home. It is in New Zealand’s interests to be part of these regional agreements, and it is also for the importance of regional stability as we see protectionism growing around the world. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Xiexie, Madam Speaker. What a joy it is to stand up and support this bill during Chinese Language Week, and to be able to do so—xiexie, Madam Speaker—when celebrating this bill that is also going to bring us closer with our international trading partners.

I’m particularly pleased to be following Minister O’Connor, because at the beginning of this year, he and I visited a little local place in Whangārei called Lynwood Avocado Nursery. Lynwood Avocado Nursery is one of our innovative small exporting businesses. They do remarkable, world-leading work cloning avocados and they export them all over the world. I am delighted that on Thursday night, when I go home, I’m going to be able to take up the invitation that I’ve been given to Lynwood’s next open day and tell them about the work that this Government has done to make it easier for them to access the markets they need to grow their remarkable business alongside all those other remarkable Kiwi businesses we’re so proud of.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

Joseph Mooney—five minutes.

I rise as the member of Parliament for Southland to speak in support of the second reading of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill on behalf of the National Party. It’s great to be able to speak in support of a bill giving effect to a free-trade agreement signed on 15 November last year by 15 countries in the Asia-Pacific which, between them, are home to about a third of the world’s population—2 to 3 billion people; a third of the world’s GDP—and the destination of over half of New Zealand’s exports.

This is the culmination of a body of work which started when the National Party was in Government. These negotiations were led by the Hon Tim Groser back in 2012, and has been completed under the guidance of the present Minister for Trade and Export Growth, the Hon Damien O’Connor—a great example of a bipartisan approach to trade and the recognition of how valuable trade is to New Zealand.

Agreements such as this are also an important example of multilateralism. These are the framework of institutions, the norms, and rules that make up the international order that countries around the world, and particularly small trading nations such as New Zealand, rely upon in order to be able to sell our goods to the world. It is important to remember that as a trading nation, we must sell our goods in order to be able to buy goods that other countries make that we do not have the resources or the capability to make ourselves, such as iPhones, vehicles, wind farm turbines and much, much more. We are, however, in an era the world has not seen for a long time, when nationalism, protectionism, and great power competition is on the rise, and it is important that we do our part to promote and support multilateralism in this current geopolitical matrix. This is crucial to New Zealand’s future as a country that trades with the world.

Trade has many benefits. Of course it is crucial for our economy, but it also delivers other very important things, as trade is not only about the exchange of goods and services but it facilitates the exchange of ideas, the growth of personal relationships, and an opportunity to understand other viewpoints, even if we don’t agree with them.

In the current geopolitical environment, with borders largely closed to the world for over a year and a half and uncertainty about how long the borders will remain largely closed, trade relationships offer a very valuable role in developing and maintaining the person-to-person, organisation-to-organisation, and Government-to-Government relationships that are key for maintaining the links and relationships that underpin the understanding that helps maintain not only trade but also peace. People and nations that trade with one another have an inherent motivation to maintain cordial relationships, even if they do not always see eye to eye on a number of issues.

If I look to my electorate of Southland, the land of milk and honey, I see an economic powerhouse that contributes much to New Zealand and much to the world, exporting milk—

💬 Ian McKelvie: It appears to be the land of beef and sheep.

—meat, apples, wine, cherries, peaches, apricots, wool, as well as an increasing volume of services and much, much more.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Ha, ha!

Madam Speaker, I know that there’s a significant crossover in terms of the value of the things that are exported from this region that Madam Speaker will no doubt have much familiarity with.

The RCEP has benefits for New Zealand. It strengthens our connections with Asia-Pacific; it facilitates trade, reducing red tape for exporters; it opens the doors for our goods and services exporters; it improves transparency and certainty around investment in RCEP countries; and it modernises and deepens our trade relationships. The 10 Association of Southeast Asian Nations are Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. They have formed an agreement, with the other nations being New Zealand, Australia, China, Japan, and South Korea. These are all very exciting, growing economies, and this agreement cements our place in the trading framework of the Asia-Pacific. New Zealand exported over $36 billion of goods and nearly $12 billion of services to RCEP countries in the year ending 2019.

If I look at just one of the countries in the RECP, Indonesia, it has a population of 284 million people—the world’s fourth – most populous country. The Indonesian Archipelago has been a valuable region for trade since at least the 7th century. It is now the only G20 member State in Southeast Asia, and it’s the largest economy in that region. It’s Australia’s largest export market for cattle and beef offal and its fifth-largest market for boxed beef. It possesses great growth potential thanks to its large population, with a rapidly expanding, digitally connected middle class, steady economic growth, and continuing urbanisation. This is a great example of many of these countries in South-east Asia, which is an economic powerhouse that it’s a pleasure to be a part of.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. God bless Joseph Mooney. That’s what I have to say, because if it wasn’t for him, the people listening at home would think that the National Party were playing political games. But he’s stood up and he’s taken exactly the right tone.

This is not just an achievement of this Parliament; it is an achievement of this country. This is a bill that gives effect to a significant piece of trade agreement, the largest in the world, and it was started with that Government and it was finished and improved by this Government. It is not a case of standing up and taking credit; it is a case of celebrating, because this is good news for this country.

But if you listened to the two previous speakers from that side of the House, you would have seen arrogance and you would have seen snark, with Todd McClay standing up and lecturing this side of the House and lecturing the current trade Minister—the one who is actually building on the work of the previous Government and forming the relationship that makes this deal worthwhile.

I say put that nonsense aside and celebrate the fact that this deal is good for this country, and all but one party in this Parliament is supporting it. That’s what stands New Zealand out, I believe. It is that when it comes to it and it really matters in, particularly, trade and international relations, we usually put party politics aside and put the country first, and aside from one party and two members from that side of the House, we’ve done that tonight.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand, following my colleague Kieran McAnulty, and agree with everything that he has just said.

I want to just touch on something that the Minister talked about: unpredictability, global headwinds. Other members have talked about protectionism. This is something that we are seeing more and more, and given the current climate with COVID-19, it just highlights how important cementing these trade agreements is. They are vital to our economy’s recovery. When you think about our economy here in New Zealand, we are a small trading nation, and the majority of our economy is based on the fact that we can trade and export our goods that we make and manufacture here in New Zealand.

I don’t have much more to add. I think it’s all been said by members around the House—those who have spoken in a positive light around this agreement. We know it’s one of the biggest agreements in the world, and so I just want to commend this to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, Kieran McAnulty has got a short memory—I’ll get you back one day.

I just want to go into this Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill at second reading. I wasn’t on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I’ve always seen myself, funnily enough, as a bit of a foreign affairs spokesman, or even a trade Minister, and I’ve noticed in my time in this House that most of them are never here. I guess that’s a sign of someone who’s actually supposed to be working for New Zealand overseas, and, of course, in recent times that’s changed a little because it’s become much more difficult to travel. But I do remember Ministers McCully and Groser—I don’t know whether Tim Groser even knew who I was, and I’m sure McCully didn’t—and I don’t think they were ever in New Zealand. So that’s the sign of the commitment that’s needed to be a trade Minister or to negotiate these kinds of deals.

I notice our current trade Minister is heading off overseas in the next few weeks to finalise negotiations on what might be one of the most important trade agreements we ever get to negotiate. I was a bit intrigued by Nicola Grigg, who put out a press release telling him not to return to New Zealand without it signed, and I’m wondering whether he’ll sneak down the West Coast and go into that self-isolation on his way home and never come back. I sincerely hope he doesn’t, because I think it’s most important that these agreements get signed.

Of course, the other thing I think that’s most relevant to this agreement, or to all of our trade agreements, actually, is that, as the Minister himself pointed out, we live in a time that’s extraordinarily difficult for trading around the world, and in New Zealand we’re totally reliant on trade for almost everything we do. And—to get back to annoy Mr McAnulty a little bit—except borrowing money to prop up our economy, because, actually, our trade props up this economy entirely and it will prop up the future borrowings of Governments too. So it’s most important that we get these deals right.

But the other thing the Minister pointed out was the extraordinarily challenging times we are in at the moment with respect to trade internationally, and one only has to walk down to the wharf in Wellington, as I did this morning, and see the enormous number of logs sitting on the wharf—and I counted 17 logging trucks turning up at the port this morning—and not a log ship in sight. So that really just points out the logistical challenges that we have with trade at the moment in New Zealand.

The other thing I wanted to comment on was there’s been comment that this will add $186 billion to the world economy. It doesn’t really add anything to the world economy, because that money is going around in a circle anyway. So it’s going around, but what it does do, though, is it make it much more efficient and, from a trading point of view, it becomes much more efficient and also enables us in New Zealand to be part of any further discussions on trade with respect to, I think there’s 17 countries involved in this deal—something like that—or maybe 15. It’s very significant.

Of course, the challenge of that is that India have pulled out of that. India, to my mind, are one of the very important areas that we need to concentrate on in the future. It’s very difficult, I know, and many Governments have tried, but I’m sure that we’ll get there in the end.

So, with the exception of the comments from the Green Party, who don’t support this for various reasons, I think from our perspective the critical thing here is that we are a trading nation and we need to deal with our trading issues first and foremost. The other issues that the Green Party raised, in my view, will fall into line behind the trading stuff, because if we don’t trade, we don’t have the ability to fix any other issues anyway. So it’s most important to New Zealand that we have the ability to get our trading environment right and that we continue to prop up the income of New Zealand through having these very good trading arrangements around the world.

It will be, I guess, interesting to see where some of these agreements get to in the future, because RCEP is, as I’ve said, a type of an umbrella agreement, which then enables us to get on and negotiate individual trade agreements within those countries that are associated with RCEP. It’s an umbrella type of arrangement which gives us inclusion in that sector.

So it’s very important from our primary industries’ perspective, and when you look at markets like Indonesia, Vietnam, and places like that, we’ve really got some great potential for New Zealand to grow our sales and to grow our contribution to the world economy through the provision of what we do best in New Zealand, which is producing food, basically. So we’re very good at that, and it’s important from our farmers’ perspective that they have access to these markets in the most efficient way possible.

Obviously, this has got the support of the House, with the exception of the Greens, and the fact that this bill went to the select committee and came back with no alteration, I guess, speaks for itself. So it’s pretty straightforward and, hopefully, it will hold New Zealand in very good stead as we move forward. That’s my contribution. Thank you.

I was fortunate enough to be on probably one of the last delegations that left this House before COVID arrived, and I was lucky enough to go to Indonesia and India. I hadn’t really heard of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) before I got to Indonesia, and by the time I’d left India, I knew a lot about it because, of course, I’d experienced the excitement that the Indonesians were anticipating with RCEP and also, in India, the trepidation that I experienced, not so much in the formal talks but in the informal talks, that they were not going to be in RCEP. So that gave me an appreciation of the importance of this trade agreement, and I was able to come back and then I’ve been following the progress of it.

So it gives me great pleasure to be standing here speaking tonight and to see that this RCEP bill, or the legislation bill which underwrites the RCEP agreement, and to be part of speaking on behalf of that. It will be something that those that come after us—as Mr McAnulty has said, it’s so important that we have the whole House behind this, because it is something that we will build on—and those that come in here behind us will appreciate just what has been achieved with this. So I have great pleasure in commending this to the House.