International Treaty Examinations — Agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the European Union

I present a legislative statement on the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill.

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

I move, That the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 4 April 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

In 2015, under the fifth National Government, we embarked on a journey towards a free-trade agreement (FTA) with the European Union by launching the preparatory process for negotiations on an FTA. After almost a decade, I am pleased to be standing here presenting on this important piece of legislation, which will bring the now completed FTA into effect. This Government recognises that trade is crucial to our economic success. We know that one-in-four New Zealanders’ jobs depends on trade, and the New Zealand - EU free-trade agreement is the result of a longstanding and bipartisan effort by successive New Zealand Governments.

The case for an agreement with the European Union is compelling. With a GDP of around $27 trillion and a population of 450 million consumers, the EU represents an important and valuable market for New Zealand businesses looking to sell overseas. Until now, many New Zealand products have been, effectively, locked out of EU markets as a consequence of high tariffs and restrictive quotas. This FTA will change that, finally levelling the playing field with our competitors in the lucrative EU market and unlocking new opportunities for Kiwi businesses. As a result of the NZ-EU FTA, New Zealand exporters will benefit from $100 million in additional tariff savings from day one of entry into force. Once fully implemented, this FTA has the potential to boost our exports to the EU by up to $1.8 billion each year and our GDP by up to $1.4 billion per year.

From the day of the agreement entering into force, 91 percent of New Zealand’s current trade with the EU will enter duty-free through a combination of tariff elimination and duty-free quotas. This includes a number of key products, such as kiwifruit, onions, apples, wine, mānuka honey, and fish and seafood. In the case of dairy and the red meat sector, any gains in market access were always going to be hard fought, reflecting the very high sensitivity of the EU’s agricultural sector. Although access will not be fully liberalised for these products, the quotas create new market access opportunities and represent an improvement on the status quo for New Zealand businesses exporting into the EU. While the deal has not met everybody’s expectations, particularly for dairy and meat, where farmers’ expectations have not been met, when considered as a whole, this FTA nevertheless represents a valuable opportunity for New Zealanders in other sectors.

Beyond market access, the FTA includes a range of other commitments to encourage increased trade and services, facilitate investment flows, increase access to Government procurement contracts across EU member States, and facilitate the movement of business people across borders. The EU is the second-largest source of investment to New Zealand. This FTA will help to increase investment into New Zealand by raising the squeezing thresholds for investment from $100 million to $200 million, comparable to that offered in the NZ-UK FTA and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Prior to the pandemic, the EU was New Zealand’s fourth-largest market for services exports. The impact of regulatory barriers faced by businesses and financial services exporters to the EU is eliminated, to be equivalent to a 28 percent tariff reduction. Accordingly, the FTA contains more liberal and predictable rules to support the growth of trade and services between New Zealand and the EU and bring down those unnecessary costs.

There are a number of legislative and regulatory amendments that are required to align New Zealand’s domestic law with our obligations in the FTA. The bill makes these changes required for New Zealand to implement its obligations under the FTA and to bring the FTA into force. The most significant changes being made are in relation to geographical indicators. The protection of geographical indications was a key interest for the EU in the negotiations. Under the FTA, New Zealand has agreed to protect 1,975 EU geographical indications (GIs) on day one, with the potential for up to 30 additional GIs to be added every three years by mutual agreement. Most of the nearly 2,000 EU geographical indications on the list are not used commercially in New Zealand; however, protecting names like feta, port, and gruyere for the exclusive use of the EU will impact local producers that already use these terms. Transition periods and other flexibilities have been agreed to help local producers adjust to these new protections.

The agreement also sets minimum standards of protection we need to provide for EU geographical indications as well as the role of Government in enforcing these protections. Part 3 of the bill amends the existing Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act 2006 to give effect to these obligations. The EU is one of our closest and most like-minded partners internationally and our fourth-largest trading partner. Even without an FTA, our two-way goods and services trade is worth over $20 billion, but there is plenty of potential that remains untapped. An NZ-EU FTA will boost our trade and economic relationship with the EU and open up new opportunities for New Zealand businesses. We must pass the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill without delay so that New Zealand exporters can start taking advantage of the agreement as soon as possible.

I want to recognise the significant efforts of officials within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and our skilled trade negotiators, as well as former trade Minister Damien O’Connor for his work on this agreement. The New Zealand - EU FTA was commenced in the direction of an agreement under the National Government, concluded under a Labour Government, and now quickly enters into force under a National Government. That’s bipartisan. I hope the vote will be unanimous and that the protestations against trade agreements that we’ve seen previously are a thing of the past. I thank all those who have been involved in this agreement, and particularly Damien O’Connor. I commend the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill to this House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to and that the House note the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Indeed, it is a pleasure to rise in the House and support this legislation, and I want to acknowledge the incoming Government for the speed with which it has dealt with this. It is indeed an advantage to all exporters—and importers of the European products, as well—to get this legislation through. I have to acknowledge the speed with which the EU and its Parliament passed it through, so I want to thank them.

I will go through and thank a few people. I have to acknowledge my predecessor David Parker, who had a very good relationship with Cecilia Malmström, and he kind of checked the process—a process that many trade negotiators thought would actually be impossible. There were many who thought that, actually, a trade deal with the EU’s 27 member States would have been virtually impossible to conclude.

But, I have to say, it started—as Minister McClay has said—with discussions in 2015 under the previous National Government. It really began to be negotiated in 2018 and, indeed, it concluded—and I too, along with the Minister, want to thank the officials. This was through a COVID period. There were some officials who had to do quarantine two or three times in travelling backwards and forwards to Europe, to Brussels, some of whom caught COVID, and it wasn’t an easy process at all through a difficult time. But, again, I’m thanking the officials for all their work.

I want to thank and acknowledge Valdis Dombrovskis, who was the EU trade commissioner who followed Cecilia Malmström. He really did commit to this. Every commitment he made to meet and progress this, he honoured, and, indeed, I was there when his country, Latvia—it is on the border of the Ukraine, of course, and Russia, and it was deeply affected by that conflict. But he was able to maintain a focus on the EU, of course, and all its responsibilities but particularly in regard to our trade agreement. So I want to thank him for that.

Again, the trade agreement was signed on 9 July 2023. Both my Prime Minister colleagues were committed to this and did their bit, where necessary, to keep things moving along.

This is a significant trade deal, and it arguably sets a new standard for trade agreements across the globe. At a time when we’re talking about emissions reduction, when we’re talking about biodiversity protection, and when we’re talking about animal welfare standards and labour standards, the EU was like-minded with our country, and that was that we did not want to seek an advantage in our trade relationships by in any way diminishing the standards that we both adhere to now and that we must maintain in the future—and, indeed, the agreement includes some of those provisions. Some people have pointed to them as being unnecessary, but I think they are progressive, they are inclusive, and they offer, as I say, a new model for trade agreements across the globe, one that I’m sure will be picked up by many.

There are 450 million people, who are high-value consumers, in the EU, and we have 5 million here. So there’s a slight imbalance, but what they saw with us was a partner with similar values. That’s the thing. The references I’ve made, as I say, to climate change, emissions reduction, better labour standards—all of those things they saw in us as sharing the values and aspirations, and, indeed, this locks us in. We’re seeing with other countries that are trying to negotiate with the EU that they’ve hit some hurdles. I know that Australia has decided to park that for some time, and I hope they can get that under way. But the EU has set a standard; and, indeed, for anyone who negotiates with the EU, they’ll have to meet that.

Look, the Minister has gone through a number of the technical points of this piece of legislation in adjusting our legislation to meet the requirements of the Act. There are some critical things that we took into this negotiation that we’ve protected. One was Pharmac. Pharmac is a unique model. The National Government brought that model in—and I want to thank you for that—some time ago. It’s been under pressure by the pharmaceutical industry for a couple of decades now, and so we’ve protected the right, against what was an EU demand at the start, to continue to negotiate affordable pharmaceuticals for our country.

We put up the reality that Māori play a bigger part in our economy, and said that we want to ensure that they had opportunities under a trade-for-all policy. So we included that chapter, which, again, is leading the way for international trade agreements, and we will see more countries include that as we move forward.

The inclusion of animal welfare provisions to ensure that we would have discussions while we run different farming systems in different hemispheres and different situations—we were both committed to protect or to investigate the protection of those standards. Again, that is something that has come under some scrutiny and some criticism. The volumes for both beef and dairy—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just want to make you aware that these are five-minute calls in the first reading. I apologise, as I was 20 seconds late ringing the one-minute signal.

Sorry, I thought I had—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: But I’ll let you finish your last sentence.

Look, thank you very much. There is a lot to say. Again, in conclusion, I want to thank the Government for bringing this legislation into the House quickly. There are many other points that I’ll raise through the committee stage.

Again, this is a valuable agreement for New Zealand, it’s valuable for the EU, and I want to support this legislation. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In the past, the Green Party has often been the lone voice in Parliament when it comes to some of the concerns around free-trade agreements (FTAs), and I just want to reflect on what some of our concerns have been over the course of the last several decades as the country has entered into a number of these agreements. I’m saying this because I think it’s important that we do have dissenting voices and that we test the quality of our agreements against those standards.

Some of the concerns that we’ve raised over the course of many, many years are things like investor-State dispute settlement mechanisms. That was probably the single most significant provision that actually caused, I think, probably a breakdown in the general social consensus around trade agreements. The idea was that an individual company would be able to take the New Zealand Government to court and overturn, for example, environmental regulations and provisions and so on. When you look at how investor-State dispute settlement mechanisms have been applied through history, the vast majority of them were on environmental grounds and the vast majority of them found in favour of the litigant and overturned environmental provisions and so contributed to the general breakdown of our environment, which we all depend on for our survival, whilst expanding economic growth. So that was probably the key thing that we’d been worried about and we were worried about it with the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and several other agreements.

The second one was around intellectual property rights. We were worried that New Zealand artists or creators or software developers and so on would be unfairly disadvantaged by some of the intellectual property rights provisions that we found in some of those agreements. The Hon Damien O’Connor mentioned Pharmac, which has been under pressure in a number of sets of trade agreements. Those were provisions that were written into a number of previous trade agreements.

Then there were also provisions that weren’t written into previous trade agreements that we wanted to see. Historically, our trade agreements pulled in the opposite direction of our environmental obligations, of our human rights, or our indigenous obligations and rights and interests and so on. So the lack of enforceable provisions in those trade agreements, when you consider the balance against the things that we didn’t like that were also in them, we were never able to support a trade agreement on that set of grounds.

Now, when the Government changed in 2017, the trade Minister at the time, the Hon David Parker, started the Trade for All initiative and did a huge amount of work trying to get New Zealanders back on board and develop a set of common principles that would inform trade agreements. That then provided the basis for a number of negotiations, including the EU FTA that’s in front of us tonight. I want to acknowledge that work that was then continued on by the Hon Damien O’Connor in this and other agreements as well.

The EU FTA doesn’t contain most of the things that we’ve historically previously been worried about and it does contain some of the things that we wanted to see in those trade agreements, such as enforceable provisions around climate and the environment. So it would be inconsistent of us not to support the EU FTA, given that the very things that we had previously been concerned about have actually been reversed in this agreement. This is quite a different agreement from those that we have seen previously.

Now, that’s not to say that we don’t have concerns; we do, and we look forward to examining those in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in the coming weeks as we get to that. We’re particularly concerned about Māori rights and interests. I want to respect the fact that there were hundreds of Māori advisers and negotiators involved in this. So I respect that they arrived at a point that they were satisfactory, but we do want to pay attention to that and we do want to test those provisions that are in this agreement to show that they actually deliver on the promise that it’s not just all sizzle, but there’s actually some vegetarian sausage involved in that as well. So, given that, the Green Party will be supporting the EU FTA, given the huge shift in the nature of this agreement over previous agreements.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. On behalf of the ACT Party, I speak in support of the New Zealand - EU free-trade deal. As a trading nation, such deals are absolutely vital for New Zealand’s interests. Over the years, New Zealand officials and trade Ministers—I recognise Todd McClay and Damien O’Connor here—have done a stellar job in progressing trade opportunities with numerous countries.

We want to thank the officials for their hard work in what has been a particularly challenging negotiation. It is great to see that we have gotten tariff-free access for a number of sectors, including kiwifruit, honey, seafood, and onions. It is disappointing, however, that we could not get access for meat and dairy exports at such a level. This agreement contains enough great provisions. For the ACT Party, we would like to see that, when appropriate, the Government looks at insurance seeking to ensure that we get meaningful access for our two largest primary sectors. We want to thank the EU for ratifying this agreement. Having spent a bit of time with French, German, and other European farmers, I know this will have undoubtedly been very challenging for their negotiators as well as ours.

Recent times have seen a rise in protectionism and insular thinking, so it is good that we are able to keep moving the dial forward on freeing markets up. I know that, around the world, particularly those farming and growing often see free trade as a threat. I would take this time to stress that the biggest challenge for farmers that I see around the world is price volatility.

I recall during the dairy downturn of 2014-17, work that was done internationally showed that interfering in the market might well delay the impact, but that impact still came and the recovery took longer than it needed to. This work showed that most countries’ domestic price will follow the world price. For countries like New Zealand, that lag was generally non-existent; for others it might be up to eight or nine months or longer, but the domestic price did eventually follow. The lag then resulted in mixed market signals, which then resulted in a longer time that the market spent in that trough. Open markets result in market signals being received earlier, actions taken quicker, and the troughs and the peaks of the marketplace get smoothed out.

In the example of dairy that I’m very familiar with, at the time of that downturn I mentioned, New Zealand had access to around 13 percent of world consumption at tariff rates less than 10 percent. Effectively, what that 13 percent represents is the freely traded world market, which pretty much sets the world price. So when we had additional production occurring in that remaining 87 percent of world consumption, basically everything was trying to be squeezed into that 13 percent, which meant that the impact on world price was much bigger than if that additional production was spread across the entire 100 percent of world consumption. Volatility is the enemy of farmers all around the world—not each other—and New Zealand should strive, through high-quality trade deals, to show the way forward.

Finally, to those that might argue that freer trade doesn’t equally benefit all of New Zealand, all I would say is that when our rural sectors are able to get better returns for our products, the benefit flows through to all our local communities. Right now, times are tough for our lamb producers up and down this country. It’s not just them suffering but all those businesses that sell products and services to them, affecting how much they can spend in other local businesses and how many people they can employ. By earning less for our export products, it limits what we as a nation can buy offshore, such as medicines and all those other items that make the modern world go around.

We all benefit from free trade. So, in that, we support this bill. It might not deliver all that we hope for, but it’s a good start. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As the Hon Todd McClay has already mentioned, this bill is of the utmost importance. The EU is New Zealand’s fourth-largest trading partner and one of our most important markets. Under this bill, New Zealand’s conditions of access will be significantly improved, hence this piece of legislation is incredibly valuable to our market. Now, being of Croatian descent myself, we are not one to keep quiet and not say many words, but on this occasion I will, and less is more. On that note, I would like to say that New Zealand First supports and commends this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. E tū ana au ki te wāhi i ngā kōrero mō Te Pāti Māori mō tēnei o ngā pire, e mea nei ko te European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand to open the statements for Te Pāti Māori about this one of the bills, called the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill.]

I want to make the principles clear as to why Te Pāti Māori will not be supporting the bill at its first reading. Tangata whenua have long engaged in international trade. We’re an enterprising people. In fact, it was Māori who signed Aotearoa’s first ever trade agreement in 1835, He Whakaputanga, the Declaration of Independence, so that Māori could continue to trade and export our goods overseas without being treated like pirates and having our ships detained. Throughout the majority of the 19th century, Māori were the dominant economic partner in Aotearoa.

Not only was He Whakaputanga the first free-trade agreement for Māori, it was also the last, as the balance of economic power and control in Aotearoa was forcibly removed from tangata whenua. Despite the fact that Māori culture is Aotearoa’s biggest draw card and export—and is heavily exploited to provide competitive advantage, value add, and a point of difference—despite the fact that without whenua Māori, Aotearoa would have no meat and dairy to export overseas, or anything else that is grown on it or extracted from it, the Crown continues to negotiate these trade agreements without us. Once again, tangata whenua have been sidelined and treated as just another demographic for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to boast about or tag into their communications. Big statements about how Māori would be better off under this trade agreement is not partnership; it is not Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Any trade agreement that is not born off Te Tiriti o Waitangi is not legitimate in the eyes of Te Pāti Māori. While we acknowledge the potentially significant gains this free-trade agreement (FTA) could bring to New Zealand exporters, it is yet another failed opportunity to re-imagine trade policy and move away from the colonial model that has been imposed on tangata whenua.

We’d like to acknowledge the tangata whenua groups, such as the Federation of Māori Authorities and Te Taumata, who have endorsed and supported this FTA as they continue to strive to do the best for their people with the little leverage they receive from the Government. Te Pāti Māori’s concern is that the Government alone decides the negotiating mandate, what compromises are acceptable, and the final text, with no place at the table for Māori that is reflective of their role as the principal partner in Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

This is not at all surprising, of course, considering free-trade agreements have been used as a vehicle to advance colonialism while locking in indigenous peoples into capitalist systems of trade. This should not be news to anyone in this House. Whilst this is the first free-trade agreement with the EU to include a specific chapter on Māori trade, the Treaty of Waitangi exception clause allowing more favourable treatment to Māori remains unchanged from previous free-trade agreements dating back to 2001. Despite decades of recommendations that more effective protections are needed, and given the advances that the Māori economy has made since 2001, this just seems ridiculous at a time when Māori are more than 50 percent of forest and fish, 20 percent of sheep and beef, and 12 percent of dairy. The Māori trade chapter focuses only on the commercial interests for Māori, but ignores wider concerns about the protection of our rights, interests, and intellectual property. There are also no provisions for the protection of mātauranga Māori from exploitation, as we have seen with the use of the kupu “mānuka”.

I could literally speak to this agreement and tear it apart for hours, but nothing I’m saying is new to tangata whenua or this Government, whose oversights have been deliberate. Aotearoa could lead the way on indigenous trade policy and intellectual property rights, and this agreement was just another missed opportunity to do that. On the surface, this is a good deal for New Zealand, that Māori will see little to no benefit from in the long run. Beneath the surface, however, this is just another form of soft colonisation in 2024, and Te Pāti Māori will not be supporting the bill. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I’m very pleased to be able to take a call on the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill. It’s exciting to see this piece of legislation coming before the House, and it will have a meaningful impact. We’ve heard already the importance of trade in the New Zealand context, and from the EU-NZ perspective, that is one of our most critical relationships—our fourth-largest, covering about $20-odd billion worth of two-way goods, and one-in-four jobs in New Zealand directly related to that trade importance in our economy. So it just highlights that these sorts of deals are absolutely vital to the ongoing prosperity of our country. I would encourage members speaking to this to get their facts correct before they stand up in this House and make accusations that are actually quite inaccurate and not particularly helpful to the debate.

Having said that, we will be progressing—as the Minister for Trade has already said—quite promptly through the scrutiny of this piece of legislation through the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. When it comes to us, we’ll be looking to go through that as efficiently as possible. It will be a truncated process. We’ve heard already around the need to progress this with some haste, given that the EU has ratified it quite rapidly—and we would like to thank them for that. That happened late last year, in the European Parliament, and that’s fantastic to see that happening. Of course, now it is waiting on us to ratify our end before then it can come into effect a month or so later. So it’s incumbent on us to do that as efficiently as possible, but of course we want to make sure that we are going through the democratic process and giving submitters the opportunity to have their views heard—on the benefits of this trade agreement to them, or, indeed, to raise some concerns that they may have.

Some of those that I’ve been hearing on both sides, Madam Speaker, in strong rural electorates like yours and mine, where we have a lot of dairy farmers, a lot of red meat producers—they’ve voiced some level of disappointment at the access that has been achieved for them, which is, actually, similar to the level of disappointment I heard from European farmers when I was over there last year, as well. I think, in that context, as much as we would have loved to have seen greater concessions made or achieved in that regard, if there’s a level of dissatisfaction on both sides of the trade agreement, then you’ve probably got the balance about right. So, in that context, it is a very good step that we are taking here in progressing this. One of the other areas of concern was around the geographic indicators, and I’ve heard there are just under 2,000 of those that will be incorporated by this. I look forward to hearing views from submitters on that particular aspect as well.

But, of course, there are many benefits. That is far and away the most important aspect for us: understanding what benefit this brings, how that adds to our economy, and to our food and fibre sector in particular. I’m very encouraged by the progress that has been achieved there in the horticulture sector, especially for our honey sector and for our seafood sectors, who are all going to see significant benefits once this EU-NZ free-trade agreement comes into force. So those aspects in particular, I think, are a really good step. We’re excited to hear from submitters, as I say, and to progress this through promptly.

It has been encouraging to see both Labour and National working diligently on improving trade access, particularly achieving that with both the EU and the UK free-trade agreements that came in last year. But this Government is actually really focused on having a strong external engagement, because, if we do that, then we help to grow more opportunities for New Zealand. As we’ve heard, those one-in-four jobs that are directly connected to trade for New Zealand are vital for our economy. When we have some economic headwinds, then we need to be looking at all opportunities to improve New Zealand’s trading market access and agreements. On that basis, we’re very pleased with this step that’s happening, but also very determined to continue engaging externally to look for more opportunities to help take us forward, not only for the trade that it brings but, actually, the alignment of relationships that you get from ongoing dialogue from reaching agreement, whether it’s trade or other aspects—that level of relationship building that goes on alongside that. So it’s a strong focus for us to be externally oriented. We’re looking forward to considering this bill in an efficient and prompt manner over the coming weeks.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I thank the Minister for Trade for bringing this bill, the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill, to the House, and thank the Hon Damien O’Connor for landing the agreement.

I want to make a reference to some of the comments that were made by the Māori Party. With respect, the comments by the Māori Party are incorrect; the Treaty provisions in this agreement are as good as they have been in any other agreement. There is no other country in the world that manages to secure the level of protection that we do for a founding document like the Treaty of Waitangi than New Zealand does. It was hard, hard fought to get in the first place and it is only defensible if it is carried on in identical form in every trade agreement. It cannot be reopened and won in any of them—so the member is incorrect on that. There is also additional protection for geographic indicators in this agreement because the Europeans are really into them. So if there was a geographic indicator—for example, to be attached to mānuka honey—that would be possible under this agreement in a way that would not be under many other agreements in the world.

In respect of the long journey to get to agreements like this, they take a long time—you’ve got to take the gap when it appears. The gap appeared in the period between 2017 and 2020. We tried to launch negotiations while Cecilia Malmström was a European Trade Commissioner. She was very supportive of the New Zealanders. We had a number of other countries who were wanting New Zealand to have a free-trade agreement with the European Union because of our shared values on many things, including environment and labour. Unfortunately, she couldn’t get it through the European Parliament by that time and it was handed to my colleague who took over as the trade Minister after I left.

Can I pay my accolades to the New Zealand trade team: one of the best trade teams in the world led by one of the best public servants in New Zealand: Vangelis Vitalis. We’re just so lucky to have him—so respected around the world, tough as old boots, but as principled as anything and really does a fantastic job for New Zealand to land these agreements. He, of course, was the witness for the Crown before the Waitangi Tribunal in respect of complaints that were made about process in the trade division to the Waitangi Tribunal. Their report was a little critical, but it wasn’t hugely critical of the Government processes throughout.

The final thing I want to say is in respect of the consensus around trade. The consensus around trade frayed for two main reasons. One was disagreement around investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses. Interestingly, ISDS clauses—where companies can sue Governments rather than Governments sue Governments under trade agreements—are becoming less popular in the world and it’s interesting that Europe agreed to no ISDS clauses in this agreement. It’s something that if the new Government and their future trade aspirations bring back ISDS clauses, there will be difficulty in New Zealand.

The other point that was to be made is in respect of investment protocols. It is fine for different political parties to have different views as to what investment controls ought to be on inbound investment. Where the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) went wrong was that the class of investments that could be screened for was closed by that agreement and therefore, after that agreement came into effect, New Zealand could not introduce any new areas of investment to be screened under our screening regime. It was a point of political controversy because, on this side of the House, we thought we should ban foreign buyers of residential land. We also thought there needed to be the ability of the Government to control inward investment in forestry, which also was not properly controlled under the old overseas investment regime.

If those two matters had not been concluded before the CPTPP came into effect, no future Government, in effect, could have controlled that, and it would have flowed into earlier trade agreements under most favoured nation clauses, which apply to investment protocols, not tariff levels.

So the current Government says that they’re going to change the screening regime in respect of inward investment in some asset classes. That’s within their power to do, but I would encourage them to do it in a way that doesn’t take the investment class out of trade agreements in a way that future Governments cannot put it in, because that too would cause a fracturing of the agreement that we have around trade investment. And, for the record, Tim Groser, in retrospect, agrees that under his watch investment protocols were taken too far in some of those trade agreements. I commend the bill to the House.

A pleasure to commend this bill, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, to the House. This is significant not just for our economy but, as we’ve heard, you know, $100 million in immediate savings. In particular, I want to acknowledge the contribution this makes to our horticultural industry, something that we have a lot of in the Ōtaki electorate—the farmers in Horowhenua, a $714 million industry, and for them that’s a $46 million saving immediately when this comes into force. It is right that we move with some haste to do this through the process, and I’m very supportive of the way that parties are joining together to see this progress because of the savings that will come.

I understand the importance of seeing this move through before the elections for the European Parliament. I can’t help but note that they start on 6 June, which, of course, is going to be the 80th anniversary of D-Day. While I want to acknowledge in a minute all those that have worked directly to see this free-trade agreement come to this point so it can enter into force, I can’t help but reflect that when we succeed we often do so standing on the shoulders of those who have gone before us. There are two generations of Kiwis that bled in Europe, that stood side by side with them in their darkest hours. We have memorials in this House for places like the Somme, for places like Passchendaele, for Fortress Europe. New Zealand has long had a strong relationship with Europe, and it is on that and the sacrifices that were made by this country that we are able to build this, and even today as we deploy soldiers offshore, that is a meaningful contribution that we build these trade relationships on. So I do want to acknowledge the history—the strong history, New Zealand has with Europe.

It’s very pleasing to see that we’ve got to this, a good solution—maybe not perfect, but good and meaningful. I do want to acknowledge those who have contributed to it, and we have heard comments reflecting the various Ministers on both sides of the House; I thank them as well. The European diplomats and officials that have worked from their side, and I note the speed at which it’s got through—I think this’ll be one of the first where we’re the last side to enter into force, or to ratify it so it can. But I want to also acknowledge those who worked directly towards it, and particularly, before I acknowledge the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) officials, can I just acknowledge those New Zealand Defence Force personnel in modern times that were over there, standing not just side by side with NATO and European countries in Afghanistan but, of course, in support to the invasion of Ukraine.

But to the MFAT officials that worked at it—I actually had the honour, the privilege of working in the embassy in Belgium for a few months while they were working on this. I wasn’t supporting the free-trade agreement—I was there in another capacity—but I saw the work, the determination, the perseverance, the skill that they put into their work, largely unseen; people that took their families overseas to serve far away from home in a different culture, across different languages, the pressures that that can put on families. It is great and worthy of our recognition, particularly in the midst of a global pandemic at the time; a lot of uncertainty, and I want to acknowledge them. In particular, can I just thank our ambassador to the EU, His Excellency Carl Reaich, for the work that he and his team did along with our ambassador to Belgium, Diana, along with Cameron, Emma, Megan, Emma, Chris from the Ministry for Primary Industries, and Clotilde and the many European citizens that we employ to work in our embassy but they work to serve New Zealand; they work tirelessly for New Zealand. Can I finish just by singling out—if I can single out one person from MFAT, maybe the unsung hero of this, Lucy Power. I saw firsthand just what she put into this—the work that went in. It’s a fantastic team that we have representing New Zealand. They work tirelessly. They don’t work for recognition; their natural style is not to seek the limelight or to have their name mentioned here, but they are worthy of our recognition, and I want to join in the earlier comments that commended the staff that worked on it and add their names to that list. They deserve it.

This is a significant step forward for our economy, this is significant for trade, it’s significant for farmers and, as I said, particularly horticulture, but it’s also significant for our relationship. It brings another layer to that longstanding relationship, over more than a century of us standing side by side with Europeans, working together, and a great step forward for the future. Can I join with all those speakers before me and commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to make a few comments about why this bill that we’re debating tonight is so important, but also to start by acknowledging the leadership of successive Ministers David Parker, Damien O’Connor, and now Todd McClay, and the fantastic team of trade officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade led by Vangelis Vitalis.

At one level—at a very simple level—it’s obvious that this trade agreement is good for New Zealand. The fact that there will be, as the Minister said in his opening remarks, $100 million in tariff savings from day one—that’s worth something. That’s worth something to our fantastic onion-growing industry who make a fantastic crop that they successfully sell into a number of international markets, and they will benefit significantly from that reduction in tariffs.

But, on another level, this agreement is a very important milestone in the progression of New Zealand’s foreign policy, of which trade is incredibly important. In the years after the Battle of Seattle in 1999, I was living in Washington, DC, working for a group of international NGOs, and one of the campaigns that I worked on was a global campaign of hundreds of NGOs and social movements to make trade fair. It was a global movement of people who felt that the juggernaut of neoliberalism—imposed, in many cases, through trade agreements—was incredibly unfair to people in developing countries; that the rich countries of the world were, yet again, rorting trade rules in their own interests; that farmers in developing countries, and in places like New Zealand, were hard done by North American and European protectionism; that intellectual property rules were locking up massive amounts of economic value to the people who developed their economies first; and that trade agreements were shutting down the policy space, preventing developing countries around the world from using the same economic policies and tools that every single wealthy and advanced country today used in order to spur its economic development in the earlier phases. The protests of those years—which went right through to the explosion of unrest against the Trans-Pacific Partnership—demonstrated that trade agreements had stretched to breaking point in public support for and consent for those trade agreements.

Twenty years after I was organising those demonstrations, I found myself as Minister for Trade and Export Growth in our Government here in 2020, welcoming a multi-party delegation of European members of Parliament who said that this EU - New Zealand trade agreement is gold standard. They said it was the best agreement that the EU had ever done, and they didn’t know of another trade agreement anywhere in the world that had achieved the kind of advances that this agreement did.

Here’s the problem. You can believe that trade agreements do stretch public consent for free trade to breaking point by doing those things that I mentioned. You can also believe and understand that this country is a trading nation—we would not exist, we couldn’t survive in the modern world, without open access to international markets. We cannot do otherwise. So that contradiction is one of the great challenges of our foreign policy. We have to find a way to navigate those two things: to pursue the material and economic interests of New Zealand and our great export industries while also doing the things that New Zealand needs. We need a Pharmac that can operate properly. We cannot cope with onerous intellectual property rules that the great, towering heights of international capital demand today. We need the policy space in this country to regulate in the public interest. So this is no mean political problem to be fixed.

I want to recognise the efforts of the Ministers who led this agreement, because it’s such an important milestone in navigating between those sharply competing interests, and finish by noting that this agreement has labour standards—it allows the EU and New Zealand to hold each other to account on our climate commitments, on animal welfare, on gender commitments through the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. There is a lot to celebrate in this agreement.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to speak on this bill, the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill, and I’m very happy to be able to ensure, along with my colleagues, that the free-trade agreement (FTA) with the EU is signed as soon as possible.

I’d like to commend the Minister for Trade, the Hon Todd McClay, in getting this free-trade agreement on to the work programme in such an expedient manner, and please can I also acknowledge everyone who has worked on this over the years since 2015. It certainly has taken a lot of work and there will have been an enormous number of people involved to get it to this point. It’s exciting to be part of the bipartisan approach to futureproofing our export sector. The free-trade agreement has the ability to transform our relationships with our trading partners across so many sectors, and it certainly is time to get this finished. Whilst it will be an incredible boost for many sectors, it’ll also provide an improvement to the returns of dairy and beef and lamb.

I want to take a little bit of a different approach, so I just thought it would be worthwhile remembering how this would affect some of the people who work in the primary industries and in the export sectors. I listened to our colleagues talk about the Māori effort that’s gone into the free-trade agreement. I think it’s worth remembering the enormous contribution that Māori agribusiness contributes to our sectors and how this will benefit them. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has done a wonderful graphic where they talked about all of the sectors within “ag” and “hort” and many others that will benefit from a free-trade agreement, and I think—certainly in my part of the country—that the free-trade agreement will benefit just about every single one of those businesses. In kiwifruit, in mānuka honey, in wine, in apples, in horticulture; red meat, dairy, fishing, everything you can think of. So I’m very pleased that the agribusinesses in both Māori and non-Māori sectors will all benefit from this. So it’s a very exciting and happy time for us.

Just in terms of some of the other responses that it’s worth thinking about, Horticulture New Zealand said in its submission to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee that an agreement would reduce uncertainty in New Zealand exporters supplying EU markets and allow supply chain planning to be more effective without being forced to decide on shipping and supply during a short tariff-free window. Their thoughts were that this would allow New Zealand and European growers to partner more effectively to enable year-round supply of new, innovative, high-quality, and safe goods and services for EU consumers without prices being distorted by tariffs.

Under the free-trade agreement, New Zealand’s conditions of access will be significantly improved, with 91 percent of New Zealand’s current goods trade to the EU able to enter duty-free from day one. That is a significant benefit to us. This will rise to 97 percent after seven years, with estimated tariff savings exceeding $100 million from day one—the highest immediate tariff savings of any New Zealand FTA—growing to $110 million after seven years.

Zespri, another one of our organisations in horticulture that has a massive contribution, said that the agreement would benefit its sector by up to $46 million, which it paid out in 2022 in tariffs on $1 billion of exports. The free-trade agreement would have the ability to set Zespri up to provide more EU consumers with the highest-quality Zespri product and help deliver stronger returns for growers. That benefits all of us as we work towards it.

I would also like to just remind ourselves that it’s been a tough time in some of our regional communities in New Zealand, and a free-trade agreement such as this provides a glimmer of hope and a massive step forward for them. I’m really excited for many in my electorate of the East Coast because this free-trade agreement will represent just that in times that have been extremely tough in cyclone-battered communities and orchards and farms and fishing zones where loss of returns across two seasons—not just one—has led to significant wellbeing and financial difficulties.

So to have more certainty that tariff-free trade is available will provide hope and inspiration in a time that it is needed most in our regional communities. On that basis, I am happy to commend the bill to the House.

The question is, That the report be noted.

Motion agreed to.

The question now is, That the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

The question is, That the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill be considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

Instruction to Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee