United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon TODD McCLAY: I move, That the United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

It’s a pleasure to move in support of this bill. Following the bill’s first reading in April, the bill was referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, where it was extensively examined. The committee considered the bill between 10 April and 19 June, and it recommended that the bill proceed into law.

I want to express my thanks to all those involved in this important examination process, from members of the committee through the civil society and business representatives. The New Zealand - United Arab Emirates (UAE) Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, or CEPA, is a high-quality free-trade agreement (FTA) that will provide real benefits for New Zealand and for New Zealanders.

The Government recognises that trade is crucial to our economic success. We know that one in four New Zealanders jobs depends on trade. The income derived from trade helps pay for our health and education systems, our conservation work, and a range of other programmes and services delivered by the Government. That’s why we’re focused on doubling exports by value over 10 years, and growing our free-trade agreement network is a key component of this.

We have a warm relationship with the United Arab Emirates, and the CEPA is a significant new milestone towards deepening our bilateral relationship. It, along with the accompanying bilateral investment treaty, will provide opportunities to grow our trade and people-to-people links with the UAE. It provides New Zealand better access to a dynamic and internationally well-connected economy that’s both an important trade investment partner, as the world’s 20th largest economy, with a GDP of over US$500 billion. The UAE is also aiming to be the world’s best-connected trade hub by 2031. This means more opportunities and increased jobs and incomes for New Zealanders. This represents real benefits for Māori; for small to medium sized enterprises; for our regions like Southland, the West Coast, and Gisborne; for our consumers; and a lot more.

It’s worth reflecting that in New Zealand’s most recent FTA which entered into force, namely the EU, we saw a 24 percent increase in our total goods exports to the EU in the first eight months after entry into force, equalling a billion dollars extra of goods exports to the EU in the first 12 months. The opportunities here are considerable. The CEPA, once in force, will improve conditions for New Zealand exporters into the UAE market with tariff elimination on 98.5 percent of our goods exports immediately. This will benefit our producers of dairy and of beef and sheep meat, horticulture, commodities including apples and kiwifruit, seafood, forestry, as well as all industrial items, with full tariff elimination increasing to 99 percent within three years.

On top of these high-quality commitments for our goods exporters, the CEPA contains trade-facilitation rules designed to reduce behind-the-border barriers. This includes commitments to release goods within clear time frames, to ensure that customs processes and practices are transparent and as efficient as possible, and to further strengthen existing sanitary and phytosanitary measures.

Our services exporters will also benefit from the CEPA, with improved commitments in a range of priority sectors such as education, professional services like engineering and environment, and audio-visual. On top of this, most favoured nation commitments in key sectors mean that our exporters will always enjoy the best available treatment in the UAE market into the future. Other provisions agreed under the CEPA mean our services suppliers will benefit from more transparency and certainty, and enjoy the assurances of fair treatment in covered sectors.

The CEPA will also contribute to the further diversification of New Zealand’s FTA network. The Middle East is a significant missing piece in our overall FTA network. Having the CEPA in place represents a critical first step in expanding our FTA coverage in this important region, which is why we pushed for the CEPA to be New Zealand’s fastest ever free-trade agreement. Negotiation concluded in just over four months. I was very pleased to sign it in January of this year, with the Prime Minister, when we visited the UAE.

The importance of our network of FTAs has never been so relevant as in the current global context, where the rules-based international trading system is facing acute challenges. Without FTAs like the New Zealand - UAE CEPA, New Zealand would find it harder to compete internationally. Therefore, we can’t stand still, which is why we’re doing all that we can to progress our recently concluded free-trade agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council, as well as investing in our FTA negotiations with India.

The UAE isn’t standing still either. Not only does it have around 20 CEPAs signed, but it has commenced negotiations with over a dozen more trading partners. The New Zealand - UAE CEPA is the highest quality and most liberalising of any of the more than 20 free-trade agreements that the UAE has concluded to date. This is a tremendous achievement for New Zealand, and can I recognise the exemplary work of our trade negotiators. At the same time, the CEPA preserves the Government’s right to regulate in the public interest and preserves the status of the Treaty of Waitangi. It also contains the most comprehensive commitments on inclusive and sustainable trade in any FTA agreed by the UAE.

There are a limited number of legislative and regulatory amendments that are required to align New Zealand’s domestic law with our obligations under the CEPA. This bill makes the changes required for New Zealand to implement these obligations and bring it into force. Specifically, the bill amends the Overseas Investment Act 2005, the Overseas Investment Regulations 2005, the Customs and Excise Act 2018, and the tariff and Customs and Excise Regulations 1996.

The bill will enable an increase in investment-screening thresholds from NZ$100 million to NZ$200 million for non-Government UAE investors; the designation of an authorised certification body to certify that goods originate in New Zealand; the application of preferential tariff rates under the CEPA; and the implementation of obligations relating to the tariff treatment of goods returned to New Zealand after repair or alteration in the UAE, giving effect to the rules of origin applicable to imports into New Zealand that originate from the UAE.

These legislative and regulatory changes are consistent with the changes required for almost all of our previous free-trade agreements. Both the UAE and this Government are working to ratify the CEPA as soon as possible to quickly realise the benefits of the agreement. Once both countries have concluded all the necessary steps, we will be ready to bring the CEPA into force.

New Zealand has secured this free-trade agreement at a critical time in the current global trade landscape. It will provide concrete, long-term benefits for our economy and to our exporters as New Zealand navigates the increasingly turbulent trade world we are now facing.

Can I recognise the work of our officials and how hard they worked in just four months to deliver this high-quality agreement. We ask a lot of them, and in this instance asked even more, and they worked hard, and they delivered for us. Can I also recognise my counterpart, Dr Thani, the newly appointed, or upgraded, Minister of international trade from the UAE, for his commitment to the relationship. Without his understanding and the support of his Government, we would not have concluded such a high-quality agreement as quickly as we did.

I commend the United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill to this House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is one of those debates where it’s not that difficult to find points on which we agree across the House. Labour is supporting this bill and has all the way through. I want to give credit to the current Minister, Todd McClay, for his leadership in bringing this agreement to fruition and this bill to the House, and also, of course, to acknowledge, as I know the Minister always does, the excellent team of trade negotiators and officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, who serve this country so well and have done for a long time in this area.

As the Minister said, we must trade. We’re a trading nation and we couldn’t survive if we didn’t trade. He noted that one in four jobs are in firms who are highly exposed to international markets and trading. It’s also worth noting that jobs in firms that export are, in general, more skilled and better paid than other jobs. So we must trade and we need trade.

I also want to make the point that trade is the way we build interdependence. It’s one of the main ways that we knit a fabric of relationships internationally, along with our diplomacy and the work we do in multilateral organisations. It’s often the basis for developing closer links with countries that often then are accompanied by people-to-people connections and deeper security and other relationships.

This has been the case for successive New Zealand Governments for a very long time, that our commitment to open trading relationships internationally is an integral part of the way that we make our way in the world, which is all the more why it is such an unhappy feature of the current international environment that the Trump administration in the United States has so destabilised the world of international trade with its arbitrary, unprovoked, and capricious tariffs that have been imposed unilaterally on dozens of countries around the world. It is disturbing and extremely unfortunate. I think it’s up to countries like New Zealand and our friends in Europe and across Asia and elsewhere not to give up on the dream of a multilaterally governed rules-based system based on the idea of open trading relationships. It’s been good to see Europe and China, for instance, reaching out and making connections and discussing the possibility of, for example, China joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership—the CPTPP—which I think is a really positive move that we should welcome.

It’s a challenging environment for a trade Minister or a trade negotiator right now. For New Zealand, when you think about it, all of the really big opportunities have been realised. If you think about the CPTPP, if you think about the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, the China free-trade agreement (FTA), of course, the European Union FTA, all of the really big ones have been nailed and are delivering substantial economic benefits for New Zealand. It’s now the higher-hanging fruit, perhaps, and the smaller trade agreements, like the one we’re discussing tonight—the United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement—that are left. But all credit to those who have pursued this valuable and positive agreement.

We have to focus on these bilateral agreements, because, unfortunately, due to the efforts of not only the United States but a number of other players, the World Trade Organization that we invested so much hope in for so long as the arbiter of a global open trading regime has been, effectively, immobilised. The dream of multilateral free trade has all but ended. So bilateral initiatives like this and some of the smaller plurilateral initiatives are really all that’s left on the table for us.

We’ve had some interesting debates as this bill has gone through the House. We had some, I think, interesting exchanges both at select committee and in this Chamber on the question of human rights and labour standards in relation to the UAE agreement, and I made some remarks about the possibilities and the limits of applying human rights standards in trade agreements. We talked about one of the most notable features of this bill, and that is the increase in the screening threshold from $100 million to $200 million. What that does is it reduces the level of investment screening that doesn’t require a consent for investment.

One of the other things that’s worth remarking on is the absence of something in this bill, and that is the investor-State dispute settlement mechanism. I saw that the Minister was quoted in a piece in Newsroom, pointing out that the ISDS, the investor-State dispute settlement, mechanism, which has been such a flashpoint of debating this disagreement in trade policy for quite a long time—the Minister now sees it as kind of settled and bipartisan or nonpartisan policy in this House. That’s great. It’s something that Labour fought for in Opposition before the Ardern Government came to office, something that we implemented to say that we would not sign trade agreements with these ISDS mechanisms that gave private corporations the opportunity to sue Governments in private sector tribunals. We regarded that as abhorrent to democracy. I know a number of other countries around the world are taking this position too, and it’s great to see that it is now settled policy.

The other thing I think that’s worth commenting on about this bill, other than the fact, and kind of the central fact, that the effect of this agreement will be to eliminate tariffs and give duty-free status within three years to 99 percent of New Zealand’s exported goods to the United Arab Emirates—and that’s going to have really big advantages for meat, for dairy, and for horticulture particularly. But the other thing I wanted to mention is that, notwithstanding the fact that labour standards in the United Arab Emirates are not at the standard that we would hold ourselves to and see as being universally important—and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, in their submission, made that point very forcibly—there was an effort and the New Zealand Government successfully secured commitment to the Treaty provisions, which are now a standard part of our trade agreements. It’s a shame they’re not a standard part of legislation under this current Government, but there we are. They’re still in our trade agreements, which is a good thing—also, as the Minister mentioned, I think, the provisions around inclusive and sustainable trade. Those things are all kind of important so that we’re trying to deliver holistic benefits to all sides in a trade agreement, not just on the dollars and cents. So, yeah, that is my contribution to the third reading of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party, and we will not be supporting this particular bill. Again, the reason for that is we didn’t support the agreement, so I don’t know why the House is so surprised that we wouldn’t be supporting this particular bill.

Now, let me unpack that, because it actually makes a great deal of sense. Let’s start with the agreement that is the foundation of this particular bill. One of the things I addressed in the first reading of this bill—and also we addressed this when we spoke on the agreement itself—is fundamentally the concern when we’re looking at the treaty examination process here in Aotearoa New Zealand, specifically Standing Orders 405 to 408. Now, in 2023—and there is a reason why I’m mentioning this—as part of the Standing Orders review, it was recommended to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee that this particular part be examined, because it is a problematic—and also could be considered non-democratic—process where any sort of international agreement or treaty can be signed on by a Minister without any form of scrutiny or consultation by the New Zealand public, either through a select committee process or just genuinely hearing from the New Zealand public.

Granted, there are ways that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) allows for public consultation, but it is incredibly opaque. There is no public forum. There is no way for you to submit. You send an email to MFAT, and that just disappears into thin air, and it’s very hard to get any sort of commitment or information from MFAT from there on about what happens to the public consultation.

That, combined with the fact that the national interest analysis is drafted by MFAT on their own negotiation—and we have highlighted through the select committee process that when we’re examining a particular agreement, post-signing, I might add, it might be inappropriate for someone to, essentially, mark their own homework or assessment after they’ve completed it.

Then we get to any form of bill. Because of the dual system that we see here in Aotearoa New Zealand, if there are any changes, the agreement itself doesn’t need to be agreed to, or endorsed, by this House unless it affects domestic legislation, which is what we see here in this particular bill. This bill covers a very tiny component of what is in the original agreement. There is a possibility that if there were no significant changes, this bill could have been even smaller. Now, granted there are definitely elements, as we see here in this particular bill—particularly around, let’s say, the schedules, and also around things like tariffs and amendments to the Customs and Excise Act 2018—that are necessary with any new free-trade agreement, FTA, or comprehensive economic partnership agreement, CEPA, that Aotearoa New Zealand signed up to.

Here lies the concern that we have from a process perspective that anyone, and any Minister, is able to sign on to this really important document—that affects Aotearoa New Zealand in a really profound way—without any public input or without any proper input from this House. Again, by the time that agreement has been signed, it goes to select committee, and the deed is kind of done. It’s really hard to go back to your partner to say, “Hey, our select committee doesn’t like it, so can we just unsign it?”

It’s not something that we have seen happening in the past. Indeed, some of these have generated issues, particularly when we’re looking at the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement around ISDS, or the investor-State dispute settlement process, which is something that the Government signed up to at the time without realising the enormous backlash that they would receive from the New Zealand public as a result—which is also one of the reasons why we do not see ISDS, at least as a commitment from the Minister, in FTAs and CEPAs in this term.

Now, in terms of the bill, the other thing that is of importance is the only chance that we actually got to ask questions regarding both the bill but also the agreement that is the foundation of this bill—the only chance we actually got to have this proper engagement with the Minister—was during the committee stage of this particular bill, which is what we had in the last sitting week. Because of that, we actually got some really important information from the Minister. One of the things that we have discussed is around the labour concerns that we see in terms of the kafala system that is present in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Now, granted that UAE domestic legislation has changed over time and we have seen improvements of the kafala system, that still has concerns, particularly the way that employees are able to, essentially, hold the employees—and migrant employees, in particular—through the kafala sponsorship system, in some ways, in shackles and as hostages, unless they comply with certain requests such as overtime or additional working hours or lower pay. It is something that is a concern from an international labour rights perspective, and it’s something that we as Aotearoa New Zealand are rightfully concerned about. During the committee stage, one of the things that we did get some sort of response from the Minister—which is more than what we got during the scrutiny of the agreement—is that we do look at the way that we import some of those goods coming from UAE that do need to fulfil certain requirements of our domestic legislation here in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Now, this is a milestone in terms of the way we are able to get information or have this sort of back and forth with the Minister. But, again, that is on the basis that the bill is introduced here in the House well after an agreement has been signed, thus highlighting the problematic process we have with the way we look at international treaties. That is one of the reasons why we, as the Green Party, cannot support this bill in the way that it is structured, and also the agreement in the way that it is structured, because it fundamentally goes against the rule of law and the values that we hold here as New Zealanders.

Now, in terms of the bill itself, and also tangentially when we’re looking at the agreement, one of the other things that has been highlighted—and to say that the Green Party does support trade; we do care about trade. Trade, in fact, is one of the oldest professions in the world. In fact, when we’re looking at things around freedom of expression, that comes from the original Greek concept of isēgoria agora, the freedom to debate in the marketplace, which are some of the original trade institutions that you see in the ancient world.

We do absolutely think that trade is fundamental to our country and the way that it interacts on a global stage. The Green Party has supported the NZ-EU FTA because of the fact that we look to the EU to also improve our own ability to uphold things like indigenous rights, to uphold things like data protection, to uphold privacy, to uphold sustainability, to uphold climate action, to uphold environmental protection and workers’ rights. That is something that we do see being reflected in the NZ-EU FTA.

However, when we are looking at this—and, yes, I understand the motivation of us having the starting point of an agreement with a Gulf Cooperation Council country. It is important in terms of opening that particular pathway. But at the same time, it also comes down to what are we compromising on in terms of our own values as a country by this particular agreement.

Again, the Minister has mentioned that this is something that we managed to negotiate in four months. Fast doesn’t necessarily mean good. That applies to half the bills that the Government has introduced this term. What it also highlights is what is missing as part of that potential negotiation, and what are we compromising.

Going back to this bill, when we’re looking at, for example, increasing the threshold of $100 million to $200 million of the monetary threshold above which consent is a requirement and any form of consent is required from LINZ, or Land Information New Zealand, as a requirement of the Overseas Investment Act, it was something that was discussed during the committee stages: how would we be able to hold a particular country and how would we be able to scrutinise this more publicly if one of the parties does indeed violate this agreement?

So there are definitely issues with this particular bill and with the agreement on the whole. In its current form, the Green Party cannot, in good conscience, support the bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of ACT to support the United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill. We are actually really excited to see this bill is going through the third reading today, because we really want to see that this agreement is ratified as soon as possible so that New Zealanders can avail the opportunities that are going to become available because of this agreement.

I’m not surprised to see the Green Party is not supporting this bill, because the Green Party only knows how to spend money. They don’t know how to bring the revenue into our country. It’s very clear from that speech that, yes, on one side they’re saying that trade is good, but they don’t know how trade works—they don’t know how trade agreements work. They don’t know how we have to work in this global market to make sure that New Zealanders are getting the opportunities that they deserve. It’s true with these kinds of trade agreements that employees will be able to earn more, businesses will be able to expand. It’s not because of those kinds of speeches that the Green Party member was making, standing here. Those kinds of speeches are not going to help people earn more.

We are really focused on making sure that we are bringing opportunities for businesses. Yes, the trade with the United Arab Emirates is great, but we want to enhance that trade, we want to expand that trade. This agreement is going to make sure that both sides are able to benefit from this. On this side—yes, of course, we have diverse communities living here in New Zealand, coming from so many different parts of the world, and people here will be able to enjoy the products coming from that part of the world, and, of course, our products are quite highly valued in that part of the world. They will be able to enjoy more and more of our products.

This agreement actually shows that both sides are willing to come together to showcase that we are collaborative, to grow our economy, to diversify our markets, and to support our people. That’s why we are really excited to see that this bill is going through the third reading. I want to finish by commending the Minister for Trade and Investment for getting this agreement done in just four months. It was signed at the start of this year and now it’s going through the third reading. The ACT Party is really excited to support this bill and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Thanks, Madam Speaker. New Zealand First wholeheartedly support the United Arab Emirates free-trade deal. It is a very high-quality deal and we absolutely need deals of this type to build our economic resilience. Of course, it’s extremely good news particularly for our primary sector, for rural New Zealand, as we open up yet more markets and take some of those tariff barriers down.

What a remarkable achievement from Minister McClay, probably started—it wasn’t very long, was it? It was a fastest ever trade deal, and Vangelis Vitalis and the team at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) that managed to get this over the line in short time—what a remarkable achievement in this global, geopolitical environment.

I just can’t help but comment on the Green Party position. Look, is there no ivory tower high enough for them? Do you think that the farmers, the exporters, the foresters give a rat’s arse about Greek philosophy?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Order! Just keep it seemly, please, Mr Patterson.

Hon MARK PATTERSON: Sorry—

Jenny Marcroft: Derrière.

Hon MARK PATTERSON: Rat’s derrière, Madam Speaker. But do they give a toss about what Greek philosophy might have said about trade? What they want is access to markets, they want a fair return on their product, they want to be able to create jobs, and that’s certainly where—

Joseph Mooney: Shameful!

Hon MARK PATTERSON: It is, actually, quite shameful. I mean, I don’t think you can take them seriously as a political party when, essentially, a gift horse is being looked in the mouth here, at this time of incredible geopolitical, economic uncertainty, particularly around issues of trade. We’ve done a phenomenal job in the last wee while, and some of that goes back to the last Government in terms of the EU, the UK trade deal; we’ve got the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and are also, of course, making great progress—by all accounts—with India, which is a very, very big deal for us as well.

We do note, within the agreement, there is a lift of threshold for the investment into New Zealand for the United Arab Emirates and investors from there, from $100 million to $200 million. That seems prudent. There is still the national strategic assets test through the Official Information Act as well, so that’s a protection there for New Zealand. That’s something that New Zealand First always looks for in these agreements but, in actuality, this is a really good deal. It’s been brought through fast.

We congratulate Minister McClay again on another high-value, high-quality trade agreement coming in. To Vangelis Vitalis and his team at MFAT, well done. This is a great deal, and New Zealand First supports it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Grant McCallum: Here we go.

Celia Wade-Brown: Now you’ll be enlightened.

STEVE ABEL: Well, perhaps. The Green Party has determined that we won’t be supporting this bill, and we have outlined some reasons in our differing view. One thing that I want to speak to is the concern raised by Ngā Toki Whakarururanga in their submission on the “non-paper” that was presented in the process of expressing what the nature of indigenous principles are in our country through Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and the fact that the Crown provided this to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and it purported to explain Te Tiriti o Waitangi and justified various negotiating proposals, but it seriously misrepresented the meaning of that agreement as the foundation of our country. It failed to acknowledge the nature of the relationship that Māori hold and the rightly held view that Māori possess the right to self-determination, the continued exercise of rangatiratanga, and sovereign authority over whenua, kāinga, and all taonga.

The fundamental lack of clear communication on tino rangatiratanga meant that both chapter 13 and chapter 15 lack genuine accountability and protection for mātauranga Māori and traditional cultural expression. Article 13.35, for example, uses terms such as “endeavour” and “may” that give little confidence that such provisions would be implemented.

We also continue to be concerned with the contribution of the UAE to the Sudanese civil war. When asked, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade could not accurately articulate how this Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement could hold both parties accountable for serious human rights in armed conflicts. It should not surprise us, in the context of that particular question, what we see in the Israel-Gaza conflict, as expressed by this Government, is the implication of there being an equality of position held by the two parties to that conflict, when in fact one is inordinately more powerful than the other and has the ability to cause huge harm. These are things that are important to us in terms of our fundamental values as a country.

I just want to pick up on some of the points that have been made by other speakers. We are a country that depends on exports. We are a country where most of its agricultural production is for the purpose of export and we rely on a principle that that surplus of production that we manufacture—in the case of the dairy industry, 95 percent of what is produced is a surplus to what is needed domestically—is produced for the purpose of exporting and earning money.

Now, we have a fundamental problem with the consequences of that vast surplus in so far as the costs of that surplus on our domestic wellbeing and our domestic natural resources, in particular, is not borne by the industries that impact them. So, for example, the well-documented impact on fresh water, for example, and on the climate, on soil compaction, on groundwater contamination—these are things that are consequences of a surplus that we produce for export to make money for private profit.

Grant McCallum: To pay tax to support the services you need.

STEVE ABEL: Those exporters do pay tax, but that is not their sole purpose. In the case of the dairy industry—[Interruption] Yeah, well, I mean, I’m glad to hear the Government side advocating for more taxes on the dairy industry. If we can have a sensible conversation about this, we need to consider the context in which our only objective is to forever expand the volume of production when I think that if we actually had a serious conversation about it, we would recognise that value is where it’s at.

Hon Mark Patterson: And we can tell you: trade deals.

STEVE ABEL: We won’t be voting for this particular one. Thank you very much.

Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. After that brief diversion to another planet, I’m happy to bring the debate back to reality here in the third reading on the United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill.

Now, economic growth is critical for the success of New Zealand. This Government is firmly focused on growing prosperity for our country, because without that we can’t deliver better public services: health, education, law and order—all those things that the other side purport to advocate for. Yet here is a great opportunity to help grow the revenue of this country to deliver for New Zealanders, and they oppose it—that party opposes it, I should say. I do want to acknowledge support from the Labour Party, from other parties in this House, and I am looking forward to this soon passing with near unanimity, because, indeed, it is a great deal.

We’ve heard it’s passed in record time. We’ve heard it will see 98.5 percent of tariffs removed on day one of entry into force, rising to 99 percent after three years. That is a great outcome for New Zealand exporters and that is a great outcome for the United Arab Emirates as well.

We are open for business. We are looking for trade opportunities. This is a fantastic one. It will build the relationship between our countries, help New Zealand become more prosperous, and secure that economic growth that is vital for our success.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of the United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill. Like colleagues before me, I’d like to congratulate the Minister for Trade and Investment for his very quick work in terms of getting to an agreement, but also to just note the work of my colleague in his role as Minister of Trade, when he began some of these conversations as well. So this really is a piece of legislation that has come about through the fruition of cross-party work, in my view, as often trade relationships and trade agreements should.

I want to comment first on the reference that some in the House have made to the unusual times we’re facing in the world at the moment in relation to trade. In many ways, our exporters have faced a net or a web of tariffs, and tariffs of different kinds. I do worry that that net is growing in many ways, which makes this work extremely important. I want to cover some of the different types of tariffs that do apply to our exporters against many exports that they send around the world. The first is specific. These are tariffs that are not imposed on the basis of value; they’re actually imposed on the basis of units or weight. There are also compound tariffs which are based on the value plus weight or item, so it could include one apple for X amount of tariff. There are ad valorem, or “according to value”, tariffs, and those are imposed purely on the basis of value. You can imagine more high-end goods in this category that may have a low weight amount but do have a high item price. Then there are tariff-rate quotas, which means that there are tariffs up to a certain amount and then no longer any tariffs. So you can see that there’s quite a web of tariffs that exist.

I think my concern is really what we’re seeing in terms of some of the US’s actions, where we’ve now had the introduction of secondary tariffs, or at least the threat of the imposition of secondary tariffs, where the US have said that if Russia doesn’t comply with certain requests from it, then third-party countries, as well as Russia, could be subject to tariffs if those third-party countries do not impose sanctions or restrictions on a country like Russia. We’re moving into quite an unusual space, in my view, in that tariffs are being used more often. They are being used as a tool of sanction, which means that growing our relationships and looking at trade deals, such as this, with other countries becomes extremely important.

I’ve covered, in previous speeches, some of the benefits of this agreement, and certainly others have, in terms of the massive, massive benefit to some of our exporters, including dairy—$707 million, where tariffs will be eliminated on entry into force of this deal—industrial products, horticulture, red meat, all in the multiple millions of dollars. But I referenced in my second reading speech that I was quite impressed with the agreement that was made in relation to wine, which wasn’t large in scale—it’s about $7 million—but, given the current tariff rate is 50 percent and the reduction of that will be 10 percent on entry into force of the agreement, it’s quite a significant change for the industry. The other thing I was impressed with in terms of that part of the negotiation is that the team negotiating managed to futureproof that savings or that benefit to New Zealand. If the United Arab Emirates (UAE) do negotiate a better term with another party, then New Zealand will benefit from a reduction in our tariffs as well, which I thought was quite a novel and futureproofing way to negotiate trade agreements, as well.

I think that a lot of people would assume that the big product coming out of the UAE is oil, but, in fact, now the non-oil sector accounts for almost 75 percent of the UAE’s GDP. We’ve seen a real shift in terms of their economy, from a labour-intensive economy to one that’s driven by knowledge, tech, and skilled labour. Perhaps later, if I have time, I can speak to some of the provisions around digital trade but also copyright protections, which I think are quite interesting in terms of looking to the future of the workforce and the future of trade.

I want to speak about the committee stage of the bill, and I really did appreciate the contributions of the Ministers who were in the chair at various stages, in response to my questions. I do still have questions, and I acknowledge one of the Ministers did say they would get me some responses to those questions. I just want to outline them again briefly.

The first is in relation to the discretion that the Minister holds in terms of setting the threshold for exemption of approval. The question I asked was whether this should be set in statute as opposed to regulation. Currently, it’s set in regulation, but also the Minister can reduce that threshold, should he wish to do so. The Minister’s response was that it would be very rare for the Minister just to reduce that on their own because, essentially, that could put us in breach of the primary agreement, which I absolutely accept. I do then just wonder why we wouldn’t put that provision in primary legislation as opposed to putting it in secondary legislation.

I do also have a question about Land Information New Zealand being able to make a determination about whether multiple payments that put us above the threshold would count as one payment or not. Currently, that’s not specified for in statute or in regulation, so it looks like it’s being treated as a systems issue. Again, just in terms of the confidence of the House, I wonder whether it’s appropriate to at least have that provision in regulation or, if not, in legislation.

I understand that there’s likely to be a review of these provisions and how they’re being monitored and policed, how decision making is occurring. That’s one point where I would be interested in the Minister’s future reckons in terms of whether that’s being managed well or whether that should be moved to—well, whether there’s a risk of abuse in terms of individuals parcelling up payments to get themselves to the 200 threshold and that being treated as 200, as opposed to sitting under.

There were a few definition issues I sought a response from the Minister in regards to. One was the reference to business activity, which, in my view, is actually quite central to how you understand what’s caught by investors or not. I couldn’t locate the definition of that within the primary legislation or the secondary legislation, so I’m looking forward to receiving a response in relation to that as well.

The last one was self-certification category. The provisions for self-certification are quite broad at present. I can very much understand the rationale for that. The intention is to make it as easy as possible for the agreement to be given effect to, rather than clogging up administrative processes. However, the question is, really, how that will be policed, especially with regards to goods that are exported but where we have sourced—or New Zealand companies have sourced—products that are an aggregation of raw materials, if you like, from other countries, and to what extent that will be permissible under the agreement.

I know that we’ve talked a little bit about human rights provisions as well. I share the view of my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford, who spoke really well on this at the second reading, that we cannot restrict who we trade with purely on the basis of human rights issues. I do think this agreement provides us with a doorway to have conversations about things like human rights, as well. The agreement isn’t silent on those provisions; there are chapters which reference women’s engagement, labour rights, environmental protections as well. I do think there’s an obligation on us, as New Zealand, to do service to those provisions and ensure that we’re engaging with conversations and our counterparts about our cultural values here in New Zealand and what those provisions mean to us. So, again, it’s my pleasure to commend this bill, on its third reading, to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it’s wonderful to rise and take a call on this, the final reading of the very well spoken about United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill. This has been through our Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and I think we’ve done a lot of scrutiny on it, trying to work through all of the issues, which have been well aired. I want to commend the Minister for his work, and the previous Minister, Damien O’Connor, for his initiation of some of the conversations. I feel like it’s a great day for New Zealand. Trade is good. Diversity of trade in the global context is even better. I commend the bill to the House.

This is a split call.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai, otirā tēnā koutou katoa. Kua roa nei te wā nā reira nōku te hōnore ki te tū ki te whakaae i tēnei pire.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker, indeed greetings to you all. It’s been a long time, so it is my honour to stand in support of this bill.]

Today, I rise in support of the United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill. Who wouldn’t support such a catchy name? Hoi anō e te whānau, for those who don’t know, I hold the Māori economy portfolio for the Labour Party. As we know, Māori have a long, proud history of trading, so it is with pleasure that I support, in good faith, what we believe will open up free and fair trade for Aotearoa whānui and, of course—speaking with my portfolio hat on—the Māori economy. I also want to acknowledge the Minister and of course my colleague for the work done to get the bill to this place.

Now, we all know that at the moment, the Māori economy has experienced quite astronomical growth and it’s not looking to slow down. This is something I think can provide not only global trade opportunities for Māori businesses but also my true desire is that it’ll filter right down to the papa kāinga, and people beyond the marae will experience wealth. It’s really exciting to acknowledge, you know, that the Māori economy asset base has grown by 83 percent to over $126 billion. We’ve got 46 percent of Māori in high-skilled employment these days, and the entrepreneurial growth is on the rise. This is an opportunity to grow not only individuals—whānau, hapū, and iwi wealth—but of course to support the overall Aotearoa economy.

Joseph Mooney: Good speech.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Thank you—glad you approve.

Over the years, as we know, more iwi have settled, and Māori are diversifying their portfolios, so I just want to do a quick mihi to some of the iwi holdings that I’ve visited recently, the likes of Tū Mai Rā, Tātou Tātou, Ngāti Pahauwera. There are many, and I look forward to not only, as I said, the bottom-line growth but the exciting innovations that no doubt will come as a result of this opportunity.

I also think this is a great opportunity for us to start thinking about land development. We’re going to have to do some work across the House. I hope we will get support in making it easier to utilise whenua Māori.

On the note of innovation, I must acknowledge Te Pā o Rākaihautū School, who won the 2025 Zayed Sustainability Prize using indigenous biocultural technology to address global challenges like climate change, food insecurity, and land degradation. This bill, I hope, will continue to support innovation not only from iwi, hapū, and whānau but from our rangatahi.

I want to take time to acknowledge Nanaia Mahuta, who was the first wahine to serve as the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Nanaia was an enduring advocate for indigenous economic development. She understood that the underlying values that drive a Māori economy will only benefit Aotearoa whānui. In recent travels for parliamentary exchanges, to see the behaviour of our members around the world when they hear of the growth of the Māori economy is one of excitement. The world is ready to do business from a kaupapa Māori view. Why? Because it’s about kaitiakitanga and it’s about intergenerational planning. Everyone wants business that’s going to endure for generations, and that’s what I hope this bill will encourage.

Of course, with that comes kia tūpato, or a concern that we must protect, that I think we must commit to protecting as a Parliament, and those are issues around Māori intellectual property and ensuring that the taonga that will be taken to the world and will benefit our economy are protected by us all, so that they’re not abused and so that the concepts maintain their integrity.

He whakakapi, I do believe that Māori and international trade and agreements will be winning factors for New Zealand, for Aotearoa whānui. Once again, I’m really excited for the opportunities this provides for entrepreneurs, for whānau, hapū, iwi, and individuals, and, on behalf of the Labour Party, I commend this bill to the House.

We are just so focused, on this side of the House, on reducing the cost of living, and our strategy, in part, is all about going for growth. We want to double the value of our exports over this 10-year period, and we’ve seen great progress with the EU free-trade agreement, and now here we are with this record-breaking trade agreement that has been delivered in only around four months. It is a fantastic effort. I want to commend the team from Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade—not just those that travel, those that work at home, those that are permanently based over here. It is a remarkable achievement. It will deliver more money into Kiwi households, more money for nurses and doctors and teachers. Higher incomes—that’s what we believe in. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Labour Party to speak in favour of the United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill. As a speaker before me commented, it just rolls off the tongue, that one!

Firstly, I do have to give my congratulations to the Minister, the Hon Todd McClay. Good job. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade negotiators, who no doubt worked tirelessly on this, will no doubt be pleased to see their hard work has come to fruition. But I also want to acknowledge, as a number of speakers across the House have also acknowledged this evening, the work that the Hon Damien O’Connor did when he was our trade Minister—Labour’s trade Minister—to build towards this agreement, when he led a trade delegation to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in 2023.

Now, studious members on the other side of the House will be well aware of all of the work that the previous Labour Government did to progress historic free-trade agreements, like the agreement with the European Union, the UK, and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. It’s good to see that the lessons have been learnt and our strong legacy in that space. We cut the path, and that work can be continued.

Now, it’s worth, I think, as one of the last speeches at the third reading of this bill, to just recap in bullet points over some of what this bill does. It eliminates the tariffs on the majority of export goods, gives New Zealand service exporters greater access to the UAE, and facilitates investment between both countries. The New Zealand - United Arab Emirates Bilateral Investment Treaty associated with this bill enters into force when this bill is ratified and will provide a rules-based framework for investors. It will also eliminate tariffs and ensure duty-free status on 98.5 percent of exported goods, rising to 99 percent in three years.

The Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) provides sector-specific advantages, particularly for meat, dairy, and horticulture, which have previously faced barriers in the United Arab Emirates. After saying it rolls off the tongue, all of a sudden, it doesn’t! The deal, also worth noting, removes a 5 percent tariff on New Zealand honey. Of course, I’m partial, as a New Zealander, but we do have the best honey in the world.

Now, this is a third reading debate, so it looks like I have at least 10 minutes of content to cover in here. One of the things that I wanted to acknowledge was, unlike some other bills that have passed through the House in this term of Government, this bill was able to enjoy a select committee process, and that’s very important for the good passage of legislative change and new legislation. There were a number of submissions: 25 submissions from groups and individuals, and two submitters gave oral submissions to the select committee. There were a number of concerns that were raised at that select committee around the levels of investment screening, around the threshold shift from $100 million to $200 million; concerns raised about whether there would be public transparency or enough public transparency. A number of submitters also sought out, as is often the case, policy changes that aren’t actually within the scope of the bill that the select committee is considering at the time. The select committee process didn’t recommend any amendments to the bill, and, as would be suggested by the Labour Party’s ongoing support, we did not provide a different view to the bill.

Another thing that I think is very important to mention here, which my colleagues have referred to also, is the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in this agreement, because the CEPA, like New Zealand’s other trade agreements, makes extensive reference to the New Zealand Government’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations and protects the Treaty’s place at the core of our constitution and the place of Māori as tangata whenua in New Zealand. I’m not sure how Todd McClay snuck that one past David Seymour. If I’m honest, I’m sure nothing infuriates him more than the fact that we can be simultaneously a prosperous country, trading with the world, and recognise the unique and important place the Treaty of Waitangi and our indigenous people in our trade agreements, despite his efforts.

Earlier in the speeches this evening, at this third reading, my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford mentioned the Trump tariffs. In an environment where some States are shying away from multilateral free trade, it is really encouraging to see New Zealand continue to negotiate and make gains in new markets. When some States have decided to cut off free trade and raise tariffs, New Zealand is prioritising its trade access and its ability to play a role in a global economy. This agreement eliminates tariffs on 99 percent of goods exported to the United Arab Emirates, which means more money flowing into New Zealand through our outstanding exporters. As a number of speakers have talked about in speeches tonight, one in four people in our workforce are involved in trade. Those jobs are high-value jobs. They are high skilled, and they pay well, and more jobs like that would be good.

Another speaker, my colleague Cushla Tangaere-Manuel, mentioned the Māori economy and the strength of the Māori economy, which has a really proud and long history of trade going back centuries, and a focus needing to be on sustainability, on climate change, and on innovation, and how many leaders we have in our Māori economy working in those spaces. How important it is, with trade agreements like this, and with any work and study that we support in that space, that we protect the taonga and the intellectual property, the IP, that goes into that work and that comes out of it. But also, in protecting that, we make sure that there is a flow back the other way, that the rewards come back to the papa kāinga, back to the people who have done that work, who have led that work in those places.

I want to finish by also particularly highlighting the chapter in the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement relating to digital trade, because New Zealand’s digital and technology sector is a rapidly growing area that produces serious gains for Aotearoa New Zealand. As the Labour spokesperson for our creative economy, what I want to see is that we can make it easier for New Zealand’s digital exporters to access new markets, and agreements like this do make that possible. We know that New Zealand’s meat and dairy industry will benefit significantly from this agreement, but it is worth highlighting also that the benefit will not only be felt there but all the way across our economy.

We know that this agreement will open up billions of dollars in trade for New Zealand, so we like to see increased representation. It would be good, as far as representation and in future trade delegations, to really make sure that that creative economy, that our digital pioneers and innovators, are well represented in those delegations that travel overseas. I know the Prime Minister has got himself into trouble recently over some of the comments he makes about those delegations and those groups, but really a strong focus on our digital economy and on leaders in that space will serve us very well for future trade.

I really want to just finish this speech tonight by acknowledging the Hon Damien O’Connor, our trade Minister, for getting this process started; the current Minister, for his fast work, and in the hope that he might have some tips for Minister Goldsmith, who has promised immediate action but so far—in the media sector and media space—hasn’t been able to deliver anything meaningful. If the Minister for Trade could pass on some tips about how to get things done in four months, that would be greatly appreciated by a media sector that currently has a Minister that is not doing anything for them.

But most of all, I want to thank the staff who carried this agreement through, who saw it come to fruition as quickly as it did. We know the huge amount of work that would have taken. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to support the United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill, because the United Arab Emirates trade deal is so important for strengthening our economy, creating jobs and opportunity across New Zealand—and especially in my region, Hawke’s Bay, the fruit bowl of New Zealand, where we produce the best fruit in the world. We need markets to send that fruit to, markets where they will pay a premium for our fruit and help us grow our businesses here in New Zealand, and put more confidence back into our horticulture sector, our dairy sector, and our red meat sector. This is good for exporters, it’s good for trade, it’s good for New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

Members, it is now time for us to suspend for the dinner break. We will see you back here at 7.30.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.