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.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of our trade Minister in support of the RCEP Legislation Bill. The bill has undergone the scrutiny of the parliamentary process. Its first reading was in May of this year, followed by its extensive examination by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. At the second reading, last month, the select committee recommended that the bill proceed without any amendments, and earlier this week the committee of the whole House made one minor, technical amendment. The Government would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the development of this bill since its inception—from members of Parliament, select committee members, members of the public, civil society, and business representatives. The wide participation in the development of any bill is important, and even more so with this bill given the Trade for All agenda of the Government.

This bill is required for New Zealand to meet its commitments under the RCEP agreement, and most of our obligations are met through existing legal frameworks and policies, with only a small number of legislative amendments required. Therefore, this bill is an omnibus bill that amends three areas: the Tariff Act of 1988 and the tariff and Customs and Excise Acts of 2018.

Being part of RCEP is important to New Zealand for a number of reasons, but first we consider the broader environment in which RCEP and this bill sit. Across the world, before the pandemic, we were already experiencing an unsettled and unpredictable international environment. There was great pressure on the trading system, with growing protectionism, increases in non-trade tariff barriers to trade, and more overt geopolitical rivalries at play. Now, COVID-19 has impacted us all and, for our businesses, it has created great uncertainty, disrupting supply chains and creating difficulties for exporters. The pandemic has brought home to us the importance of being a champion for international trade and seeking economic cooperation. Against this backdrop, RCEP is important as it will bring real, direct commercial benefits to New Zealanders and companies.

The 15 RCEP parties, when looked at collectively, represent almost a third of the world’s population, and for New Zealand, RCEP includes seven of our top trading partners. RCEP parties already take over half of New Zealand’s total exports and provide more than half of our direct foreign investment. Pre - COVID-19 trade had been flourishing, with New Zealand exporting more than $36 billion worth of goods to RCEP economies and nearly $12 billion worth of services. The RCEP region will continue to grow in importance for the prosperity and security of New Zealanders. While India’s withdrawal from RCEP negotiations in late 2019 was disappointing, a fast-track accession process remains. Should it wish to re-join in the future, it can, and India continues to be of great importance to New Zealand and we greatly value the relationship with it. New Zealand will continue to broaden and deepen the political, cultural, and economic links that we enjoy with India.

RCEP is expected to increase trade flows in the Indo-Pacific. Some of RCEP’s tangible benefits will come from providing tariff reductions and removals, new investment opportunities, and new export markets. There are many notable gains in services and investment. China and the largest Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries have made investment market access commitments to New Zealand for the very first time. And RCEP sees the strong benefits for our goods and exports by including provisions to address non-tariff barriers, such as expectations for customs administrators to the release of perishable goods within six hours. But RCEP’s benefits primarily come from the single set of trade rules that streamline export requirements, provide greater certainty, and enable higher business confidence. All of these contribute to an improved environment to facilitate trade. These common frameworks will help ensure that New Zealand business becomes part of the wider supply-chain networks within the Indo-Pacific region.

Against the commercial and strategic benefits of RCEP, it is also important to consider the implications of New Zealand not joining the agreement. In this case, New Zealand exporters may be excluded from regional supply chains, representing lost opportunities for New Zealand. Modelling indicates that New Zealand’s GDP would be about 0.2 percent lower, or $900 million, if RCEP proceeded without New Zealand as a part of it. Conversely, once RCEP is fully in effect, New Zealand’s annual GDP will be between 0.3 and 0.6 percent larger as a result of the agreement, and that amounts to between $1.5 billion to $3.2 billion in annual GDP. As we can see, the trade effects of RCEP will be material, and these economic benefits are not just concentrated on a few exporters, but half of New Zealand jobs come from the tradable sector. And, over that time, the economic benefit to New Zealand from these changes will be considerable.

A second major benefit of RCEP is its strategic significance for New Zealand and the region. The Indo-Pacific is of critical importance to New Zealand, and we have strong people links across the region, visible in the make-up of our multicultural society. It is also the location of all of our current free-trade agreements, from bilateral agreements and arrangements with individual economies to larger ones like this one before us today. At RCEP’s core is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. The agreement has been ASEAN-led and demonstrates that ASEAN is committed to ongoing regional economic integration, and New Zealand is committed to the objective. Joining RCEP ensures that we will be at the table where decisions affecting our interests will be taken. It reinforces our place in the region and sends an important signal of New Zealand’s openness to trade and commitment to the rules-based international trading system. As is in the name, RCEP is a regional comprehensive economic partnership. It provides the framework for increasing economic integration at a time when trends of protectionism are rising. It demonstrates that Governments, even in challenging times, are able to compromise, engage for cooperation, and provide commitments to each other. And these commitments in the trade and economic sector space also bolster New Zealand’s ability to engage on the political and security issues that matter to our region.

This leads to the third major benefit from RCEP and its contribution to the recovery of New Zealand and the region from the COVID-19 pandemic. When implemented fully, RCEP will become the largest trade agreement in the world. Given the difficulties of COVID-19 and the challenges for the international trading system, this achievement cannot be underestimated. Right from the beginning of the pandemic, New Zealand moved quickly to keep supply chains open for essential imports, reduce trade barriers, maintain connectivity, and keep air links open while shipping constraints continued. And, as the pandemic continues, New Zealand’s response has adapted. We know that trade is a key driver for prosperity, and that is why enabling trade is a key part of our recovery strategy.

The trade-focused support has three main pillars: retooling support for exporters, refreshing the international trade architecture, and reenergising and refocusing our key trade relationships. New Zealand businesses and exporters, in particular, have been facing challenging times, but we’ve also seen how resilient they can be when the situation is up against them. The Government recognises this, and our commitment to RCEP is part of our response. RCEP will create more security and certainty for New Zealand exporters, forming a relatively more predictable trading environment for our companies. It is in this context of the challenging trade environment that diverse and robust trade relationships are more important than ever. They’re important for the resilience of our supply chains and for the economic prosperity of New Zealand and our region.

Lastly, RCEP is an important trade agreement for New Zealand as it protects our right to regulate for legitimate public policy purposes. New Zealand’s standard exception for the Treaty of Waitangi has been included, and RCEP does not include provisions for investor-State dispute settlements. We retain the ability, for example, to screen investment in sensitive land and assets and regulate for legitimate reasons such as in the interests of health, the environment, labour, and for security. And RCEP preserves rights that New Zealand holds close. New Zealand’s participation in RCEP shows that, when New Zealand pursues trade, it does it not just for our own sake; it is a means to an end because, done well, we know that trade can lift the living standards of New Zealanders and secure the future prosperity of our country. In such turbulent times, it is important that New Zealand continues to lead the way as a responsible, proactive, and engaged global participant. This bill will enable New Zealand to ratify RCEP and be part of the agreement and to see the benefits from it. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Today is a great day for New Zealand’s traders and exporters, particularly in light of the announcement of the signing of an agreement in principle with the UK. It is only right that we in this House acknowledge the work here by the Minister Damien O’Connor and his officials. I’m sure, though, he would also acknowledge the work of the National Party and the former Ministers like Todd McClay and Tim Groser and the platform that they laid since negotiations began in 2016. So to Minister O’Connor and his officials, who I’m sure are all listening, it’s been a long road, but, ultimately, they have signed an unprecedented deal, and we are glad that they have taken the time to serve up a comprehensive agreement, and we offer our congratulations to them.

We are, however, here today to talk about the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and for our Parliament to ratify this deal and bring its implementation one step closer. In opening up access to 15 countries in the Asia-Pacific region, RCEP will bring tremendous opportunities to manufacturers and producers across the country. It will cover trade in goods, trade in services, investment, economic and technical cooperation, intellectual property, competition, dispute settlement, and other issues. It also recognises ASEAN’s centrality in the emerging regional economic architecture and the interests of ASEAN’s free-trade agreement (FTA) partners.

While RCEP, though, is a good step forward, when we hear what was negotiated with the UK and the scale that that opportunity brings, it pales in comparison. New Zealand already has FTAs with RCEP members but was able to achieve new market access into Indonesia with a range of our products. It’s a solid agreement, but it’s not spectacular. It will be supported by the National Party, but India needs to be included in this membership and we need to keep at it and bring India in. It is, after all, a $2.8 trillion economy and the world’s second largest population. India, by the way, is now wishing to conclude a comprehensive FTA with Australia, which it began negotiating in 2011, and likewise, the UK is now pushing an agenda.

RCEP’s conclusion without India means New Zealand needs to start applying far more effort on improving our trade position with that country. Since the last National Government, this Government has engaged in almost no ministerial engagement with India. It was both illuminating and disappointing to have heard that from Meka Whaitiri in this House during the committee of the whole the other night. Her representations indicated there is seemingly no urgency from this Government. That needs to change if we’re going to land an FTA with them as a priority.

RCEP is less comprehensive and ambitious than the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership but is none the less useful in that it brings together a number of New Zealand’s key trading partners. As I’ve mentioned, there was some additional market access to Indonesia and the agreement on the clearance of perishable goods will be welcome to our exporters. In a world of rising protectionism, it’s heartening to know or to assume, at least, that the ratification of this deal will be supported by member states and political parties here in New Zealand, with the notable exception of the Green Party.

Currently, we export $82 billion in goods and services every year and trade supports 600,000 jobs in New Zealand. That’s partly due to our country’s liberalised trade agenda, but also to the agility and ambition of our exporters, particularly our primary producers. If its intention is achieved, RCEP will promote economic integration, establish a consistent framework of rules, and increase market access for world-class goods and services that we produce here. That opportunity will come with the RCEP agreement. It’s expected to significantly reduce complexity and compliance costs for exporters through a single rulebook that covers all 15 markets.

RCEP’s entry into force will occur 60 days after the date on which at least three non-ASEAN signatories and six ASEAN signatories have notified their intention to ratify. New Zealand will join Japan and China as three non-ASEAN signatories who have completed their domestic processes, and several other ASEAN members are reported to be very close. The National Party welcomes the ratification of this deal, and I commend this bill to the House.

Oh, well, that was a great speech, great reading, there. Next week, she’ll be on to chapter books. But, look, this is a great bill, and it is just another step forward and part of the response to COVID, because we know that trade is such an important part of our response to COVID, led by our primary industries. And, as was noted, it is a largely Pacific partnership, but India is an important part of the picture. We look forward to, hopefully, opening negotiations with India on that fast-track process referred to by Minister Kris Faafoi.

The other thing to note is this is yet another example where the Treaty of Waitangi has been recognised as a protected part of New Zealand’s law and that the New Zealand Government is permitted, under this Treaty, to do things which would otherwise be in breach of free-trade agreements, because the Treaty is given precedence, and that’s a great feature emerging out of our trade negotiations, and, of course, another piece of the puzzle, along with the free-trade agreement that has been agreed in principle with the UK.

We look forward to our borders being opened up to much more free-flowing trade in the future and a strong economic recovery led by this Government. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

It’s a very important piece of legislation; you wouldn’t assume so—anybody listening in—from the way that Duncan Webb just started his speech. He’s lucky he is an MP, because as a comedian he would be actually looking for the wage subsidy! The reason I say that is that this House hasn’t had enough opportunity to celebrate high-quality trade deals in the four years that Labour has been in Government. This is the first one, actually, that really has been concluded that has had any real negotiation by the Government—or that was started before they were there. The other one, of course, was that one that they campaigned against and held signs against—the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)—and they changed the name and then accepted it when they came to Government.

I’m glad that the vast majority of members of the House support this, because New Zealand is a trading nation—600,000 jobs; all of the produce that is made, manufactured, and grown in New Zealand. We are not a country that is wealthy, and without good access to foreign markets, we would be much, much poorer for it.

We’ll hear in this debate, as we did in other stages, that the agreement could have been more, and in some areas probably should have been, but we’ll recognise how challenging it is to negotiate a multilateral agreement, as this is, across a number of countries. The very good news is, although we haven’t heard it from members opposite, that the majority of the members of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), we already have trade agreements with, many of which are better than this—some of the TPP members, the ASEAN countries, and so on. But every piece of agreement negotiated that actually moves New Zealand forward, opens a door—even if it is only slightly—for New Zealand exporters, gives them assurance, and creates a rules-based system, is worthwhile.

I want to caution, though, those who trade with India and have listened to the debate, the Minister previously in earlier stages, and then members of the Government now, when they talk about India. They say they want to welcome India back to a fast-track system; it will not happen. The reason it will not happen is because, actually, the only way that New Zealand will have a trade deal with India of any worth is a bilateral one. There have been many, many negotiating rounds, because there is a trade agreement with India on the table. It is a bilateral agreement. It is not an agreement with many other countries involved. It is not the TPP. It is not RCEP. It is a bilateral trade agreement. There will be more than nine rounds. It is very difficult and very heavy going.

That is now where the Government should put its effort and its emphasis: a bilateral agreement with India. The reason for that is: if India was to come back to RCEP, we would get some gains, but they will not be the same gains as we get as a bilateral agreement. When we hear that they are looking towards the UK, India, and Australia, it would be extremely bad for our exporters if Australia or the UK had a trade agreement with India before New Zealand does. So it is one thing to say, “Well it’s a shame they’ve gone away.”, as the Minister said, reading his speech in a previous debate, “The door is open for India”. We’re not a large country. An economy like that does not need a trade deal with New Zealand, as few countries in the world do. The only way we’ve ever had trade deals presented to us is from Ministers getting on planes, or Zooms at the moment, and going and continuing to return and make the case of why a high-quality free-trade agreement (FTA) bilaterally is good for both sides.

That is why there was a FTA announced in principle with the United Kingdom today, because when the UK announced that they were looking to leave the European Union, do you know who the first country to turn up there was? It was New Zealand—New Zealand Ministers. And New Zealand Ministers went again and again and again to make the case, as they had, under the previous Government, to the European Union—spent more time overseas than in New Zealand, in the interests of New Zealand exporters, to make sure we got a free-trade deal with the UK, because every single country was knocking on their door. So today is a good day for New Zealand exporters and it is a good day for New Zealand consumers, for New Zealand workers, and for our economy, because a deal that was started under the previous Government and has continued under this Government with the United Kingdom has been landed. It won’t be perfect, but it is a very good step forward. The next one has to be the European Union and then, finally, the Government should also be able to do two things at once: they should be talking to India and putting every single effort in they can.

As far as RCEP’s concerned, I am very pleased that Indonesia is part of this. New Zealand started a trade dispute formally with Indonesia, I think, in 1993, 2003/1993, with Indonesia over the export of some horticultural products, particularly fresh vegetables and beef. Our exporters were treated very badly. Our beef exports to Indonesia were about, sometimes, second highest of any country. They diminished quite, quite significantly because of barriers that Indonesia put in place. We took the issue to the World Trade Organization (WTO), and, at every step of the way, the WTO found in our favour. What this agreement now means is we have a rules-based system—as well as the WTO, which doesn’t always work effectively well and is very slow—to address concerns we might have with a country like Indonesia. I had the opportunity to visit there a number of times, as trade Minister, to make the case to allow them to, you know, let our beef come back in there. It is a country of younger people who are starting to get educations, who will grow in wealth very, very quickly—maybe not the same wealth we see in other trading nations of Europe and so on, but it will grow quickly. It is a very large population. They will want the protein, the goods, and some of the services that we produce in New Zealand, and they will want them in abundance. We will only be able to rely upon Indonesia as a market, so that New Zealand companies will invest effort and time and the resource into growing relationships with other companies in Indonesia, if there is a fair rules-based system to be applied there.

If the WTO hadn’t worked as well for us, or as quickly as we’d wanted, RCEP is a step in that direction. But I would encourage the Government and the Minister to do much, much more in this space. We are only as good as our last trade deal. We now have a new one today which is better than RCEP, because it was bilateral, started by the National Government, continued and finished by a Labour Government. It is good for New Zealand. That Minister now must use the UK agreement as the framework, as the benchmark, as the minimum that he seeks from other countries. The negotiation with the European Union must be as good as the UK one, otherwise we have missed an opportunity with the EU. As far as India is concerned, it is a very good place to start with that negotiation, because when the UK goes to India and says, “We want a free-trade deal as well.”, they will talk about the deal they got with New Zealand. As a starting point, we should do the same thing. If this Government can deliver a high-quality deal with the European Union and with India in the last two years before the election, they will have done a good thing for New Zealand exporters, they will have done a good thing for the New Zealand economy, and the country, our exporters, would start to forgive them for the hollow protest they made over TPP for many years, holding up signs saying that it was a bad deal, and the moment they got to Government, they changed one word in the name and they accepted it.

The final point I’d make to the last speaker, Dr Duncan Webb, is around the Treaty of Waitangi clause. It is good that it is there, but the Government shouldn’t take responsibility for that, because it has been in every single deal that New Zealand has signed for some period of time. Irrespective of the Government, when we go through a negotiation, we explain our special position when it comes to meeting obligations under the Treaty. It doesn’t give us the opportunity to break free-trade deals, but it does give us the opportunity, in our own way, to meet any obligation we may have through the Treaty. It has been negotiated in all those deals and should be in future. It is a good thing it is there. It is not a surprising thing it is there, because, actually, it now becomes a mainstay of the agreement New Zealand negotiates.

This is good that we are supporting this, because it is good for our exporters. It opens a door just a little bit further for us on the world stage, particularly when it comes to South-east Asia, a market of growing importance to New Zealand. But we shouldn’t rest on our laurels and congratulate ourselves too quickly or too often or too much in this House; you’ve got to move on to the next trade deal, which has to be the European Union and it has to be India, and I’d love to hear from the Government where to after that. Thank you.

Fakaalofa lahi atu, Madam Speaker. I just want to address a couple of the opening comments from the previous speaker that’s just sat down, the Hon Todd McClay. The irony of the previous member’s comments speaking around energy and alternative careers for the previous member that sat down before him—perhaps if he was a greater trade Minister, he’d be the trade spokesperson for the Opposition. But nevertheless, we will carry on.

This bill gives effect to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill. As noted earlier, RCEP is a treaty-level free-trade agreement agreed by 15 countries: 10 ASEAN, as well as Australia, China, Japan, and South Korea. This bill supports the Government in our plan to be able to secure our recovery. The Government has committed to leveraging our successful COVID response to position New Zealand globally as a safe and secure place to trade with, to invest in, and—eventually—to visit again.

We will continue to pursue high-quality and comprehensive trade agreements that diversify our trade relationships, as seen in the historic free-trade deal with the United Kingdom announced today. Once fully implemented, RCEP will be the largest trade agreement in the world, so I congratulate the Minister and his officials for getting this far.

The Minister acting on behalf of the Minister who is not in the House—acting on behalf—said in his speech, “In such turbulent times, it is important New Zealand continues to lead the way as responsible, proactive, and engaged global participants. This bill will enable New Zealand to ratify RCEP to be part of the agreement and to see benefits from this.” So, on that, I support this bill, and I commend it to the House.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Madam Speaker.

Just before I take that member’s call—apologies to the member—I just remind the member who’s just resumed her seat that she does not refer to a member who is absent from the House.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Thank you. I’m pleased to take a short call for the Green Party on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill. I also note an element of irony that the Hon Todd McClay was talking about Ministers spending a lot of time overseas in the interests of New Zealand exporters and yet the National Party has criticised the Hon James Shaw for going overseas to represent New Zealand and get a decent climate agreement. Somehow, trade agreements are more important than climate agreements. That’s certainly something I don’t agree with. I also like to acknowledge Golriz Ghahraman, the Green spokesperson on global affairs and trade, in lockdown in Auckland, who would normally be speaking on this bill.

To make it very clear: the Green Party supports trade. We are a small island nation. Trade is a crucial generator of our economic wellbeing. We need to import a whole heap of things that we don’t manufacture here—from electric vehicles to medicines, personal protective gear—and we benefit from that bigger global market for the food, fibre, and other products that we produce. Half the jobs in Aotearoa New Zealand are in the tradable sector and, as the Minister noted, our trade has been really critical to New Zealand’s economic performance in relation to COVID. The Greens want trade that is fair, that is inclusive, and that is sustainable. We want trade rules that protect and allow us to reinforce our climate commitments, workers’ rights, human rights, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi; not agreements or trade rules which cut across those.

The Trade for All agenda, which the Greens have engaged with, does have a basis for a new way of negotiating these agreements, but it’s unfortunate that there are very few of the principles in the Trade for All agenda which are reflected in the RCEP agreement. And it’s critical that we move to that new way of negotiating agreements and the provisions in them because, as the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (CPTPPA) and the massive demonstrations around the world and here in Aotearoa showed, there is no public confidence in agreements which are negotiated in secret where you’ve got big corporate interests having access to the negotiators in a way that the public doesn’t have, where those who aren’t participating have to rely on leaked texts rather than a transparent way of negotiating. So that sort of an arrangement does not provide a basis for public confidence.

This RCEP agreement, which is across a region covering almost a third of the world’s population and a region which takes more than half of our exports—because India has withdrawn we don’t get the market access there, because India saw some of the disadvantages of this agreement. The major benefits, therefore, because we already have free-trade agreements with a number of our trading partners in the region, will potentially be in the non-tariff areas—areas like the more consistent rules for customs so that for our perishable products like horticultural goods, flowers, seafood, there’s a commitment to move them on within six hours of being landed so that those are fresh when they go to market.

The Green Party opposes this bill for a number of reasons. The type of economic growth which trade agreements have encouraged to date is not sustainable either in an environmental or a social sense. You’ve got a very complex range of chapters, so there are very complex trade-offs which impact on Government. In her submission to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, law professor Dr Jane Kelsey quoted the Asia-Pacific arm of the International Trade Union Conference and they said of RCEP, and I quote, “the RCEP [will] hinder our efforts to build back better after COVID-19 towards a sustainable, inclusive and resilient world by escalating the division of labour in global supply chains, privatisation of essential services, and the dominance of corporation on our governments. Public services as well as the government’s ability to regulate in the interest of [our] people would be weakened. Therefore, the agreement is clearly against our prosperity in future.”

So there’s nothing in this agreement which guarantees any benefits to small and medium enterprise, to indigenous peoples, to women, or to workers. Yes, there is the standard Te Tiriti o Waitangi carve-out, but the Waitangi Tribunal has highlighted that that is not adequate and Government needs to go further. The Greens oppose it because there is no chapter on environmental rights. In terms of our criticisms of the CPTPPA, we criticised that because the language in it around environmental issues wasn’t able to be enforced in the same way that the chapters were that protected the privileges and rights of investors. Here, Aotearoa New Zealand, when the negotiations started in 2012, did seek to include a stand-alone environment chapter but the other 15 countries—there couldn’t be agreement on that so there wasn’t the stand-alone chapter. So we have only passing references to environmental issues. Certainly, there are some reservations to protect our ability to regulate for our own domestic environmental objectives, to manage our exclusive economic zone, conservation areas, biosecurity, and food safety, but we only have a really weak promise from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that they will continue to seek outcomes for trade and the environment in its ongoing trade policy work across the region. No commitments to actually seek to strengthen environmental objectives and the environmental rules around trade so that we’re not impacting on nature.

So yes, this doesn’t include the heinous investor-State dispute resolution clauses, which have been so problematic in other agreements; yes, we can still use the Overseas Investment Act to screen overseas purchases of New Zealand land and assets; but this whole thing around the investor-State dispute resolution procedures—that is the only one of the Trade for All principles that has made it through into this agreement. So this whole lack of a commitment to strengthening international rules to protect nature, to protect workers’ rights, to protect the rights of indigenous peoples, to better safeguard Te Tiriti o Waitangi—that is missing and those are some of the reasons why the Green Party is opposing it, and, finally, because there’s been no public or public sector input. Certainly, there’s been an examination in retrospect by the select committee, but no public input into the negotiations, no transparency around the drafts, so no ability, really, to ensure that it was in the wider public interest, so the Greens oppose this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the ACT Party today in support of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill. It is a wonderful day to speak on this particular piece of legislation, and that’s because we’ve heard the wonderful news of the agreement in principle between the New Zealand and UK Governments for a free-trade agreement, which would forge stronger ties with the world’s fifth-largest economy.

I really do have to take my hat off and say that this is fantastic news. It’s not often that I find myself in agreement with the Government on an issue, but on this particular issue it is excellent work. When this deal is done, we’re expecting that it will boost exports by up to 40 percent and our GDP to about $1 billion. Our New Zealand farmers have helped us through the COVID recovery. It is wonderful that we have some of the finest produce in the world and that the UK will soon be able to have more of that fantastic produce, and I’m glad to see our tariffs being dropped in that particular work that’s been done.

We are a small island nation, and we’re a trading nation. ACT has always proudly been the strongest proponent of free trade in this Parliament. We welcome today’s news, but we also welcome RCEP: the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, and I’m happy to see it being ratified. But we must ensure that this isn’t the end and that we continue to strive for further liberalisation, with agreements with the European Union and the US. It’s also important that we’re signing these agreements and coming to agreements in principle in a time when we’re seeing countries turn inward, against each other.

The ACT Party believes that our foreign policy should seek to uphold the safety of our citizens, and reflect our interests and our values on the world stage. It’s important that we’re part of a rules-based order, because we are a small island in the Pacific and a small trading nation; we do need a rules-based order. It’s important that we’re part of agreements where we can help shape those rules. That’s the importance of us being part of RCEP. It’s important for our peace and security as a country, but it’s also important for our peace and security as a region of the Asia-Pacific. That is important for the stability of the businesses, the everyday New Zealanders who get up and create jobs and opportunities for other New Zealanders right here, and that they have stability and have growth in more export markets going forward.

There is a huge business benefit that comes by having more free-trade agreements and more export markets. As I say, it creates more jobs and opportunities, and, in fact, for people who may never have had them. It takes a lot of skill and effort and hard work and determination to create a business. I’m proud that we’re signing agreements that give those businesses more opportunities to sell their goods and also sell New Zealand on the world stage. It’s good for all of us in society.

Importantly, regional trade agreements help for stability. In particular, they help to limit the threats that we may face from other countries—other countries that may, in the future, seek to wish us harm. It sends us a message: we are part of a block of people who wish to have rules imposed that we all agree with. That is important for our stability, but it also sends the message that we’re open for business and we welcome opportunities to have more interaction with other countries, and I think that’s wonderful.

So RCEP, in particular, is about 30 percent of the world’s population within the countries of this agreement. That’s 2.3 billion people that we can trade with and around 30 percent of the world’s GDP. More than half of New Zealand’s trade and foreign direct investment flows through the Asia-Pacific, so this is a huge agreement. Importantly, it provides that framework of rules, for stability, for jobs, and for growth. I commend this bill to the House, but I once again just want to say well done on the UK - New Zealand free-trade agreement. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. If I may, Madam Speaker, I would like to say to the previous speaker, Brooke van Velden: welcome aboard; if you keep going with the communal action, you may find you like it.

But what I really want to do is congratulate the Minister for this wonderful and innovative piece of work. When I look at the history of New Zealand as an import-export country, we have been innovative from the beginning, whether it was Māori supplying the markets in New South Wales in the fledgling economy, before the Treaty was signed, to the famous 1882 refrigerated ship full of our lamb and beef.

As the member for Whangārei, which is a primary production hotspot, and also the proud possessors of the best and deepest import port in the country, I really, truly commend the Minister for continuing to lead and innovate, as New Zealand always has, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill, especially on a day, when you think about it, this RCEP—really, I guess negotiations on this would have started in the early 1970s when the British booted us out. And it’s ironic that the day we put this bill through its third reading is the day we sign another free-trade agreement, which really gets us back into a situation in Britain which we were last in in 1972. I find it really quite intriguing that the team that get behind these things and have done the work—and I think we’ve got to realise and congratulate all those people since those early 1970s who have got involved in trade negotiation, as Ministers who have got involved in the negotiations and gone around the world, working their way for New Zealand—to see what we’ve been able to achieve in the way of free trade agreements and other kind of trade agreements that have kept us in the market so well and so strongly. And they’re to be congratulated on that because I think it’s pretty special.

So this is really where we got to, this bill, as a result of being thrown out of Britain or Britain entering the EEC. And one of the ironies of this that I must talk about for a minute is that if you looked at our meat industry in the early 1970s, which was probably our second biggest industry after wool—of course, dairy has long since gone past that, and one or two others; well, tourism was there until last year—that the meat industry in those days was largely owned by Britain. Now the biggest meat industry export market by far is China, and, interestingly, our meat industry is now, to a large extent, owned by China. So there’s a bit of irony in what goes on in trade in the world. So it really points to the issues that the ACT speaker, Brooke van Velden, was raising, which is that we very much rely on rules-based trade deals, which enable us to keep our place in the world irrespective of what’s going on around us. It’s hugely important and it’s even more important at a time like this, where getting access to markets and retaining access to those markets, and actually being able to get our product to those markets, is hugely important. So, I think it’s exciting that we’ve got to this point with this agreement, and we’ve heard a number of people with a lot more knowledge of trade than me talking about it earlier in the evening.

The countries involved in this trade agreement are very important to New Zealand, and when you think, as I said earlier, that we primarily relied on Britain in the early 1970s—we’re now very big in Asia. A lot of our Asian countries and friends are now our largest trading partners. One of the exciting things about this agreement is that it brings Indonesia to the fore and we end up—I think Indonesia is still one of the great opportunities we’ve got in Asia, and so that’s quite an exciting opportunity and we need to move on with our negotiations with Indonesia. But even more importantly, I think, is the fact that India has pulled out of this agreement, and I think it was Todd McClay earlier who was talking about the importance of New Zealand getting on and negotiating some sort of trade deals with India. A huge opportunity for New Zealand, and one, when you think about it, that a lot of the requirements India have, we can satisfy. But we’ve got to realise also and, of course, to satisfy those markets, that we’re a very, very small part of the world market for anything. Particularly, this agreement—like many of our others—primarily deals in agricultural products and so it’s really important that that we continue to negotiate our way through these trade agreements at the top end of the agricultural market, because we can supply about 40 million people with food. If you look at some of these countries and some of these cities, actually, they’re almost that entire market.

So it’s particularly important for New Zealand that we continue to sign these agreements. I, again, just want to congratulate all those people: the officials and our trade negotiators, who are internationally recognised as the best there is for the very reason that we heavily rely on trade to keep ourselves going. So I commend this bill to the House and I look forward to many more coming through the House as well. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. What an exciting day it is to be able to rise and speak on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement at the same time as we are announcing, with the UK, a free-trade deal where, in principle, that will see the entire removal of tariffs.

Coming from a region of Hawke’s Bay where it is the backbone of our regional economy—trade; growing, growing export businesses—I had the pleasure of meeting with the first Recognised Seasonal Employer workers to arrive in our region this week, who will be picking some of the apples that will be going to some of the existing countries that we already trade with. It is an enormous achievement, when we think that this trade deal, when it is ratified, will be the biggest one in the world, and that is something that everyone in this House can be proud of.

It is an exciting day, it is a special day, and I’m thrilled to be able to speak on it. I commend this bill to the House.

I just want to compliment the previous speaker from the National Party, Mr McKelvie—just the value of having someone with a good history in this House who is able to put things into perspective. So I congratulate you on that presentation.

I just want to acknowledge also another group of people, particularly those sitting in Auckland who are now in, I think, their ninth week of lockdown, and it’s going to be very hard for those watching up there to understand the enthusiasm we’re all feeling at the moment. But perhaps they can just put this into some perspective, because one thing that COVID has taught us is the importance of supply lines, whether it be the ability to get the goods into New Zealand, whether it be the ability to get goods around New Zealand, or to manufacture here. So I think that there is an awareness of trade that may be one of the positives that will come out of this COVID we’re suffering at the moment. Today, this RCEP, alongside the free-trade agreement that’s been announced with the UK—these all give us opportunities now to grow and, more importantly, for everyone in New Zealand to be part of.

Another irony, or something we should celebrate, is we’re going into Labour Weekend. Labour Weekend is where we do celebrate the labour—and I think one of my colleagues pointed out that when we do thank our farmers for what they’re doing, we need to also thank those that allow those farmers to do that, who are those labourers who are up at 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning. So everyone not only plays a part in this; everyone stands to benefit from this.

So it is a good day. I think we are now looking for good news across the board and, more importantly, something we can all, as New Zealanders, celebrate. So wherever you are, whether you’re stuck in your ninth week in Auckland or whether you’re looking at getting up at 3 o’clock in the morning to milk even more cows to produce more milk for trade, or to shear more sheep, this is a day that I think we can all be proud of and be part of, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to stand and speak on this bill, and yes, it is a good day. Mr McKelvie’s had a bit of praise in the last few minutes. I was sitting in select committee with Mr McKelvie this morning when we both realised that our members’ bills had actually been drawn out of the ballot, so it has indeed been a good day. Nothing better on a day like this to see this trade agreement being ratified in the House. It’s a plurilateral agreement that affects—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Say that three times fast!

Exactly. It’s easier than saying the name of the other bill that we’ve been talking about this week, about live streaming. So it’s plurilateral, it’s 15 countries, and it’s extremely important to New Zealand. All of us over here on the other side of the House, in the National caucus, are not always complimentary of everything that goes on on the Government side of the House, but when it comes to trade, it’s very, very key that we all work together on these trade agreements, because at the end of the day this has been our bread and butter in our country for a very, very, very long time. The trade must get through.

It was mentioned before—it’s always mentioned, actually—that during COVID-19 agriculture and our horticulture and our other rural exports have played a big part in keeping New Zealand financially afloat. But, also, we have had some supply chain issues, and I would like to make note just at this point in time of the shipping arrangement that Fonterra made with Silver Fern Farms back in 2010. Some of our bigger organisations are making some arrangements that make sure that they build relationships with shipping companies to make sure that whatever happens, our trade does get through. We are a little country at the bottom of the world and it would be very easy to leave us out at times, and it’s very definitely satisfying to know that our trade is still getting through.

The other thing just to mention, actually, while we’re talking about trade, is we had some presentations this morning around cooperatives in select committee, and there are some people in the House at the moment who were there. It’s amazing how many of our big companies are cooperatives. When you look at the whole chart of all the logos, and we think about the likes of the Fonterras and the Zespris—and also some of our energy companies are also cooperatives—there’s a good model there that actually helps us trade with, and don’t underestimate just how much money that is actually bringing into our country to meet all of the needs that we require as a country to meet.

So National knows that trade, international trade, is vital to our economic success because it underpins our business and it creates jobs and it lifts wages. That’s who we are, and that’s how we’ve always done things. National is unashamedly supportive of free trade because it supports 600,000 jobs across the country and it’s responsible for delivering a higher standard of living and a better quality of life for all New Zealanders. There is new market access for New Zealand goods, through this agreement, for exporters to Indonesia through tariff elimination on a number of products: anything from sheep meat to beef to fish to fish products, liquid milk, grated or powdered cheeses, honey, avocados, tomatoes, persimmons—the list is not exhaustive, but it just goes to show what a fruit bowl and a food bowl New Zealand is.

It also does get to show that the world really appreciates the food that we produce here. Long may we continue to be proud of that, because in my two roles as agricultural spokesperson and energy spokesperson, I have a current saying that says: if you can’t grow it or you can’t dig it or dig for it, what is it? If it’s not a fish—and you could argue that a fish is also grown—there’s very little else left. We look around, and I can’t see anything in any room, most days, in front of me that doesn’t come from either agriculture or something that’s made from the earth, and that includes our cellphones and our electric cars and everything else we have. So it’s really important that we remember that, and if we’re going to do any sort of education in our schools—really good to remind or to teach students where things come from, because everything is in a space where it gets taken for granted. We get a lot of that through trade.

A bit of a background to this bill is that negotiations began in early 2013, when the New Zealand Government sought public submissions during February and March of that year, engaged with the public, engaged with Māori and a wide spectrum of stakeholders over the course of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) negotiations. It was concluded by and signed in a virtual ceremony on 15 November 2020, and India withdrew from RCEP just in the negotiations in November 2019, although I have listened to Ministers speaking since that point in time—and I know that the Hon Meka Whaitiri was saying the other day that those conversations are still going on and that those conversations are still alive.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Sorry to interrupt the member. Could those two members conversing please separate themselves appropriately.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So there is a hope, I believe, in listening to the Hon Meka Whaitiri the other day when she was speaking about the trade bill, that India is not at all off the table and that we just need to continue building those relationships with India and, over time, India might likely end up in this trade agreement.

Something that most people don’t know about India is that it’s actually the biggest milk producer in the world, but, actually, a lot of that is masked by the fact that most of the cows that are milked in this world are done by a lot of women, actually, who own two or three cows in little villages in India and Africa and around the world. So while we think of trade in terms of the Fonterras and the Zespris, there is a lot of production that goes on around the world just actually keeping villagers fed and alive.

So a single set of trade and investment rules across the entire region, with this bill, increases certainty for all the players, reduces complexity that comes from different rules with different partners, because all that needs negotiating. So the more people you can have round the table and the less variation of rules, the simpler it is for our producers to get the product to market. The regional-wide value chains, when you’ve got so many people working together—you know, the world population is growing; it’s not shrinking. So if we can actually get our food producers working together—we’re not each other’s enemy, even though we have barriers between our countries and we do have a lot of negotiations around trade. It is important that we work together, because between all of us, we feed the world. In New Zealand, we can’t feed the world.

I’m going to stop now because I don’t want to hold this bill up, and I’m looking at the time, so I’ll take my seat and commend it to the House.

Members, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 26 October 2021.

The House adjourned at 4.58 p.m.