European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill

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

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

Hon TODD McCLAY: I move, That the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you to all those who have been involved in progressing the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill this far, from members of Parliament, previous Ministers, select committees, to members of the public, including civil society and business representatives. Your engagement has been crucial in getting us to this point. This is a process which started more than a decade ago when we first launched preparatory talks with the European Union to start negotiating the free-trade agreement. Trade Ministers Tim Groser, Todd McClay, David Parker, Damien O’Connor, and now Todd McClay again have all had input into the formation and delivery of this agreement. Now, after many years of work by successive New Zealand Governments, we’re poised to bring the agreement into effect, and this is an important moment.

The free-trade agreement (FTA) will open up significant new opportunities for New Zealand businesses already trading in Europe but by levelling the playing field with their competitors. What does this mean in practice? Well, for example, New Zealand kiwifruit exporters currently pay a tariff of 8.8 percent on their exports to the EU, while their competitors in Chile pay nothing. From 1 May, those tariffs will be lifted, saving our kiwifruit industry $47 million per annum, and making them more competitive in the EU market. From 1 May, 99.5 percent of our fish and seafood exports to the EU, including hoki, mussels, and squid, will enter duty free, saving the industry $20 million in tariffs each year.

But it’s not just existing exporters who will benefit. When this agreement enters into force, the proportion of New Zealand exporters covered by our network of FTAs will exceed 70 percent for the first time. This gives our exporters greater choice about where they do business and it opens up new opportunities for these businesses that might be interested in expanding into the European market. We’ll also be lifting our remaining tariffs on European goods coming into New Zealand, which is great news for consumers and retailers who will have access to quality European product at a more competitive price.

This support we’ve seen for the bill from across the House means that we’ve been able to progress quickly through our ratification process. This means that we’re able to bring the agreement into effect from 1 May, earlier than expected. It’s a great result for New Zealand businesses and for New Zealand consumers more generally. From here, we’ll be engaging with the business community to make sure they are poised to take advantage of the agreement and all the benefits that it brings.

At this point, I’d like to recognise the work of the House and thank all parties for engaging and agreeing to progress this quickly, and particularly the members who sit on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I had an opportunity to appear before the committee and to speak to a number of them directly, personally, to make the case for why the House should come together in this instance and work as fast as we could. I know the committee met outside of the normal hours, on days when the House was meeting and when it wasn’t, including during recesses. In that, I’m grateful for their help and their assistance.

I also want to recognise submitters who were called to give their views on this and did so. I recognise that the committee ensured that all submitters were afforded the time they wanted and needed to raise their thoughts so that the process—although shortened from the point of view of Parliament—wasn’t shortened or diminished in as far as the opportunity for New Zealanders to have their say.

Can I also at this stage, in recognising earlier in my speech all of the trade Ministers who have been involved, and, therefore, suggesting that this House often can do its best internationally, particularly on trade when we find ways to work together and finding solutions, mention the former trade Minister, the Hon Damien O’Connor, who was the Minister that concluded the agreement, went to Europe, and signed it. I know what it’s like to have been involved in an agreement that has landed and then the importance of New Zealanders making decisions means that someone else gets to either sign or put it into law. But I recognise the work of Damien O’Connor and I thank him for that. And whilst not all parts of this agreement have met the level of aspiration that everybody in New Zealand has, this House and Damien O’Connor can go away after this enters into force, knowing that we have helped New Zealanders, that we are growing the economy, that it is a high-quality agreement, and that, actually, we will do better with this agreement with the European Union than we would without it. With that in mind, I commend this legislation in the third reading to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Can I firstly start and acknowledge the Government’s enthusiasm, I guess, to progress this as quickly as possible and to ensure that benefits do flow through to as many sectors as possible for this coming season. As the Minister for Trade acknowledged, all parties in this House were happy to facilitate that through, and so I acknowledge that.

Trade is a challenging area. We as a nation rely absolutely on it. In fact, there are few other nations in the world—few other developed nations—that rely so much on trade: 85 percent - plus of everything we produce in the primary sectors, and all other areas, in fact, is traded offshore.

We are facing some challenging times, and I have to acknowledge Vangelis Vitalis, the chief trade negotiator, who is spending quite a bit of time travelling around this country actually raising the realities of the world in which we face with people in all sectors, not just the primary sectors. It’s a world of increasing geopolitical tension and growing protectionism, and that’s not going to change in the near future. So, as a trading nation, we face some headwinds.

This negotiation was conducted through some challenging times: COVID, initially, and then, of course, the Ukraine War, which was a huge distraction to the whole of the EU but, in particular, the commissioners. One of them is neighbouring the Ukraine and is acutely aware of the potential for that conflict to escalate and move out into the EU. None the less, in spite of that, they remained committed to work through with negotiators from New Zealand—from a little Pacific nation a long way away from Europe—to come up with an agreement that saw value for both of us.

It is value and values, and I’ve said that before in this House: 450 million people negotiating with 5 million would probably seem to be rather unbalanced and unfair, but what we negotiated was a very balanced agreement, in my view. There was some disappointment in the dairy and the meat sectors that we didn’t get everything we wanted; indeed, you never do—not you, Mr Speaker, but us as a nation. Mr Speaker, I’m sure you get most of what you want in this House.

The point is that we got an eightfold increase in the volume of high-value beef into the EU market; we got increases in the volumes—significant increases in the volumes—of some of our milk powders and products, and high-value products in particular; and in sheep meat, we’ve got a huge quota allowance that, arguably, we will struggle to fill. So the opportunities are ahead of us, and the reduction of tariffs across the board means that, actually, we will become more competitive and more exporters will look to that particular market, alongside that of the UK—which we’ve opened—as a balance to what is a high reliance on China. We acknowledge that reliance and the value in that market, but none the less, because of geopolitical tension, because of pandemics, because of transport interruptions, or who knows what, we need to have a number of opportunities for our exporters, and, indeed, this goes a long way to open the door to real potential as we move into the future.

I’m not going to go through the many areas that we needed to change through this legislation. The consumer information standards, country of origin—we acknowledge the EU’s request that anything that comes from any of the 27 member States should say that it’s coming from Europe, which makes it easier for them to produce something within the EU and then sell into our markets. We changed the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act around the quota access there—very important.

Geographical indicators was a particularly sensitive issue at the select committee, where a number of innovators—particularly cheese producers—were concerned about not being able to use some of the traditional terms. That has been acknowledged and legislated for and protected in the EU for a long time. That was a bit of a challenge, but, indeed, the negotiators got it down to just a few—feta being one of them, and I won’t go through the others—terms, or geographical indicators, that we will not be able to use in the future. So we’re going to have to come up with our own ones, and I think that’s quite an exciting opportunity for our primary sectors.

We had the Overseas Investment Act, and so we had to extend the quantum from $100 million to $200 million where those people seeking to invest under that level would have right of access, subject to a few constraints, into our market. That was a significant increase, as I say—a doubling of the threshold—which allows investment from the EU into this country.

There are always some poor protections, though, and we’ve had them for farmland. The previous Labour Government introduced protections so that we wouldn’t sell all our farmland off to foreigners, and we’ve had it in core areas of Government infrastructure. But I have to say that I was somewhat concerned to read this morning a statement from the EU ambassador, and I’m hoping that he wasn’t made some promise or given some promise from the coalition Government or any of its partners that this is open slather for investment in our country. He said that the free-trade agreement, of course, was very valuable, but he also said, “We’re looking forward to the Government’s upcoming privatisation of public infrastructure.”

We did not negotiate, in Government, this agreement so that there were open investment opportunities into Government infrastructure; it was so that we would have good quality investment into new and innovative things and partnerships. But if the Government is going to use this to sell off State assets, then I’m really concerned, and I don’t think those were the values and the aspirations of either party when we were negotiating.

That’s an area where we, in Opposition, will keep an eye on the Government, but there are many other areas of opportunity for Europeans. In the area of science, in particular, we have a wonderful agreement that, as a small nation, allows us to work with the science fraternity and industry in the whole of the EU in a way that I think is unbelievable. It was something that perhaps we didn’t take on board as one of the key objectives, but it’s one of those things that rolled out of what was a high-quality negotiation because we share the same values. Our aspirations towards open economies, towards democracy, and to the protection of labour rights, the protection of animal welfare standards, the protection of biodiversity, the prevention of deforestation—these are the same aspirations that we have as a nation that the Europeans share, and that’s why they signed the trade agreement with us.

Valdis Dombrovskis, as I say, is someone who was trade commissioner, and before him, the trade commissioner Cecilia Malmström, who worked earlier on with my colleague David Parker, were both enthusiastic, but more particularly, Valdis Dombrovskis had an absolute commitment to drive this through to conclusion and to a success. So I want to thank him once again, as I have done.

As I say, to the agricultural commissioner, who was somewhat squeezed—if you have a look at what is happening in Europe now, farmers are out in the streets doing some pretty outrageous things, really. This, I guess, is a sector that is highly subsidised. The Europeans appreciate the value of food security, and we should understand that. We don’t always agree with the level of subsidisation, but that was something that was put aside, along with not us demanding equal standards, but equal aspirations. So we didn’t want to have the same standards in animal welfare or the same standards around biodiversity protection, because we have different countries and different environments. But to aspire to a better outcome: lower emissions, decarbonising our economies—those are the things that we have committed to work on together through science, through commerce, through Government procurement, and through goods and services trade.

So it is indeed an honour to have been part of this agreement and be able to participate as a Government Minister, and now, in Opposition, to sit opposite the Government that wants to pass this through and ratify this as quickly as possible so that our exporters, our importers as well, and those who aspire to grow their goods and services trade with that high-value market can get on and do the job. So Labour supports the ratification of the EU New Zealand free-trade agreement, and we’d like to celebrate its ratification. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. During question time today and in his third reading speech, the Hon Todd McClay made a virtue of the speed at which this legislation is passing through the House. I just wanted to take a moment to address this because, whilst it is a faster process than normal, it’s still slower than pretty much any other bill that this Government has passed this year. And it had the luxury of a select committee hearing, which meant that New Zealanders were able to contribute and a select committee was able to review it and to test things, which hasn’t really happened so far in this parliamentary term when it comes to the passage of any of the other bills that this Government has passed. So it is on a slower track, actually, than is this current Government’s general forte.

Now, having said that, actually the Green Party did support a truncated process in this regard, because we’ve always said that you should use urgency, or truncated debates and so on, when something is actually urgent and there is a material difference that can be made to New Zealanders as a result—as opposed to “We just wanted it to go faster”, which is how the Government has been treating the process so far. In this case, we felt that it was warranted to have a truncated process on this bill because it does make a material difference when the agreement comes into effect. So, in this case, we actually felt it was justified, as opposed to pretty much any other bill so far.

Because, as a result of that truncated process, we didn’t have a second reading on the bill, I just wanted to make a couple of reflections about what we heard in the select committee and some of the things that we interrogated, because I do think it is important that we put those on record. There were some concerns that were raised, I want to say, by Te Pāti Māori in the first reading debate which we did take some time to test with submitters as well—just recognising that, unfortunately, Te Pāti Māori doesn’t have a seat on the select committee. Nevertheless, we did still try to represent those concerns and to test them with some of the submitters.

Those were around Te Tiriti obligations of the Crown—those were raised in first reading speeches and were raised also by some of the submitters as well. So we wanted to really test—because we also heard from other Māori submitters that they were strongly in favour of the agreement and also wanted it to get passed very quickly because it makes such a difference to the Māori economy. Really, what decided it for me when we were interrogating this kind of tension was that both things can be true at the same time—that there is an assessment that the Crown is continuing not to fulfil its obligations fully under Te Tiriti and, at the same time, that the passage of the bill and the ratification of the agreement and its coming into force would also make a huge difference to the Māori economy. Those two things can be true at the same time. And so, certainly, where I landed was to say, “OK, well, on balance, given the potential enormous benefit to Māori of the trade agreement, it should be supportable.”—even whilst acknowledging that the Crown continues to not live up to its Tiriti obligations.

Having said that, there were some real breakthroughs here. There were some big advances—not that perfection has been reached, but there were some very big advances—in the way that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade engaged with Māori. They had a specialist negotiating group called Te Taumata, which provided a lot of advice directly but also hosted hui up and down the country, which hundreds and hundreds of people came to, and this agreement has a specific chapter on indigenous trade and so on, which has never happened before. It’s a new and unique and innovative provision. So it does, in that sense, also represent an advancement in the way that Māori have been engaged within the development and in the negotiations and in the actual outcome that’s represented in the agreement as well.

The environmental provisions, it won’t surprise you, were an area of particular concern to the Greens. Historically, our trade agreements have tended to pull away from our environmental agreements, and, in this case, there are enforceable provisions in this agreement, particularly in relation to our climate change obligations under the Paris Agreement but also extending into other areas around sustainability and environmental outcomes as well. This is, I think, the first time in any trade agreement that we’ve had enforceable provisions, where, if we fail to live up to our agreements, we can be held to account by our trading partners, and that actually brings—

Hon Member: That was the UK.

Hon JAMES SHAW: Oh sorry, I’m just being corrected—the UK free-trade agreement; I’d forgotten where that was in the process. But, yes, that did sneak through before this one. So this is the second time that we’ve had an agreement like that.

That is really important because it actually then means that our trade agreements and our environmental agreements are coming together and can be mutually reinforcing rather than pulling away from each other. That is really important because the social consensus around trade had been fraying over many, many years as a result of, essentially, people seeing that trade provisions were being used to undermine our environmental commitments. So to bring those things together in this enforceable way is really significant and quite different from previous trade agreements. So we tested that as well, because, as I said in my first reading speech, I was a bit worried that there might be language that suggested that it could be enforceable, but we wanted to test that with officials. And their view was that, yes, it is properly, fully, legally enforceable in that regard. So that is significant.

Other concerns that we had around previous free-trade agreements—the most contentious of all is investor-State dispute settlement mechanism, which had been used in a number of cases overseas to undermine environmental provisions and outcomes. Those are not included in this agreement. So something that had meant that, essentially, for us previous trade agreements hadn’t been supportable—that barrier was removed there. Some of the concerns we had, in previous trade agreements, around needing to ensure that the Pharmac model was protected—that’s kind of safe here as well. The previous concerns around intellectual property, and so on—that was quite well aired in the select committee. So, ultimately, where we land in the Green Party is that this agreement is substantially different from previous trade agreements that our country has entered into, in a number of ways that are very, very favourable. So it’s a breakthrough not just for New Zealand exporters and people who want to buy in goods and services from the EU but it is also a breakthrough in the nature of free-trade agreements here in this country and, potentially, around the world as well. It’s a good model for others to follow.

Now, the Hon Todd McClay said, and the Hon Damien O’Connor said, it’s not perfect. No one gets everything that they fully want in any agreement, and there are certainly areas that we would like to push out in future free-trade agreements as well. But, ultimately, this is a very different agreement, and that is because—and I do want to acknowledge the Hon David Parker, who’s here as well, because, when he was the Minister for Trade in our first term in Government, he put an enormous amount of work into the Trade For All programme, talked to New Zealanders the length and breadth of the country to say, “Well, what do you want from our future trade agreements? What are your concerns and your worries about them?” And that was then pulled forward into these negotiations in a way that means that you have almost complete unanimity in the House, for the first time in years, on this agreement. So I want to commend that work. I hope that the current Government continues on with that work, because you can see the value of that reflected here in the quality of this agreement. So we do support this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of ACT in support of this bill. We all know the importance of free-trade agreements for New Zealand, especially us being a small nation of only around 5 million people. We want to see that our small businesses are growing and becoming medium-sized businesses, medium-sized businesses becoming big sized, and big sized becoming even bigger sized. That will happen only if our businesses are able to offer their goods and services to bigger populations around the globe, and that is what this free-trade agreement is about. It is about giving those export opportunities for our businesses here in New Zealand.

Despite this agreement not being exactly what New Zealanders would have desired to see in this agreement, the importance of this cannot be undermined. We can see the potential that this agreement offers by looking at the current two-way trade that is there between EU and New Zealand for goods and services at the moment; that just gives us the potential, the imagination of the potential that this agreement offers. And, as I said, we are a small nation of only 5 million people, and this gives us access to that high-value $450 million market. That is huge for us.

Like previous speakers, I also want to acknowledge that, yes, the dairy and the meat sector didn’t get exactly what they wanted. I also wanted to acknowledge that there were some concerns about geographical indicators, the regime, how that would be handled, and some of our names—brand names losing that ability to carry on under the names that they have been trading under, but we cannot underestimate the opportunity of economic diversification that this free-trade agreement offers.

In one of the opinion pieces that I wrote and was published in National Business Review in August 2022, I said something like this—these are not the exact words, but something like this: that currently most of our eggs are in two baskets; that is, Australia and China. So it’s not just about looking for more baskets but it’s also looking for demand for more eggs. So what I mean there is that it’s not about just looking for more markets but it’s also about looking for opportunities for the sectors that we have through these free-trade agreements, giving them the opportunity to grow. So I’m really hoping that, yes, while I fully acknowledge that our dairy and meat sector is not that happy, there are other sectors that are getting quite reasonable and favourable terms in this free-trade agreement and there is this opportunity for these sectors to grow through this free-trade agreement.

The ACT Party supports trade deals which are well thought through and as we have heard from the Minister, the Hon Todd McClay, this has taken over 10 years, and I want to acknowledge everybody who has been involved in this trade deal, and it started under National Government but given final form by the previous Labour Government. I want to acknowledge that, and we all can be sure that all sides involved in getting this free-trade agreement signed did their best to get the best deal that was possible for the time the negotiations were going and for the time being for New Zealand.

So we need to acknowledge that and this bill is to align New Zealand’s legislations and regulations with what has been agreed in the agreement so that these changes can be implemented to meet our obligations under the agreement so that FTA can come in force. I also want to acknowledge that there are some sectors—they can take advantage of this bill going through Parliament in this speedy manner. And we want to make sure that these sectors—our fresh produce sectors—because of the remaining season in this year, those who can take advantage should be able to take advantage. And that is why I want to commend the way the select committee and everybody involved has supported the speedy manner of this bill going through Parliament.

We cannot underestimate the impact of COVID on businesses. Because of COVID, businesses suffered. It wasn’t just the domestic market but international market as well. So it was the export opportunities that also suffered and there are so many businesses we know they have managed to come back on their feet, but there are many businesses, though, who are still trying to work their way back, and this bill will facilitate us to tap that untapped potential. It will improve that interconnectedness between New Zealand and EU and also it will provide the opportunity of this environment to have that trade environment which is going to be beneficial for our businesses. And I’m really hoping that this bill will help our businesses position themselves for that long-term success and prosperity. So we support and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take this call on the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill. It is quite a pleasure to stand here today where the House is in agreement on something. Being a new MP, it’s probably one of the first times that we can actually stand together, and it’s actually a congratulations across the House for the hard work in facilitating the progression of this process and the important legislation that’s in front of us. New Zealand First expresses support for this bill, reaffirming our commitment to a cooperative and integrated approach to foreign affairs.

The intent of this bill is to align with increasing access for our products in large markets and unlocking new opportunities for New Zealand exports. New Zealand is a trade- and export-driven country. New Zealand First believes our approach to international relations should focus on independence, resilience, and good relations of a diverse group of trading partners. To have greater access to the EU market will bring significant benefit to the New Zealand economy.

We are seeing exporters and producers in this country struggling with the cost of living, and facilitating greater access to a market of 450 million consumers will mean good news for many. The new quotas in this agreement represent the improvement on the status quo for New Zealand businesses exporting into the EU. Our world-class products, coming from the hard-working communities in this country, will be enjoyed by a magnitude of new consumers. This is a very, very good thing.

As we know: until now, many of New Zealand’s products have been, effectively, locked out of the EU market as a consequence of high tariffs and restrictive quotas. This free-trade agreement (FTA) with the EU will immediately level the playing field for New Zealand exporters. Achieving this agreement is the result of a longstanding bipartisan effort by successive New Zealand Governments, which started almost a decade ago. It is also a testament to the work of our offshore network, that works day in, day out to maintain and expand our international relationships—relationships that are crucial to our country realising its potential.

This agreement is also of strategic importance to New Zealand. The EU is a close and like-minded partner with which we have longstanding historical, cultural, political, and economic ties. The absence of the fair trading agreement has been a major gap in this otherwise substantial relationship. It is a significant outcome for New Zealand businesses, big and small, which will be able to start taking advantage of the benefits under the agreement in just over a month’s time. This fair-trade agreement will also promote trade diversification and build economic resilience, as well as helping to address the rising costs of living for New Zealanders.

Like the Minister for Trade, we seriously look forward to celebrating the agreement entering into force on 1 May. With a GDP of around $27 trillion, and a population of 450 million consumers, the EU is an important market for New Zealand businesses looking to sell overseas. When finally implemented, the fair trading agreement is set to provide an annual boost to our GDP by up to $1.4 billion and increase our exports to the EU by up to $1.8 billion per year. That will provide tariff savings to New Zealand exporters of $100 million from the first day the agreement enters into force, the highest immediate tariff savings achieved under any New Zealand FTA to date. From the day the agreement enters into force, that 91 percent of New Zealand current trade into the EU will enter duty-free—a combination of tariff elimination and duty-free quotas, rising up to 97 percent over a number of years. There is also significant new quota access for meat and dairy products worth hundreds of millions of dollars if filled.

The 27 countries that we will now connect into, into the EU, that is significant. These negotiations, as we have said today in the House, have been over a long period of time, and we acknowledge all those negotiations that have taken part; over 12 rounds’ worth of negotiations, I think, over the years. What we are here today doing is unlocking economic growth, and that’s something New Zealand First, back into Government, is very supportive of, building our exports and unlocking economic growth opportunities.

We’ve heard today from the Minister, and something that I’m very connected to is the horticultural industry, things like kiwifruit and onions being able to earn millions of extra revenue very much right away from this deal taking place. But it doesn’t just affect onions and kiwifruit; it’s fish, it’s wine—another thing that I’m connected with in the Marlborough region; the wine industry will benefit hugely from this—mānuka honey, seafood, our aquaculture industry that we want to grow so much, and industrial products. But there is also benefits to New Zealanders as well, as we access better things such as machinery and, I hear, footwear as well and all different other products.

It is ironic that in this House we are able to act fast on this legislation, because, obviously, there is concern on the other side of the House on fast-track legislation around the Resource Management Act, but some things need to be acted on fast, and this is something today that is good, that we celebrate together, that we can all agree that this is a good way forward.

So, Damien O’Connor, I also want to acknowledge your work, and Todd McClay and everyone who’s worked on this to get this to this point. It is a modern, high-quality agreement, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Members, this is a split call; this is the Māori Party’s call, I understand.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. E tu ana ahau ki te whakapuaki i ngā whakaaro o Te Pāti Māori mō tēnei o ngā pire e kīia nei ko te European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill. Ka hāngai taku titiro ki te rangatiratanga o te iwi Māori, me te takenga mai o taua rangatiratanga i te Tiriti o Waitangi.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand to express the opinions of the Māori Party about this bill known as the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill. My perspective focuses on the sovereignty of the Māori people, and the origin of that sovereignty in the Treaty of Waitangi.]

Let me start by acknowledging Mr Shaw’s comments with regard to the issues that we raised last time. Whilst I recognise there will be many financial windfalls to celebrate in this agreement, I’m going to focus on some of its constitutional shortcomings. Whilst the agreement includes a Māori trade chapter and a Treaty of Waitangi exception to, and I quote, “ensure the Government can meet its obligations to Māori”, much like the United Kingdom free-trade agreement that that we opposed last term, the Treaty of Waitangi exception clause remains unchanged from previous free-trade agreements dating back to 2001, despite recommendations from the Waitangi Tribunal that more effective protections were needed. So, yet again, when it comes to the Crown meeting its Tiriti obligations, it continues to fall woefully short.

The Māori trade chapter focuses only on the commercial interests of Māori but ignores wider concerns about the protection of our rights and interests. There are also no provisions to protect mātauranga Māori from exploitation. For example, it does recognise mānuka honey with a macron as a uniquely Māori product, yet allows the importation of Australia’s manuka honey, actively undermining the mātauranga Māori, the intellectual property, and the provenance of Māori products, and all of this was purporting to be upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Although this may be a good deal for New Zealand as a whole, Māori continue to be constitutionally marginalised, and it is a failed opportunity to reimagine Tiriti-centric trade policy. Like every free-trade agreement, Māori have been shut out—shut out and had no rangatiratanga over the negotiations. Vague statements by Governments about how Māori will be better off under this trade agreement is not partnership. It is not what Te Tiriti o Waitangi envisaged or intended. They alone decide the negotiating mandate, what compromises are acceptable, and what the final text will be, with no role at the table for Māori that reflects the constitutional relationship embodied in Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Last term, we opposed the UK free-trade agreement because Māori were completely shut out of the negotiations and it failed to adequately protect our rights and interests, particularly over mātauranga Māori and intellectual property. The Māori trade clause in this agreement is unenforceable, and it hasn’t been updated for 23 years, since 2001. This is of particular concern for Te Pāti Māori, given many of the actions taken by this Government in their first 100 days have been ruthlessly focused on undermining Māori Tiriti rights.

Nō reira, until tangata whenua are properly recognised as the underwriter, the principal partner in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the constitutional relationship agreement that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is, and the enabling authority it affords this House to exist, we will continue to hold the line for te iwi Māori and our constitutional rights, as declared in He Whakaputanga, the declaration of independence, and subsequently in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. On this basis, we do not support the bill. Tēnā tātou.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to mark that this is my first speech in the House, so please do bear with me. The Green Party has been clear about principles that we think underpin any free-trade agreement, which includes strong safeguarding for human rights, labour rights, environmental protection, climate justice, and Ti Tiriti o Waitangi. The provisions that we see in the EU free-trade agreement (FTA) are all significant steps towards these principles, compared with previous trade agreements. Like the Hon James Shaw has mentioned before, this is something that the Green Party supports.

In particular, there are few additional points that I would like to highlight. The EU FTA is the first trade agreement to be negotiated under the Trade for All agenda, and this is something that I would like to echo the Hon James Shaw in commending the work of the Hon David Parker as well as the Hon Damien O’Connor. The Trade for All agenda includes the democratic scrutiny of trade agreements, and, in fact, democratic scrutiny overall. Isn’t it amazing the kind of collective agreement that we can achieve as Parliament, as the House, when we allow for public consultation?

In this particular case, we are looking at, from a process perspective, the regular engagement that we see, that the EU FTA includes a new mechanism for public consultation and engagement on matters related to the implementation of the agreement. That is something that we are hoping to see carrying forward. And that includes the creation of the domestic advisory group as well as a civil society forum.

Particularly when we’re looking at something like this, I would also like to echo what others have mentioned in terms of the benefit that it provides to Aotearoa from the primary sectors. However, I would also like to mention that it also provides opportunities for trade diversification, particularly when it comes to new and improved access for education service providers, including language education.

So, with that, the Green Party has been incredibly vocal about the need for Aotearoa to ensure that our trade policies put people and planet at its centre. We would hope that this free-trade agreement will, in particular, uphold our commitment to human rights and labour standards, to indigenous cultural values for both Aotearoa and those in the European Union, for animal rights and welfare, as well as continuing to uphold the importance of food sovereignty and food security. With that, we look forward to how this agreement will eventuate that. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it’s a pleasure to take a call on the final reading of the legislation to enact the free-trade agreement between the EU and New Zealand. Now, I’m very pleased with the efficient consideration the House has been able to grant for this piece of legislation. It has proceeded through from first reading right at the end of January until now, the third reading, in a very efficient and effective manner—and I say effective because we still conducted the select committee process. We enabled submitters to come to share their views, to raise concerns, we made some tweaks with officials as well, and I would really like to acknowledge the work from all parties that helped to achieve the deadline we set for ourselves.

The Minister, the Hon Todd McClay, generously gave us a deadline of 4 April; we soon discovered that with efficient consideration, we could actually bring that forward 10 days, which would then enable the agreement to come into effect a month earlier than it might have, which indeed was still a month or two earlier than it could have prior to that. And so the end result is, by being able to complete the third reading today, we will see this agreement come into force on 1 May. And that’s significant particularly for those groups that will be benefiting, such as the horticultural sector—kiwifruit, onions in particular; right in the peak of their export window through that period. And so, simply, that one month increase, let alone the additional couple of months that we’ve gained, has a direct financial benefit. It is one of the more satisfying things we can achieve in this House where we can pass a piece of legislation and we can directly see the tangible benefit it has for New Zealanders. This is particularly pertinent at a time where we see increasing pressure economically in New Zealand. We are facing some headwinds. We’ve just seen GDP figures out today showing we are now in recession. And so the impetus we can gain from this, an extra 100 million per year, on day one, once it comes into force, that annual improvement will absolutely be welcomed and accepted within the economy here.

But it’s not just that; it’s the opportunity that’s presented by an agreement like this as well. Of course, it benefits existing exporters from New Zealand to the EU and vice versa, but it also opens new pathways, new opportunities for businesses here in New Zealand and in the EU to open, broaden, expand, create opportunities to export into their respective markets and to grow their local economies off the back of that. That aspiration is something we are very proud of and I do want to acknowledge, particularly, the members on this side of the House, and that side of the House—everyone came together on the select committee to achieve this progress.

I also want to pick up on what the Minister said in his speech around the collaboration across successive Governments to deliver on this outcome today, because it has been a long process and that’s always the case with free-trade agreements. They are never easy pieces of legislation or agreements to get in place and then enact. It does take time. Understandably, there are a lot of negotiation points across a whole raft of areas, and I really want to acknowledge the team that contributed to the outcome that was reached last July, and, of course, the team on the select committee and the officials we had that helped our prompt consideration through that as well.

As I touched on, submitters shared their views. We heard a range of considerations within that, some to do with dissatisfaction of what the agreement achieved. Obviously, that’s outside the scope of what we were considering and the legislation that enabled the free-trade agreement to come into place. But we do hear those concerns and, you know, to my earlier point, you never get everything you want as well. There will always be give and take. That’s how it should be in an agreement, but, at the same time, it’s also important to note that we are always looking to improve, for New Zealanders, the opportunities that they have to export.

So this is an exciting step as the new Government is able to complete a process that has taken many years, but is going to be a direct benefit in a time where it is certainly needed, and I think is a great reflection of the strong increased focus we’ve seen under the new Government to dial up that level of external engagement. It really is critical for us as a small country at the bottom of the world with a very strong export focus to be out engaging on a regular basis, to be constantly building, enhancing, and expanding those relationships we have with other countries and groups around the world, such as the EU. So, on that basis, it’s fantastic that we are here only a few months into this 54th Parliament, able to enact this legislation. I think, as well, given that we are seeing increasing geopolitical uncertainty globally, it’s a fitting time for us to deepen those relationships with partners with which we have shared values. And this is a clear reflection of that as well.

I was fortunate enough just yesterday to be having a meeting with the European Union Ambassador to New Zealand, His Excellency Lawrence Meredith, who’s been a strong proponent of this agreement in only the short few months that he’s been here, and we’re talking about the benefits that it would offer to both parties and the ability to grow that relationship to the next step. And that’s something we’re very much focused on in this Government and this agreement, but also with future ones that we’ll be looking to explore over the course of this term and beyond. So it’s a real pleasure to be able to commend the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill to the House for its third and final reading, to come into force very soon for the benefit of New Zealanders. Thank you.

I join other members in promoting this bill for its passage and its third reading. I want to make a number of comments as to its contents, and then also share with the House and, perhaps, listeners another matter of negotiating strategy that related to our desire in the Labour administration to achieve an artist resale royalty, which we couldn’t get agreement for in this House, except as an adjunct to a trade agreement, which is an interesting bit of history.

Can I acknowledge the Minister Todd McClay for bringing this bill to the House and for the comments he made acknowledging the role of earlier Ministers, particularly the Hon Damien O’Connor. I played a small role earlier when we tried to launch negotiations with the European Union. It’s long been a source of disquiet in New Zealand that we haven’t been able to reach free-trade agreements with some of our closest like-minded partners. We still face prejudice on a trade sense in the United States. Not so long ago under the Trump administration, they whacked New Zealand exporters with tariffs on steel and aluminium, which still stand there, unfairly prejudicing the New Zealand economy because the Americans won’t walk the talk when it comes to a fair trading relationship with New Zealand.

We’ve had a similar concern for a long, long time with the European Union, but, in recent years, the European Union reached the view that they needed to actually have a look at political economy matters, not just economic matters, in determining who they should have free-trade agreements with. This came to a head under the leadership of Cecilia Malmström as the European Union Trade Commissioner, and we saw a gap, we saw an opportunity to get agreement within the European Commission to actually launch negotiations. And we tried to do it while she was still in that position. Unfortunately, she couldn’t quite get it across the line at that time, and we had to wait a little bit longer to launch negotiations.

None the less, New Zealand saw the opportunity to take the gap and took a quite strategic approach to what would be within the ambit of that negotiation so that if agreement could be reached in principle, it didn’t run into a complicated endorsement process, requiring the approval of individual countries or parliaments of individual countries within the European Union. So the scope of this was designed to be within the remit of the European Commission, rather than requiring ratification by individual countries.

There are a lot of very good points to this agreement that have been covered by other speakers. Obviously, there are some very meaningful reductions in tariffs. In addition to that, there is the security of the free-trade agreement preventing rules being changed to our disadvantage, related to the status quo. So there’s not just an improvement from the status quo, there is the prevention, or it makes it much less likely, that the status quo could be changed to the disadvantage of New Zealand, which it could have been more easily before this free-trade agreement was entered into. That’s a very, very important level of security for New Zealand exporters.

New Zealand does have a strategy of diversifying our export markets. The benefit of this won’t be just in the tariff reductions, which save, for existing exports, about $100 million a year on coming into force. They will increase the volume of exports in addition to those existing exports, on which we will save $100 million. There will be more exports as a consequence of this, and the benefits to the New Zealand economy will be greater than that.

Some of the non-tariff - related benefits include cooperation around matters that are very important to New Zealand. The world has a problem with many countries in the world subsidising fisheries in a way that actually makes it harder to attain the sustainability of those fish stocks in the ocean. And if countries are subsidising their fishers to go out there and plunder fisheries, it’s more likely that those fisheries will be fished in an unsustainable manner. We’ve had great difficulty in New Zealand getting progress on that issue, despite New Zealand leading on that particular issue for many decades, so long, in fact, that the original proposal that was taken into the World Trade Organization (WTO) was taken into a World Trade Organization meeting in Geneva by a then very young trade official in his first official job in Geneva. He’s now the head of the trade, Vangelis Vitalis, and he’s only just got it across the line in the WTO setting recently, but it’s reinforced through the provisions in this agreement.

The Hon James Shaw made reference to the fact that the investor-State dispute (ISDS) clauses that were one of the causes of dissatisfaction in society, not just in New Zealand but around the world with trade agreements, are absent from this. And when we were in Government, we reversed the position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and told them to oppose ISDS clauses rather than support them, and that’s been carried forward into this agreement. There is no ability for corporates to enforce this agreement by suing the New Zealand Government, alleging breaches of the agreement. It has to be Government-to-Government enforcement. That at times is necessary, as we have found recently in respect of the New Zealand Government action against the Canadian Government for their failure to properly bring into force the provisions relating to dairy access into Canada under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

I won’t repeat my disagreements with the Māori Party in respect of the Treaty clause in this legislation, which I covered in an earlier reading on the legislation. Suffice it to say that our Treaty clause protecting the Government’s right to do what’s necessary in the name of the Treaty in New Zealand is the best in the world. It cannot be improved upon in practice because, if we reopen it in those negotiations, we won’t get it. So it’s very good. It may be imperfect but it’s very, very good.

One of the last points I was going to make was on the artist resale royalty. Since the Helen Clark - led Labour Government, we have wanted to have a resale royalty where artists—and in New Zealand, because we’ve got a very small art market, there aren’t many people who manage to make a living from their art that is comfortable, even though they work hard at it. None the less, when the occasional ones succeeds, it’s generally years after they’ve sold their artwork. The commission agent or the art house that’s auctioning the artwork takes a margin or 40 or 50 percent and the artist gets nothing on the resale. So we’ve always thought that was unfair and that there should be a resale royalty paid back to the original artist. We’ve never been able to get it through in a policy sense until we actually acceded to it in the UK agreement and in this agreement, and on the back of both of those agreements, we actually achieved the approval of Parliament to the passage of legislation to impose an artist resale royalty. So, on that issue, I would say that I actually had a political strategy that that was the way to achieve it, and it worked. I’m quite pleased to record that.

Our political strategy on the other side of those negotiations was that if we gave way on that—and I wanted us to give way on that because I wanted to achieve it at home—it meant that we didn’t have to give way on things like extending the term of patent rights, which would have meant a delay to the date on which you can use generics in substitute for patent-protected medicines. Because if we had given way on that, we would have increased the cost of medicines to New Zealanders, including in the public health system as well as for people who acquire those things privately.

The last point I’ll make is that free-trade agreements aren’t the be-all and end-all—well, second to last point—of economic policy. The misallocation of capital in New Zealand is a more pressing problem, in my opinion, than imperfect trade access abroad, and it does pain me to see that, once again, we’re lurching backwards in respect of interest deductibility rules. In my opinion, whilst there can be a legitimate economic argument as to whether the real component of interest ought to be deductible, the non-real, the inflationary compensation part of an interest payment, ought not to be tax deductible because it is compensating the lender of the money for inflation. At the end of the year, the borrower owns, in real terms, a lower amount by virtue of the inflationary discount that they effectively get a tax deduction for. That’s unfair to both the person who makes a bank deposit and is overtaxed, and it’s not right that the borrower gets an excessive deduction. This is one of the things that leads to the misallocation of capital in New Zealand. It’s one of the reasons why our housing prices are so high relative to income, and addressing that would be a very good thing in order to direct investment into the productive sector, which drives the sorts of exports that we then get access to overseas markets through free-trade agreements.

We have taken the gap as a country. It’s good that we’ve pushed this through. One final point: it does, though, put up the price of our export products to New Zealanders who face export price parity. It’s something we don’t talk about, but you can’t fix that through trade policy.

——

What I would like to do—rather than focus just on the benefits of the free-trade agreement, which has been well covered by many speakers so far—is just capture one of the key points of discussion that came up through the select committee process, and that was around enforcement provisions. We heard from organisations like the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand and the New Zealand Specialist Cheesemakers Association, and we heard their concern that perhaps the enforcement provisions might go above and beyond what was required by the free-trade agreement, and their concern that that would not just add layers of bureaucracy but could ultimately end up punishing New Zealand farmers, New Zealand growers, New Zealand fishers, and New Zealand producers.

It was a topic of a lot of interest and debate during that select committee process, and we certainly pushed officials on that, in response to those submissions that we heard. It was great to give those people the opportunity to be heard, and to consider those issues more carefully. What we heard was, from Ministry for Primary Industries, that this was the most effective and efficient way that this could be resolved, using food safety officers but giving them the ability not to create a new position, and bring in another whole army of inspectors that would go on to farms and into factories, but to also give them the additional title of a Geographical Indication officer (GI officer). Those staff are already in businesses for a range of reasons, and this gives them the extra provision so that we can meet the requirements of the free-trade agreement without burdening Kiwis that we want to see get ahead.

We can, we must, we will meet the provisions, particularly—we’re talking about article 18.38 of the free-trade agreement, and ensuring that there are “appropriate administrative and judicial steps” in place. But the concern was that perhaps this was going above and beyond, and it could be just left to the courts. We heard from officials that it can’t be solely left to the courts, that we have to have this additional measure, but it has to be done in the most efficient—I want to be careful with words like minimalistic—but to meet the intent of the free-trade agreement, ensure that we’re letting Kiwis get ahead, get their best competitive advantage.

Indeed, as we pressed the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on this—you know that ultimately their role is to ensure New Zealanders get the best competitive advantage from this without being burdened down. That’s how we get ahead. We don’t want to see extra jobs in Wellington; we want to see the growth on the farms and the factories. That’s what this is about. It’s about growing our trade sector, and, in particular, the benefit to the primary producers is a significant part of this free-trade agreement.

So I do want to just record here that we did consider that. The intent behind this is to meet the requirements of the free-trade agreement but not to burden ourselves with regulation, with whole teams of people. In fact, we were told that it could be done at, effectively, minimal additional cost. I think that is an important point to remind ourselves with. So without going into the additional benefits, the millions that we’re going to gain for Kiwis, it is a fantastic thing to see this free-trade agreement come into force. I think we have got the best of what we could get from this process and through this select committee process, and so I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora koutou e te Māngai o te Whare. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to contribute to the third reading of the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill.

I would like to begin by congratulating the Minister for Trade, the Hon Todd McClay, for all of your work, and with your officials, on ensuring that this trade agreement is ratified earlier than originally scheduled. In June of 2018, New Zealand and the EU formally launched negotiations, and I would like to also acknowledge and thank the former Minister for Trade and Export Growth the Hon Damien O’Connor, as well as Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials for everything that you did over the years to ensure that this agreement was actually finalised. We know—just by looking across the Ditch, for instance—just how challenging and hard these negotiations can be. There are not that many things that we can actually be really proud of, that we can say we were first across the line before our neighbours—this is one of them.

The EU is a close and like-minded partner for New Zealand. We have long historical, cultural, political, and economic ties with Europe, and this actually provides a good foundation for the relationship that we have with the EU and for its 27 partner States. The EU is our fourth-largest trading partner, and with a combined population, as covered by former trade Ministers, of 450 million. It is really amazing that such a huge block—450 million—have actually decided to have an agreement with us. Not only are there just over 5 million people here but we’re on the other side of the world. It is really fantastic to see that this actually happens.

Can I also just say to the Minister for Trade as well as the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and all members—well, actually, most members of the House. It is really good that on this issue—trade—we usually agree. When we sit in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—the current Minister and I were members of that committee last term—most things that come across our committee, we actually agree on. Long may it last—the fact that we always agree that trade is so important for our country.

Now, one of the submissions that came through to the select committee was from Zespri—which is, as many of you know, especially those of you from rural New Zealand, 100 percent owned by New Zealand kiwifruit growers—strongly supporting this bill. Zespri exports to more than 50 countries across the world. They have over 2,800 growers, and the EU is one of their largest markets, with $1.2 billion sales in 2022-23. Zespri has incurred $47 million in tariffs on sales to the EU in the season before last, so when this agreement goes into effect, and 8.8 percent of the tariffs are removed, that would deliver significant benefits and values to those growers, as well as to Aotearoa New Zealand.

Now, in my last minute and a half, I’d like to highlight two provisions in this agreement. The first is the trade and labour provision, which states that New Zealand and the EU have both committed to respect, to promote, and to realise the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) fundamental principles and rights at work, as well as to making continued and sustained efforts to ratify the fundamental ILO conventions that they have yet to ratify. Now, both New Zealand and the EU have also agreed to promote the strategic objectives of the ILO’s Decent Work agenda. The last provision I’d like to highlight is the trade and gender equality chapter, which includes binding commitment to implement the relevant UN conventions that address gender equality and women’s rights. Both the EU and New Zealand have also agreed to strengthen their cooperation on trade-related aspects of gender equality, and this includes CEDAW—which is the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

We know that the economic modelling suggests that by 2035 this agreement will generate up to $1.4 billion to New Zealand. I strongly commend this bill to the House.

I’m pleased to be taking this call on the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill, and I’m really pleased to see that common sense is residing throughout the House and that most members of the House will be supporting this bill. This bill gives enormous benefits to New Zealand and the economy. As a representative of an electorate that relies heavily on our primary production sector, the feedback that I’ve heard has all been positive.

National has always supported our exporters and recognises that one of the best ways to support the primary industries is through free-trade agreements. We’re a small trading nation that relies on our food and fibre sector for 82 percent of our export receipts. I’d like to acknowledge the efforts of successive Governments who have fought hard to open the world to New Zealand, to our produce, and to promote our leading food and fibre sector. I’d like to thank the Minister, the Hon Todd McClay, and I’d also like to acknowledge the Hon Damien O’Connor for his work in getting this across the line. I’d like to thank the previous Government as well for recognising the importance of the EU market and free trade in general, and to the hard-working Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade staff, without whose efforts none of this would have been possible.

There has been some commentary about what wasn’t in the agreement, but I say that perfect is the enemy of good. It’s hard to get anything perfect, and the EU is a challenging environment to develop a free-trade agreement (FTA), given that they’re made up of a large number of independent States. In the Waitaki electorate, we produce world-class wines. The wine and spirits annex to the agreement will help reduce regulatory burdens and costs, including the labelling requirement for wine, winemaking practices and certification, and certain labelling provisions relating to spirits. So it’s a great thought that, through this bill, it will be easier than ever for my son, who resides in Europe, to sip on a Central Otago pinot noir.

Hon Todd McClay: He won’t be sipping.

MILES ANDERSON: No, he might not be! The FTA will encourage an increased trade in services, increased access to the Government procurement of contracts across EU member States, and reduced barriers to trade, which will be of enormous assistance to service providers both within and outside of the primary sector. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, and thank you very much for the opportunity. I, of course, stand in support of this particular bill. We’ve heard reasons across the House of the need for its haste, and I agree wholeheartedly—the opportunity for our traders to be able to get into the market sooner rather later is important.

The other important factor, which I think maybe has only been mentioned once, is that, of course, the EU is coming into its election in June, which is why it’s really important to make sure we ratify this before those elections take place. We know that elections can be radical change or upheaval for such a diverse EU, which is the market that we’re looking to enter into.

So, with that in mind, my job here is to endorse the words of thanks right across the House. I sat on the committee—even disclosed that I’m allergic to onions, but we had a great submission from the onion sector and how important that was. But the point was that it’s urgent that we ratify this particular bill so that those hard-working Kiwis who do export and those who do import into this country can feel the full benefit of what’s been negotiated and what’s been included in this bill. I endorse this bill in the House.

It is a great privilege to take the final call on the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill. Over the years, we have concluded many trade deals, starting the CER Agreement with Australia, the first-ever trade deal with China, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and most recently the UK free-trade agreement. What a fantastic track record for a small country at the bottom of the world, and I want to say thanks to all those trade Ministers and officials who’ve fought really hard over the years to fight for these agreements. They’ve done a fantastic job. This trade agreement, while not perfect, will extensively benefit many areas of our primary industries and the wider economy. From day one, the estimated tariff savings exceed $100 million and with it growing to $110 million over seven years—and I’m sure it will amount to many more, which makes for the highest immediate savings of a New Zealand free-trade agreement.

I now want to focus on the electorate that is miles above the rest and the benefits that are going to flow as an example to the Northland economy. In particular, I think I want to focus on the clause where they talk about the benefits to Maōri trade and economic cooperation. Maōri businesses in Northland are growing and really stand to benefit substantially from this particularly, and we hope, in time, as we work closely with Ngāpuhi, that we get to the point where they reach an agreement; it’ll really help them gain the full benefits of a settlement. The other sector that will benefit clearly in Northland is the horticultural sector, and, in particular, kiwifruit. In kiwifruit, in Northland, we have over 400 hectares planted and growing substantially, 90 percent of which is the gold variety—a very high-value variety. The benefits are going to flow through the whole area.

We’re also developing in Northland at the moment. We’re building dams and so forth which can irrigate more land for horticultural products and which will benefit substantially from these gains from this agreement. Another area which is going to benefit Northland substantially is actually the area of the gains we make in the seafood space. Many may not be aware that most of mussel spat for New Zealand’s mussel economy comes from the North and it comes off the coast up there. So this will make a really big improvement to the Northland economy and help out.

The other area which I’m really pleased to highlight is the benefit it’s going to make to the hard-working beekeepers who go out and harvest the honey and the Mānuka honey. Next time I see the beekeepers who store their hives on my farm at home, I will be able to think, “Well, they’re going to get benefits from a deal like this.” and it’s great to be able to take that news back to them.

So, finally, the potential to the Northland economy is huge and it really creates opportunities for our people, and I look forward to working with the Northland businesses to help with this. So, finally, I’d like to say this agreement really highlights the benefits of trade, and I’m really pleased to be able to come and say to the House, we commend this bill to the House and look forward to seeing the full benefits flowing to the people of New Zealand.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill.