European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill. Members, we start with the debate on Part 1.

Point of order, Madam Chair. I seek leave to debate the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill as one question.

Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. The question is that Parts 1 to 5, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. In the spirit of cooperation that is generally the way that we manage trade agreements in this House, I think all parties in the House have agreed to come together and to move this through as quickly as possible. It’s not because it’s insignificant or small in terms of the technical parts of the bill, but it’s one where there has been agreement reached, and I’d just like to acknowledge the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

I’ll take the opportunity, and I know it’s a kind of a free-ranging speech, and we can go all over the place—of course while focusing on the bill—but I’ll acknowledge the Minister and his efforts to keep this thing moving as quickly as possible. There’s been much said about the timing of when it came into the House; the reality was that this is quite a complex piece of legislation. I don’t think we’re going to go and unpick it. The select committee had the opportunity to do that, and I’ll acknowledge the chair, who heard submissions, who managed this process properly.

It is technical. A trade agreement with 450 million people, negotiated with 5 million people, is quite an achievement. So in acknowledging the Minister’s movement and momentum, I want to go back to the officials, who have been a key part of this. Ten years ago, probably it would have been said that this was impossible. We’re a small player at the bottom of the Pacific; the European Union, arguably, one of the biggest single blocs of economic activity and commerce in the world, and 450 million highly discerning, high-value consumers—what would they want with us? The agreement is about values—value and values, but most particularly values, because we share many of the same aspirations as all 27 of the EU member States, and I think that’s quite an achievement.

I want to acknowledge Ministers Dombrovskis and Wojciechowski, who were the key leaders—one in agriculture and the other, Valdis Dombrovskis, is the trade commissioner from the EU. He drove this through some difficult times—one of them being, of course, the Ukraine war, which cut right across everything that the EU was doing. He kept focus on the New Zealand - EU free-trade agreement, and I want to thank him once again.

The pressure was on, I guess, us as a Government too. The previous Labour Government had signed a free-trade agreement with China. My colleague the Hon David Parker had signed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and so I had to get on and try and do my little bit, and I know, as I’ve said before, it’s a non-partisan area. New Zealand is a trading nation and we need to open every door, every opportunity we can for trading nations.

What makes this agreement, I guess, more valuable is in the services area, and I know there has been some disappointment in some areas of agriculture that didn’t get the volumes that they wanted. None the less, the increased access—particularly for dairy and for beef—offers huge opportunities to add real value to the total export earnings of those sectors, but it’s in the services area where we’re not limited really, only by what’s between our ears, and New Zealanders are very, very good at this open government procurement into the EU. Services that are unlimited in terms of their volume and scope can now trade into the EU with virtually no barriers, and so thank you to the officials for the technical work that they did to keep us in the game. I have to say that it is a very valuable agreement.

I’ll maybe take the opportunity—and there’s a national interest analysis here, quite a substantive one. You can go to estimated impacts by sector: “Expanded export opportunities for the agriculture and food sector is an important driver of the overall economic benefits. Improved and preferential quota access and lower or no tariffs on products such as beef, cheese, butter, fruit, and wine would improve New Zealand competitiveness”. It opens the door to us being more competitive in these areas; but on top of that, the services sector is expected to make the largest contribution to economic gains in absolute terms, due to the significant role of services in the New Zealand economy, something that we don’t always appreciate but we are coming to realise more and more. So, you know, up to $2.1 billion of additional gain, the largest source of economic gains from the agreement from the services sector—nothing to scoff about at all.

So there were submissions made to the select committee on some technical areas, but one of, I guess, the areas of interest were geographical indicators. It’s quite a strange thing that the agreement does two things. It protects geographical indicators, and then it actually allows the EU, in almost an opposite approach, to say that anything produced in any member State can be called “from EU”. So while we might have had country of origin as a traditional way forward to identify which particular State we’ve said, “No; we’ll go back and accept anything from the EU because you’ll maintain the standards.” So at one end, geographical indicators; at the other end, opening up opportunities for all exporters from the EU into our country.

The member’s time—

Hon Damien O’Connor: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Damien O’Connor.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I won’t take too long, other than to say that people might see a number of contradictions in a big player like the EU having an agreement with New Zealand, and why? As I say, I come back to the values one, and all the tricky areas that we work through, on geographical indicators really leaving the door open for most of our cheese and wine exporters or traders or producers, with a couple of exceptions that we couldn’t negotiate our way out of.

On geographical indicators, consultation by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade around New Zealand where we asked how we should manage geographical indicators, because there were some concerns, the question of, “Well, how many are we going to develop and protect?”—there was little or no interest from the New Zealand primary sectors. That is disappointing. So what I lay on the Table, with this agreement, is a challenge to the food and beverage sectors—and wine, of course, has a few geographical indicators, as we appreciate the value, but for the other sectors in the finest quality nutrition to the world, let’s develop some of our own and turn those into valuable, clearly identifiable, and unique products for us to sell to the world.

I’ll leave it at that, other than to say thank you once again to officials, to the Minister keeping this moving through. This is a high-quality, valuable agreement for New Zealand into the future. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, it’s a pleasure to rise and take a call here in the committee stage of the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill. Of course, noticing the brevity of the process we’ve gone through—a truncated second reading—and can I acknowledge and thank members across the Chamber for their willingness to support that.

I do really want to just touch a bit on the time frame because I think it is really important to note that this has been a collaborative effort and I really do want to acknowledge, particularly, the members that I’ve worked with on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for their speedy, efficient, but detailed consideration of this piece of legislation, because it is very important for New Zealand exporters and it’s as simple as that.

I want to acknowledge and thank the Minister for Trade as well for bringing this before the House. It was the very first sitting week of the year we were debating this legislation and then given a report back of 4 April. Looking at that, though, we were able to determine that, actually, by just coming a week or so earlier, it would enable the agreement to come into force an entire month earlier, which would have a direct financial benefit for New Zealand exporters.

Members across the committee were very keen to support that endeavour and I really want to acknowledge their work. I also want to thank Damien O’Connor, particularly as a former Minister for Trade, for his work on this agreement as well. I think that’s one of the things that we are very—well, certainly as the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, I’m thankful for on our committee: that we have a relatively collegial approach to these aspects on the committee and, actually, that’s as it should be for something as important as this, because it is an important piece of legislation.

As I said, the time frame part of it is really interesting. When we heard from submitters through this process, but even prior to that, those industries that were going to be impacted or would have benefit from this, they made it clear that given the seasonal nature of some of those products—in horticulture, in particular—we’re in a window at the moment where products are being exported. By us being able to look at having enforcement on 1 May, which is what we’re working towards now with the prompt consideration that the committee is providing on this bill, that will actually provide a direct financial benefit to a number of those exporters in terms of the percentage of product they would otherwise be exporting through that month of May, in particular.

So I’m really pleased, again—and I do really just want to thank the members for that. Because it was something that we could easily have taken our full time allocation through till April on, which would have pushed it out until June or indeed even longer if the Minister hadn’t brought the legislation in and given us that shortened report-back date.

Because this is important, and I think it’s worth noting, actually, that the EU ratified at their end late last year, which was fantastic to see—late November they ratified it in their Parliament. So, of course, then it was just waiting on New Zealand’s end to carry out that work. So I’m very pleased to be able to bring that forward now and to have agreement across the House to bypass the second reading process, straight into committee stage now, and then on to the final reading in a couple of days’ time—assuming we progress with this committee stage tonight, which I’m confident that we will.

Now, look, I do just want to thank the submitters as well for their input through this process. There were a number of submitters that raised some really valid points within the consideration; some aspects that were slightly outside the scope of the bill in that they were more to do with the agreement itself. As Damien O’Connor had touched on, there’s a range of views around the level of access—whether that was sufficient or not—and we can constantly seek improvements in those things. I think whenever there is a trade agreement—or, in fact, any sort of negotiation—if both parties come out of it a little dissatisfied, you probably got the balance about right.

I guess it keeps that ambition there to strive for continued improvement over time. That’s certainly something that we are very keen to do on this side of the House. No trade deal is ever complete: there’s always an opportunity to enhance the relationship further, to continue to work on, to evolve, to develop, to deepen that relationship. That is really important for a trade-oriented nation such as New Zealand. Not just because of trade, though, but, actually, when you look at some of the increasing geopolitical tensions that we face around the globe at the moment, it makes it increasingly important to be clear with our position on the international rules-based order, our democratic values that underpin how we operate. Trade, of course, sits alongside that as well. So these are all important considerations that we were mindful of as we went through the consideration of this bill.

In terms of these submitters, I do just want to expand a little on that because there were some concerns raised around the enforcement regime, in particular, that’s put in place through this legislation that we are debating, and concerns around whether or not that was necessary. Ultimately, we got to a position where it was clear through the free-trade agreement itself that did require an administrative mechanism to be established to enable that enforcement to be carried out here in New Zealand alongside the judicial process that could occur. So having that additional function created to enable that administrative mechanism where there were concerns around breaches of geographic indicators was an important part of enacting this free-trade agreement as it was put forward.

So, ultimately, as I say, we can always debate whether or not there was the best outcome or the right outcome. But this legislation, I think, has landed in a good place. As I say again, this legislation is actually simply to enable the free-trade agreement that was agreed last year. It’s not to make any changes, and that was to some of the other aspects raised by submitters around whether we could have got or should have got a different level of access in their particular area of interest—red meat and dairy were two that came up, in particular.

But, ultimately, when you look at it from the perspective of “NZ Inc.”, there are wonderful benefits in here, there are some good aspects to the trade agreement, and I’m confident that it will provide value to New Zealanders. Again, the timeliness of that was the critical aspect here—bringing it into force; enabling that contribution to start a month earlier has a meaningful impact for exporters right now. Particularly when we’re seeing some challenging economic situations domestically, anything we can do in this House to help improve that situation is one of the rewarding things of being an MP, I think, to help those businesses succeed in their journey as exporters.

So, look, I’m happy to support this bill. Thank the Minister, again, for their consideration, and for members opposite for their support on this. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I acknowledge the contributions from the two previous speakers. They’ve acknowledged the role of the officials and of the Minister for Trade for bringing this and encouraging it to go through so quickly, and, rightly so, acknowledging the working of the select committees, but I think it’s important to acknowledge the role that previous Ministers played, in particular that of the Hon Damien O’Connor. In my view, he is the hardest-working and most effective trade Minister that we’ve had, actually, and it has to be acknowledged.

I remember going on a delegation—an official delegation—alongside the Rt Hon David Carter, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, and the Hon Anne Tolley to commemorate Passchendaele. While we were there, we were asked to ensure that we met with key delegates from the European Union to push for this free-trade agreement, and whilst there was a lot of enthusiasm at an individual level, we didn’t leave with too much enthusiasm that anything would be done all that quickly. That was in 2020. Well, we know that in that period of time, there was COVID, there were massive disruptions, and so for the Hon Damien O’Connor to be able to work alongside officials and steer that home in the way that he did and get it signed, also in the backdrop of signing the UK free-trade agreement, which commenced and concluded in a single term of Government—I don’t think that’s happened before.

It’s important that at moments like this, with key pieces of legislation that will bring benefits to New Zealand exporters over generations to come, that those that play a part in that are given true recognition.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I can see the Minister was about to get on his feet, so I’ll try not to stand between the committee and the Minister’s contribution for too long, but I just wanted to add to the questions that I hope that the Minister might address. I would be interested to hear from him his thoughts about some aspects of this trade agreement which are unusual and ground-breaking.

Colleagues have commented on the geographical indicators issue, the questions of market access, but one of the distinctive features of this trade agreement which—the delegation of European parliamentarians who visited New Zealand before the EU entered the ratification phase were very keen to emphasise the importance of some of the provisions in here which they felt bound New Zealand and the EU in terms of shared values. It was their commitment to labour standards; the provisions in the agreement which provide that the parties can hold each other accountable to the commitments that we have made under the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, the international instrument on gender equality; and our commitments, both the EU and New Zealand, to the Paris climate change commitments.

Hon Shane Jones: Oh, minor detail—minor detail.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I’m not surprised that that member would say this was a minor detail, given his stated intention in some of his portfolios. He might find his activities dragged up before a tribunal to determine whether or not they’re in breach of our country’s commitments under this agreement. That would be very interesting to see.

But I’d invite the Minister to comment about his thoughts on those provisions, which do make this quite a distinctive agreement. I’d be interested to hear what advice he’s got on how those provisions are operationalised. What are we going to do? We all know that even in the best of agreements, you can achieve a good result on paper, but it’s what happens after the ink dries in terms of exporters being able to take advantage of market access and reduction of tariff barriers and so on.

But what about these other provisions: labour standards, climate change commitments, gender equality? I would note in relation to labour standards that the Council of Trade Unions, New Zealand’s peak body for the labour movement, is raising questions at the International Labour Organization in Geneva about whether or not this Government’s recent moves in the area of employment relations risks putting New Zealand in breach of the commitments we made to the EU under this agreement. So I’d be keen to hear the Minister’s view on that.

Madam Chair, thank you. It gives me pleasure to take a call on the debate on this agreement. And I agree with other members about its importance not only to New Zealand but, actually, the huge opportunity it provides New Zealand exporters, particularly the primary sector, to do much more in a very large and wealthy market—the European Union.

Can I recognise the work of the committee and how quickly they went about their work. I’m mindful that everybody who submitted and wanted to come before the committee was afforded the opportunity to do so, and the committee took time to listen to all those who submitted, and I commend them for that. But can I also recognise that they worked when Parliament was in session, they worked on Mondays and Fridays and in recesses to go as hard as they could to do their job properly to scrutinise the legislation and suggest any changes that are needed as they are meant to, but to do so also so it could return to the House in an extremely timely fashion.

Indeed, I think from first reading, which was 31 January, until this Thursday, where third reading will take place, is a matter of some seven weeks, and I’m not sure that we have seen such commitment from this House on a free-trade agreement (FTA), particularly one of the magnitude of this one previously. So I’d like to recognise all the members of the House for the work that they have done. In particular, Damien O’Connor, who was the Minister at the time the agreement was negotiated and was signed, to recognise his commitment over a very long period of time and to reach agreement. He said, as others have said, in some areas it hasn’t met the expectation—I know particularly for dairy or beef farmers within New Zealand. Overall, it is a good result for New Zealand. It will help grow the economy and increase the wealth of New Zealand and give Governments more opportunity.

I’d also like to recognise the ACT Party and New Zealand First for agreeing for this process to go faster than it might overwise. In particular, for us to be able to do second reading today without debate, and then a wider ranging debate here in the committee stage, and then to have third reading in the same week. To the Green Party also, who I reached out to and who agreed to work as fast as they could, scrutinising the document properly, but also so that it could follow through to the House and enter into force. And to recognise the Māori Party, and whilst they may have a different view to me in first reading when it comes to trade, I do commit to them that, actually, this agreement will be good for all New Zealanders: Pākehā, Māori, Indian, Chinese, everybody that commits themselves to work hard in New Zealand and to export, and therefore I would hope that in their debates they will work with us to find ways to make agreements in the future better to deliver for all New Zealand.

Damien O’Connor and others have recognised the officials. They worked very, very hard. Ministers get to go meetings and occasionally stay up late at night talking about these things, but the officials are the ones that put the effort in day in and day out, day in and day out. To recognise the very large group of them that worked over this from the conception of the idea of having a free-trade agreement with the European Union to when it was launched, the negotiations, and the conclusion. Much of the thanks is owed to them. In fact, without their work we wouldn’t be here working as dutifully as we are.

I want to touch on a couple of parts of the agreement that have been raised, and I’ll do my best to answer the mischievous question from the Hon Phil Twyford. But at the same time, I don’t want to stand in the way of progress. The reason that I asked members of the committee of the whole House and the Business Committee to allow us to go faster than we would otherwise is because this agreement enters into force on the first day of the second month after New Zealand ratifies, and that’s because the European Union ratified last year through their processes.

The reason that’s important is because, on entry into force, there’s $100 million worth of tariff savings for New Zealand exporters on day one for the first year. That’s one of the highest levels of tariff saving on entering into force of any agreement we’ve ever concluded. But more importantly than that, there are at least two industries—the kiwifruit industry and the onion industry—who are seasonal and about to export or have already exported their products to the European market. In the case of kiwifruit, if we can get this work done this week, then the agreement will enter into force on 1 May, not 1 June or July or even 1 August, which was what some people thought it may take the time for the House to get through.

There’s a $43 million saving for New Zealand kiwifruit growers as a result of this because 90 percent of their crop going to the European Union will be covered under this agreement and the tariff rate will fall to zero. In as far as the onion growers of New Zealand are concerned, about a third of their crop—a saving of $3 million for onion growers that will go directly into their pocket. So that’s the reason that I think it’s worth recognising the committee is coming together because of the direct benefit on day one and over the coming months for so many New Zealanders.

So 91 percent of New Zealand’s current goods trade with the EU will enter duty free, increasing to 97 percent over seven years; and $1.3 billion of GDP will be boosted annually, increasing our exports to the EU by up to $1.8 million per year. That’s just jobs for New Zealanders and a better return for the hard work that they put in.

A number of issues have been raised, particularly around geographical indications (GIs). It’s not something that New Zealand often has been in favour of—indeed, this was an ask of the European Union, not something New Zealand went to the negotiating table with. However, it’s important to recognise that the EU has not concluded an agreement without GI recognition in it. But I want to recognise the work officials did to minimise the effect upon New Zealand producers when it comes to a number of products that could have been covered by the geographical indicator mechanism in the European Union, and that where there will have to be changes to the names of some products, the lead-in is a period of time where they’ll be able to adjust, it won’t be thrust upon them, and they’ll be able to come to terms with that.

Damien O’Connor mentioned that there wasn’t great interest from New Zealand exporters around GI protection here. I think we should continue to listen to them, but I support them in that, because there are a number of ways that New Zealand gets to protect its reputation, and that’s through continuing to have a very high-quality reputation. And that outside of the EU’s desire to enforce GIs with others around the world, I don’t know whether it’s in New Zealand’s best interest to try and go and enforce this type of protection elsewhere for New Zealand products, but where exporters have concerns, of course, we’ll be open to listening to that.

Phil Twyford asked a little bit about some of the other parts of the agreement, and there are many areas that is different than some of the traditional trade agreements; although, even the original Trans-Pacific Partnership that flowed on from the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership had labour and environmental conditions, and so on, in it. Indeed, the agreement hasn’t entered into force, and therefore any change this Government’s made are not captured by it because it hasn’t entered into force. However, one of the most important principles of all free-trade agreements, including the European Union free-trade agreement, is the right of Governments on both sides to pass rules and regulations through their Parliament to affect the standards that they think are important.

When it comes to labour standards in the European Union and New Zealand, they’re similar. In some cases, I think New Zealand’s labour standards are higher. So I don’t see that there is likely to be any dispute between New Zealand and the European Union in these areas and either way. As far as environmental standards of New Zealand committed to meeting its climate change reduction obligations, we do have the ability here, as Europe does, to find a way that is best for New Zealand to do that, just as the European Union have very different to New Zealand, it’s the best intentions that are important here, and the Government is committed to meeting those.

There are two amendments that I will have introduced to this legislation in the committee stage, and they are minor by design, technical amendments that officials have found. The first is the clause 84, new section 59 of the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act 2006. This relates to the date of protection of amended GIs. In effect, it means that as the EU may change a GI, there is not additional costs or implication for New Zealand, and that we are mirroring some of the effects of those.

The second amendment is a consequential amendment to section 20(1) of the Trade Marks Act 2002, and this relates to the prohibition on registering conflicting trade marks. The FTA prohibits the registration of trade marks that incorporates an EU GI, subject to certain conditions. To meet the requirement, the bill amends the Trade Marks Act to prevent the registration of trade marks that incorporates an EU GI, including any new GIs. However, in relation to a proposed EU GI, rather than only impacting those trade marks that incorporate a proposed EU GI, the current drafting of the bill prevents the registration of any trade marks from the time that any new EU GI proposals are published until those proposals are dealt with. To enact that draft would potentially impact many thousands of legitimate trade mark applications, therefore officials have suggested, and I have tabled, recommended Schedule 2 of the bill changes which set out the amendments to section 20(1) of the Trade Marks Act that amends to ensure that only relevant trade mark applications are impacted and not those that are meant to be excluded. With that in mind, I thank the House for its work and I commend it in committee stage to the House.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll take the opportunity just to briefly comment on the two amendments, which we support—I understand they’re technical amendments—and, basically, once again just reaffirm our commitment as a country to geographical indications (GIs) and not to have trademarks to try and override what are legitimate GIs, certainly recognised in the EU but now by us as well.

The Minister for Trade mentioned, of course, the areas of labour; small, medium enterprises; and environment. Animal welfare was one of the discussions that was had, and we do run different systems of farming, and so, as with the UK, what we agreed to do was not to direct or make judgment on animal welfare standards or indeed labour standards or environment, but to commit to uphold the highest standards that we possibly can and to not lower those standards for any trade advantage. I think that’s the critical thing, and I think this Government and future Governments will have to be mindful of that. That’s why the values that we share for a better world mean that we have to aspire to have higher standards in all those areas. These are areas that are sensitive to our consumers, sensitive to the people in our own countries, and I think it’s a good commitment.

The one unique area which followed on from the UK trade agreement was to have a Māori trade and economic cooperation chapter. When we started discussion in this area, it wasn’t enthusiastically embraced by the EU and, they thought, perhaps their member States, because it was a—I guess it’s a new concept, to go back and recognise, respect, and then enhance the opportunities for our indigenous people. But all credit, once again, to negotiators and, I guess, the fairly staunch way that I and others tabled the need for this: this is the way that we’re moving, we have a growing Māori economy, we have Māori people right through our communities who are looking for expectations and benefits from trade, which is why we have a trade-for-all agenda, to ensure that everyone can benefit from this. So we negotiated in an economic cooperation chapter, and that just, basically, says that we’ll aspire to try and generate benefits. Actually, you know, what is good for Māori here, what’s good for farmers, or good for service providers, is good for all of New Zealand. So I think that was a really positive step forward.

I’m not going to carry on for too long, but just say a couple of people—and he was tormented, I have to say. Vangelis Vitalis was tormented through this negotiation, because one of the things that the Europeans held out for—and the Greeks in particular—was feta, a cheese. Passionate cheese, close to the heart of all Greeks and the ancestors of all Greeks. I have to say, Vangelis was really torn here between trying to respect the rights of the Greek people and their enthusiasm to retain the rights to feta, and then, of course, the opportunities to New Zealand. But thank you to him and to all the others. We got through that. That is something that we are going to have to phase out after a transition period: we won’t be able to use that term. But it’s just one of the realities.

Can I thank Carl and Diana Reaich, who were the ambassadors in Brussels through this time. They worked very, very hard through COVID, through really difficult times, the Ukraine war as well. They went out, they contacted people, all through Brussels—all those people who might have had an influence. It’s not easy to get the support of 27 member States. Thank you to them and their officials and all the others. We did it. So, look—

Rachel Boyack: EU friendship group.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: EU friendship group, yeah, well, absolutely, and, as I say, the Hon Kieran McAnulty raised the fact that anyone who went anywhere near Europe had to bang on the door, knock on the door, and do the charm offensive. So this was a collective effort. We’ve got there. I won’t hold it up any longer and I’ll sit down. Kia ora.

So soon after dinner, I have to rise and take the floor to talk about a Greek feta. And Damien O’Connor’s right: it can be a very challenging thing. Interestingly, many years ago, I had lived in Europe for a very long period of time and, upon returning to New Zealand, went to buy feta in New Zealand that said it was to the traditional Danish recipe, which I think to many Greek people would confuse them.

But the important point here around geographical indications (GIs), whilst it’s not something that New Zealand itself would want to do or do much more of, or indeed a lot more of, it wasn’t asked of the European Union. The way the EU works is it’s not a collective decision; each member State has to say yes when it comes to a trade agreement, either because of the vote in the European Parliament or sitting around the table in the Council of Ministers, which is Ministers from all the States.

In a previous Government, as trade Minister, I visited Greece to talk to them about why we wanted a free-trade agreement, as we visited many countries in Europe to persuade them of the importance of a high-quality set of rules that businesses can rely upon and can invest and grow relationships with. Upon visiting Greece, the first, second, and third thing that they raised was the importance of Greek feta—and the name and GI. So, as tortured as Vangelis Vitalis is, without the recognition of feta as a European GI, we would all be tortured, because I don’t think we would have got a free-trade agreement with the EU.

That in mind, it doesn’t mean we should continue to accept these things, because, actually, you know, New Zealand producers produce very high-quality food, and I would argue that New Zealand feta—as it’s named today—is of an equivalent quality and food safety as it is traditionally produced in Greece. It’s just that, over the next few years, we’ll have to come to another name. But, rest assured, it will still be able to be purchased, sold, just with a slightly different name, and it will still be enjoyed in Greek salads.

Before I take the next call, can I just remind members that this is the committee stage and that it is our opportunity, or your opportunity, to interrogate the detail of the bill with the Minister for Trade. I call the Hon Phil Twyford.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a detailed question for the Minister about the animal welfare provisions in the agreement. I’m interested to know the Minister’s view about whether a move to reinstate the live animal trade, which has been subject to much criticism over the years because of the standards, or lack of them, in relation to animal welfare, would risk being in breach of the provisions in the agreement which say that neither party will lower standards or trade benefit.

The answer to that is: no. Governments on both sides have reserved the writing of the agreement to legislate in the interests of, and in desiring to have, the highest standards. It doesn’t mean that, actually, we must do the same as what others do; it just means that any decisions this Government makes around animal welfare issues, or anything else, has to be the equivalent. The Government’s very mindful of its obligations, the responsibilities, when it comes to all the agreements that are signed, including trade agreements. So the answer to your question is: no, I don’t believe it will put it in jeopardy.

The question is, That the Minister’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 21 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 to 5, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

The committee has considered the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.