United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 13 to 21, “Amendments to Customs and Excise Act 2018, Tariff, and Customs and Excise Regulations 1996”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a small question for the Minister in the chair regarding certificates of origin, which is clause 14. Now, under the Customs and Excise Act 2018, section 435 is around certificates of origin from the perspective that the origin is from Aotearoa New Zealand. I wanted to check with the Minister what some of the conditions and precautions or discussions are that have taken place. In terms of certificates of origin, it is from New Zealand, but when we are introducing it to particularly, let’s say, the United Arab Emirates as a Gulf Cooperation Council country, and also considering there are rules around halal etc., what other consideration has been taken in terms of the certification being able to fulfil the requirements of those additional areas?

I mean, clause 14 of this agreement primarily deals with the powers that the chief executive of the New Zealand Customs Service has to, in effect, certify that goods originate in New Zealand. The detail question that the member is asking about goes into operational matters generally between a supplier to supplier type agreement. This clause only deals with the certification around where the goods originate for the purpose of the free-trade agreement. It also allows the authorisation certification body to be designated in respect of the United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. That’s what clause 14 covers.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just had a few other questions regarding certification because, under the agreement, the categories are fairly broad. As the Minister will know, firstly it can be goods that are wholly obtained or produced entirely in the territory of the party, but it can also be those that are produced entirely in the territory of the party, using non-originating materials. These rules are really established to indicate a level of production that needs to be taken. There’s a big question about the nature of non-originating materials and to what extent they’re able to be aggregated products themselves, and whether there are rules or policies we have in that regard or, again, whether that’s a decision made on a case by case basis?

I also had a question around how self-certification works, and whether it is akin to the self-certification that happens in relation to the Australian certification process, and how dispute resolution will be handled in the UAE if there’s a challenge to a New Zealand certificate of origin, as well. I looked somewhere—I can’t point specifically to it, unfortunately, but I did see that there was an agreement that after the agreement comes into force, that then the UAE would look at offering New Zealand a similar certification process. I’m just asking the Minister whether there is an update on whether that will happen, or if there’s an indication that that will happen? I understand there’s quite a substantial period of time during which it could happen—something like five years—that allows for a review of the certification process.

Also, there is a provision in the national interest analysis that references tolerance. On my read, it looks like at least 15 percent of the agreement could allow a tolerance arrangement. I just wasn’t sure whether that means that there isn’t certification—or just wanting an explanation of the tolerance principle, as well as the “Cumulation of inputs” principle as well, which allows the two parties to cumulate materials during a production process. Questions about how that impacts the certification process: whether that would count under New Zealand’s certification process, whether that would count under the UAE’s, or whether that’s a standalone grouping that therefore wouldn’t need certification? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. While the Minister considers my colleague Vanushi Walters’ question, I have a question around the Schedule—this is new Part 14 inserted into Schedule 1AA of Overseas Investment Regulations 2005. And this ties into clause—oh, sorry, my apologies. That ties into Part 1. So I—

Hon Simon Watts: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry, the member’s got the call.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: No, please continue. That was Part 1.

I’ll help the member Lawrence Xu-Nan while he works out what part we’re on.

Just in answer to Vanushi Walters’ questions, the key point to note is that the certification points under clause 14 are consistent and similar to other certification clauses with other jurisdictions, so the question in regards to how they compare to Australia, for example—they are consistent with other agreements.

Similarly, the member asked in regards to tolerances and other cumulative detail points. Again, the points of detail in regards to the certification aspects are generally consistent with the way in which other agreements are operated.

The question around, well, there’s provision for a review—will we do a review? I haven’t got my crystal ball on my desk here at the moment, but provisions are there. Those decisions have not been made.

I move, That debate on this question now close.