WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1  
22 September 2015  
(15-4871)  Page: 1/125  
Trade Policy Review Body 
29 June and 1 July 2015 Original: English/Spanish  
anglais/espagnol  
inglés/español  
 
  TRADE POLICY REVIEW 
NEW ZEALAND  
MINUTES OF THE MEETING 
Addendum 
Chairperson: H.E. Mr. Atanas Paparizov (Bulgaria) 
This document contains the advance written questions and additional questions by WTO 
Members, and replies provided by New Zealand.1 
 
 
Organe d'examen des politiques commerciales 
29 juin et 1 juillet 2015 
EXAMEN DES POLITIQUES COMMERCIALES 
NOUVELLE -ZÉLANDE  
COMPTE RENDU DE LA RÉUNION 
Addendum 
Président: S.E. M. Atanas Paparizov (Bulgarie) 
Le présent document contient les questions écrites communiquées à l'avance par les 
Membres de l'OMC, leurs questions additionnelles, et les réponses fournies par Nouvelle-Zélande.1 
 
 Órgano de Examen de las Políticas Comerciales 
29 de junio y 1 de julio de 2015 
EXAMEN DE LAS POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES 
N
UEVA ZELANDIA  
ACTA DE LA REUNIÓN 
Addendum 
Presidente: Excmo. Sr. Atanas Paparizov (Bulgaria) 
En el presente documento figuran las preguntas presentadas anticipadamente por escrito y 
las preguntas adicionales de los Miembros de la OMC, así como las respuestas facilitadas por Nueva Zelandia.
1 
                                               
1 In English and Spanish only./En  anglais et espagnol seulement./En inglés y español solamente. WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 2 - 
 
  CONTENTS 
 
CANADA ........................................................................................................................ ... 3 
MALAYSIA ...................................................................................................................... .. 9 
AUSTRALIA .................................................................................................................... 10 
HONG KONG, CHINA ....................................................................................................... 12  
CHINA ......................................................................................................................... ... 18 
SWITZERL AND ............................................................................................................... 28  
INDIA ......................................................................................................................... ... 33 
CHINESE TAIPEI ............................................................................................................ 42  
MEXICO .......................................................................................................................... 56  
COLOMBIA ..................................................................................................................... 61 
THE EUROPEAN UNION .................................................................................................. 74  
SINGAPORE .................................................................................................................... 84  
JAPAN ......................................................................................................................... ... 87 
UNITED STATES ............................................................................................................. 89  
BRAZIL ........................................................................................................................... 95  
CHILE ......................................................................................................................... .... 99 
COSTA RICA ................................................................................................................. 10 2 
TURKEY ........................................................................................................................  104 
PERU .......................................................................................................................... .. 113 
REPUBLIC OF KOREA .................................................................................................... 119  
THAILAND .................................................................................................................... 1 22 
 
 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 3 - 
 
  CANADA 
Government Report (G316) 
 
P a r t  2 .  K E Y  D E V E L O P M E N T S  I N  E C O N O M I C  P O L I C Y ;  C u r r e n t  E c o n o m i c  P r i o r i t i e s :  
paragraph 2.1, page 3: 
 It is noted that consumer price inflation (CPI) remains modest in 2014. 
 
1. Could New Zealand explain whether the changes in prices of pharmaceuticals are above or 
below the overall inflation level of the country, and whether any steps are taken to regulate the change in prices of pharmaceuticals?  
 
New Zealand does not regulate pharmaceutical prices. The government does not routinely collect data on the relationship between inflation and these prices. 
 
2. Could New Zealand explain whether the wholesale and pharmacy margins of 
pharmaceuticals are regulated in NZ?  
 
New Zealand does not regulate pharmaceutical prices. The Government does not routinely collect data on the relationship between inflation and these prices.  
Part 7. BILATERAL AND REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS; (7.1) Australia New Zealand 
Closer Economic Relationship : paragraph 7.10, page 15: 
 
Australia and New Zealand continue to work closely on a range of issues to progress the SEM 
agenda. A broad range of SEM initiatives have been achieved across the following four themes: 
 
i. Reducing the impact of borders – focusing on reducing barriers to trade, travel and investment (e.g. the enactment of the 2013 CER Investment Protocol); 
 
ii. Improving the business environment – reducing barriers to trade by streamlining 
regulatory frameworks (e.g. the enactment of an updated Double Tax Agreement in 2010 – due for further review in 2015); 
 
iii. Improving regulatory effectiveness – finding ways for regulators to operate more effectively (e.g. the Trans-Tasman Court Proc eedings and Regulatory Enforcement Treaty, 
which allows the enforcement of civil judgements across the Tasman); and 
 
iv. Supporting business opportunities – facilitating connections between businesses to take advantage of openness in trans-Tasman mark ets (e.g. the annual Australia New Zealand 
Leadership Forum). 
 3. As part of the Trans-Tasman patent attorney regime, how will New Zealand transition their 
approaches to the application of privileged communications with patent and trade-mark 
agents in order to adhere to the Australian model?  
 
The Arrangement between the Government of Au stralia and the Government of New Zealand 
Relating to Trans-Tasman regulations of Patent Attorneys sets out how the Trans-Tasman patent attorney regime (the Arrangement) is to be implemented. (http://www.med.govt.nz/business/in tellectual-property/pdf-docs- library/proposal-for-trans-
tasman-regulation-of-patent-attorneys/Bilateral-arrangement-signed-March-2013.pdf ) The 
Arrangement does not cover harmonisation or alignment of the protection to be provided for 
communications between a patent attorney and his or her client.  Neither Australia nor New 
Zealand will, therefore, be making any change s to the existing protections afforded to 
communications between patent attorneys or their clients.  
New Zealand does not provide protection for comm unications between trade mark agents and their 
clients, unless the trade mark agent is also either a lawyer or registered patent attorney, and if the communication was intended to be confidential and made in the course of, and for the purpose of, WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 4 - 
 
  the person obtaining professional legal services from the legal adviser, or the legal adviser giving 
such services to the person.  4. What will be the effect on the New Zealand Intellectual Property Office and the New Zealand 
Institute of Patent Attorneys from adopting Australia's oversight mechanisms (i.e. code of 
conduct and disciplinary process)? 
 
The effect on the Intellectual Property Office of  New Zealand and New Zealand Institute of Patent 
Attorneys, Inc. is anticipated to be minimal, if any. The majority of New Zealand's patent attorneys 
are already registered to practise in Australia and, therefore, subject to Australia's existing 
oversight mechanisms. 
 
Extension of Australia's oversight mechanism to New Zealand will provide a more accessible procedure for addressing complaints about behaviou r and actions of patent attorneys, compared to 
what is currently available in New Zealand.  
 5. How will privileged communications with patent and trade-mark agents apply to third parties 
both nationally and at the international level? 
 Section 54 of the Evidence Act 2006 (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/ 0069/latest/DLM393659.html?search=ta_act_E_a
c%40ainf%40anif_an%40bn%40rn_25_a&p=2 ) provides privilege for communications between 
patent attorneys and their clients where the comm unication is intended to be confidential and 
made in the course of, and for the purpose of, the client obtaining professional legal services from 
the patent attorney or the patent attorney giving such services to the client. Privilege applies to 
communications in respect of both local patent attorneys and overseas patent attorneys whose functions correspond to those a New Zealand registered patent attorney. 
 
Third parties are not, therefore, able to use New Zealand's court procedures to gain access to privileged communications between a patent attorney and his or her client.  
As noted above, privilege is not conferred on a client for their communications with their trade 
mark agent unless the trade mark agent is also a lawyer or registered patent attorney.  
Secretariat Report (S316) 
 
SUMMARY: paragraph 16, page 7:  
 
It is noted that government procurement amounted to 20% of GDP in 2012.  6. Canada would like to know what percentage of purchases of pharmaceuticals in New Zealand 
is conducted by government entities (i.e. central as well as sub-central government 
entities).  
 
The government does not collect detailed data on the private market, which companies consider to 
be commercially sensitive. As would be expected in a publicly-funded health system, public expenditure does make up the most significant proportion of the total purchases of 
pharmaceuticals in New Zealand. In terms of the total public spend, which is around NZ$1 billion 
per annum, hospitals account for about 25 per cent, other government agencies around 5 per cent 
and pharmaceuticals funded in the community via PHARMAC account for the rest.  
Part 3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE; Overview: paragraph 3.6, 
page 39:  
It is noted that recent independent studies have found low levels of competition in some 
industries.  
7. Could New Zealand provide an assessment of the level of competition in the 
pharmaceutical sector, particularly with respect to its impact on consumer choice between various therapeutic alternatives? 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 5 - 
 
  The pharmaceutical sector in New Zealand is compet itive. There are three basic components to it – 
the private direct to consumer market for both prescribed and over the counter pharmaceuticals, PHARMAC's management of both pharmaceuticals pr ocured by public hospitals and the listing and 
reimbursement of community medicines and pr ocurement by other government agencies 
(including the Defence Force, Accident Compensa tion Corporation (ACC), Corrections Department 
and Work and Income (WINZ)). All are subject to competitive principles and New Zealand's 
generic competition legislation (the Commerce Act 1986) applies to the Crown and to all Crown 
corporations to the extent they engage in trade. There are regulatory requirements to 
demonstrate safety, efficacy and quality, but they  follow international standards and norms. New 
Zealand is subject to the constraints of any small market, in that pharmaceutical companies may choose not to bring products to market for commercial reasons, and this may limit the range of 
products available to consumers. However, it appe ars that a broad range of products are available 
on the private market and we do not see signif icant delays in those products coming to New 
Zealand from other markets. There is a liberal advertising environment that allows for direct to 
consumer advertising. New Zealand also has a small but growing domestic industry. 
Complementary medicines are largely unregulated at present, but a regulatory regime is planned for the future.  
 
In relation to the public market, promoting competition is the main way that PHARMAC influences price and consequently improves the amount of pharmaceuticals the New Zealand government can subsidise. Competition enables lower consumer prices and better quality goods and services. 
Promoting competition is particularly important in the New Zealand market, because New Zealand 
represents only approximately 0.1% of the global pharmaceutical market. 
 
PHARMAC aims to ensure that at least one medicine is fully subsidised in each therapeutic 
subgroup. This means that if there is a manufacturer's surcharge on a reference priced product or if it is not subsidised at all, then the consumer can choose to move to a fully subsidised option. In 
situations where a fully subsidised pharmaceutical is not clinically appropriate for a consumer, their 
clinician can apply to PHARMAC's Named Patient Pharmaceutical Assessment (NPPA) scheme to have funding considered for that particular individual.  
Part 3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY  MEASURE; Competition policy: paragraph 
3.137, page 60:  
It is noted that the Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC) is responsible for determining 
whether drug products dispensed by community and hospital pharmacies are subsidized.   
8. Could New Zealand explain whether the pric ing and reimbursement negotiations between 
PHARMAC and pharmaceutical manufacturers include confidential price-volume agreements? 
 
Yes. Contracts with pharmaceutical companies sometimes include a rebate on the cost of the 
medicine. Rebates are paid by the pharmaceutical company back to District Health Boards (DHBs) 
via PHARMAC. Rebates mean the price published in the Pharmaceutical Schedule can be higher 
than the actual net price paid by DHBs. Accepting a rebate arrangement means that DHBs can 
subsidise a pharmaceutical for an affordable cost and the supplier is able to shield its net selling price in New Zealand from exposure to international markets. 
 
9. Could New Zealand explain the policy tools used by PHARMAC to control the prices of 
subsided pharmaceuticals during their product life cycle? 
 
New Zealand operates on a willing buyer, willing seller basis, which means that PHARMAC does not 
directly control the price of pharmaceuticals through regulatory mechanisms. Promoting competition is the main way that PHARMAC influences price and consequently improves the 
amount of pharmaceuticals the New Zealand government can subsidise. Specific tools that 
PHARMAC currently utilises include the following:  
• Tendering: PHARMAC promotes competition be tween generic pharmaceutical suppliers by 
running an annual tender. Typically the winning company gets to be the sole supplier of the subsidised pharmaceutical for a fixed term, usually three years. The contract with the supplier typically includes the requirement that they secure and maintain the supply of the 
medicine, and there are contractual consequences if they run out of stock. Currently nearly WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 6 - 
 
  half of all subsidised medicines in New Zealand by volume are purchased and contracted for 
through the annual multi-product tender. 
 • Alternative commercial proposals: when PHARMAC consults publicly on the list of products 
they are intending to include in the annual tend er, suppliers are able to submit alternative 
commercial proposals (ACPs) for the supply of any of those products. PHARMAC then decides whether the ACP is a better offer than the likely outcome achieved from tendering 
the product. Suppliers may choose to submit an ACP because they want to secure a 
confidential rebate on the product, to shield the net selling price in New Zealand from international markets, or because they want to secure a multi-product agreement (sometimes known as bundling). In a multi-product agreement, suppliers typically offer 
price reductions on older medicines they produce, in return for PHARMAC agreeing to 
subsidise a new product.  
 
• Requests for Proposal (RFP): an RFP is an invitation for suppliers to submit a proposal to 
supply a specific pharmaceutical. PHARMAC uses RFPs when tendering is not appropriate, for example when special access criteria need to be met in order to get a subsidy. 
 
• Rebates: as mentioned above, PHARMAC also sometimes contracts for confidential rebates, 
which mean the price published in the Pharmaceutical Schedule is higher than the actual net price paid by DHBs. Accepting a rebate arrangement means that DHBs can subsidise a 
pharmaceutical for an affordable cost and the supplier is able to shield its net selling price in 
New Zealand from exposure to international markets. 
 
• Expenditure caps: expenditure caps are an effective way of sharing risk, and are particularly 
useful when PHARMAC knows there is uncertainty regarding the likely uptake of the product. 
If annual spending exceeds the limit agre ed between PHARMAC an d the supplier, the 
balance is refunded to District Health Boards. 
 • Reference pricing: reference pricing is where the government pays the same subsidy for 
medicines that have the same or a similar th erapeutic effect. A supplier can set its selling 
price higher than the subsidy, however, this means the medicine will be partly-subsidised 
and the patient will have to pay the difference. PHARMAC aims to have at least one fully subsidised medicine in each therapeutic subgroup. 
 
Part 3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE; 3.4 Measures Affecting Production and Trade; 3.4.5 Government Pr ocurement: paragraph 3.168, page 65; and 
paragraph 3.177, page 66: 
 The Secretariat report notes that the Parliament ary treaty examination process required for New 
Zealand to ratify the WTO GPA is underway. Canada is looking forward to the entry into force of 
the GPA for New Zealand and to our continued collaboration.  
 The report also notes that the Government Rules on Sourcing apply to procurement of goods or 
services or works for new construction works, when the maximum total estimated value of the 
procurement equals or exceeds the value threshold of NZ$10 million (excluding GST).   
10. Assuming that New Zealand's threshold for construction services under the WTO GPA will 
be the same as the threshold of most GPA Parties (5 million IMF Special Drawing Rights), does New Zealand plan to review the scope of application of the Government Rules on Sourcing so as to ensure it captures all procurements covered under New Zealand's GPA 
terms of accession? 
 In implementing the provisions of the GPA and pr ior to deposit of the Instrument of Accession, 
New Zealand is updating its government procurem ent regulatory framework so that all entities 
included in New Zealand's final offer are required to comply with the GPA commitments at the thresholds (including the construction threshold) set out in the final offer as expressed in New 
Zealand dollars. 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 7 - 
 
  Part 4. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR; 4.2 Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries; 
4.2.2 Border Measures; 4.2.2.1 Import  Measures, page 75, paragraph 4.17: 
 Footnote 7 on page 75 of the Secretariat Report states: "During the review period, the Commodity 
Levies Act was amended to allow for funding for a wheat producers' mutual insurance scheme."  
 11. Could New Zealand please explain why is there an exception to the use of producer levies 
on commercial and trading activities for wheat producers? 
 The Commodity Levies Amendment Act 1995 enable s wheat growers to choose to fund from 
producer levies disaster relief insurance, where pr emiums are paid on delivery of the product and 
only on the tonnage delivered, rather than upfron t. This ensures that all growers, regardless of 
size and seasonal production, can access disaster cover.  
To reflect the cost of production, the level of insurance cover is required to be below the lowest 
expected value of wheat grain.   
Like all commodity levy orders, growers vote ever y six years whether to continue paying the levy 
for this purpose.  Part 4. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR; 4.2 Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries; 
4.2.2 Border measures; 4.2.2.2 Export  Measures, page 75, paragraph 4.20: 
 The Secretariat report states that the kiwifrui t industry is the only sector where export 
management measures still remain. It also states that Zespri has a quasi-monopoly on exports to 
markets other than Australia. Traders wishing to export kiwifruit to markets other than Australia must get prior approval from Kiwifruit New Zealand (KNZ) in order to export the fruit. 
 
12. Could New Zealand please elaborate on the approval process which would allow traders to 
export kiwifruit without going through Zespri? 
 
Any person may apply to Kiwifruit New Zealand to enter into collaborative marketing 
arrangements with Zespri Group Limited for the purpose of increasing the overall wealth of New Zealand kiwifruit suppliers. Applications from prospective exporters are assessed and decided 
on by Kiwifruit New Zealand, an independent regu latory body established under the provisions of 
the Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999. Private trader s can export kiwifruit to Australia without prior 
permission of Kiwifruit New Zealand and independen t of collaboration with Zespri Group Limited.  
 
The criterion applied to assess each application for a collaborative marketing arrangement is how well that arrangement will contribute to the purpose of increasing the overall wealth of 
New Zealand kiwifruit suppliers. 
 
The only requirement in addition to contributi ng to an increase in the overall wealth of 
New Zealand kiwifruit suppliers is that the proposal must be a collaborative marketing 
arrangement with Zespri Group Limited. 
 13. Zespri maintains a quasi-monopoly (97%) on exports to markets other than Australia. Can 
New Zealand provide information on whether it has any plans to reform the current export 
management measures for kiwifruit? 
 There are no plans to reform the current expo rt management arrangements for Zespri Group 
Limited. Zespri Group Limited receives no distorti ng subsidies, tax advantages, special financing, 
preferential access to foreign exchange or any other support from the New Zealand government.  
 
Part 4. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR; 4.2 Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries; 
4.2.2 Border measures; 4.2.2.2 Export  Measures, page 76, paragraph 4.20: 
 
14. Could New Zealand elaborate on the rate of ap provals for all other traders wishing to Export 
kiwi fruit to markets other than Australia and elaborate on the service standards maintained by Zespri to provide these exporters with a timely response? 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 8 - 
 
  Kiwifruit New Zealand, an independent regulatory  body established under the provisions of the 
Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999, is responsible for the assessment and granting of applications 
for collaborative marketing arrangements from exporters other than Zespri Group Limited.   
Over the last five seasons, Kiwifruit New Zealand has received 149 applications for collaborative 
marketing arrangements. 138 applications have been approved, 11 applications have been declined.  
 
As soon as practicable after receiving an application, Kiwifruit New Zealand must consider it and decide whether to approve a proposed collaborative marketing arrangement.  
Kiwifruit New Zealand may, no later than 1 month after the commencement of each kiwifruit 
season, direct Zespri Group Limited to make a certain volume of kiwifruit available for collaborative marketing arrangements in that season. 
 
Part 4. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR; 4.2 Agricu lture, Forestry, and Fisheries; 4.2.4 Dairy 
industry restructuring, page 77, paragraph 4.27: 
 
The Secretariat Report states that a number of si gnificant amendments were made resulting in the 
Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk) Regulations 2012.   
15. Is New Zealand optimistic that the revised thresholds for independent processor market 
share will be met in June 2015? 
 
There is ongoing monitoring of the independent processor thresholds. The Minister for Primary 
Industries has written to all dairy processors to obtain information on the amount of milk solids collected from dairy farms over the 2014-15 season.  
 
Once that information has been obtained, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) will determine whether or not the threshold has been met. WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 9 - 
 
  MALAYSIA 
SECRETARIAT REPORT 
 Para 2.17, pg 29 
 New Zealand is committed to the multilateral trading system. The authorities are of the view that as a country dependent on international trade, New Zealand benefits from clear and transparent 
trade rules that are applicable to all Members. At the Bali Ministerial Conference in 2013, 
New Zealand reiterated that the WTO remains its main focus in its efforts to address the challenges that it faces as a trading nation, and to promote broad-based and inclusive growth. It 
has actively participated in WTO Trade Facilit ation negotiations. However, it has not yet 
ratified the Agreement.  
 
QUESTION 
 
1. Appreciate if New Zealand could share with Members on its indicative timeframe to 
accept the protocol and deposit the instrument of acceptance of the TFA with WTO. 
 
New Zealand is currently working to complete its domestic procedures to enable it to submit its instrument of acceptance of the Protocol. New Zealand expects to deposit its Notification of Acceptance of the Protocol in advance of the 10
th WTO Ministerial Conference to be held in Nairobi 
in December this year. WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 10 - 
 
  AUSTRALIA 
Report by the Secretariat - WT/TPR/S/316  
 2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
 
2.4.2 Regional trade agreements (RTAs) Page 31, Paragraph 2.25 
 
Question 1  
Since ANZCERTA delivered free trade in goods an d services between Australia and New Zealand, 
how has the concept of "closer economic relations" been taken forward? 
 
Since ANZCERTA was signed in 1983 and the Trade in Services Protocol was added in 1988, it has been progressively built on and modernised and is  now made up of over 80 treaties, protocols and 
arrangements. ANZCERTA goes well beyond achieving free trade in goods and services. In 2004, 
under the Single Economic Market (SEM), Australia and New Zealand set the goal of a seamless experience across both countries, with an agenda to continue to move the concept of "closer 
economic relations" forward.  
Key elements of "closer economic relations" between Australia and New Zealand which go beyond trade in goods and services include:  
  The 1998 Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognitio n Agreement (TTMRA) which allows anyone 
registered to practise an occupation in one country to practise in the other; 
  The 1991 Food Standards Treaty, which creates common rules for food standards; 
  The Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement, which allows citizens from the two countries to 
visit, live and work in the other country without restriction; 
  The 2013 Investment Protocol, which creates greater freedom and certainty for 
investment; 
  A business law harmonisation program, begun in 2009 and due to be completed in 2015, 
and covers insolvency law, financial reporting policy, financial services policy, competition policy, business reporting, corporations' law, personal property securities law, intellectual property law, and consumer policy. 
 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE  
3.4.5.3 Foreign Participation 
Page 66, Paragraph 3.177  
Question 2  
Why did NZ decide to change its long-standing position and negotiate accession to the GPA?  
 Factors that contributed to the decision to accede to the GPA included the increasing interest of 
New Zealand firms in participating in off-shore procurement markets, our already open, non-
discriminatory procurement regime and information obtained from our experience since 2008 as an observer to the GPA. 
 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR  
4.2.3 Domestic Support 
Page 76, Paragraph 4.23  Question 3 
Can New Zealand outline the trade and agricultural  policy reforms that have been undertaken to 
achieve an OECD Producer Support Estimate (PSE) of less than 1%, which ranks the lowest of all 
PSEs in the OECD? 
 
New Zealand's general programme of economy wide reforms leading to the development of a more efficient, higher income and resilient economy began in the 1980s. Major reforms to the 
agriculture sector were critical to the success of this programme. For the agricultural sector the 
reforms included the phasing out of price support,  tariffs, input subsidies and export assistance. 
They also included the provision of credit at market interest rates, and the introduction of cost WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 11 - 
 
  recovery for Government services. One of the primar y objectives of the agricultural reform process 
was to create an international competitive agricultural sector: the removal of subsidies to individual farmers helped to achieve this by eliminating distortions within the sector, which had previously led to inefficient allocation between land uses and consequent surplus meat and wool 
production. These reforms enabled the sector to become responsive to consumer needs.  
 These reforms, along with the reduction in tariffs and elimination of quotas in the manufacturing 
sector, have meant that New Zealand's agricultur al sector producers now pay market determined 
prices for inputs, and receive market prices for their produce. As a result the sector has had to adjust to changing market conditions, and adapt to stay competitive globally. This has led to producers operating smarter and becoming more efficient.  
 
4.5.3.1 General features and market structure Page 90, Paragraph 4.98 
 
Question 4 
According to the report New Zealand has amended its telecommunications regulatory regime to 
facilitate structural separation of its incumbent operator, Telecom. Can New Zealand please explain 
how and why this was done and the resulting effect it has on competition within the sector?  The telecommunications sector has seen considerable regulatory change in recent years. In 2011, 
Telecom (now Spark ) and Chorus demerged, each becoming a separate listed company. Prior to 
separation, Telecom was a vertically integrated company including network, wholesale and retail business units. The government's fibre investment programme, the Ultra Fast Broadband (UFB) 
Initiative, prohibited successful partners in the programme from providing retail 
telecommunications services. This was intended to facilitate open access and competition in the new network by removing incentives for wholesale operators to discriminate against competitors 
who operate at the retail level. Telecom chose to structurally separate in order to partner with the 
Government in the roll-out of the UFB network. Further details of the mechanisms for separation are outlined at: http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/technology-
communication/communications/telecom-separation/structural-separation-of-telecom  
 
New Zealand's telecommunications industry has experienced significant and unique industry change. With the structural separation of Telecom, Spark  now provides retail communications 
services on the fixed network and mobile services . Chorus operates as a wholesale-only network 
operator, managing both the copper network and the bulk of the UFB network build.  
As a result of structural separation, the challenges that many access regimes are trying to solve – 
competition with a vertically integrated operator with a strong presence in the retail market – are no longer relevant in New Zealand fixed-line markets.   
The creation of Chorus as a completely stand-alone wholesale network operator means that New 
Zealand now has a level playing field amongst retail fixed-line operators. Strong, open access and non-discrimination obligations apply to Chorus and other providers in order to promote retail 
competition on these platforms. Investment in fixed-line markets is now occurring at high levels, 
supported by the government's investment in fibre and rural broadband through the UFB and Rural Broadband Initiatives. 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 12 - 
 
  HONG KONG, CHINA 
Questions on the Secretariat Report  
 
Trade Policies and Practices by Measures 
 
Safeguard Measures  
(WT/TPR/S/316: Page 7 para 11; Page 39 para 3.3; Page 51 para 3.68) 
 1. A new Trade (Safeguard Measures) Act was adopted in 2014, allowing for a timely 
imposition of safeguard actions and the inclusion of "public interest" criteria when imposing a safeguard measure. 
 
Question: Could New Zealand elaborate on how the new "public interest" criteria work? Would there be 
quantitative and objective assessment? What are the observable improvements since the 
introduction of the criteria?  
The Trade (Safeguard Measures) Act 2014 (the Act) requires that an investigation must consider 
the public interest, which may include (but is not limited to) consideration of the various factors listed in the Act. It is likely that in a safeguard investigation all of the factors listed in the Act will be considered along with any other factors that may be relevant in the circumstances of the case. 
The extent to which it is possible to make a quantitative assessment will depend on the 
circumstances of the case and on the information available. However, the likely effectiveness of a 
measure in assisting the industry and the likely ef fect of a measure on the market (including on 
consumers) are factors which are more likely to be susceptible to quantitative analysis while the 
other factors are more likely to require a qualitative analysis.  
New Zealand has undertaken only a very small number of safeguard investigations and last carried 
out an investigation in 1995. It has therefore not been possible to observe whether the public interest test has led to any observable improvements.  
State-owned Enterprises  
(WT/TPR/S/316: Page 7 para 15; Page 39 para 3.7; Page 64 para 3.157) 
 2. The New Zealand Government maintains equity shares in some 49 enterprises in key 
economic sectors such as energy and transpor t. The Treasury reviews the performance of 
these government-owned enterprises that may have full or partial commercial objectives. 
The level of government participation in such en terprises has been falling in recent years.  
 Question: Could New Zealand advise the reasons for the decrease in the level of government participation in 
the enterprises in recent years? What considerations does the Government have in maintaining 
government participation in these enterprises?  
In 2013 and 2014, the Government sold 49% of its shareholding in three New Zealand electricity 
companies, and reduced its shareholding in Air New Zealand from around 73% to around 53%.  
 
There were a number of economic and fiscal reasons for this, including to reinforce efficiency, to 
meet fiscal and capital market development po licy goals, and to provide economic gains. 
 The reasons are set out in full in a number of papers on the Treasury's website at 
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/commercial/publicat ions/information-relea ses/mixed-ownership-
model/ .  
 
The most relevant papers are http://www.treasury.govt.nz/co mmercial/resources/pdfs/mixed-
ownership-model/b11-2040013.pdf , 
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/commercial/resour ces/pdfs/mixed-ownershi p-model/t2011-336.pdf  
and http://www.treasury.govt.nz/commercial/resour ces/pdfs/mixed-ownership-model/mom-coce-
dec10.pdf .  
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 13 - 
 
  The Government's policy is to keep 51% ownershi p of the three electricity companies and Air New 
Zealand, to ensure the Government has a controlling stake in the companies.  The Government maintains participation in state-owned enterprises to ensure it has a controlling 
stake in crucial infrastructure, and often the companies are monopoly assets best suited for public 
ownership. In addition, none of these entities are suitable for sale or partial sale, for a variety of 
reasons, including that they would not be appealin g to take to the market and are not big enough 
to warrant a further sales programme. 
 Export Credit Insurance and Guarantees  
(WT/TPR/S/316: Page 58 para 3.122) 
 3. The New Zealand Export Credit Office (NZECO) provides trade credit insurance and financial 
guarantee products that complement those available in the private sector for exporters and 
banks. To be eligible for NZECO's guarantees, an exporter must be either a New Zealand 
registered company, or a subsidiary of a Ne w Zealand registered company located abroad, 
and an economic benefit to New Zealand must exist from the transaction. 
 
Question: Could New Zealand elaborate on the requirement of "an economic benefit to New Zealand"? How is it assessed? Are the applicants required to demonstrate its existence? Are there different 
requirements for different industries or sectors? 
 As part of NZECO's assessment of an export tr ansaction, the applicant must demonstrate that 
there is an "economic benefit to New Zealand" in the goods or services that NZECO is 
underwriting. This can be demonstrated by sh owing New Zealand value-added content, either 
solely from the applicant itself or in conjunction with other New Zealand firms. This includes 
expenditure on New Zealand sourced or value-added materials, services (including design and IP) 
and labour, as well as profits. NZECO does not a pply different requirements for different industries 
or sectors, and does not have a minimum value-added threshold.  
Intellectual Property Rights  
(WT/TPR/S/316: Page 67 para 3.187) 
 4. In 2011, the Copyright (infringing sharing f ile) Amendment Act brought a significant change 
to the Copyright Act 1994 by providing rights owners with a special regime for taking enforcement action against people who infringe copyright through file sharing.  
 
Question: How does the New Zealand Copyright Act define file sharing and under what circumstances is the provision applicable?  
 
The provisions apply to copyright infringement  that occurs via peer-to-peer file sharing 
networks. The definition of file sharing networks can be found in section 122A of the copyright act, 
as follows 
 File sharing is where -  
(a) material is uploaded via, or downloaded from, the Internet using an application or 
network that enables the simultaneous sharing of material between multiple users; and 
(b) uploading and downloading may, but need not, occur at the same time 
 
What actions can rights owners take against those who share files and what are the procedures?   
New Zealand's three notice regime permits rights owners to: 
 Request that an internet protocol address provider (IPAP) sends up to 
three infringement notices to an internet account holder who is alleged to have infringed 
copyright via a file sharing network;  
 Take a claim of up to $15,000 to the Copyri ght Tribunal after the notice process is 
complete. WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 14 - 
 
  Further information on the process can be found here 
http://www.med.govt.nz/business/in tellectual-property/ copyright/notice-pro cess-under-sections-
122a-to-122u-of-the-copyright-act-1994   
 
Are there any exceptions or limitations to this new right for rights owners? 
 The regime does not provide a new right to copyright owners; it is simply an enforcement process 
in respect of existing rights. The usual copyrigh t exceptions in the Copyright Act 1994 continue to 
apply.   Has there been any case law on this provision?   
 
Yes. The number of infringement cases brought to the Copyright Tribunal since it entered into force is 21 (as of 8 June 2015). Awards made against infringers range from between NZ$276 to 
NZ$914. The first case was decided in 2013. Decisions are publicly available here: 
http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZCopyT/ . 
 
Has the New Zealand Government assessed the effectiveness of this provision in combating 
copyright infringement?  An initial assessment of the effectiveness of the regime was done when applicable fees were 
reviewed in 2012. The relevant document can be found here: 
http://www.med.govt.nz/business/ intellectual-property/pdf-doc s-library/copyright/notice-
process/cabinet-paper.pdf . 
 
This assessment suggested there had been a significan t drop in piracy after the introduction of the 
regime. However, it noted a number of caveats aro und whether the regime itself was in fact the 
cause of this drop. No further assessments have been done. 
 Trade Policies by Sector  
Banking  
(WT/TPR/S/316: Page 86 para 4.75) 
 5. We note that only entities whose business substantially consists of borrowing and lending 
money or providing other financial services may be registered as banks. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) published an updated set of principles for considering the 
registration applications, taken into account both qualitative and quantitative criteria in the 
process. 
 Question: 
How often does the RBNZ update the set of principles for processing of registration applications? 
What factors has the RBNZ taken into account when updating the principles? Has the RBNZ consulted the industry before such updating exercises? 
 
The RBNZ has not made any essential changes to its principles for considering applications for registration for a number of years. The restriction on the types of entity that can be registered 
(noted in the question) is set in primary legislation and has been in force since 1989.  
 However, the RBNZ document (Banking Supervis ion Handbook) BS1 "Statement of Principles: 
Bank Registration and Supervision" includes a number of other supervisory matters not directly 
connected to the registration process. For exam ple, it includes the standard conditions of 
registration that apply to all existing regist ered banks (permitted under the RBNZ's primary 
legislation). These conditions are the main mechanism by which the RBNZ imposes regulatory 
requirements such as capital adequacy standa rds. The BS1 document therefore needs to be 
updated whenever changes are made to those regulatory requirements, which occurs quite 
regularly. It is worth noting that any applicant for registration will need to be able to meet those 
requirements from the date that it is registered.  
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 15 - 
 
  The RBNZ is in the process of reviewing all of its supervisory documents to ensure their clarity and 
consistency. It is likely that this will result in some changes in the way that the principles for registration are set out, although not in their substance. This work will take into account:  
 Recent changes to bank regulation and/or supervision in New Zealand (and where 
appropriate, internationally); 
 The experience of entities that have applied for registration in recent years; and 
 The importance of ensuring that the principl es remain clear and transparent, and can be 
(as much as possible) easily applied by both applicants for registration and the RBNZ.  
 T h e  R B N Z  a l w a y s  c o n s u l t s  w i t h  i n d u s t r y  w h e n  m a k i n g  a n y  m a t e r i a l  c h a n g e s  t o  a n y  o f  i t  
supervisory documents, and will do so in this case.  
 Insurance  
(WT/TPR/S/316: Pages 89 para 4.91) 
 6. Overseas insurers who have met all licensin g, reporting and other prudential requirements 
may operate as branches in New Zealand. Nevertheless, the RBNZ has discretion to exempt 
foreign insurers from certain New Zealand requirements, if they are fully compliant with their home-country's law and regulation and the regulatory requirements and prudential 
supervision in their home jurisdiction are at least as satisfactory as those applied to 
New Zealand insurers. 
 Question: 
How often does the RBNZ exercise its discretion to exempt foreign insurers from certain 
requirements? Are there any guidelines or principles for the RBNZ to follow in considering the exemption? 
 
Exempting foreign insurers from certain requirements occurs principally at the time of licensing. For most insurers, this occurred during the 2010 to 2013 transition period for the new prudential supervision regime, with a small number of new licence applications subsequently. The exemptions 
in place are also reviewed from time to time to ensure they remain appropriate. The strength of 
the home jurisdiction supervision is assessed in certain prescribed areas. These are set out in Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Act 2010 sections 19(3), 38(2) and 119(2). The RBNZ also has 
regard to the purposes and principles of the Act as set out in sections 3 and 4. The international 
jurisdictions with licensed insurers that have been assessed to be satisfactory are prescribed in regulation 5 of the Insurance (Prudential Superv ision) Regulations 2010 (which is updated from 
time to time). Declarations and exemptions for individual insurers are published on the RBNZ 
website ( http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/ ). 
 
Transport  
(WT/TPR/S/316: Page 93 para 4.115 ; Page 96 para 4.131) 
 7. To achieve an effective, efficient, safe, secu re, accessible and resilient transport system that 
supports New Zealand's growth and delivers prosperity to its citizens, the New Zealand 
Government issued a document titled "Connecting New Zealand" in 2011. "Connecting New Zealand" sets out the policy direction for the transport system for 2011-21 with three 
key themes: economic growth and productivity; value for money; and road safety. It refers 
to all transport modes, but makes emphasis on land transport, recognizing its essential role both in the domestic context and in enabling connectivity with air and sea ports, which are crucial for the country's international trade. Freight transport costs account for a sizeable 
proportion of international trading costs for New Zealand companies. A number of 
recommendations on international freight transport services were made in a performance report produced in 2012. 
 
Question: We are interested in knowing more about the details of "Connecting New Zealand" and its latest 
progress. Can foreign invested companies participate in the projects under the programme, and if 
so, would they receive the same treatment as loca l companies? Is there any plan to review the 
programme? Furthermore, have the New Zealand au thorities followed up the recommendations on 
international freight transport services made in 2012 (besides the recommendation to apply the 
Commerce Act to international shipping)? WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 16 - 
 
   
Connecting New Zealand is a document that summarizes the Government's broad policy direction for the transport sector. It is not directive and is not a programme in its own right. Its purpose is to assist stakeholder understanding of the Government's broad policy direction for the transport 
sector and enable stakeholders to consider this when they make their own investment decisions. 
 The Government's response to the Productivity Commission's inquiry into international freight 
transport services www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/info rmationreleases/transport/pdfs/resp-
nzpc-ifts-dec12.pdf sets out the various areas where follow-up activity is being undertaken. 
 
Maritime Transport  
(WT/TPR/S/316: Page 96 para 4.131) 
 8. The Shipping Act is considered as ineffective in regulating competition in the maritime 
transport sector. The New Zealand authorities are now seeking its Parliament's approval for 
applying the Commerce Act to international sh ipping, thereby removing the exemption for 
price-fixing and capacity-limiting agreements. 
 
Question: What is the latest progress in seeking to apply the Commerce Act to international shipping? Will there be any transitional measures if the exemption is removed? 
 
The Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill has been reported back to Parliament and is awaiting its third reading. Provisions of the B ill that relate to repeal of parts of the Shipping 
Act 1987 come into force two years after the Act receives Royal Assent. 
 (WT/TPR/S/316: Page 97 paras 4.135-4.136) 
 9. The Port Companies Act 1988 specifies governan ce, reporting and directorship requirements 
for port companies. The Act does not impose any limitation on the acquisition or holding of a port company, but acquisitions by overseas persons above the specified threshold would 
need prior consent under the Overseas Investment Act. In 2010, an independent study 
found that New Zealand's port ownership structure might have hindered productivity as well as the entry of experienced international port operators. 
 
Question: We would like to know if "prior consent" for acquis ition of port companies by overseas persons is a 
notification process or a screening process. If it is a screening process, what criteria are used for 
screening and what is the success rate in recent years? As the 2010 report has found that the port ownership structure might have hindered producti vity, has any initiative been considered or 
undertaken to reform the ownership structure or attract foreign investment? 
 
The acquisition of port companies by overseas persons would be subject to the Overseas Investment Act 2005, under which a transaction requires consent under the Act if it will result in 
an overseas investment in "sensitive land" or an overseas investment in "significant business 
assets". The Act specifies criteria for assessment of transactions that comes within either of those two categories. .  
 
The New Zealand Productivity Commission considered the governance and ownership of New Zealand ports in the context of its wider in ternational freight transport services inquiry 
(April 2012). The Productivity Commission report noted existing port owners should thoroughly 
consider relevant issues in the report befo re making decisions relating to ownership. 
 Tourism  
(WT/TPR/S/316: Page 98 para 4.140) 
 10. There is no tourism-specific legislation in New Zealand, but the industry is supported by a 
robust institutional framework and important public investment. The Tourism Policy Team, 
within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, is responsible for advising the Government on the appropriate settings to foster productivity, growth and the contribution of tourism to the economy. To boost innovation and productivity in the tourism sector, the 
Tourism Growth Partnership is created to invest in projects. WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 17 - 
 
   
Question: Grateful if New Zealand could share with us more details of the Tourism Growth Partnership. Could 
private sector, particularly companies with foreign capital, join the Partnership and/or participate 
in the projects under the Partnership? Are foreign invested companies enjoying the same 
treatment as local companies in the projects?  
Section 4.1.b. of the Tourism Growth Partnership (TGP) guidelines states:  
"Offshore businesses are eligible to be co-investors [in TGP projects] provided they can demonstrate their proposed projects will generate sufficient benefit for New Zealand."  
Therefore, as long as foreign-invested companies can show that their investment will benefit 
New Zealand's tourism sector (and, of course, the project meets the other TGP criteria), they are eligible to invest in TGP projects. 
 
Further information on the TGP can be found at http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-
industries/tourism/tourism-growth-partnership .  WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 18 - 
 
  CHINA 
Part I. Questions based on Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/316) 
 SUMMARY 
 
Page 7, Para 13. 
 
New Zealand maintains several business assistance and export promotion programmes. The main 
export promotion agency, New Zealand Trade and En terprise, provides strategic advice, research 
and market intelligence for new exporters, as well as support for already established export companies. Export credit insurance is also av ailable for exporting companies. Other incentive 
schemes are in place mainly to encourage innovation and capacity building. 
 Question 1: 
Does New Zealand have any corresponding policies and programmes to promote the export of 
trade in services? How effective are their implementation?  
New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE) supports services exporters in the same way it supports 
goods exporters.  NZTE is the Government's international business development agency. NZTE helps New Zealand 
companies' international success by helping them boost their global reach and to build capability. 
NZTE uses its onshore and offshore networks to provide advice and expertise to firms working to 
export services. NZTE also works to provide marketing and networking opportunities for its clients 
through sponsoring trade shows, conferences, and through helping to organize trade delegation 
visits.  
NZTE was established in 2003 and currently works with around 4,000 businesses, across a range 
of export sectors. NZTE has played an importan t role in the rise of services exports from 
$13.9 billion in 2003 to $17.7 billion in 2014. More information on the range of services that NZTE provides can be found at 
https://www.nzte.govt.nz/ . 
 
3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
 
Page 31, Para 3.5 
 
"New Zealand maintains several business assistance and export promotion programs. The main 
export promotion agency, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE), provides, inter alia, strategic advice, research and market intelligence for ne w exporters, as well as support for already 
established export companies. Export credit insurance is also available for exporting firms. 
Incentive schemes are in place mainly to en courage innovation and capacity building. " 
 Question 2: 
Please give details on the specific incentive po licies and schemes that encourage innovation and 
capacity building.  
Business R&D grants 
Callaghan Innovation's R&D Grants Programme provides three different grants designed to increase the amount of private sector R&D activity occurring in New Zealand. Foreign-owned companies can receive R&D grant funding, but the grants only fund research that is conducted in 
New Zealand.  
 • R&D Growth Grants are awarded to larger R& D performers. The public co-funding rate is 
20 per cent of the company's qualifying R& D, capped at $5m per year. The grants are 
awarded on a non-discretionary basis (similar to an R&D tax credit) to applicants that spend at least $300,000 annually and 1.5% of revenue on R&D in New Zealand for at least two 
years. Total funding for Growth Grants is about $124m per year. 
 • R&D Project Grants will fund up to 40 percen t of specific research projects. They are WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 19 - 
 
  targeted at firms with smaller R&D programmes and those that are new to R&D. Total 
funding for Project Grants is about $35m per annum. 
 • R&D Student Grants provide opportunities for students and recent graduates to work within 
R&D active firms. Total funding for Student Grants is about $5m per annum. 
 Incubators and Accelerators  
Callaghan Innovation also funds privately-run incubator and accelerator programmes:  
Founder-focused incubators work with entrepreneurs to develop their business ideas. Technology-focused incubators identify a suitable intellectual property-based idea or technology and then work to build a business team around the IP. Public op erational funding for both types is around $4m 
per year, and funding for tech-focused repayable grants is $10.2m a year. 
 The accelerator programme works with digital and ICT entrepreneurs to develop their ideas over 
12 weeks into an investment pitch. Public funding for accelerators is up to $750,000 a year.  
 New Zealand has a range of programmes to encourage business innovation and research and 
development. Callaghan Innovation was establis hed in 2013 to deliver these programmes and to 
connect businesses to researchers. Callaghan Innovation's activities include awarding business R&D grants (which co-fund between 20% and 40% of qualifying R&D) and funding privately-run 
incubator and accelerator programmes which work with entrepreneurs and start-ups. 
 
Page 58, Para 3.122 
 
"NZECO is currently located in the Treasury, and its obligations to third parties are guaranteed by 
the New Zealand Government. The Government 's maximum liability under the scheme is 
NZ$740 million. To be eligible for NZECO's guarant ees, an exporter must be either a New Zealand 
registered company, or a subsidiary of a New Zealand registered company located abroad; and an 
economic benefit to New Zealand must exist from the transaction."  Question3: 
Does the Government of New Zealand update its committed liability of NZ$740 million to NZECO 
every year? What is basis for the Government to approve the amount of liability? Is the amount of liability allocated to the national or industrial levels? 
 
The $740 million liability maximum level is normally reviewed by the New Zealand Government every 3 years.  
 
NZECO's insurance and guarantees are Minister of Finance guarantees sub-delegated to and issued 
by the Secretary to the Treasury pursuant to section 65ZD of the Public Finance Act 1989.   
The total amount of liability is not allocated to specific industries, and NZECO's products are 
available nationally.  
Page 58, Para 3.125 
 
"NZECO also provides co-insurance (top-up cover) policies to support the private insurers' 
capacity." 
 Question4: How are the underwriting policies drafted when NZECO provides co-insurance? How does NZECO 
share rights and bear liabilities with private insurance companies upon an insurance claim? 
 In respect to its arrangement with Euler Herm es (Allianz), the standard terms of the NZECO 
Top-up Cover Policy are based on the standard terms of the Allianz primary trade credit insurance 
policy. The buyer-specific terms and conditions of NZECO's top-up cover will match the buyer-specific terms and conditions applied under its primary cover. A specimen NZECO Top-up 
Cover Policy is available on NZECO's website at: NZECO Top-up Cover Policy. With respect to its 
arrangements with other private insurance companie s, NZECO issues its standard short-term trade 
credit policy. However its Policy Schedule describes how any losses are to be calculated and recoveries administered. 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 20 - 
 
  NZECO has Claims Co-operation arrangements with each private insurer. NZECO retains the right 
whether to accept a claim in relation to their top-up layer of cover or not.  
 3.1.1 Customs procedures and requirements 
 
Page 41, Para 3.17 
 
Post clearance audit mechanisms. 
 Question 5:  
What kinds of businesses are covered in the "post clearance audit mechanisms"? Is a system 
similar to "proactive disclosure" included? 
 Customs responsibilities include testing and validating supply chain security and data integrity. As 
such, all businesses can be the subject of a post clearance audit. Customs uses a mixed model 
(comprising trade sectorial, risk and intelligence components) to select those businesses it will audit. 
 
The Trade Assurance Strategy and Work Programm e links with Customs' primary challenge of 
"make compliance easy to do and hard to avoid"  and to intelligence-led risked based border 
management. As such Customs works with businesses to encourage proactive 
compliance/disclosure.  
 An example of this approach is proactive discl osure through the 'Uplift Programme'. There is a 
legislative requirement to collect revenue on royalties, annual pricing reconciliations and other 
such payments made post importation. Business practice allows for a calculated assessment to be added to the declared value on importation. This is usually in the form of a percentage added to 
the invoiced value of the goods on importation and is a mutually agreed arrangement between 
New Zealand Customs and the importer. Under the Uplift Programme, companies are encouraged to conduct an in-house review and report the resu lts to Trade Assurance. Audit and testing of the 
reviews will be on a case-by-case basis and some may be accepted without prejudice. Further 
testing and more audit activity will be conducted based on risk. 
 Page 41, Para 3.18 
 As a result, less than 5% of import transactions are subject to further compliance checks or inspection, and 99% of compliant transactions are processed by Customs within 30 minutes of 
completion of an import declaration. NZCS does not maintain an Authorized Economic 
Operator(AEO) system, as the authorities seek to give simplified process to all importers  Question 6: 
According to the AEO Guide 2014 published by WCO, New Zealand signed mutual recognition 
arrangements with the U.S., Japan and Republic of Korea. Is it a one-way recognition? Does New Zealand have any plan to sign mutual recognition arrangements with other countries or 
regions in the near future? 
 New Zealand's Mutual Recognition Arrangements are consistent with the World Customs 
Organisation (WCO) Framework to Secure and Facilitate Trade, and associated guidelines on 
mutual recognition. New Zealand does not consider that mutual recognition arrangements allow for "one way recognition". As per the WCO guidelines, New Zealand's mutual recognition arrangements with other countries include provis ions recognising the approval and validation 
process for each country's respective Auth orised Economic Operator programme.  
 The WCO framework recognises that countries may establish AEO programmes for different 
streams of trade, and New Zealand maintains an AEO programme for exports (the Secure Exports 
Scheme).  
New Zealand has no immediate plans to sign additi onal mutual recognition arrangements at this 
time, but in the near future will be exploring possible arrangements with other key trading partners.  WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 21 - 
 
  Question 7: 
How does Customs of New Zealand assess risks before the cargoes arrive? What are the major technologies, methods and standards for risk assessment?  
All goods imported into New Zealand (except international mail) are screened electronically.  
This screening can be in various formats from the use of electronic manifests, which have lesser data sets, to an import entry with codified data fields. All of these formats require electronic 
lodgement through Customs' computer systems to undergo a risk assessment process.  
 The data lodged is screened automatically against rules/ profiles and alerts (collectively referred to as alerts) on Customs systems. Any entry that matches an alert is electronically forwarded to a 
work unit to be further assessed and the goods are held from delivery until that assessment is 
completed and a decision made on whether any further intervention is necessary. The assessment process will either see the goods cleared, di rected for an inspections intervention, or 
documentation requested to verify the transaction / permit requirements (and possibly referred to 
a specialist team for further review). Goods not iden tified as requiring any further activity through 
this electronic screening are automatically released.  
 
Alerts are generally used by Customs to identify ca rgo that is prohibited, restricted, or subject to 
duty. These alerts are generally matched against current priorities and known modus operandi and 
include alerts placed on behalf of other agencies, such as the Ministry of Business, Innovation and 
Employment (MBIE), regarding safety standards and the Police for firearms.  
 Alerts are created based on intelligence develo ped from known profiles, border interception 
information as well as domestic and global trend information and is maintained by intelligence 
analysts and reviewed periodically. An alert can only be created if it is peer reviewed and signed off, and this process includes an impact analysis to consider resource and process implications. 
 
As international mail is not currently able to be screened electronically, it requires a physical presence at the NZ Post international mail centre facility in Mangere, Auckland. As mail is put through a sorting process, Customs and MPI officers manually examine all items, selecting items of 
interest for inspection. Customs also works with NZ Post staff to identify packages for inspection. 
MPI undertakes physical x-ray of all parcel mail and all mail is subject to screening by both Customs and MPI detector dogs.  
 
3.3.2 Competition policy and price controls  
Page 60, Para 3.135  
 
New Zealand's competition regime continues to be governed mainly through the Commerce Act 1986 (the Commerce Act) as amended. It applies broadly across the economy, including the public 
sector. The New Zealand Commerce Commission (t he Commerce Commission) is an independent 
statutory body with responsibility for enforcing the Commerce Act 
 
Question 8: 
What kind of illegal activities are subject to the regulation of the Commerce Act in the competition sector? Please illustrate the main functions and the internal organization of the Commerce 
Commission. 
 The Commerce Act prohibits agreements that substantially lessen competition. It is considered that agreements that give one or more businesses more market power are agreements that lessen 
competition. A business with more market power can charge more or give less in terms of quality 
or service, without having to closely consider the possible reactions of its competitors, or the 
possibility of losing its customers to those competitors.  
 
Other agreements that are illegal under the Commerce Act include agreements between competitors to exclude rivals (unless the agreement does not lessen competition), agreements 
that have the effect, or likely e ffect, of maintaining, controlling or fixing price and agreements 
relating to resale price maintenance.   It is also illegal for businesses with a substantial degree of market power to take advantage of that 
power for the purpose of restricting entry of a person into that or any other market, preventing or WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 22 - 
 
  deterring a person from engaging in competitive conduct in that or any other market or eliminating 
a person from that or any other market. Finally, the Commerce Act prohibits businesses from acquiring businesses or assets if the acquisition would have the effect of substantially lessening competition in a market.  
 
The main functions of the Commission involve generally enforcing the Commerce Act and consumer protection laws (the Fair Trading Act (FTA) and the Credit Contracts and Consumer 
Finance Act (CCCFA)). Under the Commerce Act, the Commission enforces the prohibition on 
anticompetitive agreements and acquisitions, ha s the power to clear or authorize mergers and 
regulates markets where there is little or no competition. The Commission also enforces the FTA and CCCFA. The FTA prohibits false and misleading consumer information and the CCCFA sets out 
rules lenders must follow when providing credit to consumers. 
 The Commission is an independent Crown entity established under section 8 of the Commerce Act 
1986. The Commission is not subject to directio n from the government in carrying out its 
enforcement and regulatory control activities. The Commerce Commission's purpose is to achieve 
the best possible outcomes in competitive and regulated markets for the long-term benefit of 
New Zealanders. 
 The structure of the Commission can be found at this website: http://www.comcom.govt.nz/the-
commission/about-us/commission-structure/  
 
Page 62, Para 3.148  
 
The Search and Surveillance Act 2012 amends  the Commerce Act by aligning the Commerce 
Commission's powers with those of the main regu latory enforcement agencies. These provisions 
largely deal with procedural matters such as securing the 'scene', computer searches, and 
clarifying protection for legal privilege. 
 Question 9: Please introduce the Commerce Commission's procedures for investigating a competition case. 
What does the Commerce Commission's right to investigation include? 
 The Commerce Commission may investigate any conduct that it suspects breaches the Commerce 
Act.  
 Procedures for investigating 
 
The Commission identifies matters that may warrant investigation through several methods, including complaints to its Contact Centre, referrals from other agencies, intelligence-gathering and analysis and matters coming to its attention that may be of concern.  
 
The Commission then considers whether a matter warrants investigation. This involves considering whether there is a reasonable basis for suspecting a breach, its enforcement criteria and its 
competing priorities and current enforcement focus areas.  
 Once the Commission has decided to investigate a matter, the Commission gathers and analyses 
relevant information in order to determine what  happened, whether what happened breaches the 
laws we enforce (in competition cases, the Commerce Act) and if it does, what the most appropriate enforcement response.   
The Commission's information gathering process involves gathering information from relevant 
parties either voluntarily or through its compulsory information gathering powers.   
Once the investigation team has completed its inquiries and assessed the available evidence, the 
investigation team presents to the relevant decision makers an assessment of whether there is a breach of the Commerce Act and if so, a recommendation on the most suitable type of 
enforcement response.  
 High-level enforcement responses, such as court action or settlements, are usually taken by a Division or the Commission sitting as a group.  
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 23 - 
 
  Lower-level enforcement responses, such as warnings and compliance advice letters, are typically 
taken by Commission managers.   4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR  
4.1 Agriculture 
 Question 10: 
Please introduce the policies for domestic dairy industry including support policies for Fonterra 
Co-operative Group and other dairy cooperatives and enterprises in New Zealand.  Fonterra and other dairy exporters receive no support from the New Zealand Government. For 
further information see paragraphs 3.149, 4.19, 4.25–4.27 of the Report by the WTO Secretariat 
for New Zealand's Trade Policy Review.  
Question 11: 
Since 2011, there have been no restrictions on who can export dairy products, including milk powders, from New Zealand to designated tariff quota markets. New Zealand only administers 
exports licences for some agricultural products such as dairy in order to accommodate tariff-
quotas imposed by some trading partners. Export licences are required to export certain dairy products to the United States, the European Union, Japan and the Dominican Republic.  
In New Zealand Dairy cow breeding is a commercial activity. The viability of the New Zealand dairy 
industry is determined by prices set by the world market. The Dairy Industry Restructuring 
Amendment Act 2012 introduced a milk price monito ring regime aimed at improving transparency 
in Fonterra's farm-gate milk price setting process and controlling whether Fonterra's farm-gate 
milk price is consistent with a price that would otherwise emerge in a competitive market for farmers' milk. The Commerce Commission is in charge of monitoring and reporting every year on 
Fonterra's milk price. 
 The MPI allocates licenses for the export of certain volumes of dairy products to designated markets; allocation is based on the proportion of milk solids collected by each company in relation 
to the total import volume of the preferential tariff quota.  
 In recent years Fonterra's share in the allocation of export licences has decreased as new 
companies enter the market. Five New Zealand companies (other than Fonterra) were allocated 
export licences for 2015.   
For further information see paragraphs 3.149, 4.19, 4.25 – 4.27 of the New Zealand Trade Policy 
Review.  4.5 Financial services 
 
Page 121, Para 4.96. 
 
The Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008 (FSPA) requires any 
person or entity that provides financial services in  New Zealand to register on a public register of 
financial service providers. Those supplying services to retail clients must also join an approved 
dispute resolution scheme.  
 Question 12: Please introduce the specific procedures and approaches of the "dispute resolution scheme". 
 
Membership in a dispute resolution scheme DRS is mandatory for Financial Service Providers (FSPs) who provide a service to retail clients, because it provides consumers with an avenue for 
redress when a dispute arises with their financial service provider. Customers of a financial service 
provider can access the dispute resolution scheme that their FSP belongs to, free of charge. However, the complainant must take their complaint to the FSP first. FSPs need to have 
some internal procedures to deal with complaints. All dispute resolution schemes will have rules 
about the complaints process, what the FSP has to do, and what complaints they cover.  WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 24 - 
 
  Question 13: 
This chapter does not mention the securities sector. Please introduce the regulation and development of the securities sector in New Zealand.  
Paragraph 4.94 describes the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 (FMCA) which regulates the 
securities sector in New Zealand. The main purposes of the Act are to • promote the confident and informed participatio n of businesses, investors, and consumers in 
the financial markets, and 
• promote and facilitate the development of fair , efficient, and transparent financial markets. 
 This new Act and its supplementary regulations replaced the previous securities legislation which 
was primarily contained in the Securities Act 1978 and the Securities Markets Act 1988. A 
discussion document on securities law was released in 2010, which initiated an extensive draft and consultation process prior to the commence ment of the FMCA. The FMCA established, inter alia , a 
licensing regime for fund managers, independent trustees, derivatives issuers, and providers of 
crowd funding, peer to peer lending and discret ionary investment management services. Subject 
to transitional arrangements, since 1 December 2014 it is not possible to perform any of these 
services without a license granted by the Financial Markets Authority. 
 The Financial Markets Authority regulates capital markets and financial services in New Zealand. It superseded the previous Securities Commission.  
 
Part III. Other Questions   
Question 14: 
Please introduce in detail the institutional desi gn of skilled immigration and points system in 
New Zealand. 
 
The Skilled Migrant Category is a points system based on factors such as age, work experience, 
qualifications, and skilled employment. Applicants  m u s t  a l s o  b e  a g e d  5 5  o r  u n d e r ,  a n d  m e e t  
English language, health, and character requirements. Points will be allocated for skilled 
employment if the applicant has a job or a job offer in New Zealand that requires specialist, 
technical, or management expertise. More points will be allocated if the job or job offer is in certain industries, or if the applicant's partner also has a skilled job or job offer. Applicants can 
also receive points for certain work experience, recognised qualifications, age, and close family 
with New Zealand residence or citizenship. More information as well as a points indicator and points table, which more clearly outline how poin ts are allocated, can be found at the website: 
http://www.immigration.govt.nz/migrant/stream/work/skilledmigrant/ .  
 
 FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS FROM CHINA 
 
Part I. Questions based on Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/316) 3.4.6 Intellectual property rights 
 
Page 67, Para 3.187 
 
In 2011, the Copyright (infringing sharing file) Am endment Act brought a significant change to the 
Copyright Act 1994 by providing rights owners with a special regime for taking enforcement action 
against people who infringe copyright through file sharing.   
Question 1: 
Please elaborate on the special law enforcement regime provided to rights owners to take action against web copyright infringement through file sharing.  
 
Answer 1: Sections 122A to U of the Copyright Act 1994 provide a three notice process for right holders to 
use when they consider an internet user has infringed their copyright via a file sharing network. 
 The notice process begins when a rights holder send s an allegation of copyright infringement to an 
Internet service provider (ISP). If an ISP receives allegations of infringement from a rights holder, WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 25 - 
 
  they are required to determine which of their account holders was using the internet at the time, 
based on their "internet protocol" (IP) address.  Once an ISP has determined which account holder the allegation relates to, they are required to 
send an infringement notice to that account holder. If an account holder receives three notices 
within 9 months that relate to the same rights holder, the rights holder may choose to take a claim for damages against the account holder up to a maximum of $15,000 to the Copyright Tribunal 
(Tribunal). 
 The rights holder is not required to use the three notice process to address infringements through file sharing.  The right holder may, instead, pursue legal action against an account holder through 
the courts at any time either before or during the three notice process. 
 The process also provides two ways in which account holders can dispute infringement allegations: 
either directly with the rights owner, or if  a claim is made, at the Copyright Tribunal.  
 Infringement Notices 
 There are three stages of infringement notice under the process. These are:  
1) Detection notice 
2) Warning notice 
3) Enforcement notice 
 
Notices last for 9 months from the date of the detection notice, or, from the expiry of an 
enforcement notice (whichever is the earlier).  
On‐notice Period 
 
If a notice is sent by an ISP to an account holder, a period of 28 days must pass before another one can be sent to the account holder. This is called the “on notice period”. While another notice 
cannot be sent during this time, the ISP must still match any further allegations of infringement 
from a rights holder in relation to the account holders IP address. These allegations will be included in any further notices, and will be cons idered by the Tribunal if a claim is made against 
the account holder by the rights holder. 
 Challenges 
 
Infringement notices can be challenged by an account holder directly with the rights owner who 
sent them. The challenge must be made within 14 days of the date of the notice that the challenge relates to. Rights holders must also respond to the challenge (either accepting or rejecting it), via 
the ISP acting as an intermediary, within 28 days of the notice (e.g. the on ‐notice period). If a 
rights holder accepts a challenge, or does not resp ond, the notice that the challenge relates to is 
cancelled.  
Effect of expired or cancelled notices 
 
Notices can either expire (after 9 months of the date of the detection notice) or can be cancelled 
due to a challenge. 
 If a notice expires, the process begins again. Any further infringements detected at the account holder’s IP address will result in a new detection notice. 
 
If a notice is cancelled due to a challenge, previous notices remain in effect. For example, if a warning notice is cancelled, the detection notice remains in effect and any further infringements 
detected on the account holder’s IP address will result in a new warning notice. 
 Copyright Tribunal 
 If an enforcement notice has been sent, and has not been cancelled due to a valid challenge, the rights owner may choose to take a claim for up to $15,000 to the Copyright Tribunal. Tribunal claims are intended to be heard “on the papers”. On the papers means that claims will be decided WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 26 - 
 
  based on written arguments from both sides. However an account holder may request a hearing in 
person.  Account holders and right holders may only have legal representation at the Tribunal where the 
Tribunal agrees. 
 Page 67, 3.188 
 The Trade Marks Act 2002 was amended several times during the review period. The most significant amendment was made in 2011…The am endment also revised provisions regarding 
parallel importing, suspension of border protection notices, and removal of licensees on the Trade 
Marks Register. 
 Question 2: 
What are the revised provisions regarding parallel importing? What is behind the revisions? What 
is the impact on trademark registrants and interested parties?  
Answer 2: 
What are the revised provisions regarding parallel importing? 
Section 97A of the Trade Marks Act 2002 provides for the international exhaustion of trade mark 
rights. It does so by stating that it is not an in fringement of a registered trade mark to import and 
sell trademarked goods that have been put on th e market anywhere in the world by the trade 
mark owner, by any person associated with the ow ner, or with the trade mark owner’s express or 
implied consent. 
 
Section 97A Exhaustion of rights conferred by registered trade mark (1) A registered trade mark is not infringed by the use of the trade mark (including use for the 
purpose of advertising) in relation to goods that have been put on the market anywhere in the 
world under that trade mark under any 1 or more of the following circumstances: 
(a) by the owner; (b) with the owner’s express or implied consent; 
(c) by an associated person of the owner. 
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(c), a person is an associated person of the owner  if— 
(a) they are in the same group of companies; or 
(b) they are both bodies corporate and they consist of substantially the same members or 
are directly or indirectly under the control of the same persons; or (c) either of them has effective control of the other's use of the trade mark; or 
(d) a third person has effective control of the use of the trade mark by each of them. 
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), 
(a) group of companies  includes a holding company and its subsidiaries within the 
meaning of section 5 
(http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0105/latest/DLM319999.html?search=ta_ac
t_T_ac%40ainf%40anif_an%40bn%40rn_25_a&p=5#DLM319999 ) of the Companies Act 
1993; and 
(b) a person has effective control  of the use of a trade mark if that person may authorise 
the use of the trade mark or has significant influence over how it is used, regardless of how that authorisation or influence arises (for example, whether directly or indirectly and 
whether by way of proprietary interest, contract, arrangement, understanding, a 
combination of those things, or otherwise). 
 What is behind the revisions? 
The revision is intended to curtail the practice of some foreign trade marks owners, who in collusion with their New Zealand distributor/licensee, were making unjustified claims of trade mark infringement against legitimate sellers of parallel imported goods. Prior to the revision it was the 
practice of some foreign trade mark owners to assign their New Zealand trade mark registrations 
to their local distributors/licensees, after which the local distributor/licensee would then threaten legal action against the seller of legitimate parallel imported goods alleging they had breached 
their trade mark rights by importing goods obtained directly or indirectly from the foreign trade 
mark owner. The basis of the infringement claim wa s that the sale of the goods in question by the 
foreign trade mark owner has not been authorised by the local distributor/licensee. This practice 
was judged to be having a chilling impact on Government’s parallel importation policy. 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 27 - 
 
  What is the impact on trademark registrants and interested parties? 
Complaints from the sellers of legitimate parallel imported goods about the practises of foreign 
trade mark owners and their local distributors/licensees making unjustified threats of legal action alleging trade mark infringement have ceased. 
 
It is understood that there are no special GI registration and protection legislation in New Zealand, the GIs could be protected by trademark law in the form of collective and certification marks, in 
addition, be regulated by Fair Trading Act and counterfeit infringement lawsuits. The Secretariat 
Report stated that the Geographical Indicati ons (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act 2006 
establishes a registration system for wine and spirit geographical indications, which will be enter into force in 2016. 
 
Question 3: Please specify the difference on the regime and level of GI protection between the Act and the 
trademark law which protects GI by way of collective and certification marks. How are the two 
regulations legally compatible?  
Answer 3: 
A person can protect a GI in New Zealand by registering the GI as a collective or certification trade mark under the Trade Marks Act 2002.  The trade ma rk owner has the exclusive right to authorise 
who can use the trade mark, and decide on terms and conditions of that use, and can take legal 
action against unauthorised use of the trade mark.   
 A person will be able protect a wine or spirit GI in New Zealand by registering the GI under the GI 
(Wine and Spirits) Registration Act 2006 ( GI Act ) (once it is in force). Under the GI Act a person 
may use a registered GI related to wine only if at least 85% of the wine is made from grapes harvested in the geographical area to which the GI relates. For a spirit GI, a person may use the 
registered GI in trade only if the spirit originated in the geographical area to which the GI relates. 
Under the GI Act any person may take legal action against someone who uses the registered GI in contravention of the GI Act.   
Nothing prevents a person from registering a GI und er the GI Act and also registering it as a trade 
mark under the Trade Marks Act, and from taking legal action under both Acts.  
Page 71, Para 3.193  
 
New Zealand is not party to the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and 
Phonograms Treaty. 
 Question 4: Does New Zealand have any plan to accede to the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO 
Performances and Phonograms Treaty? If yes, is there any timetable? 
 Answer 4: 
The Government has not yet taken a decision on whether or not New Zealand is to accede to 
either the WIPO Copyright Treaty or the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty.   
Part III. Other Questions  
 Question 5: Are foreign investors establishing advertising companies entitled to national treatment in 
New Zealand? Are there any special stipulations in the regulatory and legal system of advertising 
industry in New Zealand? If yes, please introd uce such regulations, especially the new ones 
promulgated since 2012. 
 
Answer 5:  An investor seeking to establish an advertising business in New Zealand would be required to seek 
consent to invest under the Overseas Investment Act 2005 if applicable requirements were 
triggered, including if the total expenditure to be incurred in establishing the enterprise exceeded $100 million.  There are no other national treatment limitations applying to foreign investors establishing advertising companies in New Zealand.   WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 28 - 
 
  SWITZERLAND 
Report by the Secretariat 
 1. Economic Environment  
1.2 Recent Economic Developments 
 The report by the Secretariat notes in para. 1.34, which the primary sector continues to be the 
most important contributor to New Zealand's export earnings. However, primary sector exports 
were exposed to severe commodity price fluctuations in the reporting period. In addition, we note in Table 1.2 the extraordinary fluctuations of GDP growth in the primary sector in past years. We 
take this as a consequence of the commodity price fluctuations on export markets.  
 
 Does this exposure to commodity price fluctuations have consequences on the overall 
growth of the economy?  
 
The extraordinary fluctuations in real GDP growth in the primary sector in recent years largely reflect weather conditions, e.g. the summer drought in 2013. Fluctuations in prices for New 
Zealand's commodity exports can transmit to overall economic growth through the income effect 
on agricultural producers and manufacturers, e.g. dairy farmers and Fonterra. However, New Zealand's export volumes and overall economic activity tend to be fairly insensitive to commodity price fluctuations, supported by the stab ilizing effects of a floating exchange rate.  
 
 Does New Zealand pursue policies to reduce this exposure to commodity price 
fluctuations? 
 
An inflation-targeting monetary policy and floating exchange rate are the key institutions that support macroeconomic stability. A stable fiscal policy that allows the automatic stabilizers to 
operate in response to such shocks also plays a role in supporting macroeconomic stability.  
 To reduce this exposure over the longer term, th ere is a policy objective of increasing the value-
added of New Zealand's primary sector exports, e.g. by focusing on different parts of the supply 
chain or increasing product sophistication that re quires specialized knowledge and skills. Reduction 
of exposure to shocks has also been achieved via diversification of export markets, including 
through the negotiation of trade agreements.. 
 
2. Trade and Investment Regime 2.4 Trade Agreements and Arrangements 
2.4.2 Regional and Preferential agreements 
 Para. 2.29 of the Secretariat's report states that New Zealand is a participant in the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership (TPP) negotiations involving 12 countries in the Asia Pacific region. 
 
 How does New Zealand assess the perspectives and calendar for a conclusion of the TPP 
negotiations?  
 
New Zealand remains committed to achieving a comprehensive, high quality TPP agreement as soon as possible in the coming months. 
 
 Which possible negative impacts does New Zealand foresee for countries who are not 
members of the TPP negotiations but have FTAs with some of the TPP participants?  
 
New Zealand has not completed a review of all FTAs between existing TPP participants and other 
WTO members. But New Zealand considers a successful high quality, comprehensive TPP agreement that is open to new members could serv e as a platform for wider, regional economic 
integration and, as a result, generate significant benefits to the Asia-Pacific region more broadly. 
 
 Did New Zealand assess the possible trade diversions that could affect third countries? 
 
New Zealand's consideration of TPP has focused on the assessment of benefits and impacts of an agreement on New Zealand. If negotiations can be  successfully concluded, this will be further WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 29 - 
 
  reflected in a 'National Interest Analysis' that will address the reasons for New Zealand becoming 
party to the agreement, the implications of that , and the means of implementing the treaty. This 
will include consideration of the economic effects of the agreement, including the trade and investment benefits. 
 
3. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure 
3.2.6 Contingency measures 
3.2.6.1 Anti-dumping and countervailing duties 
 According to para. 3.64 and Table 3.5 , "as of end December 2014 New Zealand maintained 
definitive anti-dumping measures against China, Greece, Malaysia, South Africa, Spain and 
Thailand" . Some of these measures are older than 10 years. 
 
 How do the New Zealand authorities reconcile the objectives of a strong competition 
policy on the domestic market with the use of antidumping duties which tends precisely 
to reduce competition in the domestic economy? 
 
Anti-dumping measures are imposed and maintained consistent with New Zealand's rights and 
obligations under the Agreement on Implementation  of Article VI of the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade 1994. This includes Article 11 of  that Agreement which sets out the rights and 
obligations of Members with regard to the du ration and review of anti-dumping duties.  
 
New Zealand does, however, recognize that anti-dumping duties can have an adverse impact on competition and consumers. Cabinet has conseque ntly recently approved the adoption into 
New Zealand's anti-dumping and countervailing duti es regime of a bounded public interest test. 
This test will bring greater balance to the anti-dumping and countervailing duties regime by allowing broader public interest elements, such as competition and consumer welfare elements, to 
be considered before anti-dumping and countervailing duties are imposed on imported goods.  
 Cabinet also recently directed that officials should consult with stakeholders on introducing an automatic termination period into the anti-dumping and countervailing duties regime, to operate in 
conjunction with a bounded public interest test. An automatic termination period would ensure 
that, if duties are imposed, they are terminated after a specified maximum period (e.g. 5 years) and is aimed at preventing duties becoming entrenched for lengthy periods and encouraging 
domestic industry to adjust to  future import competition. 
 The adoption of a bounded public interest test must be made through an amendment to legislation 
and its adoption is therefore subject to approv al through the usual parliamentary process. The 
adoption of an automatic termination period is subject to final Cabinet approval after the consultation process has been completed and the process required for any subsequent legislative amendment.  
 
3.4 Measures affecting production and trade 3.4.3 Competition policy 
 
According to para. 3.140  "the Commerce Act may apply to certain conducts outside New Zealand 
by a person resident or carrying on business in New Zealand that affect a market in New Zealand ".  
 
 What is the percentage of Commission's cases represent theses outside conducts? 
 We estimate that 21% of all cases we have considered (including merger clearances and 
authorizations) since 2010 represent conduct th at occurred outside New Zealand by a person 
resident or carrying on business in New Zealand that affects a market in New Zealand.  
Para. 3.146  indicates that " the Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2011 
pursues various objectives, such as introducing criminal sanctions for hard-core cartels ". 
 
 What are the rationales of these criminal sanctions? 
 The rationale for introducing criminal sanctions for hard-core cartels are set out in the Regulatory Impact Statement dated 13 October 2011, available at this address: 
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/public ations/informationreleases/ris .  WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 30 - 
 
   
The Regulatory Impact Statement cites four main benefits of criminal sanctions: 
 improved detection: the threat of criminal sanctions provides an additional incentive 
for firms to seek leniency and cooperate in any resulting cartel proceedings; 
 improved deterrence: more people may be  dissuaded from offending by knowing 
imprisonment could result because, unlike pecuniary penalties, the deterrent effect of imprisonment is not dependent on an individual's wealth; 
 improved international cooperation: countries that have criminal sanctions for cartel 
behaviour include many of New Zealand's major trading partners, and without criminalisation, the Commission may be unable to share confidential information or undertake investigations to assist a criminal investigation in another jurisdiction; 
 facilitation of the single economic market project with Australia: criminalisation can 
provide a major component of improved cooperation between the Commerce Commission and the Australian Comp etition and Consumer Commission. 
 
Further information about the bill, including relevant Cabinet papers and Parliamentary committee reports, is available at this address: http://www.med.govt.nz/business/ competition-policy/cartel-
criminalisation . 
 
According to para. 3.150  "New Zealand continues to be involved in bilateral cooperation with 
overseas competition authorities (Table 3.10) ".  
 
  Is it foreseen to conclude other cooperation agreements in short or middle term and if yes 
with which countries?  
 
We expect to conclude a cooperation agreement with the Competition Bureau of Canada in the 
near future. 
 
  Do the current bilateral agreements (respectively the future ones) include the possibility to 
exchange confidential information? 
 
Our cooperation agreement with the Australian  Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 
contains the possibility of exchange of confiden tial information. The Commission has the ability 
impose conditions on the provision of informat ion in response to a request from the ACCC. 
Conditions can relate to the confidentiality of information, storage, use or access to anything 
provided and the copying, returning or di sposal of copies of anything provided. 
 
3.4.4 State trading, state-owned enterprises 
 As outlined in para 3.157 the government of New Zealand mainta ins equity shares of enterprises 
in different economic sectors.  
 
  Could New Zealand elaborate on the ownership of these enterprises?  
 
Almost all of the 49 entities are 100% owned by the national level of government. Three airports 
are part-owned by the relevant city or district  authorities and the national government. The 49 
entities are described in the 2013 Annual Portfolio Report, which can be found here: 
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/commercial/pu blications/annual-portfolio-report/2013/ . 
 
  Which governmental levels (national, regional, city/district) are involved in these 
operations?  
 
As stated above, almost all of the 49 entities are 100% owned by the national level of government. Three airports are part-owned by the relevant city or district authorities and the 
national government. 
 
  Are these crown entities and if so, could New Zealand elaborate on the role of crown 
entities in New Zealand and how they are organized? 
 The 49 entities have a variety of different legal forms: 
 companies subject to normal New Zealand companies law 
 State Owned Enterprises subject to the State Owned Enterprises Act WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 31 - 
 
   Crown Entities subject to the Crown Entities Act 
 Crown Research Institutes subject to the Crown Research Institutes Act 
 However, typically the entities are organized as a company with a board of directors appointed by 
the Government. 
 Paragraph 3.176 . With regard to the challenge regime of New Zealand the report of the 
Secretariat indicates that in a second stage, the still dissatisfied suppliers " can consider having 
recourse to mediation; asking for an independent audit review; requesting investigation by the Auditor-General, by an Ombudsman, or by the State Services Commission; or seeking a resolution in court ".  
 
  Could the Authorities of New Zealand elaborat e on the respective functions and differences 
of the various legal options by the suppliers?  
 
Recourse to mediation and independent audit re view is available by agreement between the 
procuring entity and the dissatisfied supplier. 
 
Information on the functions of the Auditor Gene ral, Ombudsman, and State Services Commission 
can be found in the "Guide to supplier feedback and complaints" published at: http://www.business.govt.nz/procurement/for-supp liers/working-with-government/feedback-and-
complaints . In general terms, the Auditor-General has power to investigate particular complaints 
and issue recommendations to Parliament. The Ombudsman can investigate complaints and make 
recommendations to the agency to resolve problems, including for voluntary payments for any loss 
or inconvenience suffered. If the agency does not accept the recommendation, the Ombudsman 
may decide to report the matter to Parliament. The State Services Commission may decide to investigate a matter relating to the integrity of the agency. 
 
  Are these options mandatory or would it be possible for a supplier to submit a case for 
resolution directly to court? 
 
Dissatisfied suppliers can submit a case for resolution directly to court: there is no requirement to 
pursue any other options prior to seeking a remedy from the court. 
 
4. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.2 Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries 4.2.2 Border measures  
4.2.2.2 Export measures 
 According to Para. 4.20 of the Secretariat's report the kiwifruit industry is the only sector where 
export management measures remain. Specifically, it is indicated that the Zespri Group Ltd. is 
given a quasi-monopoly on exports to markets other than Australia.  
 
  Could New Zealand indicate the reasons for maintaining a quasi-monopoly for exports of 
kiwifruit whereas no such monopoly exists for other commodities? 
 The New Zealand Government maintains a State Trading Enterprise for kiwifruit exports so as to 
obtain the best commercial return from world markets for producers in New Zealand (See 
New Zealand's WTO notification G/STR/N/15/NZL of 22 May 2014.)   
  Does New Zealand envisage to abolish this quasi-monopoly in the near future? 
 
There are no plans to reform the current export management arrangements for the New Zealand Kiwifruit sector.  
 
4.2.4 Dairy industry restructuring  
Para. 4.25 of the Secretariats report mentions Fonterra Co-operative Group's still dominant role in 
the dairy sector. It is furthermore stated that the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Act 2012 introduced a milk price monitoring regime aimed at improving transparency in Fonterra's farm-gate milk price setting.  
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 32 - 
 
    Could New Zealand provide further detail on this monitoring mechanism?  
 The monitoring mechanism was introduced in 2012 to promote the transparency of, and confidence in, Fonterra's milk price setting process and consistency of outcomes with those arising 
in a contestable market for famers' milk. 
 The monitoring mechanism works as follows to achieve this objective: 
1. Fonterra must make publically available the Milk Price Manual it produces each year 
which provides the assumptions, inputs and process it will use in the next dairy season to calculate the price it pays farmers for milk at the farm gate (the Base Milk Price);  
 
2. The Commerce Commission annually reviews this manual to ensure it is consistent 
with the purpose of the monitoring mechanism, which is to promote the setting of a Base Milk Price that incentivises Fonterra to operate efficiently and provides for contestability in 
the farm gate market.  
 3. Fonterra must follow the Milk Price Manual in calculating the Base Milk Price. The 
Commerce Commission also annually reviews Fonterra's calculation of its Base Milk Price.  
 4. The setting of the Base Milk Price and the Commerce Commission's review of this calculation are based on the concept of a notionally efficient processor. Fonterra must 
follow two key principles in calculating the Base Milk Price to ensure such price is 
consistent with that set by a notionally efficient processor:  
a. revenue taken into account in calculating the base milk price is determined from 
prices of a portfolio of commodities at the times that those commodities are contracted to be sold by Fonterra; and 
b. costs taken into account in calculating the Base Milk Price include the costs of 
collecting milk, processing milk into commodities (the same commodities taken into account above in determining notional revenue), and the costs of transporting and selling the commodities.   
 
The Commerce Commission publishes a report on each review of the Milk Price Manual and setting of the Base Milk Price. The reports include de tails of the methodology and analysis and are 
publically available at: http://www.comcom.govt.nz/regulated-ind ustries/dairy-industry/review-of-
fonterra-s-farm-gate-milk-price-and-manual/   
 
  Specifically, in which way does the Commerce Commission in charge of monitoring 
determine whether Fonterra's farm-gate milk price is consistent with a price that would otherwise emerge in a competitive market for farmer's milk? 
 
See previous response. 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 33 - 
 
  INDIA 
Questions from Secretariat Report 
 
Page – 7, Paragraph – 12 
 
Background Technical regulations and sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) are intended to reflect WTO 
provisions. When standards are developed, existing international standards are considered and 
stakeholder consultation is undertaken. Relatively stringent SPS measures are applied to imports of plant and animal products for biosecurity reasons. In the WTO Committee on TBT, some Members have raised concerns about New Zealand's 2012 proposal to introduce plain packaging of 
tobacco products, while some other Members have supported it. New Zealand has Mutual 
Recognition Agreements with some of its main trading partners.  The most comprehensive 
is the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement with the federal government and state and 
territory governments of Australia. 
 Question 1:  
New Zealand is requested to provide detailed account on how many of its FTA it has provisions for 
Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs).  New Zealand has provisions for MRAs in a number of its Free Trade Agreements. This includes: 
 
• The Agreement between New Zealand and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, 
Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu on Economic Cooperation (ANZTEC), in Relation to Facilitating 
Trade in Electrical and Electronic Products signed on 15 July 2005. 
 • Free Trade Agreement Between The Government of New Zealand And The Government of 
the People's Republic of China, Annex 14: The Agreement between the Government of New 
Zealand and the Government of the People's Republic of China on Cooperation in the Field of Conformity Assessment in Relation to Electrical and Electronic Equipment and Components. 
 
• The Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangem ent (TTMRA) is a cornerstone of the trading 
framework established by the ANZCERTA and pa rt of establishing a seamless trans-Tasman 
business environment through the Single Economic Market agenda. Under the TTMRA, 
subject to limited exceptions, goods able to be legally sold in one country can be legally sold 
in the other without having to meet further sales-related requirements. Similarly, people registered to practice an occupation in one country are entitled to register to practice the 
equivalent occupation in the other country without the need to undergo further testing or 
examination. 
 Page – 54, Paragraph – 3.78 
 
Background Part Three of the Fair Trading Act affords the Mi nister of Consumer Affairs a range of statutory 
powers to place controls on unsafe consumer goods, i.e. to set mandatory standards for consumer 
goods, ban unsafe consumer goods (through unsafe goods notices), compel the recall of an unsafe 
good or issue a product safety policy statement. Th is last measure was introduced as part of the 
review of consumer protection legislation in 2013. A product safety policy statement is a statement 
from the Government in relation to a product safety issue, but it does not in itself carry a legal sanction. It can be used as possible precursor to  regulatory intervention. An unsafe goods notice 
can be introduced without public consultation and it remains in force for 18 months (unless 
revoked). After the initial 18 months the Minister can make it permanent, following a consultation 
process.  
Question 2:  
New Zealand is requested to provide clarifications on how it proposes to carry forward with enforcement of Part Three  of the Fair Trading Act.  
 
India seeks detailed information on methods and processes and finally enforcement of this Act. It further, also requires a clarification on the position on imported consumer products: WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 34 - 
 
  I.  While the product safety policy statement is a statement from the Government in relation 
to a product safety issue , but it does not in itself carry a legal sanction ; 
II.  How does the country proposes to use it as a precursor to regulatory intervention; 
III.  The unsafe goods notification can be introduced without public consultation and it remains 
in force for 18 months (unless revoked). 
 Is the Act compatible with the WTO obligations under the TBT Agreements? 
 
Concerning the specific clarifications sought:  We confirm that failure to comply with the terms of a product safety policy statement is not 
punishable by any legal sanctions; 
 A product safety policy statement can serve as an indication to industry of the Government's 
preferred approach to an issue. If industry ignores the statement, the Government may consider 
implementing its preferred approach by regulation.  
We confirm that an unsafe goods notification can be introduced without public consultation and 
that it remains in force for 18 months (unless revoked).   We also confirm that we consider the Fair Trading Act, including its Part Three, to be compatible 
with the WTO obligations under the TBT Agreements. 
 For detailed information on the methods and processe s of Part Three of the Act, we kindly suggest 
you examine section 29-33D of the Act, which you can access here: 
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0121/latest/whole.html#DLM96968 . 
 
We also direct you to the following website: http://www.consumeraffairs.govt.nz/for-
business/compliance/product-safety .  
 
Page – 55, Paragraph – 3.89 
 
Background The Food Act 2014 updates the Food Act 1981. It reforms provisions on trade in food in order to 
enhance safety and suitability. It also sets guid elines for risk-based measures to improve public 
health protection. The Act is scheduled to be fully in force by mid-2016.  
Question 3:  
New Zealand is requested to provide justification fo r maintaining higher standards fo Cattle Meat in 
MRL terms compared to CODEX MRL standard.  
I.  New Zealand is requested to provide scientific justification (risk assessment), as mandated 
by the SPS Agreement, for the application of higher tolerance level on these pesticides 
(including herbicides and fungicides) which are great importance for India?  
MRLs set by New Zealand for food imports ensure compliance with Good Agricultural Practice and 
consistency with international obligations, while ensuring food safety. The New Zealand (Maximum Residue Limits of Agricultural Compounds) Food Standards 2015 state that food imports can 
comply with either the Codex MRL or the New Zealand MRL. Where no specific MRL is set, a default 
MRL of 0.1mg/kg applies.  
II.  New Zealand is requested to clearly provide answers as to why such stringent MRL levels 
are required for the presence pesticides and veterinary drugs like: chlortetracycline, 
dihydrostreptomycin, eprinomectin, fenbendazole , oxfendazole, oxytetracycline, pirlimycin, 
streptomycin and tetracycline 
 
MRLs set by New Zealand for food imports ensure compliance with Good Agricultural Practice and consistency with international obligations, while ensuring food safety. The New Zealand (Maximum 
Residue Limits of Agricultural Compounds) Food Standards 2015 state that food imports can 
comply with either the Codex MRL or the New Zealand MRL. Where no specific MRL is set, a default MRL of 0.1mg/kg applies.  WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 35 - 
 
  III.  What are Theoretical Maximum Daily Intake (TMDI) and the Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADI) 
in each of Veterinary Drugs? 
 
Compound ADI (mg/kg bw) TMDI (mg/person – 70kg) 
Chlortetracycline 0.03 0.062 Dihydrostreptomycin 0.05 0.091 Eprinomectin 0.01 0.013 
Fenbendazole 0.007 0.0092 
Oxfendazole 0.007 0.0033 Oxytetracycline 0.03 0.044 Pirlimycin 0.008 0.036 
Streptomycin 0.05 0.091 
Tetracycline No longer available in New Zealand 
 
IV.  India would also like to know whether these we re notified under the transparency clause of 
the WTOs (SPS & TBT) agreements;  
MRLs proposed by New Zealand are notified to the WTO as required. 
 Page – 40, Paragraph – 3.9  
Background 
New Zealand's intellectual property regime aims at ensuring a balance between the interests of rights owners and the society as a whole. Severa l legislative changes occurred during the review 
period. A new patent Act entered into force in 2013 to allow, inter alia, stricter examination of 
applications, and exclude "computer software as such" from patentability. The Copyright Act was 
amended to facilitate enforcement action against infringing sharing file. The Trade Marks Act was 
amended several times to accommodate international standards. Protection for geographical 
indications continues to be provided throug h the Fair Trading Act 1986. The Geographical 
Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act 2006, which establishes a registration system for wines and spirits geographical indications is yet to be brought into force. 
 
Question 4: According to information provided, New Zealand has yet to bring the Geographical Indications 
(Wines and Spirits) Registration Act 2006 in to force. In its absence, how is additional protection 
for wines and spirits provided for under the New Zealand domestic regime?  
The government decided in 2015 to move ahead with  bringing the Geographical Indications (Wines 
and Spirits) Registration Act into force. Further revi ew of the Act has determined that it will require 
some technical amendments before implementa tion. There is also a need to develop and 
promulgate regulations covering the registration  procedures and fees. Work on drafting these 
amendments has begun, with the hope that the amen dment Bill will be ready for introduction into 
Parliament in the next few months. This means the most likely completed implementation date will be in 2016. 
 
Page – 98, Paragraph – 3.164  
Background 
The Copyright Act allows for parallel importing of non-infringing copies of a work into. No import permit is required for parallel imports.  
Question 5: 
What is the regime on exhaustion of rights in case of patents and trademarks?  
The Patents Act 2013 has no explicit provision regarding exhaustion. In the absence of such a 
provision, the issue has been left to the courts. In general the approach is that if goods covered by a New Zealand patent were placed on the market in another country by or with the consent of the 
patent owner, without any restrictions on furt her sales of the product, the products may be 
imported into New Zealand without the consent of the patent owner and such imports would not infringe the New Zealand patent. If the patent owner has placed the products on the market in another country, but with the condition that they must not be exported to New Zealand, the WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 36 - 
 
  products would infringe the New Zealand patent if imported into New Zealand without the patent 
owner's consent.  The Trade Marks Act 2002 provides for international exhaustion of rights where a registered trade 
mark is used on goods that have been placed on  the market overseas by or with the trade mark 
owner's consent. See s97A of the Trade Marks Act 2002.  
Page –67, Paragraph – 3.186 
 Background  
A new Patents Act 2013 came into force in September 2014 and replaced the Patents Act 1953. 
The new Act brings the New Zealand patent law in to closer alignment with New Zealand's trading 
partners. Several changes were made within the scope of patents registration, including stricter examination of applications and subject matter exclusions. It excludes from patentability certain 
inventions such as: inventions that are contrary to public order or morality, and 'computer 
software as such', still allowing for patenting of embedded software. 
 
Question 6: 
What has been the trend in filings related to computer software since the amendment and how does this compare with the same period in the previous year? What has been the status on grants of patents in case of such applications during the same period? 
 
The Patents Act 2013 entered into force on 13 September 2014. The majority of patent applications filed to date under the 2013 Act have not been examined, as the applicants have not 
requested examination . For those which have been examined, there has been insufficient time for 
them to progress to acceptance or grant.  
The Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand does not keep records regarding the subject 
matter of individual patent applications. However, anecdotally, there is no indication of a significant change in the filing of applications for technologies which include claims to computer software. 
 
Page –67, Paragraph – 3.186  
Background 
A new Patents Act 2013 came into force in September 2014 and replaced the Patents Act 1953.  
Question 7: 
What is the role of the Maori Advisory Committee in the context of an application based on traditional knowledge of the Maoris? If the committee finds that the invention is traditional knowledge or is strongly related/based on traditio nal knowledge of the Maoris, what is the impact 
of such advise? Please indicate the number of patent applications where the Maori advisory 
committee found that the invention is either completely or partially based on traditional knowledge of the Maori committee. What was the impact of these findings in these cases? 
 
The Patents Maori Advisory Committee (MAC) was established under the Patents Act 2013. The Commissioner of Patents may seek advice from the MAC on whether an invention claimed in a 
patent application is:  
 (i) derived from M āori traditional knowledge or from indigenous plants or animals; and if so,  
(ii) whether the commercial exploitation of that invention is likely to be contrary to M āori 
values. 
 Any advice provided to the Commissioner is not binding on the Commissioner. Should the 
Commissioner wish to act upon any advice from the MAC, then the applicant is informed and is 
provided with an opportunity to respond to the matters raised by the MAC before the Commissioner makes a final decision on whether to accept or refuse the patent application. 
 
To date no application filed under the Patents Act 2013 has been referred to the Patents Maori Advisory Committee.  WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 37 - 
 
  Page: 58, Paragraph 3.118 
 Background Document:  WT/TPR/S/316 Para 3.118: "3.118. The International Growth Fund (IGF) of 
NZ$30 million aims at supporting export busine sses with high growth potential . In 
addition, the IGF seeks to increase the number and size of New Zealand businesses embedded in the global economy ." (emphasis supplied) 
 
Document: G/SCM/N/220/NZL Page 6: "4. Form of assi stance Grant funding of up to 50% of 
costs of an approved activity may be provided up to a maximum of NZ$1m (GST exclusive), over 
5 years. 5. To whom and how assistance is prov ided Businesses (or groups of businesses) that 
have been identified as having clear and signif icant high growth potential and that demonstrate 
potential to deliver indirect economic benefits to New Zealand (e.g. new technology, managerial expertise) may be accepted onto the programme". 
 
Question 8: As the IGF of NZ$30 million aims at supporting expo rt businesses with high growth potential, is 
the assistance provided in the nature of export su bsidy? What are the criteria on the basis of which 
funding is granted?  No, the IGF is not an export subsidy because it is  not contingent on export performance. It is a 
capability building grant and reimbursed up to 50% upon completion of capability building 
activities.  
Eligibility criteria: 
• Firms committed to growth, with potential to contribute significantly to the New Zealand 
economy, and willing to work closely with NZTE; 
• Operating in a commercial environment, resident in New Zealand, and registered for Goods 
and Services Tax; 
• Financially viable and has management team with sound track record • Has proposals and business concepts that are consistent with laws and regulations in 
New Zealand and overseas; 
• Is managed to an NZTE customer engagement plan; and • Is committed to retaining the value of the business in New Zealand. 
 
Assessment criteria: • Size and potential benefit to New Zealand; 
• Evidence of additionality – whether the projec t would not go ahead without co funding, or 
would proceed more slowly or on a smaller scale; 
• Ability of the firm and its management to deliver on the project; • Value added by NZTE and the expected impact  of NZTE involvement on project success; and 
• Degree of risk associated with the co funding. 
 Question 9: 
Whether New Zealand will notify the entire programme to the Subsidies Committee in full details? 
 No. The International Growth Fund was not notified under New Zealand's previous notification as it 
did not meet the criteria for notification. Specific ally, New Zealand does not consider that the Fund 
is either specific or that there is a benefit as provided for under the SCM Agreement. There have been no changes to the Fund since 2013 that would change New Zealand's assessment of this fact.  
Page – 58 Paragraph – 3.3.5 
 Background: 
Document WT/TPR/S/316 - "3.116. Since the previous Review, no substantial change has occurred 
in New Zealand's export promotion framework. Ne w Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE) remains 
the key agency involved in export promotion. Its activities include strategic advice, facilitating 
access to networks, research and market intelligence for new export companies and support for 
enterprises that already export…  WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 38 - 
 
  3.120. Through the Business Growth Agenda (BGA), NZTE has the responsibility to extend 
companies' international reach by focusing assistance on th em and mobilising capital to 
support business growth ." (emphasis supplied)" 
 
Document: WT/TPR/S/316 : "3.121. Since the previous Review, the New Zealand Export Credit 
Office (NZECO) continues to provide trade credit insurance and financial guarantee products that complement those available in the private sector  for exporters and banks, including against the 
risk of non-payment arising from defined political or commercial risks (up to 95% cover). 3.122. 
NZECO is currently located in the Treasury, and its obligations to third parties are guaranteed by the New Zealand Government. The Government's maximum liability under the scheme is NZ$740 million. To be eligible for NZECO's guarantees, an exporter must  be either a New Zealand 
r e g i s t e r e d  c o m p a n y ,  o r  a  s u b s i d i a r y  o f  a New Zealand registered company located 
abroad; and an economic benefit to New Zealand must exist from the transaction ..." 
(emphasis supplied) 
 
Document: B: G/SCM/N/220/NZL: Page 4: "C. NEW ZEALAND EXPORT CREDIT OFFICE 
PROGRAMME  
1. Period covered by the notification FY 2009/10.  
2. Policy Objective and/ or purpose  The purpose of the New Zealand Export Credit Office (NZECO) is to assist New Zealand businesses access trade finance. NZECO sells Minister of Financ e guarantees covering three types of risks: (a) 
Political / country risks of a buyer's country; (b) Overseas buyer repayment risks; and (c) New 
Zealand exporter technical performance and financial capability risks.  3. Background and authority Export Credit guarantees are Minister of Finance guarantees 
according to section 65ZD of the Public Financ e Act 1989. The New Zealand Treasury administers 
this  fund . 4 .  F orm of as sis tanc e  N ZECO p rovid e s  the following forms of guarantees: (a) Export 
Credit Guarantees: provides cover against the risk of non-payment under an export contract 
arising from defined political and commercial risk s, enabling exporters and their banks to support 
usual repayment terms from overseas buyers for a period of longer than one year…. Duration This programme has no fixed duration, but is subject to regular review. A review was undertaken in 2009/10. The next review is due in 2014. The short term trade credit insurance is due to be 
reviewed in 2014." 
 Document C : Official Website of New Zealand Export Credit Office "The New Zealand Export 
Credit Office (NZECO) provides financial guarant ee products for New Zealand exporters and banks. 
Our products help exporters manage risk and capitalise on trade opportunities around the globe.  
As well as working directly with exporters, we  work closely with commercial financiers in 
New Zealand and offshore to support and improve the competitiveness of New Zealand exporters. 
NZECO is currently located in the Treasury and ob ligations to third parties are guaranteed by the 
New Zealand Government. 
 
NZECO's guarantee products are intended to extend the capacity of facilities in the private sector. 
The Government's maximum liability under the scheme is NZ$740 million." 
 
Questions 10: NZTE is the key agency involved in export prom otion. It provides assistance to companies to 
support business growth. Could New Zealand elaborat e on the kind of assistance provided and to 
whom? What are the specific assistance initia tives undertaken by NZTE that provide such 
assistance and what is the eligibility criteria to receive assistance?  
NZTE helps companies to identify, plan for and act on their biggest opportunities for international 
growth. They do this in two ways.   
F i r s t ,  b y  b o o s t i n g  c o m p a n i e s '  g l o b a l  r e a c h  a n d  m a r k e t  k n o w l e d g e  t o  h e l p  t h e m  s u c c e e d  
internationally, through their network of offices around the world. Second, by helping businesses 
build expertise they need to be successful internationally:  
  improving efficiency and operations; 
  sparking innovation; 
  refining strategy; 
  enhancing leadership;  
  accessing capital.  WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 39 - 
 
   
Eligibility is determined by a company's commitment to building a successful international business and genuine drive to add to New Zealand's prosperity. Refer to NZTE's website for more information: http://www.nzte.govt.nz.   
 
Questions 11: It is clear that the assistance provided by NZEC O is directly provided to exporters and exporter 
companies who are New Zealand registered company or subsidiary thereof. Could New Zealand 
clarify how this assistance provided by NZECO is not in the nature of export subsidy?  In accordance with its mandate and its international obligations, NZECO applies risk-weighted 
premiums for all its products, which are at levels to adequately cover NZECO's long-term operating 
costs and any losses. The WTO's ACSM defines export subsidies, as it relates to export credits, as 
"The provision by governments (or special institutions controlled by governments) of export credit 
guarantee or insurance programmes, ... at premiu m rates which are inadequate to cover the long-
term operating costs and losses of the programm es.", and therefore the assistance provided 
by NZECO is not an export subsidy prohibited under the ACSM. 
 
Questions 12: Has the New Zealand Export Office Credit Programme been reviewed in 2014; if so what is the status of the programme? 
 
A review of the New Zealand Export Office Credit Programme was postponed until 2015. This review is currently underway. 
 
Page: 51 Paragraph: 3.2.6.2  
Background : "3.67. The Trade (Safeguard Measures) Act 2014 entered into force in November 
2014 and put in place a new safeguards regime for New Zealand and repealed the previous law relating to safeguards contained in the Temporary Safeguard Authorities Act 1987. The Act requires New Zealand to apply safegu ard measures following WTO rules… 
 
3.70. The AANZFTA, the New Zealand–Thailand Closer Economic Partnership Agreement, the New Zealand–China FTA, and the New Zealand-Ma laysia FTA include a bilateral transitional 
safeguard mechanism which allows each Party to impose a bilateral transitional safeguard on 
imports from the other Party during the period tariffs are being phased out for any particular good and for a limited period. Such a transitional safeguard mechanism can be imposed to address 
situations of serious injury or threats of serious injury to a domestic industry caused by increased 
imports as a result of tariff reductions under the FTA. In these situations, action can include 
suspending further tariff reductions or reverting to higher tariffs for a certain period.  
3.71. The Closer Economic Partnership between New Zealand and Hong Kong, China and the 
Economic Cooperation Agreement between New Zealand and Chinese Taipei, both include a provision where, if either Party imposes a WTO safeguards measure, it shall exclude imports from 
the other party if such imports are not a cause of serious injury or threat thereof. The New 
Zealand–Thailand Closer Economic Partnership Agreement, the New Zealand–China FTA and the New Zealand–Malaysia FTA provide that a Party ap plying a global safeguard measure may exclude 
imports from the other Parties where those imports are not cause of serious injury. Under the 
Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Agreement and the New Zealand–Singapore Closer Economic Partnership Agreement, a Party imposing a global safeguard measure must exclude imports originating from another Party from the measure." 
 
Questions 13: Nothing in the Safeguards Agreement or the GATT 1994 appears to permit a Member to exempt 
imports from certain countries from application of  safeguard measure solely on the grounds that 
such an exemption would "further its international obligations or trade goals". Could New Zealand clarify how such a blanket exemption on a mandatory basis would be consistent with provisions of 
Article 2.2 of the Safeguards Agreement?  
 New Zealand considers that exempting certain imports from a country or countries from a safeguard measure is consistent with our obligations under Article 2.2 of the Safeguards 
Agreement provided the concept known as "parallelism" is applied to the analysis of whether WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 40 - 
 
  increased imports have caused serious injury to a domestic industry. The term "international 
relations or trade goals" allows an exemption to be given to a trading partner with whom we have 
concluded particular preferential trading arrangements under a free trade agreement.  
Page: 58 Paragraph 3.123 and 3.124 
 Background :  
"3.123. Traditionally, the NZECO products relate to medium and long-term financing (between 
one and 14 years). However, in response to the global financial crisis, NZECO's mandate was extended in 2009 to cover short-term trade credit insurance, which covers the risk of a foreign buyer defaulting on their short-term repayments (less than 360 days), due to specific commercial 
or political events. NZECO is not mandated to compete with the private insurers and can only 
provide this product for non-marketable risks and/ or where the insurers lack the capacity. During 
the 2013/2014 financial year, NZECO guaranteed NZ $306 million worth of export transactions in 
support of 36 exporting companies, of which 74%  had annual turnovers of less than NZ$50 million 
and 62% had annual turnovers of less than NZ$25 million.   
3.124. According to the authorities, NZECO follow s the OECD Arrangement on export credits and 
pricing, as well as its own Crown mandated criteria and prudential limits."  Questions 14: 
NZECO's mandate now also covers short-term trade credit insurance which covers the risk of a 
foreign buyer defaulting on their short-term repayments (less than 360 days), due to specific commercial or political events. Could New Zealand clarify whether this provision of short term 
trade credit insurance is not in the nature of subsidy and therefore, required to be notified as per 
Article 25 of ASCM?   
In accordance with its mandate and its international obligations, NZECO applies risk-weighted 
premiums for its short-term trade credit insurance, which are at levels to adequately cover NZECO's long-term operating costs and any losses under this programme. Therefore as there is no benefit, New Zealand is not required to notify under Article 25.  
 
Questions 15: Can New Zealand clarify that the NZECO short term  trade credit insurance to support exporting 
companies is in the nature of export subsidy? How New Zealand can grant export subsidy which is 
prohibited under ASCM?   
In accordance with its mandate and its international obligations, NZECO applies risk-weighted 
premiums for its short-term trade credit insurance, which are at levels to adequately cover NZECO's long-term operating costs and any losses under this programme. Accordingly, it is not an export subsidy prohibited under the ACSM. 
 
Page: 47 Paragraph 3.2.4  
Background :  
"3.45. In addition to tariffs, an import entry transaction fee (IETF) of NZ$29.26 is payable on every electronic import entry clearance, and on import declaration for goods when the sum of duty 
and Goods and Services Tax (GST) payable exceeds NZ$60. A MPI biosecurity system entry levy of 
NZ$17.63 (GST inclusive) is payable on every entry on which an IETF is payable and is collected 
by Customs at the same time as the IETF. 3.46.  An inward cargo transaction fee of NZ$30.66 is 
payable on every inward cargo report for goods imported by air, and NZ$359.82 for goods 
imported by sea. 3.47. NZCS also collects: (i ) a research levy on imports of heavy steel and 
welding consumables at rates of NZ$10 per tonne  of heavy steel, and NZ$0.05 per kilogram of 
welding consumables; (ii) a levy on alcohol products on behalf of the Health Promotion Agency 
(HPA) at various rates (Table 3.4); (iii) a synthetic greenhouse gas (goods) levy on goods 
containing hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perf luorocarbons (PFCs) under the Climate Change 
Response Act 2002 and the Climate Change (SGG Levies) Regulations 2013 on behalf of the 
Ministry for the Environment at various rates9; (iv) a biosecurity risk screening levy collected by 
NZCS on behalf of MPI at rates that can vary between NZ$12.77 and NZ$18.40 (as per the 
Biosecurity (System Entry Levy) Order 2010). Table 3.4 Summary of the HPA rates on alcohol products….." 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 41 - 
 
  Questions 16: 
As per paragraph 3.2.4 New Zealand charges other duties and charges at the time of imports which include a levy on alcohol products on behalf of the Health Promotion Agency (HPA) at various rates (Table 3.4). Can New Zealand please clarify whether alcohol products produced in 
New Zealand are also subject to similar charge of levy and if so what are the rates the like alcohol 
products produced in New Zealand are taxed?  
 
The Health Promotion Agency (HPA) levy is pa yable on both New Zealand manufactured and 
imported alcohol products at the rates specified in Table 3.4 – Summary of the HPA rates on alcohol products. WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 42 - 
 
  CHINESE TAIPEI 
PART I: REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT (WT/TPR/S/316) 
 
Summary 
 
Page 7 (Para 14)  New Zealand has a comprehensive legal and institutional framework for competition policy. The 
Commerce Commission is responsible for enforcing the generic provisions of the Commerce Act, as 
well as the competition components of industry-specific laws. The Commission is also engaged in international cooperation with overseas competition authorities. While New Zealand's competition regime is considered as generally performing well in international comparisons, some studies have 
found that the country's small market and remoteness have led to relatively low levels of 
competition in some services industries (i.e. retail, finance, insurance, real estate and professional services). This may have contributed to low productivity levels and high costs in some of these 
sectors to the detriment of New Zealand firms and consumers. Proposed amendments to the 
competition law, including criminal sanctions for hard-core cartels and the application of the Commerce Act to the international freight transport sector, are currently before Parliament. 
 
Question(s): 1. Does New Zealand have any plans or policies to upgrade competition in those services 
industries which have relatively low levels of co mpetition (i.e. retail, finance, insurance, real 
estate and professional services)?  
 
New Zealand has no plans that are specific to service industries. The New Zealand government 
approach is more general; it undertakes regular reviews aimed at ensuring that competition policy 
settings are appropriately set for all goods and services industries. 
 
2. If so, could New Zealand please elaborate on these plans? 
 N/A  
1. Economic Environment 
1.7 Trade Performance  
Page 19 (Para 1.32) 
The Secretariat Report noted that New Zealand's external trade (exports and imports) of goods 
and services was equivalent to 56.7% of real expenditure GDP in 2013/14 (compared to 65.0% in 
2008/09). This reflects a relatively lower trade exposure than one would expect given the 
economy's small size and degree of openness.   Question(s): 
3. Please elaborate the main reasons why New Zealand's external trade (exports and imports) of 
goods and services in 2013/14 decreased by 8.3% from 2008/09, when the global financial crisis had struck the international economy. 
 
The ratios are calculated using current price (nominal) values for exports, imports, and 
expenditure on GDP (GDE), not real as stated in paragraph 1.32 of the Secretariat Report. 
 
The reason the current price ratio of external tr ade (exports plus imports) to GDE fell between 
2008/09 and 2013/14 is due to prices for exports an d imports falling relative to prices for total 
GDE.  
 
Between 2008/09 and 2013/14 export prices fell 2.2% and import prices fell 12.4%, while prices 
for total GDE increased by 10.3%. Over the same period, the volume of exports increased 13.1%, 
the volume of imports increased 17.8%, and the volume of GDE increased 11.1%.  
 
This means that while the volume of goods and se rvices exported and imported relative to GDE 
increased, the fall in prices for exports and imports relative to GDE caused the current price 
external trade to GDE ratio to fall. 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 43 - 
 
  Please note price changes were calculated using implicit price deflators for exports, imports, and 
GDE. 
 
4. Please indicate if New Zealand's FTAs have really  increased New Zealand's trade. If yes, please 
give examples. 
 
Exports to New Zealand's current FTA trading partners comprise 49% of our total exports of goods 
and services (YE December 2014). The value of New Zealand's merchandise exports to our FTA 
partners has risen by a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10.3% over the past six calendar years (i.e. years ended December 2008 to 2014) while the value of goods exports to non-FTA partners has dropped by a CAGR of 2.6% over the same period. Similarly, New Zealand's 
merchandise imports from FTA partners have grown by a CAGR of 3.9%, whilst imports from 
non-FTA partners have fallen by 1% over the same six year period. It is, however, important to note that it is difficult to attribute increased trade solely to the implementation of trade 
agreements. Other factors such as technology diffusion, increased travel and migration, changing 
characteristics in trading partner markets (e.g. growing middle classes) and globalisation, more broadly, can also be drivers of increased trade. 
 
Page 20 (Para 1.34) The primary sector continues to be the most important contributor to New Zealand's export earnings. According to United Nations Comtrade data, the share of primary products in total 
merchandise export value rose from 69.7% in 2009 to 75.7% in 2014, due mainly to increases in 
exports of agricultural products (Chart 1.2 and Ta ble A1.1). Dairy and meat products are the main 
agricultural exports, making up about 38% of to tal merchandise exports, and have benefitted from 
high global commodity prices during part of the review period; wood products have also been quite 
dynamic. By contrast, the share of manufactures in merchandise export value declined from 25.6% in 2009 to 19.9% in 2014, with drops in the shares of machinery and transport equipment, 
chemicals and other semi-manufactures. 
 Question(s): 5. Agricultural goods account for nearly 60% of New Zealand's exports. What measures has 
New Zealand been adopting in order to protect it s agricultural development in the face of the 
rapid climate change of recent years? 
 
The New Zealand Government is assisting the agricultural sector to adapt to a changing climate by 
ensuring the sector recognises the need to adapt in time, has an incentive to adapt, and has the ability to adapt. 
 
Need to adapt  The Government funds an extensive climate change research programme. The 'Sustainable Land 
Management & Climate Change Research Programme' includes 'Impacts of Climate Change and 
Adaptation' as one of three priority topics. For example, the Programme enabled the publication of 
the report: 'Impacts of Climate Change on Land-based Sectors and Adaptation Options', which 
identifies practical adaptation activities that are,  or can be, part of day-today business, as well as 
those that build on the innovative drive of the la nd-based sectors. A copy of this publication is 
available online at: http://climatecloud.co.nz/CloudLibrary/2012-33-Impacts-cc-land-
based_sectors-adaptation-Stakeholder.pdf . 
 
Farmers also have access to early warning systems including the New Zealand Drought Monitor. The Government works with the existing network of sector organisations in New Zealand to ensure 
the dissemination of this information to farmers.  
 Incentive to adapt 
 
The incentive to adapt occurs naturally in the absence of Government policy (due to timely recognition of changing climatic conditions). Government policy does not weaken this natural 
incentive or create perverse incentives for maladaptation (for example, by providing subsidised 
insurance mechanisms). New Zealand has a producer support estimate (PSE) of less than one percent, the lowest of any OECD country, which ensures that farmers face the actual cost of changes to the farming environment. New Zealand's 'Primary Sector Recovery Policy' ensures that WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 44 - 
 
  government responds appropriately in the event of extreme weather events, while also ensuring 
that government action does not weaken the incentive for farmers to adapt.   Ability to adapt 
 
New Zealand land managers have extensive experience managing risk including adapting farming systems and agricultural land use to changing ma rket and economic conditions (commodity prices, 
interest rates, exchange rates, etc.) due to the market based and export orientated nature of New 
Zealand's agricultural sector. Climate risk (risk of drought, flood, etc.) is a core aspect of normal 
due diligence for any farm purchase or land conv ersion, and managing climate variability is a key 
aspect of successful farm management. The role of the Government is to ensure farmers have 
access to information on the expected changes to  New Zealand's climate (at the local level) and 
suitable adaptation measures. New Zealand farmers are responsible for adapting their individual farming systems to the extent they judge appropriate. 
 
2. Trade and investment regime 2.1 overview 
 
Page 27 (Para 2.4) In general, New Zealand has an open foreign in vestment regime. However, by means of screening 
procedures, restrictions apply in a few areas of "critical interest", i.e. certain sensitive types of 
land, "significant business assets" other than land, and fishing quotas. 
 Question(s): 
6. To what exactly do the "screening procedures" refer? 
 The "screening procedures" refer to the requirement under the Overseas Investment Act 2005 and 
sections 56 to 58 of the Fisheries Act 1996 for investments by overseas persons in the following 
assets:  
 Sensitive Land; 
 Significant business assets; and 
 Fishing quota 
 
to meet criteria for consent. These criteria for consent are found in section 16 (sensitive land) and 
section 18 (significant business assets) of the Overseas Investment Act 2005. The criteria for consent for the acquisition of fishing quota are found in section 57G of the Fisheries Act 1996. 
 
2.3 Trade Policy Formulation and Objectives  Page 28 (Para 2.10)  
When formulating trade policy, the MFAT actively shares information and consults with domestic 
interest groups including business people, unions, M āori and NGOs. A National Interest Analysis on 
the impact of any proposed preferential trade agreement is prepared prior to examination by 
Parliament of such agreement, and serves as a basis for public consultations. 
 Question(s): 
7. Could New Zealand explain how MFAT shares information and how it consults with domestic 
interest groups, including how these interest groups are selected?  
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade conducts wide-ranging public consultations to raise public 
awareness and seek stakeholder views. The manner and degree of consultation will depend on the 
specific matter under consideration, but will usually include government departments, M āori, 
business groups, non-government organisations, and academics. 
 
MFAT shares information in print, by email and online, as well as meeting with key stakeholders, such as exporters and industry sectors and non-government organisations likely to be interested in 
or affected by the outcomes of Ministry work. Sometimes MFAT will call for submissions on 
significant pieces of work, such as FTAs, which will be open to the general public. These submissions can provide significant input into nego tiations and provide indications of the degree of 
stakeholder interest in an initiative and the extent of required consultation. 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 45 - 
 
  2.4 Trade Agreements and Arrangements 
2.4.1 WTO  Page 29 (Para 2.17) 
New Zealand is committed to the multilateral trading system. The authorities are of the view that 
as a country dependant on international trade, New Zealand benefits from clear and transparent 
trade rules that are applicable to all Members. At the Bali Ministerial Conference in 2013, 
New Zealand reiterated that the WTO remains its main focus in its efforts to address the 
challenges that it faces as a trading nation, an d to promote broad-based and inclusive growth. It 
has actively participated in WTO Trade Facilitation negotiations. However, it has not yet ratified the Agreement. 
 
Question(s): 8. What is the process by which Parliament ratifies an agreement? How long does it normally 
take? 
 The process of ratification of an agreement in New Zealand has two stages. Acceding, accepting or 
approving an agreement follows the same proce ss but does not include the initial step of 
signature.   The first stage is called Parliamentary Treaty Examination and begins following signature of the 
agreement. This process involves the presentation  of the agreement in question to Parliament, 
along with information summarising the national interest to New Zealand of becoming party to that particular agreement. A Select Committee (usually the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade 
Committee), made up of Members of Parliament, then considers the treaty and hears public 
submissions on the agreement and its implicatio ns, before the committee tables a report in 
Parliament. Depending on the content of the report, the Government may choose to respond to 
the report and debate the issue in the House before it takes any binding treaty action. The 
Parliamentary Treaty Examination process may last between two and four months.  If implementing the agreement requires making am endments to existing domestic legislation or 
the introduction of new legislation, such legislation is introduced to Parliament for consideration 
once the Parliamentary Treaty Examination process above is completed. This process again involves select committee scrutiny and a series of votes in the House. This ensures that New 
Zealand has the domestic legislative framework to meet the obligations imposed by the 
agreement. The domestic legislative process may take up to, or over, a year.   
Only following completion of the two stages above will the Executive take "binding treaty action", 
including the authorisation of the depositing of an instrument of ratification, accession, acceptance or approval.  
New Zealand is currently working to complete its domestic procedures to enable it to submit its 
instrument of acceptance of the Protocol. New Zealand expects to deposit Notification of Acceptance of the Protocol in advance of the 10th WTO Ministerial Conference to be held in Nairobi 
in December this year. 
 Page 29 (Para 2.39) 
The agreement contains measures to improve business in various economic areas of mutual 
interest and is supported by agreements on trade and the environment and trade and labour 
matters. It liberalizes and facilitates trade in goods, services and investment between New Zealand and Malaysia, and goes beyond the commitments made in the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free 
Trade Agreement (AANZFTA) signed in February 2009. 
 
Question(s): 
9. The report mentions that the liberalization degree of New Zealand-Malaysia FTA is higher than 
AANZFTA. In which area(s) is this so? (e.g. the timetable for tariff reductions, trade in 
services, investment, etc.) 
 
The MNZFTA provides for tariff elimination for more of New Zealand's exports to Malaysia faster than under AANZFTA. It eliminates Malaysia's tariffs on 99.5% of New Zealand's current exports within seven years (by 2016) of entry-into-force – five years earlier than provided for under the 
AANZFTA. Key outcomes for goods include improved access for kiwifruit, meat, wool, dairy, fish, WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 46 - 
 
  forestry products, liquid milk and manufactured goods, including a number of steel lines, various 
paints and varnishes lines and a number of plastic product lines. It provides for improved market access for New Zealand services providers in key areas of commercial interest, including education, environmental, management consulting and veterinary services. In addition to its 
market access commitments, MNZFTA also includes Most Favoured Nation (MFN) treatment in key 
services sectors and investment. The MNZFTA establishes robust investment protection provisions that improve on those under the AANZFTA. 
 
New Zealand already provides duty-free access for 72.1% of imports from Malaysia. Under the FTA, this will increase to 90.8% in 2010, 94.6% in 2012, 95% in 2014 and 100% by 2016. New Zealand and Malaysia's agreement to reciprocal MFN for key sectors of commercial interest 
require New Zealand to extend to Malaysia any better treatment relating to those services 
New Zealand extends third countries in the future. New Zealand has agreed to extend to Malaysian 
investors any better treatment it agrees in future investment agreements through the reciprocal 
MFN provision. 
 Page 34 (Para 2.48) 
Under the AANZFTA, 99% of tariff lines on ex ports from New Zealand will benefit from a 
progressive elimination of tariffs by 2020, whereas all tariffs on ASEAN exports will be eliminated 
during the same period. A key feature of AANZFTA's rules of origin is that they allow for 
cumulation between signatories. 
 
Question(s): 10. Do ASEAN members have different tariff reduction schedules with New Zealand? If all ASEAN 
members will have eliminated tariffs on 99% of all goods exported from New Zealand by 2020, 
does that mean ASEAN will have formed a "customs union" with regard to goods from New Zealand by that time? 
 
Each ASEAN member state has its own ta riff reduction schedule in AANZFTA.  
 
The reference to ASEAN members having eliminated tariffs on 99% of all goods exported from 
New Zealand by 2020, is calculated on the proportion of New Zealand's total current exports to 
ASEAN that will enter tariff free after taking into account each country's individual tariff schedule under AANZFTA. The AANFTA does not envisage the creation of a customs union, since there is no 
agreement to create a common external tariff. Ea ch member retains its respective MFN tariffs. 
 3.2.6.1 Anti-Dumping and countervailing measures 
 
Page 50 (Para 3.62) Under the trade agreements between New Zealand and Pacific Forum Island Countries, and Canada, there are a number of consultation requirements to be followed, prior to anti-dumping 
actions. 
 Question(s): 
11. Would New Zealand please elaborate on the conditions and timing that the consultations take 
place?  
 
Answer 
Under Article V of the Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation between the Government of 
New Zealand and the Government of Canada  1982, New Zealand is required to notify Canada in 
writing, as far in advance as practicable, of the initiation of any investigation into dumping relating 
to goods imported from Canada and the imposition of duties. New Zealand is required to afford 
Canada an opportunity to consult on the dumping in question. Duties can be imposed if the consultations have not resulted in a solution satisfactory to New Zealand within 60 days of the 
date of the written notification of the initiation of the investigation. 
 Before taking anti-dumping action, Article VI(4) of the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic 
Cooperation Agreement 1981, requires New Zealand to notify, and if requested consult with, the 
Party or Parties from whose territory the goods are exported. If a mutually satisfactory solution of the matter is not reached within a period of 60 days from the commencement of consultations, then New Zealand may, after giving notice to the Party from the territory of which the goods are 
exported, impose anti-dumping duties on the g oods. New Zealand may take provisional action WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 47 - 
 
  without prior consultation where it considers that "the circumstances are so critical that delay 
would cause injury to a domestic industry which would be difficult to repair." If taking provisional action, New Zealand would be obliged to immediatel y provide written advice to the other Party or 
Parties concerned and to enter into consultations as soon as possible.  
 
3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 3.2.8 Sanitary and phytosanitary requirements 
3.3 Measure Directly Affecting Exports 
 Page 55 (Para 3.97) An importer can apply for an IHS to be drafted if  one does not exist. Applications are assessed and 
prioritized against specific criteria, including the importance of the product, its strategic nature, 
the net benefit, as well as the work required for the IHS. Risk analysis is the first stage in the development of IHS. It involves the identification of potential pests and diseases associated with a 
product, the likelihood of entry and establishment in New Zealand and the potential impacts on the 
economy, the environment and human health in Ne w Zealand. Proposed IHSs go through a wide 
public consultation before their adoption. The ti meframe for public comment varies depending on 
the nature of the amendment, the number of in terested/affected parties, the urgency of the 
measures, as well as implementation factors.  Question(s): 
12. As it was mentioned, an importer who requests for drafting an import health standard should 
complete the application form and provide relevant information of the products. For continuing the risk assessment, how would the further information be collected? Could New Zealand 
please explain that the responsibility of preparing the scientific information belongs to the 
applicant or the NPPO of the exporting country ? And how will the MPI determine the priority 
among the applications? Besides, how could an importer be informed of the progress of its 
application for an IHS in a timely manner? 
 
Where additional information is required for the assessment, MPI as New Zealand's NPPO, will request the applicant to provide further information. This will normally mean that further 
information will be required to be provided by th e NPPO of the exporting country either directly or 
through the applicant. Requests are prioritised by assessing importance (criticality to New Zealand), strategic fit (with New Zealand government goals),net benefit (for New Zealand in 
the longer term), feasibility (of being able to  do the work),barriers (whether they can be 
surmounted), and the amount of work expected. Mo re information is available on the MPI website: 
http://mpi.govt.nz/importing/overview/import -health-standards/requesting-a-new-ihs/ . 
 
MPI provides updates to importers, usually as the completion of significant milestones of the IHS 
application and development process are completed.   
3.4 Measures Affecting Production and Trade 
3.4.3 Competition policy  
Page 61 (Para 3.141) 
There is no compulsory requirement to notify the Commerce Commission of mergers and acquisitions in New Zealand. However, business may seek clearance or authorization from the 
Commerce Commission if they believe a proposed acquisition may have the effect of substantially 
lessening competition. The effect of clearance by the Commerce Commission is to offer companies protection from legal action under the Commerce Act.   
Question(s):  
13. Does New Zealand have authority to initiate ex-officio investigations if a proposed merger or 
acquisition may have the effect of substantially lessening competition in a market? 
 
Under section 47 of the Commerce Act, the Commission has an express power to look at mergers or acquisitions that would have the effect of substantially lessening competition. If a court is 
satisfied on the application of the Commission that a person has contravened section 47, the court 
may order fines of up to $500,000 for persons or $5,000,000 for body corporates or may order divesture of assets or shares.  
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 48 - 
 
  Where a court, on application from the Commission, considers that a person intends to engage in 
conduct that would constitute a breach of section 47, the court may order an injunction restraining a person from engaging in such conduct.  
Page 63 (Para 3.153) 
In 2014, a study by New Zealand's Productivity Commission identified relatively low competition in the services sector as one of the main reasons for the low productivity/high costs in the sector. 
While factors such as foreign investment screening, professional licensing requirements, and the 
smallness and remoteness of New Zealand's market were pointed out as significant barriers to international competition in services, New Zealand's competition legislation was also described as offering room for improvement. In that regard, the Commerce (Cartel and Other Matters) 
Amendment Bill is expected to bring further cl arification to the competition framework. The 
Government recently announced that a review of  the Commerce Act in response to the matters 
raised by the Productivity Commission would be undertaken. 
 
Question(s):  
14. Could New Zealand please provide further details about the Commerce Amendment Bill in 
response to the needs of competition reform in services sector? 
 One of the principle objectives of the amendment Bill is to introduce criminal sanctions for hard-core cartel behaviour. 
 
Hard-core cartels are formed when rival firms agree to not compete with each other by fixing prices, restricting output, allocating markets or rigging bids. Cartels allow firms to raise their prices 
above the competitive level without fear of losing customers to rivals. This increases the profits of 
cartel participants but does not benefit consumers.  
Another objective of the amendment Bill is to ensure  that firms are not deterred from entering into 
legitimate, pro-competitive and efficient arrangements with other firms. It does this through a number of new exemptions as well as a clearance mechanism, which enables parties contemplating collaborative conduct to test with the Commerce Commission whether the 
arrangement would raise concerns. 
 Information about the bill, including relevant Cabinet papers and Parliamentary committee reports, 
is available at this address: http://www.med.govt.nz/business/competition-policy/cartel-
criminalisation . 
 
3.4.6 Intellectual Property Rights 
 Page 68 (Para 3.190) Protection for geographical indications is provided through the tort of passing off, the Fair Trading 
Act 1986, and the Trade Marks Act 2002. The Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) 
Registration Act 2006 establishes a registration system for wine and spirit geographical indications but this Act is not yet in force. According to th e authorities, the Government has taken action in 
order to bring the Act into force in 2016.  
 Question(s): 
15. Is there any reason that the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act 2006 
has not entered into force almost after a decade?  
The government decided in 2015 to move ahead with  bringing the Geographical Indications (Wines 
and Spirits) Registration Act into force. Further revi ew of the Act has determined that it will require 
some technical amendments before implementa tion. There is also a need to develop and 
promulgate regulations covering the registration  procedures and fees. Work on drafting these 
amendments has begun, with the hope that the amen dment Bill will be ready for introduction into 
Parliament in the next few months. This means the most likely completed implementation date will be in 2016. 
 
16. When the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act 2006 is enforced, is 
there any interaction between the Act 2006 and the Trade Marks Act 2002?  WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 49 - 
 
  When the GI Act is brought into force, it will give the Commissioner of Trade Marks the power to 
refuse to register a trade mark that contains either a prior existing geographical indication registered under the GI Act or where there is an application to register a GI that predates the application to register the trade mark. In similar manner, the Registrar of Geographical Indications 
will have the power to refuse to register a GI where there is either a prior existing registered trade 
mark or where there is an application to register  a trade mark that predates the application to 
register the geographical indication. 
 
4. Trade Policy By Sector 4.3 Energy 4.3.1 Overview 
 
Page 79 (Para 4.39) The direction of energy policy is set out in th e New Zealand Energy Strategy 2011-2021 and the 
New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation  Strategy 2011-2016 (NZEECS), both released in 
August 2011. The strategy focuses on four objectives: developing greater energy resources, including renewable and non-renewable; ensuring secure and affordable en ergy; making efficient 
use of energy; and maintaining an environm entally responsible approach to energy. New Zealand 
aims to generate 90% of its electricity from  renewable energy sources by 2025, and to 
achieve a 50% reduction in its greenhouse gas emissions (from 1990 levels) by 2050. 
The NZEECS sets out specific policies and targets in six sectors to achieve the above objectives.31 
The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) is the government body responsible for 
improving energy efficiency by businesses and homes and fostering greater use of renewable 
energy. 
 
Question(s): 17. To achieve the goal of renewable energy gene ration, what main policies are implemented in 
the renewable energy industries in New Zealand?  Are there any incentive measures or subsidy 
policies for renewable energy industries? If so, please illustrate the content of these policies. 
 In addition, the National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation 2011 came into 
effect on 13 May 2011. It is a planning document issued under the Resource Management Act 
1991 by central government that requires local authorities to provide for renewable electricity generation in their policies and plans. The Nation al Policy Statement recognises the need for new 
and existing renewable electricity generation to support the Government's target of 90 per cent of 
electricity from renewable sources by 2025.  
 
Page 79 (Para 4.40) 
New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZETS ), in place since 2008, is part of the 
overall energy strategy.  After a first review in 2011, amendments to the NZETS were passed in 
2012 with the purpose of reducing its cost impa ct on businesses and households, improving its 
operation and making it more flexible. Some transitional provisions were extended until the next 
review in 2015.  
Question(s): 
18. New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZETS) has been executed for about 7 years; has it 
increased the cost of energy products, which might affect the benefit of energy supplier in 
New Zealand?  
 The ETS is designed to raise the cost of fossil fuel s (such as mineral diesel and electricity) thereby 
incentivising investment in non-emitting fuels and technologies (such as biofuels and renewable 
electricity generation). Renewable energy producers (such as hydroelectric generation or biodiesel 
production facilities) benefit from any resulting increase in market prices for those energy commodities. 
 
19. If it has, has it influenced the quantities and prices of energy products from other countries? 
The ETS applies equally to imported and domestically produced fossil fuels. For example it 
applies equally to imported coal and coal mined in New Zealand, and to imported liquid fossil 
fuels and liquid fossil fuels refined in New Zealand.  
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 50 - 
 
  4.3.2 Electricity 
 Page 81 (Para 4.47) The Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Act 2012 provided for the 
partial privatization of the three state-owned generators/retailers.  Accordingly, the 
Government sold 49% of its stake in Mighty  River Power (May 2013), Meridian Energy 
(October 2013), and Genesis Energy (April 2014). The electricity sector is subject to the provisions 
of the Overseas Investment Act 2005. 
 Question(s): 20. As for Mixed Ownership Model, the Government be lieves there is significant merit in extending 
the mixed ownership model to three state-owned energy companies. However, is it likely to 
delay and deter the switch to increased renewable use?  
 
The ownership of electricity companies is not expected to influence their incentives to invest in 
renewables. As noted above, the primary policy instrument is the New Zealand ETS, which does not discriminate between firms on the basis of their ownership. 
 
4.3.3 Hydrocarbons  Page 82 (Para 4.53) 
A competitive tax and royalty regime is in place to attract investment to the petroleum 
sector.  Exploration-related expenditures are deducted for royalty purposes in the year they are 
incurred. Non-resident offshore rig operators and seismic vessels are exempted from paying tax on 
their profits. This exemption was introduced as a temporary measure in 2005 but has since been 
extended twice; it is now due to expire on 31 December 2019.  
Question(s): 
21. Is the competitive tax and royalty regime also applied to natural gas sector?  
 Yes 
 
Does the natural gas exploration activity have the tax exemption as well?  
Yes  
 Does the government plan to export LNG in the future? 
 
New Zealand currently has no LNG facilities. Pe troleum exploration, production and exporting 
activities are undertaken by private firms. Any export of natural gas in the future would be a commercial decision for the firms involved in its production. 
 
4.5.2 Financial services 4.5.2.1.2 Regulatory framework 
 
Page 86 (Para 4.78) The RBNZ closely monitors banks compliance with the prudential supervision regime, but does not 
guarantee banks against failures. Currently, there is no formal deposit guarantee scheme.
58 In the 
event that a registered bank fails, the RBNZ will seek to avoid significant damage to the financial 
system. It may act as the lender of last resort and also use its crisis management powers, which include giving directions to a registered bank that is in difficulties, and recommending that a bank 
in financial distress be placed under statutory management. 
 
58 The wholesale bank guarantee facility and the retail guarantee scheme introduced in response to 
the 2008-09 global financial crisis were terminated on 30 April 2010 and 31 December 2011, 
respectively. 
 
Question(s): 
22. How does the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (R BNZ) safeguard the interests of ordinary 
depositors in financial institutions without the deposit guarantee scheme?  WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 51 - 
 
  The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) supervises banks and other deposit taking institutions 
for the purpose of promoting the maintenance of a sound and efficient financial system. In particular, it aims to achieve this purpose by reducing the risk of these institutions failing (and in the very rare circumstances where they do fail, resolving the failure in a way that minimises the 
harm to the financial system). However, this supervision is not explicitly for the purposes of 
depositor protection, and the RBNZ notes that no regulatory regime can entirely remove the risk of an institution failing.  
 
Notwithstanding this, in practice the RBNZ's regulation and supervision acts to protect depositors because in promoting the maintenance of a sound and efficient financial systems it aims to ensure that, amongst other things: 
 
  banks and other deposit taking institutions are well capitalised and subject to effective 
liquidity requirements;  
  banks and other deposit taking institutions have robust governance and risk management 
systems and processes;  
  banks provide effective and timely disclosure to depositors and the wider market; and  
  the RBNZ is able to manage the resolution of  a distressed or failed bank or other deposit 
taking institution in a way that minimises the overall level of economic disruption.  
 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.5.3.2 Regulatory Regime 
 Page 91 (Para 4.102) 
There are no restrictions on foreign investment in private telecommunications firms, other than the 
provisions of the Overseas Investment Act 2005 (Sec tion 2). However, the Constitution of Chorus 
provides that no person who is not a New Zealand national shall have more than 49.9% of the 
total voting shares of Chorus without the prior wri tten approval of the Crown, and at least half of 
the board of directors must be New Zealand citizens.  Question(s): 
23. According to Overseas Investment Act 2005, what are the related regulations for a foreign 
investment to provide telecommunication serv ice, especially in mode 1 and mode 3?  
 
The Overseas Investment Act 2005 does not regulate  the provision of telecommunication services 
by foreign investors.  
4.5.4.3 Maritime transport and ports 
 Page 96 (Para 4.129) Under the Maritime Transport Act 1994, any other foreign ships are not allowed to carry coastal 
cargo unless they receive authorization to do so...  
 Question(s): 
24. What is the criterion that New Zealand applies to evaluate the application of cabotage permit? 
 The basic criterion for an authorisation to carry coastal cargo is that the Minister of Transport is 
satisfied that none of the following categories of ship is available to carry the cargo ("cargo" 
includes passengers) 
 a New Zealand ship 
 a foreign ship on demise charter to a New Zealand-based operator 
 a foreign ship passing through New Zealand to carry import and/or export cargo in the 
normal course of its programmed voyage  
 
Authorisations are rarely required, as the above three categories of ships meet New Zealand's 
routine coastal shipping needs. Authorisations are required occasionally if a foreign ship needs to be used to cover for a New Zealand ship that is ou t of service or overseas, a foreign ship is needed 
to carry a specialized cargo, or a cruise ship is based temporarily in New Zealand during the 
summer cruise season.   WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 52 - 
 
  25. To further understand the shipping policy, could New Zealand also elaborate if any policy or 
regulation regarding foreign vessel carrier's co ntainer repositioning between ports of NZ and 
other parties, as well as within ports in the New Zealand territories?  
 
No specific policy or regulations exist. The repositioning of containers, full or empty, is covered by 
the same criterion as above.   
 
Page 96 (Para 4.131) The Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Bill currently before Parliament seeks to apply the Commerce Act to international shipping, thereby removing the exemption for price-fixing and 
capacity-limiting agreements. 
 Question(s): 
26. When is the Commerce Bill estimated to take into force? 
 The Bill was introduced into Parliament in October 2011 and received its first reading in the House 
in July 2012. The Parliamentary select committee issu ed its report on the Bill in May 2013. The Bill 
is still to receive its second and third readings in the House, and finally the Royal Assent. We are not able to indicate when these remaining steps will take place, as timing will depend on the priority the Bill receives amongst a number of other Government measures. 
 
As currently drafted (section 2 of the Bill), the bulk  of the Bill will enter into force the day after it 
receives Royal Assent. Some provisions, including those relating to the criminalisation of cartels) 
will not enter into force until two (2) years after the date of Royal Assent. 
 PART II: REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT REPORT (WT/TPR/G/316) 
 2. Key Developments in trade Policy 2.1 Current Economic Priorities Page 6 (Para 2.25) 
 
Question(s): 1. In the paragraph 2.25 of the Government Report, New Zealand states its concern about the 
less integration into upstream global value chains and is working to boost its engagement in 
GVCs. We would like to learn from New Zealand on the ways to improve this situation. 
 
In order to ensure New Zealand companies are able to maximise the value of their products, and 
to encourage innovation, we are focusing our efforts on creating the necessary conditions that will facilitate the integration of our exporters into global value chains. To a large extent, this is about getting the right policy environment in place to promote trade and investment, including open 
borders, effective regulation, competitive markets,  robust governance, strong institutions and a 
well-designed macro framework – all issues that the Government is addressing through its Business Growth Agenda. Two key components of this work that are particularly relevant for GVC 
integration are: 
 Helping business internationalise 
While many of our domestic regulations are already supportive of an open and competitive 
economy, there is scope to continue to refine aspects of our regulatory system and ensure that the design of new laws and regulations take into account the impact on trade and international connections. This means taking a more strategic approach to how we regulate industry in 
New Zealand. Agencies across the government are working closely with exporters to identify and 
prioritise regulatory issues that are hindering our exporters' efforts to internationalise, and work towards removing or minimising their impacts. 
 
Removing barriers at the borders Global value chains are dependent on the ability of goods and services to cross multiple borders as 
they are transformed into their end product. Ta riffs and behind the border barriers serve to 
impede these value chains, reducing their va lue to countries such as New Zealand.  
 Completing current FTA negotiations and raising awareness of the advantages conferred by our 
existing suite of FTAs and related agreements wi ll provide our exporters with improved access to WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 53 - 
 
  international markets and global value chains. We also work to ensure that trade commitments 
made by other countries to New Zealand continue to be enforced. We will actively seek to better leverage those FTAs already in place and address other issues that have become more prominent in global trade. This will include deepening already existing agreements by making the most of 
review mechanisms and in-built agendas in areas such as regulatory cooperation. 
 4. Domestic Tariff and Trade Policy 
4.1 Agriculture 
Page 8 (Para 4.5)  Question(s): 
2. We appreciates that New Zealand maintains an open and transparent trade policy including the 
low average applied tariff and low average level of  producer support in the agricultural sector. 
We also recognize the importance of risk assessment prior to the importation of determined 
risk goods. However, due to the time-consuming  process of importation risk assessment, it 
eventually reduces the effect of low tariff in WTO's efforts to promote agricultural trade. We like to learn from New Zealand on the ways that could possibly improve such situation. 
 
New Zealand's requirement that an IHS exist for a risk good prior to its importation is consistent with the SPS Agreement and places no unreasonable impediment on trade. New Zealand adopts relevant international standards where these standards would achieve New Zealand's appropriate 
level of protection. 
 There is no set timeline or average time for the development of IHS. The time period involved in 
the development of an IHS varies, and can, for ex ample, take between 3 months and 3 years. The 
timeframe for development of a new IHS is dependent upon, but not limited to, a number of factors including the scope of the IHS, the risk a ssessment required, the nature of the consultation 
required including the number of interested & affect ed parties to be consulted, and implementation 
factors. A person consulted on a draft IHS who has significant concerns with the science upon which the draft IHS is based may also reques t an independent review of the draft IHS. 
 
New Zealand already has significant coverage for products of plant origin within currently available 
IHS. For information about currently availabl e IHS please refer to the MPI website at 
http://www.mpi.govt.nz/law-and-policy/re quirements/import-health-standards/ . New Zealand will 
update IHS to cover new products of plant orig in where requested, in accordance with the 
prioritisation process referred to in paragraph 3.97 of WT/TPR/S/316.  
5. MULTILATERAL INITIATIVES 
5.4 Trade and Environment, Trade and Labour  Page 13 (Para 5.22) 
Since its last TPR, New Zealand has engaged active ly in trade and environment negotiations at the 
WTO. New Zealand has and will continue to support ambitious outcomes in these negotiations. In particular, ambitious outcomes on fisheries subsidies and on the elimination of tariffs on a broad 
range of environmental goods have the potential to deliver concrete economic, environmental and 
developmental benefits. Beyond the WTO context, New Zealand is also a strong proponent 
of fossil fuel subsidies reform and the 2012  Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum 
(APEC) commitment to reduce tariffs on a lis t of 54 environmental goods to 5% or less 
by the end of 2015 . New Zealand is currently leading the Friends of the Chair on Environmental 
Goods and Services to implement this APEC commitment. 
 
Question: 
3. In order to secure a climate-safe future, the reform of fossil fuel subsidies is effectively 
enforced in New Zealand. Could New Zealand pl ease elaborate on the content of fossil fuel 
subsidies reform as well as the effectiveness of this reform? 
 
New Zealand is a leading member of the "Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform", a small group of 
non-G20 countries that support the G20 and APEC Leaders' commitments to phase-out subsidies 
to fossil-fuels, with maximum transparency and ambition. In alignment with our objective on increasing transparency, New Zealand is currently undergoing an APEC peer review of our fossil fuel support measures, and is encouraging other APEC members to join the process. Peru has WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 54 - 
 
  completed their review and we welcome the announcements from the Philippines, Viet Nam and 
Chinese Taipei that they will also undertake a peer-review. 
 
Another key initiative that New Zealand is promoting, is a Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform 
Communique, to be presented at COP21 in December 2015 to support efforts to reach a new 
global climate agreement. New Zealand, together with the "Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform", France and the US, launched the Communique in April at the IMF/World Bank meetings in 
Washington DC. By supporting the Communiqué, count ries and other actors recognise FFSR as an 
important climate-change mitigation policy with clear economic, trade and social co-benefits.  
 
Regarding the effectiveness of reform, New Zealand recognises the political and social challenges 
related to subsidy reform and the importance of careful reform design, including communications 
plans and transitional measures such as well targ eted safety net programmes, to mitigate adverse 
impacts on vulnerable groups. The recent experi ence of members such as Indonesia and Mexico, 
who have been taking significant steps to tackle fossil fuel subsidy reform, is instructive. 
 7. BILATERAL AND REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS 
 
Page 14-15 (Para 7.6) Government agencies continue to work with bu siness to ensure they are fully aware of the 
opportunities available under these FTA agreements, so that there is the fullest possible utilization 
of preferences and other benefits conferred by New Zealand's FTAs. This includes provision of 
user-friendly information tools, ongoing dialogue  with exporters to ensure they are taking 
maximum advantage of the agreements; completing built-in negotiations under existing FTAs to 
expand the scope of commitments in areas such  as services and government procurement; 
addressing impediments that limit the take up of FTA preferences such as documentation requirements; and maximizing the use of existing FTA provisions to maintain or improve market 
access and facilitate trade.  
 Question(s): 4. We have noted from para. 7.6 of the Government Report that the government agencies 
continue to work with business to ensure "the fully possible utilization of preferences and other 
benefits conferred by New Zealand's FTAs", including "provision of user-friendly information tools". We would appreciate if New Zealand could elaborate further on the operations of the 
stated "user friendly information tools". 
 
New Zealand uses a number of FTA related tools to provide information to business on the 
opportunities created by FTAs and how to take advantage of them. This includes: 
 
• Online tariff finder tools (which enable traders to find preferential tariff rates for their 
products, as well as rules of origin, documentation and other requirements); 
• FTA guides (online and in hard copy) that include information on FTA outcomes; 
• Fact Sheets providing detailed information on rules of origin and processes for claiming 
tariff preference. 
  Regular programmes of outreach to exporting firms to lift awareness of FTA opportunities. 
Such outreach includes seminars and workshops on the implementation of FTAs. 
 
Page 17 (Para 7.19) 
The New Zealand-Korea FTA was signed on 23 March 2015. The FTA is expected to enter into force later in 2015. Tariffs on 48.3% of New Zealand goods exports to Korea will be eliminated on entry into force. Once the FTA is fully implemented in Year 20, 97.9% of New Zealand's current exports 
will enter Korea quota and duty free. 
 Question(s): 
5. Based on Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, a free-trade area is 
usually understood to mean a group of two or more customs territories in which duties and other restrictive regulations of commerce are eliminated on "substantially all the trade." 
However, tariffs on only 48.3% of New Zealand goods exports to Korea will be eliminated on 
entry into force of New Zealand-Korea Free Trade Agreement. In addition, the phase-out period on Korea side is as long as 20 years. Please elaborate on how the New Zealand-Korea Free Trade Agreement is consistent with the Article XXIV of General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade. WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 55 - 
 
   
New Zealand considers the market access outcome to be consistent with the GATT, and comparable to the outcomes achieved under our previous trade agreements. It is also important to note that tariffs will be eliminated on 97.8% of New Zealand's current exports by Year 16, so only 
0.1% will be phased out over years 16–20.  
 7.10 The New Zealand-Gulf Cooperation Council Free Trade Agreement 
 
Page 17 (Para 7.20) The Government Report indicates New Zealand concluded negotiations towards an FTA with the Gulf Cooperation Council in 2009 and is now looking to complete the legal verification process. 
Report by the Secretariat also noted that New Ze aland concluded negotiations on this Agreement 
while it is not yet in force.  
Question(s): 
6. The New Zealand-Gulf Cooperation Council Free Trade Agreement was concluded in 2009; 
however, this Agreement had yet to be entered into force. When does New Zealand expect to 
finish the legal verification process in order to proceed to the next step of entry into force? 
 
New Zealand is looking to complete the legal verification process as soon as possible, however it is not currently possible to reliably estimate the timeframe for completing this process. 
 
7. Please provide detailed information on the legal process (e.g. gathering of public opinion) that 
the New Zealand Government has to undertake before FTA's entry into force. 
 
Following the conclusion of negotiation of a Free Trade Agreement (FTA), the text of the agreement is submitted to Cabinet for approval. Si gnature may only occur once Cabinet grants its 
approval of the text and authorisation to sign th e agreement. Following signature, all FTAs must 
go through the Parliamentary Treaty Examination proc ess. As part of this process the final text of 
an FTA is presented to Parliament for examination by a Select Committee (usually the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Select Committee), made up of Members of Parliament. During this 
time, the public will be invited to make submission s as part of the consultation process. Following 
consideration of the FTA and all information provided both by submitters and officials, including that contained in the National Interest Analysis prepared by officials on the benefits and costs to 
New Zealand of entering into the FTA, the Select Committee then tables a report in Parliament. 
The Select Committee may at this time make re commendations regarding ratification of the 
agreement as presented and the Government may then choose to respond to the report and 
debate any issues in the House before it takes any binding treaty action.  
 After the Parliamentary Treaty Examination proce ss, any legislative changes required in order 
ensure New Zealand has a domestic legal framework to meet the obligations imposed by the FTA 
go through normal Parliamentary procedures which include Select Committee scrutiny and a series 
of votes in Parliament. Only once the legislation has been enacted will the Executive take "binding treaty action", ordinarily ratification, so that the FTA can enter into force for New Zealand. 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 56 - 
 
  MEXICO 
PREGUNTAS DE MÉXICO AL  INFORME DE LA SECRETARÍA 
 2.2 Marco general. Punto 2.8 (P. 31) 
¿La Corte Ambiental es de naturaleza administrativa o judicial? ¿Dicha Corte es de jurisdicción 
federal?   
3.2.6.1 Medidas antidumping y compensatorias. Punto 3.59 (P.57) 
¿Existe la posibilidad de continuar la suspensión de los derechos antidumping por más de los tres años señalados? Y en caso afirmativo, ¿cuáles serían los elementos que se tomarían en cuenta para prorrogar dicha suspensión?  
 
3.2.7 Normas y otras prescripcion es técnicas. Punto 3.77 (P.61) 
¿Desde la entrada en vigor de las regulaciones de Garantías al Consumidor en 1993 y Ley de 
Comercio Leal en 1986, cuantas veces han sido revisadas y, en su caso, modificadas?  
 3.2.7 Normas y otras prescripcion es técnicas. Punto 3.78 (P.61) 
¿Cuál es el procedimiento y cuáles son las sanciones para los bienes de consumo peligrosos?  
 4.5.4.3 Transporte marítimo y puertos. Punto 4.133. (P. 114) 
¿Cuáles son las convenciones y convenios internacionales de protección marítima y del derecho 
ambiental marino a las que se refieren?  
 PREGUNTAS DE MÉXICO AL IN FORME DE NUEVA ZELANDIA 
 
2.1 Actuales prioridades económicas. Punto 2.1 (P. 4) ¿Qué políticas públicas se han encaminado para promover el incremento de la participación de la 
fuerza laboral? ¿Existen otros elementos que hayan favorecido dicho comportamiento?  
 2.1 Actuales prioridades económicas. Punt o 2.22 Ordenación de recursos naturales 
(P. 7) 
¿Cuáles han sido los principales retos en la implementación del Programa de Desarrollo de las 
Empresas?  
 
5.4 Comercio y medio ambiente, comercio y trabajo. Punto 5.19. (P.15) 
¿Cuáles han sido los principales retos en la incorporación del componente ambiental en los RTAs?  
5.4 Comercio y medio ambiente, comerc io y trabajo. Punto 5.22. (P.15) 
Ante las actuales circunstancias del estado de las negociaciones de Doha y ante la imperiosa necesidad de lograr su conclusión; ¿Como Nueva Zelandia visualiza unos resultados ambiciosos en material de subsidios a la pesca?  
 
7.1 Acuerdo de Acercamiento Económico en tre Australia y Nueva Zelandia. Punto 7.7 
(P. 17) 
¿Cómo es regulado el flujo de personas en materia de mercado laboral?  
 7.9 Acuerdo de Libre Comercio entre Nueva Zelandia y Corea. Punto 7.19 (P. 20) 
¿Considera que los compromisos asumidos en los capítulos laboral y ambiental (nivel de ambición) 
son suficientemente elevados para responder a los retos actuales?  De ser el caso, ¿cuáles son los 
retos más grandes en su implementación? En caso contradictorio, ¿consideran una revaluación de dichos compromisos en el futuro?  
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 57 - 
 
  QUESTIONS FROM MEXICO IN RESPONSE TO THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 
 2.2 General Framework. Point 2.8 (p. 31)  
1. Is the Environment Court an administrative or judicial entity? Is the Environment Court 
under federal jurisdiction?  
 
The Environment Court is a judicial entity. It is a specialist Court, and mostly deals with issues 
arising under the Resource Management Act 1991.  Appeals from the Environment Court can be 
made (on a point of a law only) to the High Court of New Zealand.  
New Zealand does not operate under a federal system. The Environment Court is a specialist court 
and as such, sits outside the pyramid for courts of general jurisdiction. Appeals from the Environment Court can be made (on a point of a law only) to the High Court. Information as to 
New Zealand's Court structure can be found at the Courts of New Zealand website. 
http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/about /system/structure/overview.html 
 
3.2.6.1 Anti-dumping and countervailing measures. Point 3.59 (p. 57) 
 2. Is it possible to maintain suspension of anti-dumping duties for longer than the specified 
three years? If so, which factors would be taken into consideration to extend that 
suspension? 
 The suspension was made under a 2014 amendmen t to the Dumping and Countervailing Duties 
Act. The suspension applies to both existing duties as well as the imposition of new duties for 
residential building materials. Unless there is a fu rther legislative amendment, the suspension will 
end on 31 May 2017. We would note that this is the first time that New Zealand has used primary 
legislation to suspend anti-dumping duties.   
 In June 2015, Cabinet agreed to introduce a bounded public interest test into New Zealand's anti-dumping and countervailing duties regime and to the broad parameters and procedural 
requirements of such a test. The public interest test will allow the government to consider whether 
an anti-dumping duty or countervailing duty is in the wider public interest. The test will apply to all imported goods subject to anti-dumping or countervailing proceedings, not just building material.  
 
Cabinet has also directed that officials should consult with stakeholders on introducing an automatic termination period into the anti-dumping and countervailing duties regime, to operate in 
conjunction with a bounded public interest test. An automatic termination period would ensure 
that, if duties are imposed, they are terminated after a specified maximum period (e.g. 5 years) and is aimed at preventing duties becoming entrenched for lengthy periods and encouraging domestic industry to adjust to  future import competition. 
 
The adoption of a bounded public interest test must be made through an amendment to legislation and its adoption is therefore subject to approval through the usual parliamentary process. The 
adoption of an automatic termination period is subject to final Cabinet approval after the 
consultation process has been completed and the process required for any subsequent legislative amendment. 
 
3.2.7 Standards and other technical requirements. Point 3.77 (p. 61)  3. How many times have the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 and the Fair Trading Act 1986 
been reviewed since they came into force, and if applicable, how many times have they 
been amended? 
 
Both the Fair Trading Act 1986 and the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 are regularly reviewed, 
and where appropriate amended, to ensure that they are fit for purpose and compatible with New Zealand's international obligations.  
 
The last major review of the both Acts took pl ace in 2012 and led to the Fair Trading Amendment 
Act 2013 and the Consumer Guarantees Amendment Act 2013.  WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 58 - 
 
  Below is a list of all the substantive amendment legislation passed since each Act was adopted: 
 Fair Trading Act  
Fair Trading Amendment Act 1990  
Fair Trading Amendment Act 1994  Fair Trading Amendment Act 1997 
Fair Trading Amendment Act 2000  
Fair Trading Amendment Act 2003  Fair Trading Amendment Act (No 2) 2003 Fair Trading Amendment Act 2006  
Fair Trading Amendment Act 2008 
Fair Trading (International Co-operation) Amendment Act 2012  Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Act 2012  
Fair Trading Amendment Act 2013  
 Consumer Guarantees Act 
 
Consumer Guarantees Amendment Act 2003 Consumer Guarantees Amendment Act 2013  
3.2.7 Standards and other technical requirements. Point 3.78 (p. 61) 
 4. What is the procedure and what sanctions are used for unsafe consumer goods? 
 
Unsafe goods notices are provided for in section 31 of New Zealand's Fair Trading Act 1986.  
Under this section, the Minister of Consumer Affairs has the power to stop the sale of goods by 
declaring them to be 'unsafe goods'. This action ca n be taken 'where it appears to the Minister that 
goods of any description or any class or classes of goods will or may cause injury'. A ban stays in force for 18 months, unless withdrawn earlier by th e Minister. At this point it can be imposed 
indefinitely or for a further specified time. 
 There are unsafe goods notices for: lead in children's toys; hot water bottles; candles with lead in 
the wicks and candlewicks containing lead; and, pistol crossbows. 
 Section 31(5) provides that "no person shall supply, or offer to supply, or advertise to supply, 
goods in respect of which there is in force a notice declaring the goods to be unsafe goods". Failure 
to comply with this provision is an offence punishable, under s.40(1), by a fine not exceeding NZ$200,000 in the case of an individual; and by a fine not exceeding NZ$600,000 in the case of a 
body corporate. 
 
The Commerce Commission is the relevant enforcement body. It investigates complaints about products that have an unsafe goods notice attached to them. 
 
4.5.4.3 Maritime transport and ports. Point 4.133 (p. 114)  
5. Which are the international maritime and marine environment protection conventions 
referred to? 
 New Zealand is a contracting state to the followi ng Maritime Conventions: IMO Convention 48, 
SOLAS Convention 74, SOLAS Protocol 78, SOLAS Protocol 88, LOAD LINES Convention 66, LOAD 
LINES Protocol 88, TONNAGE Convention 69, COLREG Convention 72, CSC Convention 72, STCW Convention 78, SAR Convention 79, IMSO Convention 76, INMARSAT OA 76, FACILITATION 
Convention 65, MARPOL 73/78 (Annex I/II), MARPOL 73/78 (Annex III), MARPOL 73/78 (Annex 
V), London Convention 72, London Convention  Protocol 96, INTERVENTION Convention 69, 
INTERVENTION Protocol 73, CLC Protocol 92, FUND Protocol 92, LLMC Convention 76, LLMC 
Protocol 96, SUA Convention 88, SUA Protocol 88, SALVAGE Convention 89, OPRC Convention 90, 
BUNKERS CONVENTION 01.  WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 59 - 
 
  QUESTIONS FROM MEXICO IN RESPONSE TO THE NEW ZEALAND REPORT 
 2.1 Current Economic Priorities. Point 2.1 (p. 4)  
6. What public policies have been set in place to promote increased labour force participation? 
Are there other factors that have contributed to this behaviour? 
 
New Zealand has relatively high (and increasing) rates of labour force participation, both overall 
and for women, supported by a growing economy that provides job opportunities. The New Zealand Government's Business Growth Agenda (BGA) is a suite of actions designed to grow competitive businesses which create sustaina ble, high-paying jobs, and to ensure all 
New Zealanders have the skills to participate in the labour force. For example, one of the BGA's 
priority actions is working with educators and industry to offer better options to assist students to progress from secondary school into vocational training and employment. 
 
To further reduce non-participation, New Zealand has also set a cross-Government target of reducing the number of people on state-funded bene fits by 25%, and the future cost of the benefit 
system associated with these clients by $13 bi llion, as measured by actuarial valuation by 
June 2018. Achieving this target requires cross-agency collaboration and the use of the investment approach (via actuarial valuation tools) to identify groups at the highest risk of long-term disengagement from the labour market. Actions to achieve this target focus on increased work 
obligations for more beneficiaries, more intensive case management and greater services and 
support to help achieve sustainable employment outcomes, as this is showing to have positive employment outcomes for specific groups of clients, based on the latest actuarial valuation.  
 
In the 2015 Budget the Government invested $25.5 million over four years – this included funding for 10,000 extra places for intensive work-focused case management services, prioritised for 
people with health conditions and disabilities. It also included $8.6 million in new operational 
funding for the Out of School Care and Recreational (OSCAR) subsidy, which helps families with the costs of before and after school programmes and school holiday programmes, making it easier for sole parents to re-enter the workforce. 
 
2.1 Current Economic Priorities. Point 2.22 Natural resources (p. 7)  
7. What were the main challenges involved in implementing the Business Growth Agenda? 
 
The BGA is a cross-government micro-economic reform policy, and as such requires alignment 
from agencies and ministries across the spectrum of government, ensuring that government 
agencies consider, and align themselves with, th e BGA's greater policy agenda and purpose when 
engaging in policymaking and creating regulation s presents the most significant challenge.  
 
5.4 Trade and Environment, Trade and Labour. Point 5.19 (p. 15) 
 8. What were the main challenges involved in incorporating environmental considerations into 
the Regional Trade Agreements? 
 The main challenge in NZ's experience is establis hing an understanding with our RTA partners that 
what NZ is seeking is not to undermine the comparative advantage of our trading partners, nor to 
impose our own values in terms of what we consider are the most important environmental issues of the day, but rather that we wish to rein force the mutual supportiveness of trade and the 
environment and use RTAs as a tool for promoting sustainable development. New Zealand's 
approach to including environment outcomes is non-prescriptive and based on internationally 
recognised principles. In 2001, New Zealand adopted a policy framework for integrating environment (and labour) objectives into our Free Trade Agreements. The framework results from 
the Government's belief that economic and trade partnership agreements are not ends in 
themselves, rather that economic growth and im proving the environment go hand in hand, and 
free trade and environmental protection are complementary rather than competing ways to 
improve standards of living. In the bilateral and regional trade context, the inclusion of 
environmental instruments has since been an integral component of our FTA negotiations.  WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 60 - 
 
  5.4 Trade and Environment, Trade and Labour. Point 5.22 (p. 15) 
 9. Considering the current state of Doha Round negotiations and the pressing need to reach a 
conclusion, how does New Zealand envisage ambitious outcomes on fisheries subsidies? 
 
Given the compelling case for fisheries subsidies reform, we remain committed to securing substantive and effective disciplines on fisheries subsidies. However, we also recognise that the 
current post Bali discussions on recalibration are focused on finding newer, alternative paths 
towards convergence amongst the membership and what is achievable. New Zealand is reflecting on what such an outcome with regard to fisheries subsidies, within the broader post-Bali work programme, could look like and is consulting with other Members. 
 
7.1 Australia New Zealand Closer Econom ic Relationship. Point 7.7 (p. 17) 
 
10. How is labour market flow regulated? 
 The Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement (TTTA) esse ntially allows New Zealanders and Australians 
to enter, live and work freely in each other's country. The TTTA is not a single binding bilateral 
treaty, but rather a long history of arrangements and undertakings between New Zealand and Australia, and underpinned by joint political su pport. Additionally, the Trans-Tasman Mutual 
Recognition Agreement (TTMRA) allows anyone registered to practise an occupation in one country 
to practise in the other without further testing or examination (subject to some exceptions). Both 
countries work together closely to align and monitor the impact of domestic policies which may impact on trans-Tasman labour market flows. 
 
7.9 New Zealand-Korea Free Trade Agreement. Point 7.19 (p. 20)  
11. Are the commitments undertaken in the chapters on labour and the environment (ambition 
level) considered high enough to respond to the current challenges? If so, what are the biggest challenges to their implementation? If not, could there be a future reassessment of 
those commitments? 
 
The environment and labour chapters are at th e high end of ambition in terms of what 
New Zealand usually seeks from such provisions in its FTAs, and New Zealand considers they will 
be very useful in addressing trade-related labo ur and environment issues. The chapters establish 
mechanisms for co-operation and dialogue on i ssues that may arise between the parties and in 
areas of mutual interest. The chapters include key principles, including commitments that neither 
labour nor environment laws, policies, regulations or practices will be used for trade protectionist 
purposes (non-discrimination), or weakened to encourage trade or investment (non-derogation). 
 No significant challenges to implementation are foreseen. But if deemed necessary, these 
commitments could be reassessed as part of the regular committee processes that are established 
under the chapters, and/or under the ge neral review provisions of the FTA. 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 61 - 
 
  COLOMBIA 
Secretariat Report WT/TPR/S/316 
 SUMMARY 
 
Paragraph 5 of the Secretariat Report points out that "in 2013/14, reflecting a relatively low trade intensity given the small size of the economy, wh ich might be partly explained by the country's 
geographical remoteness from world markets. Primary sector-based products continue to dominate 
merchandise exports, increasing their share to 76%, mainly on account of high international commodity prices; while imports concentrate in manufacture (mainly capital goods) and raw materials." 
 
1. Which strategies has New Zealand established to counterbalance the negative economic impact caused by the great geographic distance which separates it from the rest of the 
world? 
 
Ameliorating the impact of New Zealand's relative geographic distance is one of the key drivers of 
New Zealand's trade strategy which, in its very  broadest sense, is articulated through the 
Government's Business Growth Agenda and focused on what New Zealand businesses need to succeed and grow in the global market place. This includes negotiating comprehensive and high quality FTAs and ensuring we effectively implemen t existing FTAs. By successfully negotiating the 
removal of barriers to trade, we can create the necessary conditions for companies to 
internationalise and access offshore markets and link into global value chains.  
Paragraph 12 of the Secretariat Report indicate s that "Technical regulations and sanitary and 
phytosanitary measures (SPS) are intended to reflect WTO provisions. When standards are developed, existing international standards are considered and stakeholder consultation is 
undertaken. Relatively stringent SPS measures are applied to imports of plant and animal products 
for biosecurity reasons. In the WTO Committee on TBT, some Members have raised concerns about New Zealand's 2012 proposal to introduce plain packaging of tobacco products, while some other Members have supported it." 
 
2. Could the New Zealand Government expand on the concept of "plain packaging" of tobacco products? Is this type of labelling currently used? If not, why not? Is "plain 
packaging" used for any other products? 
 
Plain (or standardised) packaging of tobacco pr oducts means regulating every aspect of the 
appearance of tobacco products, in order to prev ent any form of tobacco advertising or promotion 
from occurring on tobacco products and tobacco product packaging. The Smoke-free Environments 
(Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill (Bill)  is currently draft legislation before the New 
Zealand Parliament. Before the Bill can become a law in New Zealand, it must also pass two 
further debates in our Parliament (which are call ed the second and third readings), and then be 
signed by our Governor-General. The plain packagin g requirements set out in the Bill are specific 
to tobacco packaging and tobacco products. 
 
Paragraph 18 of the Secretariat Report mentions that "The primary sector plays a key role in New Zealand's economy … The dairy industry has seen further reforms to improve transparency 
and access to raw milk by market entrants. The ex clusive export licences held by the Fonterra 
Co-operative Group, New Zealand's major dairy exporter, were phased-out at end 2010."  
3. Could the New Zealand Government explain what situation led it to introduce further 
reforms in the dairy sector? What did those reforms involve? 
 When Fonterra was established in 2001, it collected over 96% of all cow milk produced in New 
Zealand. Given this dominant market position, it was necessary to regulate Fonterra to ensure 
contestability in New Zealand's dairy markets. The pro-competition measures of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 were established to ensure that Fonterra faces the same, or substantially 
similar, incentives as if it were operating in a competitive milk market.  
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 62 - 
 
  The pro-competition measures introduced in 2001 included: 
 
  Fonterra's obligation (with some exceptions) to accept supply from any farmer and allow 
withdrawal without restrictions or penalties. 
  Shareholding farmers being able to allocate up to 20% of their weekly production to 
independent dairy processors. 
  At least 33% of all milksolids supplied on contract within 160 km of any point in 
New Zealand must be held by an independent processor or be contestable in any given 
season. 
  Fonterra being obligated to provide a set amo unt of raw milk each season to independent 
processors. 
 
Viewed collectively, these measures were to enable competition and efficiency in the New Zealand dairy industry.  
 
Since 2001 further amendments have been made to the DIRA including:  
  In 2012, Fonterra moved to a new capital structure model known as Trading Among 
Farmers  following agreement by Fonterra's farmer shareholders in 2009. 
  In 2011, concerns were raised about the way in which Fonterra set the farm gate milk 
price, the claim being that it was set artificial ly high. This suggested that the incentives the 
legislation placed on Fonterra were not strong enough to ensure efficient farm-gate milk 
prices. Amendments in 2012 were made to prov ide greater transparency and confidence in 
Fonterra's milk price setting process and methodology. 
  In 2001, regulations were also established that identify how much raw milk Fonterra is 
obligated to provide other processors in any given dairy season. This is designed to facilitate the entry of independent dairy processors into the farm-gate milk market and 
support competition in the dairy product market. Following a review in 2011, a number of 
significant amendments to the regulations were made including a three season limit for processors to access this raw milk and increasing the total pool available to such processors to 795 million litres for each season.  
 
Further details about these recent amendments are outlined at paragraph 4.2.4 ( Dairy industry 
restructuring ) of WTO's Trade Policy Review report.  
 
2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 2.1 Overview 
 
Paragraph 2.2 of the Secretariat Report points out that "The multilateral trading system remains New Zealand's main vehicle for providing more trading opportunities to its exporters, as well as addressing the challenges it faces as a small and remote country. However, New Zealand has 
increasingly engaged in RTAs to complement its participation in the WTO system. Ten RTAs are in 
place; of which, four entered into force during  the review period (i.e. the Agreement between 
New Zealand and the Separate Customs Territory  of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu on 
Economic Cooperation; the New Zealand-Malaysia Free Trade Agreement; the Agreement 
Establishing the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area (AANZFTA); and the New Zealand-
Hong Kong, China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement)." 
 
4. Could the New Zealand Government advise  if it had to bring forward any prior 
procedure with the Government of the People's Republic of China in order to commence negotiations on the Agreement between New Zealand and the Separate Customs Territory 
of Taiwan on Economic Cooperation? 
 
The negotiation of the Agreement between New Ze aland and the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan on Economic Cooperation was conducted in a manner entirely consistent with 
New Zealand's existing foreign and trade policies.  
5. Did the approval process for the entry into force of the Agreement between 
New Zealand and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu on Economic Cooperation involve the exact same procedure as that used for the entry into force of other trade agreements? 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 63 - 
 
  New Zealand's domestic process for ratifying the Agreement was consistent with our standard 
practice for other trade agreements. For the Agreement to enter into force, both Parties were required to notify the completion of their re spective domestic procedures. The New Zealand 
Commerce and Industry Office in Taipei (NZCIO) in Taipei, through which the Agreement was 
negotiated and signed, notified the completion of New Zealand's domestic procedures. 
 2.4 Trade Agreements and Arrangements 
2.4.2 Regional trade agreements (RTAs) 
 Paragraphs 2.23 to 2.25 of the Secretariat Report state that:  
2.23. New Zealand sees Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) as a way to complement its 
participation in the multilateral trading system under the auspices of the WTO. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade coordinates RTAs trade negotiations, with negotiators drawn from other 
ministries and agencies, including the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment; the 
Ministry for Primary Industries; Treasury; New Zealand Customs Service; the Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. 
 
2.24. New Zealand's approach is to negotiate comprehensive agreements covering a range of trade-related issues, including: trade in goods (m arket access, rules of origin, customs procedures, 
trade remedies, sanitary and phytosanitary meas ures, technical barriers to trade); trade in 
services (market access, movement of natural persons); investment; intellectual property; 
government procurement; competition and cons umer policy; trade and labour; and trade and 
environment. 
 
2.25. As highlighted in the previous Review, New Zealand maintains RTAs under the following frameworks: (i) Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement (ANZCERTA) 
(in force since 1983); (ii) New Zealand-Singapore Closer Economic Partnership (in force since 
2001); (iii) New Zealand-Thailand Closer Economic Partnership (in force since 2005); (iv) Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (P4 or TransPac).  
6. What is the nature of the different agreements in the framework of the drivers of 
economic integration referred to in Article XXIV of the GATT?  
The Regional Trade Agreements referred to in paragraph 2.25 of the Secretariat Report establish 
free trade areas consistent with Article XXIV of the GATT and Article V of GATS. 
 
7. If one or more of the agreements do not correspond to any of the drivers [of economic 
integration] referred to in Article XXIV of  the GATT, what is the nature of those 
agreements?  
As noted in the response to question 6. 
 
8. If one or more of the agreements have non-binding provisions, what is the objective 
and scope of those provisions? 
 
All of the Regional Trade Agreements referred to in paragraph 2.25 of the Secretariat Report have 
entered into force and are therefore binding on New Zealand.  
 
9. In the event that one of the objectives of the agreements is to increase free trade, what 
is the legal relationship between the binding commitments of the respective agreements, 
when they are contained in agreements entered into with other States or customs 
territories with which there is an existing agreement? 
 
New Zealand and Singapore are parties to two agreements that have been cited: the New 
Zealand-Singapore Closer Economic Partnership  (NZSCEP) and the Trans-Pacific Strategic 
Economic Partnership  (P4). (Chile and Brunei are the other parties to P4.) The legal relationship 
between NZSCEP and P4 is that New Zealand and Si ngapore's respective rights and obligations to 
each other under P4 co-exist with the parties' rights and obligations under NZSCEP. In particular, nothing in P4 will derogate from the rights and obligations of New Zealand or Singapore under NZSCEP and, to the greatest extent possible, NZ SCEP and P4 will be interpreted consistently. WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 64 - 
 
  3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Overview  Paragraph 3.5 of the Secretariat Report states that "New Zealand maintains several business 
assistance and export promotion programmes. Th e main export promotion agency, New Zealand 
Trade and Enterprise (NZTE), provides, inter alia , strategic advice, research and market 
intelligence for new exporters, as well as support for already established export companies. Export 
credit insurance is also available for exporting firms. Incentive schemes are in place mainly to 
encourage innovation and capacity building."  
10. Could the New Zealand Government specify which are the programmes intended to 
promote innovation and capacity-building as mentioned in this paragraph? Which sectors 
are those programmes aimed at? 
 
New Zealand has a range of programmes to encourage business innovation and research and 
development. Callaghan Innovation was established in 2013 to deliver these programmes and to connect businesses to researchers. Callaghan Innovation's activities include awarding business 
R&D grants (which co-fund between 20% and 40% of qualifying R&D) and funding privately-run 
incubator and accelerator programmes which work with entrepreneurs and start-ups.  These programmes are aimed at R&D activity and start-ups rather than particular industrial 
sectors. 
 3.2.4 Other charges affecting imports 
3.2.4.1 Other duties and charges 
 Paragraph 3.45 of the Secretariat Report points out that "In addition to tariffs, an import entry 
transaction fee (IETF) of NZ$29.26 is payable on ev ery electronic import entry clearance, and on 
import declaration for goods when the sum of duty and Goods and Services Tax (GST) payable exceeds NZ$60. A MPI biosecurity system entry levy of NZ$17.63 (GST inclusive) is payable on every entry on which an IETF is payable and is collected by Customs at the same time as the 
IETF." 
 
11. How is this amount set? 
 
The import entry transaction fee is based on part ial cost recovery of the estimated cost of the 
services specified in regulation 24A of the Cu stoms and Excise Regulations 1996 (see below for 
text). The Biosecurity (System Entry) Levy is se t by the Ministry for Primary Industries and 
recovers the costs set out in clause 7 of th e Biosecurity (System Entry Levy) Order 2010.  
 
24A Import entry transaction fee 
(1) An import entry transaction fee of $29.26 must be paid by every person who— 
 (a) makes (whether voluntarily or in compliance with the Act) an import entry 
under section 39(1) 
(http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1996/0027/latest/DLM378408.html
?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_customs+and+excise+
_resel_25_a&p=1#DLM378408of the Act ): 
 (b) lodges a document under regulation 25(i)(iii) 
(http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regula tion/public/1996/0 232/latest/DLM2205
03.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_customs+and+
excise+_resel_25_a&p=1#DLM220503 ) in relation to goods on which the 
total duty payable is $60 or more: 
 (c) lodges a document required by the chief executive under regulation 26(2) 
(http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regula tion/public/1996/0 232/latest/DLM2205
04.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_customs+and+
excise+_resel_25_a&p=1#DLM220504 ) in relation to goods imported on the 
same craft by a single importer: 
 (d) gives security for goods that the chief executive is satisfied have been 
temporarily imported in accordance with section 116(1) 
(http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1996/0027/latest/DLM378907.html
?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_customs+and+excise+
_resel_25_a&p=1#DLM378907 ) of the Act. WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 65 - 
 
  (2) The import entry transaction fee is payable to the Customs to assist in meeting 
costs and expenses incurred by the Customs in undertaking the following 
functions and duties relating to the importation of goods: 
 (a) processing the information contained in an import entry or document 
described in subclause (1): 
 (b) identifying and assessing the nature of any risk associated with, or 
arising from, the goods to which an import entry or document described 
in subclause (1) relates: 
 (c) inspecting consignments identified under paragraph (b) as giving rise 
to risk. 
(3) The import entry transaction fee is paya ble with the duty payable on the goods in 
relation to which the import entry or the document described in subclause (1) is 
made or lodged. 
(4) Despite subclause (1), an import entry transaction fee is not payable if the import 
entry, document, or transaction described in subclause (1) relates only to— 
 (a) goods conveyed, removed, or trans-shipped for export; or 
 (b) goods subject to the control of th e Customs that are to be transported 
from one Customs controlled area to another Customs controlled area for 
future Customs clearance; or 
 (c) goods in relation to which an entry has already been made and the 
duty paid because an entry was made in respect of those goods when an 
earlier consignment was found to be short-packed, short-shipped, or 
short-landed; or 
 (d) goods in relation to which full details are not available in order to make 
a full or complete entry; or 
 (e) goods that— 
 (i) accompany a passenger on a craft; and 
 (ii) are for the person's own personal, non-commercial use and not 
for resale; or 
 (f) any recreational craft that has arrived under its own power from a point 
outside New Zealand and any goods (being goods of a class for use or 
consumption on board a craft) carried on that craft. 
(5) An import entry transaction fee is not payable, or if already paid must be 
refunded, if— 
 (a) the import entry to which it relates is cancelled under section 155A 
(http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1996/0027/latest/DLM379227.html
?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_customs+and+excise+
_resel_25_a&p=1#DLM379227 ) of the Act; or 
 (b) the document described in subclause (1) to which it relates is 
withdrawn or cancelled with the permission of a Customs officer. 
(6) The import entry transaction fee is inclusive of goods and services tax. 
(7) In subclause (4)(f), recreational craft means any yacht or boat that is used 
primarily for recreational purposes (including use as the owner's residence) and 
is not offered or used for hire or reward  (for example, as a passenger carrier). 
 
12. Is the amount of the duty set with rega rd to the approximate cost of the services 
provided?  
See previous response. 
 
13. Why does the Goods and Services Tax (GST) only apply to values over NZ$60? 
 
The New Zealand de minimis is $60 of duty owing. Depending upon freight costs, that can roughly equate to a parcel worth $400 where no tariff duty applies. The purpose of the New Zealand 
de minimis is to avoid the situation where the cost of collecting duty on a consignment would 
exceed the revenue gained.   WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 66 - 
 
  3.3.5 Export promotion and marketing assistance  
 Paragraph 3.120 of the Secretariat Report indica tes that "Through the Business Growth Agenda 
(BGA), NZTE has the responsibility to extend comp anies' international reach by focusing assistance 
on them and mobilising capital to support business growth." 
 
14. Could the New Zealand Government explain what the "Business Growth Agenda" 
mentioned in this paragraph consists of? 
 
The Business Growth Agenda is an ambitious work programme agreed to by Government, focusing on the six key inputs businesses need to succeed, grow and add job. These work programmes are: 
export markets, capital markets, innovation, safe and skilled workplaces, natural resources and 
infrastructure. The Business Growth Agenda aims to build a more productive and competitive economy by building business confidence, and addressing the issues that matter to firms.  
 
15. What is the annual amount of resources allocated to this Agenda in dollar terms and in relation to GDP? 
 
The Business Growth Agenda is a set of micro-economic policy reforms that is aimed at refining and strengthening New Zealand's economic policy se ttings in order to create a more productive 
and competitive economy. Therefore, it doesn't have resources allocated to it per se, as it is not a 
single project or programme, but instead is a package of reforms that aims to guide and direct 
New Zealand's economic policymaking.  
 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.4 Manufacturing  
Paragraph 4.60 of the Secretariat Report points out that "There is no overarching official policy 
specifically targeted at the manufacturing indust ry. Instead, the New Zealand Government has put 
in place several programmes to assist businesses in the sector, mainly in the form of financial support, technical advice and R&D funding. The Business Growth Agenda (BGA) outlines 
Government initiatives to support New Zealand businesses to grow and help create a more 
productive and competitive economy, while specific programmes are implemented through government agencies. For example, New Zealan d Trade and Enterprise (NZTE) has programmes 
such as "Better By Design" (which assists companies to improve international competitiveness by 
integrating design principles across their businesses); "Better By Lean" (helps firms to improve performance by eliminating inefficient proces ses and activities); and "Better By Strategy" 
(previously called Manufacturing Plus) assists companies to develop business models, action plans 
and practical tools to enhance business performance."  In relation to the programmes "Better By Design ," "Better By Lean," and "Better By Strategy," 
 
16. Could the Government of New Zealand advi se how long it has been developing these 
programmes? What was the outcome of the reviews undertaken after 2010? 
 
Better By Design - Better by Design started in 2003 – the result of the government's 2001 commitment to a national framework for grow th and a recommendation of the 2002 Design 
Taskforce. Better by Design uses private coach partnership model to deliver design thinking to 
companies. A 2011 review resulted in the third ev olution of Better by Design from a programme 
delivered by consultants to one delivered by Design Coaches tasked with building a company's long-term, internal design capability.  
 
Better By Strategy - has been in development 2009. Two reviews have taken place (one every 3 years) that have highlighted the following four themes around: Value Proposition – help 
customers realise this is a cost rather than an investment; Suitability – making sure people know 
that the programme can be tweaked to be bespoke; Ecosystem – working to use all of NZTE capability as 'one team'; Roles and Responsibilities - making sure everyone who is involved in the 
customer experience knows when their role starts and finishes.  
 Better By Lean - The review led to a change of po licies and an update of the content (more service 
and innovation driven). The LEAN implementation rates after the seminar have gone up slightly as 
a results. WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 67 - 
 
   
17. Could the Government of New Zealand explain if these programmes can be applied to companies in the service sector as well as companies in the manufacturing sector? Can companies benefit from more than one programme? 
 
Better By Design - Yes, any business irrespective  of industry can join the Better by Design 
programme. Furthermore Better by Design can work alongside the other programmes mentioned 
above (Strategy and Lean). All services delivered by NZTE follow the princi ple of the right service 
at the right time.   Better By Strategy - the review also revealed that the BBS programme can apply to any sector. 
Initially the programme (Sustainable Peak Pe rformance) was designed for Manufacturing 
companies however we realised very quickly that the programme adds equal value to all sectors. All companies at NZTE can benefit from all servic e offerings, whilst some companies may not have 
a huge amount of capacity or capability, they can at least benefit with snippets of programmes or 
introductions to specific principles or frameworks to assist growth.   
Better By Lean - The programmes are relevant for service sector as well. Some programmes (like 
LEAN) have specially catered version of it  for Service Industry and or Governance. 
 Yes, companies can benefit from more than one programme. 
 
18. Could the Government of New Zealand specify which requirements are stipulated by the New Zealand Government in order for a business to benefit from one or more of these 
programmes? 
 
Better By Design - There are five modules under the Better by Design programme, each with a 
slightly different entry criteria. All NZTE customer s must be export ready and have the ability to 
scale. Experience Design thinking is open to all organisations in NZ – but subsidised for NZTE customers. Design Thinking Masterclass is open to all organisations in NZ – but subsidised for 
NZTE customers. CEO Summit – open to any organisation. CEO Study Tour – invite only based off 
feedback from NZTE customer managers – tend to be F700 customers (customers that NZTE 
works with on a close partnership basis) and strate gic partners of NZTE. Design Integration – open 
to NZTE customers – but likely to be used by F700 companies.  
 
For the Better by Strategy programme is available to customers we are actively working with (there is a segmentation criteria for exporters to be eligible). Within this portfolio, we identify 
customers who may be ideal for the programme by stipulating the following requirements for 
entry; When a customer has plateaued and want / need to change, but don't know where to start; When a customer has new key staff or stakeholders; When a customer faces environmental or competitive challenges that threaten current business; 
When a customer needs focus - the scattergun approach no longer works; 
When a customer wants to grow faster than your industry average, but doesn't know how.  
Better By Lean - The businesses need to be "end orsed" by a client manager and should partly 
contribute to the costs. Co-funding ratios can be between 25-75%.   
Callaghan uses a segmentation model to be able to see what businesses potentially benefit the 
most.  4.5 Services 
4.5.3 Telecommunications  
4.5.3.2 Regulatory regime  
Paragraph 4.103 of the Secretariat Report states that "New Zealand does not impose licensing 
requirements for entry into the telecommunications business market and control over retail prices 
is minimal. On the other hand, there is a comprehensive regime regulating conditions for access to 
networks (although the conditions are less intrusive for new technologies like the UFB network) 
and Chorus and other UFB network providers are prohibited from providing retail services."  
19. What type of access restrictions does this paragraph refer to? 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 68 - 
 
  The access regime refers to the rules that require a regulated network provider to allow retail 
service providers or access seekers to access its network to receive regulated services, at a price and/or under terms determined by the regulator. Services are regulated following an investigation by the Commerce Commission under the Telecommunications Act and acceptance by the Minister 
of any recommendation by the Commerce Commission to regulate.  
 Regulated services include Unbundled Copper Local Loop (UCLL) and Unbundled Bitstream Access 
services, Local and mobile number portability, and interconnection with the fixed public switched 
telephone networks.  
20. Do [these access restrictions] apply to all operators or only to the dominant operator? 
 
Any eligible access seeker can benefit from regulations made under the access regime. Only network providers with substantial market power (Chorus, Spark, Vodafone and 2degrees in 
New Zealand) are regulated, although all PSTN providers must supply number portability services. 
 
21. It is also mentioned that these conditions are less intrusive for new technologies such 
as broadband networks. How are these less intrusive conditions applied? Is this benefit 
available for all operators?  
The Commerce Commission does not have the power to recommend the unbundling of point-to-
multipoint dark fibre services until 2020, so long  as the relevant network owner has provided an 
open access undertaking to the Government. This applies to Local Fibre Companies participating in the Ultra Fast Broadband initiative (an initiative to roll-out a fibre network to 75% of the 
population by 2020). All operators had the opportunity to participate in the Ultra Fast Broadband 
initiative through an open tender process. 
 
The Commission can recommend regulation of layer 2 fibre pricing following a Schedule 3 
investigation under the Telecommunications Act, if it considers regulation would be more effectively promote competition in the market.  
4.5.5 Tourism 
 Paragraph 4.140 of the Secretariat Report states that "New Zealand has no tourism-specific 
legislation; however the industry is supported by a robust institutional framework and important 
public investment. Total public funding for tourism for fiscal year 2013/2014 was NZ$129 million. The Tourism Policy Team, within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, is 
responsible for advising the Government on the appr opriate settings to foster productivity, growth 
and the contribution of tourism to the economy …"  
22. Could the New Zealand Government specify in which activities or areas it invests, in 
order to improve the tourism sector in New Zealand? 
 
The Government's investment in the tourism sector comprises: 
 
• the funding of advice and services to support decision-making by Ministers on 
government policy matters; 
• the collection, processing, analysis and dissemination of tourism data; 
• the marketing of New Zealand as a visitor destination; • the operation of the Tourism Growth Partnership; • the development and maintenance of the New Zealand Cycle Trail. 
 
23. What were the outcomes of those investments?  
Reporting on the outcomes from this investment can be found on pages 36 to 39 of the Minister of 
Business, Innovation and Employment's annual report at http://www.mbie.govt.nz/about-
us/publications/annual-report/annual-report-2014.pdf . One indicator illustrates the contribution of 
tourists to New Zealand's economy increased from $5.7billion in 2013 to $6.3billion in 2014. 
Reporting on the outcome of the government's in vestment in the marketing of New Zealand as a 
tourist destination can be found in the Tourism New Zealand Annual Report at http://www.tourismnewzealand.com/about-us/publications/  beginning on page 14. Evaluations of WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 69 - 
 
  both the Tourism Growth Partnership and New Zeal and Cycle Trail will be completed by 2016 and 
2018, respectively.   WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 70 - 
 
  Informe de la Secretaría WT/TPR/S/316 
 RESUMEN  
El párrafo 5 del informe de la Secretaría señala que… "En 2013/2014 el comercio exterior de 
mercancías y servicios equivalió al 56,7% del PIB, lo que refleja un índice de intensidad comercial relativamente bajo dado el pequeño tamaño de la economía, como resultado, en parte, de la gran 
distancia geográfica que separa al país de los mercados mundiales. Los productos del sector 
primario siguen dominando las exportaciones de mercancías; la proporción de estos productos en las exportaciones totales aumentó al 76% debido principalmente a los elevados precios internacionales de los productos básicos. Los principales productos de importación son las 
manufacturas (principalmente bienes de capital) y las materias primas… "  
 
1. ¿Qué estrategias ha diseñado Nueva Zelandia para contrarrestar el impacto negativo en su 
economía ocasionado por la gran distancia geográfica que la separa del resto del mundo? 
 El párrafo 12 del informe de la Secretaría indi ca que… "La reglamentación técnica y las medidas 
sanitarias y fitosanitarias (MSF) de Nueva Zelandia reflejan las disposiciones de la OMC. Cuando se 
elaboran normas, se examinan las normas internacionales existentes y se celebran consultas con las partes interesadas (…) Algunos miembros del Comité de Obstáculos Técnicos al Comercio de la OMC han expresado preocupación por la propuesta formulada por Nueva Zelandia en 2012 en 
relación con la adopción de un sistema de empaquetado genérico para los productos de tabaco, 
mientras que otros la han apoyado…"  
2. ¿Podría ampliar el gobierno de Nueva Zelandia el concepto de "empaquetado genérico" para 
los producto de tabaco? ¿Actualmente se aplica esta clase de etiquetado? ¿En caso negativo por qué no? ¿El "empaquetado genérico" se aplica a otros productos? 
 
El párrafo 18 del informe de la Secretaría menciona que… "El sector primario desempeña un papel fundamental en la economía de Nueva Zelandia. (…) Se han introducido nuevas reformas en el sector de los productos lácteos a fin de incrementar la transparencia y garantizar a quienes 
ingresan al mercado el acceso a leche sin elaborar. Se redujo gradualmente el número de licencias 
exclusivas de exportación de que era titular Fonterra Co-operative Group, hasta su eliminación total a finales de 2010". 
 
3. ¿Podría el Gobierno de Nueva Zelandia explicar qué situación lo llevó a introducir nuevas 
reformas en el sector de productos lácteos? ¿En qué consistieron dichas reformas?  
 
2 RÉGIMEN DE COMERCIO E INVERSIÓN  2.1 Reseña 
 
El Párrafo 2.2 del informe de la Secretaría señala que…  "El sistema multilateral de comercio sigue 
siendo el principal medio a disposición de Nueva Ze landia para lograr que sus exportadores tengan 
mayores posibilidades de comerciar, así como para superar los desafíos que afronta en su calidad 
de país pequeño y remoto. Sin embargo, Nueva Zelandia ha recurrido con creciente frecuencia a ACR para complementar los beneficios que le reporta su participación en el sistema de la OMC. 
Nueva Zelandia ha celebrado diez ACR, cuatro de los cuales entraron en vigor durante el período 
objeto de examen (el Acuerdo de Cooperación Económica entre Nueva Zelandia y el Territorio Aduanero Distinto de Taiwán, Penghu, Kinmen y Ma tsu; el Acuerdo de Libre Comercio entre Nueva 
Zelandia y Malasia; el Acuerdo por el que se establece la Zona de Libre Comercio ASEAN-Australia-
Nueva Zelandia (AANZFTA) y el Acuerdo para establecer una asociación económica más estrecha 
entre Nueva Zelandia y Hong Kong, China)." 
 
4. ¿Podría el Gobierno de Nueva Zelandia comentar ¿si su gobierno tuvo que adelantar algún 
trámite previo con el Gobierno de la Repúblic a Popular China para iniciar la negociación del 
Acuerdo de Cooperación Económica con el Territorio Aduanero Distinto de Taiwán? 
 
5. ¿El proceso de aprobación para la entrada en vigencia del Acuerdo de Cooperación 
Económica entre Nueva Zelandia y el Territorio Aduanero Distinto de Taiwán, Penghu, Kinmen y Matsu, tuvo exactamente el mismo procedimiento que el realizado para la puesta en vigencia 
de otros acuerdos comerciales? WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 71 - 
 
   
2.4 Acuerdos y arreglos comerciales  2.4.2 Acuerdos comerciales regionales (ACR) 
 
Los párrafo 2.23 al 2.25 del informe de la Secret aría señalan que... "Nueva Zelandia ve en los 
acuerdos comerciales regionales (ACR) un medio de complementar su participación en el sistema 
multilateral de comercio bajo los auspicios de la OMC. El Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores y 
Comercio coordina las negociaciones comerciales relativas a los ACR, en las que participan, en calidad de negociadores, funcionarios de otros ministerios y organismos, como el Ministerio de la Empresa, la Innovación y el Empleo, el Ministerio de  Industrias Primarias, el Tesoro, el Servicio de 
Aduanas de Nueva Zelandia, el Ministerio del Medio Ambiente y el Ministerio de Cultura y 
Patrimonio.   
2.24. El método de Nueva Zelandia consiste en negociar acuerdos amplios que abarquen diversas 
cuestiones relacionadas con el comercio, en particular, el comercio de mercancías (acceso a los mercados, normas de origen, procedimientos aduaneros, medidas comerciales correctivas, 
medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias, obstáculos técnicos al comercio); el comercio de servicios 
(acceso a los mercados, circulación de personas físicas); la inversión; la propiedad intelectual; la contratación pública; la política en materia de competencia y consumo; el comercio y la mano de obra y el comercio y el medio ambiente. 
 
2.25 del informe de la Secretaría indica que… "C omo se indicó en el Examen precedente, Nueva 
Zelandia mantiene ACR en los siguientes acuerdos marcos: i) el Acuerdo comercial de 
acercamiento económico entre Australia y Nueva Zelandia (ANZCERTA) (en vigor desde 1983); 
ii) el Acuerdo sobre el Estrechamiento de la Asociación Económica entre Nueva Zelandia y Singapur (en vigor desde 2001); iii) el Acuerdo sobre el Estrechamiento de la Asociación 
Económica entre Nueva Zelandia y Tailandia (en vigor desde 2005); iv) el Acuerdo Estratégico 
Transpacífico de Asociación Económica (P4 o TransPac) (en vigor desde 2005) y v) el Acuerdo de Libre Comercio entre Nueva Zelandia y China (en vigor desde 2008)."  
6. ¿Cuál es la naturaleza de los diversos tipos de acuerdo, en el marco de los vehículos de 
integración económica referidos en el artículo XXIV del GATT? 
 
7. ¿Si alguno o varios de los tipos de acuerdo no corresponde a ninguno de los vehículos del 
artículo XXIV del GATT, entonces cuál es su naturaleza? 
 
8. ¿Si alguno o varios de los tipos de acuerdo tiene disposiciones que no tengan carácter 
vinculante, cuál es el objetivo y alcance de esas disposiciones? 
 
9. Tratándose de esos diversos tipos de acuerdo, en el evento en que uno de sus objetivos sea 
el de aumentar la libertad del comercio, ¿cuál es la relación jurídica entre los mismos 
compromisos de carácter vinculante de unos y otros, cuando están contenidos en acuerdos suscritos con otros Estados o territorios aduaneros con los que ya se tenía un acuerdo 
anterior? 
 3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS 
 
3.1 Panorama general  El Párrafo. 3.5 del informe de la Secretaría indica que…  "Nueva Zelandia cuenta con varios 
programas de ayuda a las empresas y promoción de  las exportaciones. El principal organismo de 
promoción de las exportaciones, denominado Co mercio y Empresas de Nueva Zelandia (NZTE), 
proporciona asesoramiento estratégico y realiza investigaciones y estudios de mercado para los 
nuevos exportadores, y presta apoyo a las empresas exportadoras ya establecidas. También hay 
un programa de garantías de crédito a la exportación para las empresas de este sector. Los programas de incentivos están destinados principalmente a promover la innovación y la creación 
de capacidad." 
 
10. ¿Podría el gobierno de Nueva Zelandia especificar cuáles son los programas destinados a 
promover la innovación y la creación de capacidad mencionados en este párrafo? ¿A qué 
sectores están dirigidos dichos programas? WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 72 - 
 
   
3.2.4 Otras cargas que af ectan a las importaciones 
 3.2.4.1 Otros derechos y cargas 
 
El párrafo 3.45 del informe de la Secretaría señala que… "Además de los aranceles se cobra un derecho administrativo de importación (IETF) de 29,26 dólares neozelandeses por cada formulario 
electrónico de declaración de importación de mercancías cuando la suma del derecho de aduana y 
el impuesto sobre bienes y servicios (GST) es de más de 60 dólares neozelandeses. Se recauda un derecho de 17,63 dólares neozelandeses (incluido el GST) en relación con el sistema de bioseguridad del Ministerio de Industrias Primarias respecto de cada importación sujeta al pago del 
IETF, que el Servicio de Aduanas cobra simultáneamente con ese impuesto." 
 
11. ¿Cómo se determina este monto?  
 
12. ¿La cuantía del derecho se determina al costo aproximado de los servicios prestados? 
 
13. ¿Porque el impuesto sobre los bienes y servicios es solo para valores mayores a 60 dólares 
neozelandeses? 
 3.3.5 Promoción de las exportaciones y asistencia para la comercialización 
 
El párrafo 3.120 del informe de la Secretaría indica que…  "A través del Programa de Crecimiento 
de las Empresas, la Oficina de Comercio y Empresas de Nueva Zelandia está encargada de ayudar 
a las empresas neozelandesas a ampliar sus actividades a nivel internacional prestándoles 
asistencia y movilizando capital para promover su crecimiento." 
 
14. ¿Podría el gobierno de Nueva Zelandia explicar en qué consiste el "Programa de 
Crecimiento de las Empresas" que se menciona en este párrafo?  
 
15. ¿Cuál es el monto anual de los recursos destinados a este Programa en dólares y con 
respecto al PIB? 
 4 POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES 
 
4.4 Industrias manufactureras  
El párrafo 4.60 del informe de la Secretaría señala que… "No existe una política oficial general para 
el sector manufacturero. En cambio, el Gobierno de  Nueva Zelandia ha puesto en ejecución varios 
programas destinados a ayudar a las empresas del sector. Los programas consisten principalmente en la prestación de ayuda financiera y asesoramiento técnico y la financiación de actividades de 
investigación y desarrollo. En el Programa de desarrollo de las empresas del Ministerio de 
Empresa, Innovación y Empleo (MBIE) se describen las iniciativas adoptadas por el Gobierno para ayudar a crecer a las empresas neozelandesas y contribuir a que la economía sea más productiva 
y competitiva; al mismo tiempo se ejecutan programas específicos a través de organismos 
públicos. Por ejemplo, el organismo de promoción del comercio y las empresas de Nueva Zelandia (New Zealand Trade and Enterprise) cuenta con programas como "Better By Design", que tiene 
por objeto ayudar a las empresas a ser más competitivas a nivel internacional mediante la 
incorporación de principios en materia de diseño en sus distintas actividades; "Better by Lean", 
que tiene por objeto ayudar a las empresas a obtener mejores resultados mediante la eliminación de procesos y actividades ineficientes; y "Better By Strategy", denominado anteriormente 
"Manufacturing Plus", mediante el cual se ayuda a las empresas a elaborar modelos económicos, 
planes de acción e instrumentos prácticos a fi n de obtener mejores resultados comerciales". 
 
Con respecto a los programas: Better By Design, Better By Lean, Better By Strategy, podría el 
Gobierno de Nueva Zelandia:  
 
16. ¿Indicar cuánto tiempo ha venido desarrollando estos programas? ¿Cuál ha sido el 
resultado de las evaluaciones al mismo, posteriores a 2010?  
 
17. ¿Explicar si a estos programas pueden aplicar, además de aquellas del sector 
manufacturero, las empresas de servicios? ¿Si pueden ellas aplicar a más de un programa? WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 73 - 
 
   
18. ¿Indicar cuáles son los requisitos que exige el gobierno neozelandés para que una empresa 
pueda beneficiarse de uno o varios de estos programas?  
 
4.5 Servicios 
 4.5.3 Telecomunicaciones 
 
4.5.3.2 Régimen reglamentario  El párrafo 4.103 del informe de la Secretaría indica que… "Nueva Zelandia no impone 
prescripciones en materia de licencias para el ingreso en el mercado de las telecomunicaciones, y 
el control de los precios minoristas es mínimo. En cambio, aplica un régimen amplio de regulación de las condiciones de acceso a las redes (si bien las condiciones son menos intrusivas en el caso 
de nuevas tecnologías, como la red de banda ancha ultrarrápida), y Chorus y otros proveedores de 
servicios de red de banda ancha ultrarrápida tienen prohibida la prestación de servicios al por menor." 
 
19. ¿De qué tipo son estas restricciones de acceso?  
 
20. ¿Se aplican para todos los operadores o sólo para el operador dominante? 
 
21.  Igualmente se menciona que estas condiciones son menos gravosas para el caso de 
nuevas tecnologías como por ejemplo para la red de Banda Ancha. ¿Cómo se aplican estas 
condiciones menos gravosas? ¿El beneficio es para todos los operadores? 
 4.5.5 Turismo 
 
El párrafo 4.140 del informe de la Secretaría indica que…  "Nueva Zelandia no tiene una legislación 
específica en materia de turismo; sin embargo, el sector cuenta con el respaldo de un sólido marco institucional y con inversiones públicas importantes. El total de fondos públicos destinados al 
turismo durante el ejercicio 2013/2014 ascendió a 129 millones de dólares neozelandeses. El 
Equipo encargado de la política de turismo, depe ndiente del Ministerio de Empresa, Innovación y 
Empleo, tiene la responsabilidad de asesorar al Gobierno sobre los medios apropiados para 
promover la productividad y el crecimiento del turismo y su contribución a la economía…" 
 
22. ¿Podría el Gobierno de Nueva Zelandia indicar en qué actividades o rubros hace sus 
inversiones destinadas al mejoramiento del sector de turismo en ese país?  
 
23. ¿Cuáles han sido los resultados de dichas inversiones? 
 
 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 74 - 
 
  THE EUROPEAN UNION 
WT/TPR/S/316 – WTO Secretariat's Report 
 
2. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
2.3 Trade Policy Formulation and Objectives 
Paragraph 2.10, page 28  
Reference is done to the National Interest Analysis.  
 EU question No 1: Could New Zealand provide further information on the scope and process of 
preparing a National Interest Analysis and public consultation? 
 
National Interest Analyses (NIAs) must be prepared and presented to the House of Representatives for all multilateral treaties, and bilateral treaties of particular significance, 
following the conclusion of negotiations. The department with the main policy interest in the treaty 
is responsible for developing the national interest analysis, in consultation with the legal division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Before presentation, NIAs must be approved by Cabinet. 
Every NIA must be reviewed and cleared by the Trea ty Officer at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and 
Trade before it is submitted to Cabinet for approval.   NIAs address a range of matters, including the reasons for New Zealand becoming party to a 
treaty, the advantages and disadvantages, the ob ligations and costs it imposes, the treaty's 
economic, social, cultural and environmental effect s, and the means of implementing the treaty.  
  
NIAs also require a statement setting out the consultations which have been undertaken or are 
proposed with the community and interested parties in respect of the treaty. The manner and degree of consultation will depend on the specific treaty under consideration, but will usually 
include government departments, M āori, business groups, non-government organisations, and 
academics.  The process and requirements in relation to NI As are prescribed by the New Zealand Standing 
Orders of the House of Representatives. 
  Examples of National Interest Analyses can be found here: http://mfat.govt.nz/Treaties-and-
International-Law/03-Treaty-making-process/2--National-Interest-Analyses/index.php . 
 
Paragraph 2.13, page 28 
 
The Business Growth Agenda seeks to increase exports from the present 30% to 40% of GDP by 
2025.   
EU question No 2: What assumptions about gr owth rates and terms of trade were made in 
formulating this goal? 
 
The BGA goal of 'increasing exports to 40% of GDP' is a target, not a forecast. As such, it does not 
have any built in assumptions. Rather, the goal is intended to provide a target that would represent a lift in growth rates from the trajectory  that NZ has historically been on, and should be 
seen as an organizing principle for Government to help inform, and drive, policymaking. 
 2.4.2 Regional trade agreements (RTAs) Paragraph 2.28, page 32 
 
The Report notes that New Zealand concluded tw o RTAs, one with the Gulf Cooperation Council 
(GCC) and another with Korea.  
 
EU q ue s ti on N o 3 : Conc erni ng  the  F TA  wi th the  GCC, c oul d  N e w Ze al and  g ive  an i nd i c ati on on 
when it is expected to enter into force? 
 
New Zealand is looking to complete the legal verification of the Free Trade Agreement with the GCC as soon as possible. Once legal verification is completed, the Free Trade Agreement can be WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 75 - 
 
  put before Ministers for signature and can then be subject to the respective domestic approval 
processes of each party.   2.5 Foreign Investment Regime 
Paragraphs 2.58 and 2.59, page 35 
 EU questions No 4 and 5: Could New Zealand provide further information about whether overseas 
investors seeking consent for their investment in New Zealand need to pay an application fee or cover specific costs of their application? If so how is the fee/cost determined?   Overseas investors seeking consent under the Act are required to pay an application fee at the 
time the application for consent is submitted. This is a requirement of section 23(1)(f) of the 
Act. The applicable fees are listed in Schedule  2 of the Overseas Investment Regulations 2005 and 
in accordance with section 61(1)(e) of the Act, are used to assist in meeting the costs of exercising 
functions and powers, performing duties and pr oviding services under the Act. Currently the 
funding principle of 'full cost-recovery from applic ation fees' applies. The fees and fees structure 
were developed with regard to the objectives (whi ch address efficiency, equity and fiscal issues) in 
the New Zealand Treasury's Guidelines for Setting Charges in the Public Sector and are consistent 
with the principles underpinning other public sector fees.  Paragraph 2.60, page 36 
 
The Report states that out of the 755 invest ment application, 33 lapsed; and out of the 
2,196 post-transaction compliance monitoring exercises 17 did not comply with the conditions.  
 
EU question No 6: Could New Zealand provide the reasons why applications could lapse, as 
opposed to being withdrawn or declined?  
 
Applications would generally be lapsed if, followin g further information requests made by the OIO, 
the applicant fails to respond to the OIO's requests. The decision to lapse is not taken lightly, and the applicant is always given ample opportunity to respond.  
 
EU question No 7: Could New Zealand provide fu rther information about what measures can be 
taken by New Zealand authorities if an investment project does not comply with the conditions? 
 
It is an offence under section 45 of the Overseas Investment Act 2005 to fail to comply with a consent condition. The maximum penalty for a breach of section 45 is a NZ$100,000 fine. The 
response of the Overseas Investment Office (the regulator that administers the Act) to 
non-compliance or partial compliance depends on the severity of the breach, the reasons why the breach occurred, and whether the breach can be resolved in due course. Minor breaches that can be quickly resolved may only result in increased monitoring or a written warning. More serious 
breaches (which are uncommon) may result in court proceedings being filed by the Overseas 
Investment Office (either by way of prosecution or a civil penalty). The New Zealand High Court can also order the disposal of property if the Court is satisfied that an offence or contravention of 
the Act has been committed. 
 3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Overview 
3.2 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 3.2.1 Registration, customs pr ocedures and requirements  
Page 40 
 
EU question 8: Would New Zealand consider amending its procedures to allow Excise Tax to be 
paid upon release of the goods on to the market? 
 
Excise is a tax or duty on the domestic manufacture of specific goods – in New Zealand these are alcohol, transport fuels, and tobacco. When goods subject to excise-equivalent duty are imported 
into New Zealand, a rate of duty is levied on them  that is equivalent to the excise that would apply 
if these goods had been manufactured domestically . This ensures that excisable goods are treated 
consistently in the New Zealand market. Products for export are not subject to excise.  WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 76 - 
 
  For goods at the border, excise-equivalent duty is payable when the goods are released from 
Customs control in the same manner as other duties, taxes and levies collected at the border. To delay the payment of excise-equivalent duty until the time the goods are sold would require these 
goods to remain under Customs control using storage such as 'bonded warehouses'. New Zealand 
discontinued the use of bonded warehouses nearly 30 years ago with the introduction of GST. A 
deferred payment period for excise of up to six weeks was however introduced and is available to importers who meet certain criteria. See 
http://www.customs.govt.nz/news/resources/f actsheets/Documents/ Fact%20Sheet%2017.pdf .  
 
There is no intention to change current policy (and re-establish a warehousing facility for imported goods subject to excise tax) to allow Excise to be  paid when goods are released on to the market.  
 
EU question No 9: Does New Zealand have any intentions to introduce legislation to prevent the 
import of illegally logged timber (i.e. go beyond  voluntary measures with regards to imports)? 
 
New Zealand's existing regime with respect to the importation of timber is considered sufficient to deal with imports of illegally logged timber. No regulation is currently being considered.  
 
Paragraph 3.13, page 40  EU question No 10: Could New Zealand provide further information if it has plans to make its 
Trade Single Window interoperable with other countries' similar initiatives?  The Trade Single Window (TSW) system has been de signed to be interoperable with other similar 
systems in other jurisdictions. At this stage there is no activity underway to connect TSW with 
systems in any other jurisdictions, but Customs is open to approaches from authorities interested 
in exploring this possibility. 
 
Paragraph 3.18, page 41  The Report notes that NZCS does not maintain an Authorised Economic Operator (AEO) system.  
 
EU question No 11: Could New Zealand provide further information on whether/how New Zealand 
implements WCO SAFE Framework of Standards and whether it sets some criteria to qualify 
companies benefiting from re lated facilitation measures? 
 New Zealand has implemented the standards required for the Customs to Customs Pillar for cargo, 
inward and outbound. This includes: 
a. the legislative authority to inspect inward, outbound and transit cargo; b. Customs controls over imports, exports and transit goods; c. The implementation of non-intrusive inspection equipment for inspection purposes; 
d. The use of a risk management system to iden tify high profile shipments for inspection, and 
the use of profiles and targeting to select shipments for intervention; 
e. Legislative requirement for advance information on shipments, supported by an electronic 
clearance system for import, export and transit goods. This includes no customs clearance, 
no load for export cargo, and specific timeframes; 
f. Information exchange arrangements with other Customs agencies and domestic agencies. 
 
New Zealand has implemented a specific Custom s-to Business programme (the Secure Export 
Scheme) for exports. The programme is volunt ary. As set out in the WCO SAFE Framework, 
companies applying for the scheme must meet pre-determined security criteria. This criteria 
includes meeting measures for (as outlined in Annex III to the WCO SAFE framework): 
a. Satisfactory compliance history; b. Site security including site plans, physical security and access controls; 
c. Personnel security; 
d. Document security and integrity of documentation; e. Conveyance security, including transport and logistics providers meeting security controls; 
f. Application of customs controls over goods, including applying a Customs approved seal or 
security packaging; 
g. Staff training and awareness; h. Business continuity plans. 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 77 - 
 
  Specific detail on the qualifying criteria can be found at 
http://www.customs.govt.nz/feat ures/ses/Pages/default.aspx . Companies that join the SES 
receive benefits through lower fees and lower in tervention rates, and benefits accessed through 
mutual recognition arrangements with other customs agencies. 
 
New Zealand has implemented measures for all imports (based on risk assessment) to expedite cargo release, reduce transit times and storage costs.  
 
New Zealand has implemented Mutual Recognition Arrangements with the United States, Japan and Korea.  
New Zealand is implementing the World Customs Organisation Data Model III through 
implementation of the Trade Single Window. Four  of the five major lodgement types have been 
made available to trade in WCO Data Model 3 message format, with the final message to be 
implemented in early 2016.  
 3.2.4 Other charges affecting imports 
3.2.4.1 Other duties and charges  
Paragraph 3.47 and table 3.4, page 47-78  Table 3.4 of the report shows the rates of the HPA level on alcohol. It demonstrates a bewildering 
array of different rates per unit of liquid applicable in different categories. When they are 
converted to per litre of pure alcohol (lpa) they show an inverse proportion to alcoholic strength 
within each category. 
 
EU question No 12: Would New Zealand consider aligning its Health Promotion Agency levy to a 
single rate per litre of pure alcohol for all categories of alcoholic drink? 
 
New Zealand currently has no plans to change the way the Health Promotion Agency Levy is calculated.  
3.2.7 Standards and other technical requirements 
Paragraph 3.74, page 52  
EU question No 13: Could New Zealand provid e further information regarding the standards 
developed by New Zealand only (not jointly with Australia) clarifying what sectors/product groups 
such standards cover? 
 
Eighty-two percent of New Zealand Standards were  developed jointly by the national standards 
bodies of Australia and New Zealand. The 18 percent of New Zealand Standards developed unilaterally by New Zealand relate to many sector s. However, the following nine sectors/products 
account for 76 percent of New Zealand Standards developed unilaterally: 
1. civil engineering; 2. health; 
3. construction products; 
4. solid liquid and gas fuels; 5. building – design and construction; 
6. territorial authority; 
7. transportation; 8. fire protection; 9. water services. 
 
3.2.8 Sanitary and phytosanitary requirements Paragraph 3.97, page 55 
 
EU questions No 14 to 16: Could New Zealand provide further information on Import Health 
Standards (IHS): is there a set timeline for deve loping new IHS? What is the average time for 
developing IHS? Does New Zealand plan to develop IHS for products of plant origin? 
 There is no set timeline or average time for the development of IHS. The time period involved in the development of an IHS varies, and can, for ex ample, take between 3 months and 3 years. The 
timeframe for development of a new IHS is dependent upon, but not limited to, a number of WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 78 - 
 
  factors including the scope of the IHS, the risk a ssessment required, the nature of the consultation 
required including the number of interested & affect ed parties to be consulted, and implementation 
factors. A person consulted on a draft IHS who has significant concerns with the science upon which the draft IHS is based may also reques t an independent review of the draft IHS. 
 
New Zealand already has significant coverage for products of plant origin within currently available IHS. For information about currently availabl e IHS please refer to the MPI website at 
http://www.mpi.govt.nz/law-and-policy/re quirements/import-health-standards/ . New Zealand will 
update IHS to cover new products of plant orig in where requested, in accordance with the 
prioritisation process referred to in paragraph 3.97 of WT/TPR/S/316.  
Paragraph 3.151, page 62 
Discussions about cooperation on competition policy arose between the parties after conclusion of 
the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand FTA (AANZFTA).  
 
EU question No 17: Has any cooperation on competition policy taken place in the AANZFTA 
framework? If so, what and how? 
 
In August 2013, ASEAN, Australia and New Zealan d Trade and Economic Ministers agreed to 
establish a Competition Committee under AANZFTA. The Competition Committee met for its first meeting in November 2013 and has since met two more times.  
 
As well as a number of specific cooperation activities managed through the AANZFTA Economic Cooperation Work Program, support was also provided for the annual ASEAN Competition 
Conference (this year was the 5
th Conference: http:/acc5.info/).  
 At a national level, programmes to build capability in investigation skills for officials in Viet Nam 
and the Philippines were held in December 2013 and February 2014, respectively. Officials from 
Malaysia's Competition Commission and Viet Nam's Competition Agency also received in-country training and mentoring from seconded Australian Competition and Consumer Commission staff during 2013. 
 
During 2013-14, AANZFTA Parties worked to design a new Competition Law Implementation Program (CLIP) that will boost skills transfer and in stitutional capacity within the region's emerging 
competition authorities. With a focus on individual country needs and regional economic 
integration objectives, CLIP activities will buil d on existing cooperation under AANZFTA through 
phased and practically-focused technical assistance. 
 
3.4.5 Government procurement 3.4.5.1 Policy and regulatory framework Paragraph 3.159, page 64 
 
The new procurement rules apply to government agencies and specific crown entities.   
EU question No 18: Could you specify which procurement or sourcing rules apply to procurement 
by sub-central procuring entities which are not "government agencies" or crown entities? 
 
In implementing the provisions of the GPA and pr ior to deposit of its Instrument of Accession, 
New Zealand is updating its government procurement regulatory framework so that all entities included in New Zealand's final offer (including those that are not government departments or crown entities) are required to comply with GPA commitments. 
 
3.4.5.2 Procedures Paragraph 3.176, page 66 
 
Aggrieved suppliers can take complaints about procurement procedures to MBIE. During the review period 19 complaints were received by  MBIE and two resulted in modification of 
procurement processes or outcomes.  
 EU question No 19: What was the nature of these complaints and what was the nature of the 
resultant modifications to procurement processes or outcomes? 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 79 - 
 
  The complaints related to the procurement pr ocedures used by the procuring entity. In 
two instances, the investigation by MBIE resulted in the procurement being re-tendered with proper procedures followed.  
3.4.6 Intellectual property rights 
Paragraph 3.187, page 67  
EU question No 20: Could New Zealand provide some information regarding the actual results of 
the implementation of its enforcement system against copyright infringements through file 
sharing?  
New Zealand's three notice regime permits rights owners to: 
• Request that an internet protocol address provider (IPAP) sends up to three infringement 
notices to an internet account holder who is alleged to have infringed copyright via a file 
sharing network;  
• Take a claim of up to $15,000 to the Copyright Tribunal after the notice process is complete.  
The number of infringement cases brought to the Co pyright Tribunal since it entered into force is 
21 (as of 8 June 2015). Awards made against infringers range from between NZ$276 to NZ$914. The first case was decided in 2013. Decisions are publicly available here: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZCopyT/ . 
 
Paragraph 3.190, page 68  
The Report notes that the Government has taken action in order to bring the geographical 
Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act 2006 into force in 2016.   
EU question No 21: Could New Zealand provide further information of the expected timeframe and 
process for this?  
 Further review of the Act has determined that it  will require some technical amendments before 
implementation. There is also a need to develop and promulgate regulations covering the 
registration procedures and fees. Work on drafti ng these amendments has begun, with the hope 
that the amendment Bill will be ready for introduction into Parliament in the next few months. This 
means the most likely completed implementation date will be in 2016. 
 Paragraph 3.191, page 70 
 
EU question No 22: Could New Zealand clarify whether its copyright system provides for any 
differentiation in terms of type of product – digi tal/analogic – in respect of parallel importing of 
non-infringing copies of a work into New Zealand? 
 
NZ's importation right only applies to infringing copies. Section 12 of the Copyright Act 1994 provides that copy of a work will not infringe copy right if it was made overseas with the consent of 
the rights owner. No distinction is made in the Copyright Act between digital and physical copies.  
 
Paragraph 3.193, page 68 
 
EU question No 23: Could New Zealand inform Me mbers whether they intend to join the "Hague 
agreement concerning the international registration  of industrial designs" in order to enhance 
protection for designs?'  
 
New Zealand has no plans to join the Hague Agreement at this stage.   
EU question No 24: Could New Zealand provide information on the status quo of trade secrets 
protection?  
 
New Zealand protects against the unauthorised disclosure of trade secrets both under civil law, 
through the common law tort of breach of confiden ce, and under criminal law, through Section 230 
of the Crimes Act 1961. The Crimes Act provides fo r up to 5 years imprisonment for a person who 
dishonestly obtains a trade secret with intent to obtain pecuniary advantage or cause loss to any 
other person.  WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 80 - 
 
   
4. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 4.2 Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries 4.2.2.2 Export measures 
Paragraphs 4.19-4.20, page 75 
 EU questions No 25 to 27: What is the development in recent years of Fonterra's share in the 
allocation of export licences for dairy TRQs benefiting New Zealand? How many New Zealand companies (other than Fonterra) are exporting or have exported under these quotas and what is their share? Could New Zealand provide this information for all WTO members from which New Zealand benefits from a TRQ, including the EU, Canada, Japan, the US and the Dominican 
Republic? 
 Export licences are required for exporting certain dairy products as a result of quota programmes 
established by the United States, the European Union, Japan, and the Dominican Republic (the 
Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 Schedule 5A lists these designated markets). Export 
licences are allocated by the Ministry for Primary Industries based on an applicant's share of total 
milksolids collected from dairy farms in New Zealand. 
 Following an interim period which expired in 2010 and now licences to export to designated markets are allocated to applicants in proportion to  their share of the total milksolids collected. To 
be eligible as an applicant a company must collect at least 0.1 percent of total milksolids collected 
from dairy farms in New Zealand. Applicants only receive an export licence for a particular market if their share in that market equates to 20,000 kilograms or more for the year.  
 
Export licences are reallocated each year. In recent years Fonterra's share in the allocation of export licences has decreased as new companies enter the market. Five New Zealand companies 
(other than Fonterra) were allocated export licences for 2015.  
 Other than Fonterra, four additional companies export butter and cheese to the European Union; cheese to the United States and prepared edible fat to Japan, while five additional companies 
export milk powder to the Dominican Republic under the respective quotas. 
 The volume of product exported under quota by each company to each designated market is 
commercially sensitive. 
 EU question No 28 to 30: What proportion of exports in the 11 designated markets (TRQs for dairy 
products in EC, Canada, Japan etc.) are not carried out by Fonterra? In other words, how did the change in the DIRA regulation allow access to other dairy companies to these TRQs? Did the DIRA regulation have any effect in changing the old practice in which Fonterra had exclusive rights to benefit from these TRQs? 
 
See previous response.  
The Dairy Industry Restructuring Act provides for other dairy companies to access dairy export 
licences in proportion to the total amount of milk solids they collect in New Zealand in each year. 
 
According to the report, Kiwifruit New Zealand (KNZ) has given the Zespri Group Ltd. an automatic 
right to export kiwifruit to all markets except Australia. All other traders wishing to export kiwifruit to markets other than Australia must get prior approval from KNZ in order to export the fruit. This gives Zespri a quasi-monopoly on exports to markets other than Australia. Indeed, Zespri 
accounted for more than 97% of total exports of kiwifruit each year.  
 EU questions 31 and 32: Could New Zealand explain what the purpose of this measure is, 
clarifying in particular why Zespri can benefit of an automatic right to export kiwifruit to all other markets than Australia, while all other traders need to get a prior approval? Could New Zealand clarify whether there has been any denial of a prior authorisation. If so, on which grounds?  
 
The New Zealand Government maintains a State Trading Enterprise for kiwifruit exports so as to obtain the best commercial return from world markets for producers in New Zealand (See New Zealand's WTO notification G/STR/N/15/NZL of 22 May 2014.) Zespri Group Limited receives WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 81 - 
 
  no distorting subsidies, tax advantages, special financing, preferential access to foreign exchange 
or any other support from the New Zealand government.  Over the last five seasons Kiwifruit New Zealand has received 149 applications for collaborative 
marketing arrangements. 138 applications have been approved, 11 applications have been 
declined.   
Applications were declined because they could not demonstrate that they met the criterion for 
approval – contributing to an increase in the overall wealth of New Zealand kiwifruit suppliers through a collaborative marketing arrangement with Zespri Group Limited.  
4.2.4 Dairy Industry Restructuring 
Paragraph 4.26, page 77  
EU question No 33: How can New Zealand demonstrate that the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act, 
as reviewed in 2011, has undergone the appropriate reforms and in particular, has adequately 
addressed the monopoly situation of Fonterra? Please provide substantiating facts and data. 
 
When Fonterra was established in 2001, it colle cted over 96% of all cow milk produced in 
New Zealand. Given this dominant market position it was necessary to regulate Fonterra to ensure contestability in New Zealand's dairy markets. The Dairy Industry Restructuring Act includes 
pro-competition measures to this end. 
 The pro-competition measures include: 
• Fonterra has an obligation (with some exce ptions) to accept supply from any farmer and 
allow withdrawal without restrictions or penalties. 
• Shareholding farmers are able to allocate up to 20% of their weekly production to 
independent dairy processors. 
• Fonterra cannot discriminate between suppliers in the same circumstances. • At least 33% of all milksolids supplied on contract within 160km of any point in New Zealand 
must be held by an independent processor or be contestable through yearly expiry; 
• If a farmer withdraws from Fonterra, Fonterra must sell the milk vat on the farm to that 
farmer or an independent processor at market rate. 
• A milk price monitoring regime with the Commerce Commission as the independent 
regulator.  
• Fonterra must sell up to 50 million litres of raw milk per year to independent processors (up 
to a maximum total of 795 million litres per season). Independent processors may purchase 
this raw milk for up to three years.  
 Viewed collectively, these measures enable competition and efficiency in the New Zealand dairy industry. Several privately held companies have been established since the Dairy Industry 
Restructuring Act was passed in 2001, including Open  Country Dairy, Synlait, Miraka, and Oceania 
Dairy.  
On 2 June 2015, the Minister for Primary Industries, in consultation with the Minister of Commerce 
and Consumer Affairs, officially requested a report from the Commerce Commission on the state of competition in domestic dairy markets. That report will be finalized in early February 2016. 
 
EU questions No 34 and 35: To what extent are da iry processors other than Fonterra expected to 
be allocated more dairy access rights in the next five years? How has their share developed over 
the last 4 years and how is their share of access rights expected to grow in the coming 5 years? 
 
Independent processors can contract freely with dairy farmers or other processors to purchase raw milk. In addition, independent processors have the right to purchase up to 50 million litres of raw 
milk per year from Fonterra. The raw milk can be purchased at an agreed price or the fixed 
quarterly price determined using the methodology in the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk) Regulations. 
 
Fonterra must provide this raw milk up to a ma ximum total of 795 million litres per season across 
all independent processors. This is an increase from the maximum total volume of 600 million litres per year that was available prior to the season beginning 1 June 2013.  
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 82 - 
 
  Although the maximum total volume has increased,  since 1 June 2013, the right to purchase raw 
milk is limited to three years for each independent processor that itself collects over 30 million litres of raw milk from farms (pre viously there was no time limit).  
 
The Minister for Primary Industries must review the volumes of raw milk required to be sold under 
the regulations at an interval of not more than th ree years. This review is likely to occur in 2016. 
 
EU question No 36: If the thresholds set by  the Amendment DIRA Act 2011 are not met by 
June 2015, the Minister for Primary Industries must, in consultation with the Minister of 
Commerce, request a report on the state of competition in the dairy industry, which may result in a review of the DIRA. Can New Zealand indicate whether the thresholds will be met or not? If the 
thresholds are not met what action may be taken? 
 On 2 June 2015, the Minister for Primary Industries, in consultation with the Minister of Commerce 
and Consumer Affairs, officially requested a report from the Commerce Commission on the state of 
competition in domestic dairy markets. The Minister for Primary Industries must respond to the report within 90 days of receiving it. In responding to the report, the Minister will decide whether 
the pro-competition provisions will be allowed to expire, and whether any other pathway to further 
deregulation should be followed.  In addition, the Minister for Primary Industries has written to all dairy processors to obtain 
information on the amount of milk solids collected  from dairy farms over the 2014-15 season. This 
is part of the ongoing monitoring of the independent processor thresholds.  
Once that information has been obtained, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) will determine 
whether or not the threshold has been met.   
WT/TPR/G/316 – WTO Government's Report 
 5 MULTILATERAL INITIATIVES 5.1 The World Trade Organization 
Paragraph 5.6, page 11 
 EU question No 37:  With a view of the Secretariat report (2.11) that the Executive cannot change 
New Zealand's domestic law by becoming party to a treaty, could New Zealand provide further 
information that apart from depositing of its instrument of accession to the GPA what other changes of its domestic legislation and/or implementing provisions are foreseen in connection for 
New Zealand to comply with its commitments in the GPA?  
 In implementing the provisions of the GPA and pr ior to deposit of the Instrument of Accession, 
New Zealand is updating its government procurem ent regulatory framework so that all entities 
included in New Zealand's final offer are required to comply with the GPA commitments.  
 4.5 Investment policy  
Paragraph 4.16 
 EU question No 38:  What is the average time required for an investor to get a decision regarding a 
potential investment from the OIO? 
 In relation to consent applications that were decided in 2014, the average processing time with the OIO was 48 working days; the average time with applicants (as a result of further information 
requests made by the OIO) was 36 working days, an d the average time with Ministers for decision 
was 16 working days. Note that only 36.5% of th e decisions were made by Ministers in 2014, the 
balance (or 63.5%) were decided by OIO officials under a delegation from the Ministers. Where the 
decision was made by the OIO, the decision-makin g time is included under the days for average 
processing time with the OIO.  
7 BILATERAL AND REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS 
Paragraph 7.3, page 14  EU questions No 39 and 40: Parties to AANZFTA si gned the First Protocol to amend AANZFTA in 
August 2014, streamlining rules of origin. Can New Zealand describe the procedures for creating WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 83 - 
 
  and implementing such an amendment in the AA NZFTA? Are any other such amendments being 
considered at present or anticipated for the future?  The First Protocol to Amend AANZFTA is a treaty-level amendment to AANZFTA and as such 
requires parties to undergo the full treaty making ratification process.  
 The Protocol addresses a number of issues iden tified by traders and AANZFTA Parties which 
include: 
 the unnecessary disclosure of potentially sensitive commercial information on Certificates of 
Origin where that information had no relevance to the claim for preference; 
 the difficulty locating the appropriate rule of origin to determine whether a good is eligible 
for preferential duty rates; 
 the inability to modify the requirements for information on a Certificate of Origin as needed, 
without going through a full treaty change process; and 
 challenges faced by some parties to complete tariff and Product Specific Rules of Origin 
(PSR) transposition. 
 
The Protocol makes four core amendments: 
1. Removal of the requirement for exporters to in clude the Free on Board (FOB) value of goods 
on Certificates of Origin when not using a value based rule to claim preference; 
2. Removal of the 'general rule' for rules of origin in favour of a consolidation of PSRs for all 
products in a comprehensive Annex; 
3. Removal of the List of Data Requirements (Certifi cate of Origin content) from the treaty text, 
so that the list is easier to amend; and 
4. Establishment of procedures to be followed to expedite future transpositions of the tariff and 
Product Specific Rules (PSRs) schedules following changes World Customs Organization Harmonised System (HS) tariff classification. 
 
Although the Protocol has been signed, parties are continuing to work through the necessary implementation arrangements for the Protocol, including the new Certificate of Origin requirements.  
 
The Protocol does not change any of the preferences under the Agreement but introduces new procedures to ensure that administrative revisions are expedited in an efficient manner, removes 
some unnecessary information requirements and streamlines the presentation of the product 
specific rules of origin to make the Agreement more user-friendly for business.  
There are no other amendments of AANZFTA currently being worked on.  WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 84 - 
 
  SINGAPORE 
PART 1: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT  
 
Para 2.60, Foreign Investment Regime (Pg 36) 
 
"2.60. In the five years to June 2013, 755 investment applications were screened by the OIO, of which 655 were approved, 47 withdrawn, 33 laps ed, and 10 declined. All the 10 declined 
applications involved sensitive land cases. No a pplications regarding significant business assets 
alone were declined. During the same period, the OIO also undertook 2,196 monitoring exercises to assess post-transaction compliance with conditions; 2,096 were found to be complying, 78 did not require complete monitoring, 17 did not comply , and five partially complied. The OIO publishes 
average assessment times over a 12 month period on its website. This information is updated at 
the end of each month."  
Question: 
 
What were the implications for the investors and their investments which were found to be 
non-compliant or partially compliant with OIO's investment conditions?  
 It is an offence under section 45 of the Overseas Investment Act 2005 to fail to comply with a consent condition. The maximum penalty for a breach of section 45 is a NZ$100,000 fine. The 
response of the Overseas Investment Office (the regulator that administers the Act) to 
non-compliance or partial compliance depends on the severity of the breach, the reasons why the breach occurred, and whether the breach can be resolved in due course. Minor breaches that can 
be quickly resolved may only result in increased monitoring or a written warning. More serious 
breaches (which are uncommon) may result in court proceedings being filed by the Overseas Investment Office (either by way of prosecution or a civil penalty). The New Zealand High Court 
can also order the disposal of property if the Court is satisfied that an offence or contravention of 
the Act has been committed.  Para 3.186 - under Section 3.4.6 Intellectual Property Rights (Pg 67) 
 
"3.186. A new Patents Act 2013 came into force in September 2014 and replaced the Patents Act 1953. The new Act brings the New Zealand patent law into closer alignment with New Zealand's 
trading partners. Several changes were made with in the scope of patents registration, including 
stricter examination of applications and subject matter exclusions. It excludes from patentability 
certain inventions such as: inventions that are contrary to public order or morality, and 'computer 
software as such', still allowing for patenting of embedded software." 
 Question: 
 
Could New Zealand please share with us –  
 
(i) the intent/rationale for creating a distinction between these 2 types of software 
inventions – (i) "computer software as such" and (ii) "embedded software" for 
patentability purposes under the Patent Act 2013?  
(ii) In the case where an invention falls under both categories of "computer software as 
such" and "embedded software," would New Zealand allow the invention to be 
patented?  
 The Patents Act 2013 does not make a distinction between 'computer software as such' and 
'embedded software'. Under section 11(1) and (2) of the Patents Act 2013, a computer program 
'as such' is not considered to be an invention for the purposes of the Act and hence not patentable.  
Section 11(3) provides that an alleged claimed invention will be considered to relate to a computer 
program 'as such' if the contribution made by the alleged invention lies solely in it being a computer program. In identifying the contribution the Commissioner of Patents or the court must 
consider the following (see s11(4) of the Patents Act 2013): 
(a) the substance of the claim (rather than its form and the contribution alleged by the 
applicant) and the actual contribution it makes; WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 85 - 
 
  (b) what problem or other issue is to be solved or addressed; 
(c) how the relevant product or process solves or addresses the problem or other issue; (d) the advantages or benefits of solving or addressing the problem or other issue in that 
manner; 
(e) any other matters the Commissioner or the court thinks relevant. 
 Para 3.187 - under Section 3.4.6 Intellectual Property Rights (Pg 67) 
 
"3.187. Moreover, since 2009 amendments have been made to the main existing intellectual property laws. In 2011, the Copyright (infringing sharing file) Amendment Act brought a significant 
change to the Copyright Act 1994  by providing rights owners with a special regime for taking 
enforcement action against people who infringe  copyright through file sharing. The Designs 
Amendment Act 2010 provides procedures for restorat ion of lapsed copyright in registered designs 
and lapsed design applications." 
 
Question:  
 
(i)  Could New Zealand please share further details of the special regime provided to rights 
owners for enforcement action against people who infringe copyright through file sharing? 
(ii)  Does "file sharing" in this case refer to the sharing of (a) physical goods only, or (b) 
digital goods only (e.g e-books), or (c) both physical and digital goods or (d) others? 
We would also appreciate further details on  how a "file sharing" case is determined. 
 
The Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendmen t Act came into force in 2011. Sections 122A to 
122U were added to the Copyright Act 1994 (the Act)  to provide a process to deal with copyright 
infringements that occur via file sharing networks. Under the process, rights owners can: 
 
• Request that an internet protocol address provider (IPAP) sends up to three 
infringement notices to an internet account holder who is alleged to have infringed copyright via a file sharing network;  
• Take a claim of up to $15,000 to the Copyright Tribunal after the notice process is 
complete. 
 
The Government has published information which outlines the regime and its operation. Several 
documents can be found here: http://www.med.govt.nz/bu siness/intellectual-
property/copyright/notice-process-under-sections-122a-to-122u-of-the-copyright-act-1994  
 
The regime only applies to digital infringing copies made via peer-to-peer file sharing networks (such as BitTorrent). Cases are heard by New Zealand's Copyright Tribunal. The first case was decided in 2013. Decisions are publicly available here: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZCopyT/ .  
 
Paras 3.12 and 3.17 -  Under section 3.2.1 Registration, customs procedures and 
requirements  
(Pg. 40-41)  
 Under para 3.12, it is stated that import entry clearance for consignments greater than NZ$1,000 
"must be lodged no later than 20 days of the arrival of goods in New Zealand. In practice, most 
entries are lodged in advance of arrival." It is further mentioned in para 3.17 that New Zealand's risk management system is reinforced through the "Electronic clearance of customs declarations prior to the physical arrival of the goods, which has enabled NZCS to decouple border control from 
physical movement across the border, and enable risk assessment in advance of arrival". 
 Question:  
 What is the proportion of imports for which the relevant customs declarations are received in advance (i.e. prior to arrival)? In cases where this information is not provided in advance, does 
New Zealand face any challenges in cond ucting its advance risk assessment?  
 Under the Customs and Excise Act 1996, an import clearance is required to be lodged within 20 days of the arrival of goods into New Zealand. Goods are not released to the importer until this 
documentation has been lodged and a risk a ssessment has been undertaken by Customs.  WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 86 - 
 
   
Data from a time release survey undertaken in 2010 indicated that 74% of Import entries for sea cargo were lodged and cleared before the arrival of the vessel carrying that cargo, while 49% of 
Import entries for air cargo were lodged cleared before the arrival of the aircraft carrying that 
cargo. This cargo was in effect risk assessed and cleared for release by Customs before it arrived 
in New Zealand. The balance was risk assessed once the import documentation was lodged.  
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 87 - 
 
  JAPAN 
Report by New Zealand (WT/TPR/G/316) 
 
5 MULTILATERAL INITIATIVES 5.1 The World Trade Organization 
 
(Question 1: Page 11, Paragraph 5.3)  
The New Zealand Government's report reads "New Zealand welcomed the conclusion of the WTO 
Trade Facilitation Agreement in Bali in December 2013 and the adoption of the Trade Facilitation Protocol of Amendment the following December. New Zealand is currently working to complete its domestic procedures to enable it to submit its instrument of acceptance but is pleased to note that 
practical implementation is already well under way on the ground." In light of this statement, how 
is New Zealand's domestic process for accepting the Protocol on the TFA progressing? When does New Zealand anticipate being able to notify the WT O of its acceptance of the Protocol on the TFA? 
 
New Zealand is currently working to complete its domestic procedures to enable it to submit its instrument of acceptance of the Protocol. New Zealand expects to deposit its Notification of 
Acceptance of the Protocol in advance of the 10
th WTO Ministerial Conference to be held in Nairobi 
in December this year.  
Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/316) 
 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.2 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 3.2.6 Anti-dumping, countervailin g, and safeguard measures 
3.2.6.2 Safeguards 
 (Question 2: Page 51, Paragraph 3.69) 
 
Regarding safeguard measures under the WTO rules, please provide the details of the product, if 
any, of which the amount of exports from New Ze aland has decreased as a result of applying a 
safeguard measure. 
 
Safeguard actions are normally applied to all export ers, so it is not always possible to determine 
the extent to which New Zealand exports might have been affected by actions in the past. 
However, New Zealand exports were the target of  safeguard action taken by the United States 
against lamb meat in 1998. Other actions which affected New Zealand exports were global safeguards by the US against steel in 2001 and by Korea against dairy products in 1996 and 
possibly also actions by Chile against imports of milk and cheese in 2006 and 2009. 
 (Question 3: Page 51, Paragraph 3.70)  
Please explain the application of bilateral safeguard measures allowed by certain FTAs. Has 
New Zealand imposed a bilateral safeguard measure,  or, has the other party of the FTAs applied a 
bilateral safeguard measure? 
 
New Zealand has neither imposed an injury-based bilateral safeguard measure nor been the subject of a bilateral injury based safeguard meas ure imposed by the other party of an FTA under 
which such a measure is permitted. 
 3.4 Measures Affecting Production and Trade 3.4.6 Intellectual property rights 
 
(Question 4: Page 71, Paragraph 3.194)  
Does New Zealand have a schedule to ratify the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)? If 
not, please explain which provision(s) of ACTA is  (are) inconsistent with the laws and regulations 
of New Zealand. 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 88 - 
 
  In June 2011, the New Zealand Government took a decision to sign ACTA, but in doing so deferred 
taking any decision regarding the ratification of ACTA. New Zealand does not, therefore, have a schedule to ratify ACTA. A copy of that decision and an analysis of the inconsistencies between ACTA and New Zealand's intellectual property enforcement laws can be found at 
http://www.med.govt.nz/business/in tellectual-property/pdf-docs-li brary/intellectual-property-
enforcement/anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-acta/acta-cabinet-paper-approval-for-signature-
154-kb-pdf.pdf . 
 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 89 - 
 
  UNITED STATES 
THE SECRETARIAT REPORT (WT/TPR/S/316) 
 2. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME  
2.3 Trade Policy Formulation and Objectives 
 Page 28, Paragraph 2.10 
 
The report states that "the MFAT actively shares information and consults with domestic interest groups including business people, unions, M āori and NGOs." 
 
 Could NZ give a short description on how stakeholder consultations are conducted?  
 
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade conducts wide-ranging public consultations to raise public 
awareness and seek stakeholder views. The manner and degree of consultation will depend on the 
specific matter under consideration, but will usually include government departments, M āori, 
business groups, non-government organisations, and academics. 
 
MFAT consults in a variety of different ways and shares information in print, by email and online, as well as by meeting with key stakeholders, such as exporters, industry groups and non-
government organisations likely to be interested in or affected by the outcomes of Ministry work. 
Sometimes MFAT will call for submissions on significant pieces of work, which will be open to the 
general public. 
 
 Are such exchanges required by law? If so, please give the legal citation.  
 
Some Acts of Parliament require consultation to be carried out in particular circumstances and in a 
prescribed manner. This varies depending on the specific legislation. 
 
In general, the Cabinet Manual (7.40) suggests Ministers "consult other organisations such as Māori groups, professional or trade associations, non-government organisations, or community 
groups, or to engage in a wider process of public consultation with citizens or affected parties, 
before policy decisions are finalised".  
 
With respect to international treaties, the Parliamentary Standing Orders require a National 
Interest Analysis to be completed before Parliament considers a treaty, which should include "a statement setting out the consultations which have been undertaken or are proposed with the 
community and interested parties in resp ect of the treaty" (Standing Order 398). 
 
 Are there specific fora required for these consultations?  
 
As noted above, the manner of consultation will depend on the specific matter under consideration. 
 
 Is there provision for official private sector advisors?  
 
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade does not employ "private sector advisors". Many Ministry 
staff have expertise and experience in consulting with the private sector. 
 
2.4 Trade Agreements and Arrangements 2.4.1 WTO   
Page 29, Paragraph 2.17 
 We appreciate the support of the Government of New Zealand for prompt ratification of the WTO 
Trade Facilitation Agreement. Could New Zealand provide an update on when it expects to formally 
accept the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement?  
New Zealand is currently working to complete its domestic procedures to enable it to submit its 
instrument of acceptance of the Protocol. New Zealand expects to deposit its Notification of WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 90 - 
 
  Acceptance of the Protocol in advance of the 10th WTO Ministerial Conference to be held in Nairobi 
in December this year.  2.4.2 Regional trade agreements (RTAs) 
 
Pages 31-32, Paragraphs 2.25  
The Secretariat describes New Zealand's extensive preferential trade arrangements through RTAs 
and GSP, and for LDCs. In light of this:  
 Could New Zealand indicate what portion of its imports are subject to MFN tariff rates? 
 
58% of New Zealand's tariff lines are MFN duty free. In 2014, 20% of New Zealand's imports (by value) were subject to MFN duty. 
 
 In addition, could New Zealand indicate what major trading partners still provide a 
significant portion of their imports to New Zealand under MFN tariff rates? 
 
The following major trading partners (listed in order of import value in 2014) currently face MFN duties when exporting to New Zealand: 
 
European Union 
United States Japan 
South Korea 
United Arab Emirates  
Page 31, Paragraph 2.27 
 The Secretariat report states that "RTA negotiations for a NZ-Russia-Belarus-Kazakhstan agreement have been recently suspended." 
 
 Could New Zealand indicate the nature of the suspension and its plans for resumption of 
negotiations? 
 
Negotiations on the New Zealand-Russia-Belarus-Kazakhstan free trade agreement have been suspended. It is unclear when re-engagement will occur, but officials will continue to monitor the 
situation carefully. 
 3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 3.2 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
3.2.3 Tariffs 
3.2.3.1 Applied MFN tariff structure and Table 3.2  
Page 43 and Table 3.2 
 We understand that New Zealand undertook a vigorous program of unilateral tariff reductions over 
the last twenty years. Those unilateral reforms are very laudable, and we commend New Zealand 
for maintaining these liberalizations. However, these reductions are not fully reflected in New Zealand's WTO Schedule. Table 3.2 indicates that, on average, New Zealand's bindings are 
3-4 times the level of the respective MFN applied tariff rates. 
 
 This would appear to offer great scope for tariff binding reductions, to increase transparency 
and predictability for New Zealand's MFN trading partners.  
 What are New Zealand's plans to move in this direction?  
 
In 2013, the Government took a decision to hold tariffs at current levels until at least 
30 June 2017. Over the past 30 years New Zealand has either lowered import tariff levels 
unilaterally or held them at existing levels and this consistent policy approach provides predictability for New Zealand's MFN trading partners. New Zealand will reduce its bound tariff commitments under its WTO commitments as the result of any outcome of the WTO Doha 
Development Agenda round of multilateral trade negotiations. WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 91 - 
 
   
3.2.4 Other charges affecting imports 3.2.4.1 Other duties and charges  
Page 47, Paragraph 3.47 
 The report lists fees and charges collected by the New Zealand Customs Services (NZCS): 
 a research levy on imports of heavy steel and welding consumables at rates of NZ$10 per 
tonne of heavy steel, and NZ$0.05 per kilogram of welding consumables;  
 a levy on alcohol products on behalf of the Health Promotion Agency (HPA) at various rates 
(Table 3.4);  
 a synthetic greenhouse gas (goods) levy on goods containing hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) 
and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) under the Clim ate Change Response Act 2002 and the Climate 
Change (SGG Levies) Regulations 2013 on behalf of the Ministry for the Environment at 
various rates;  
 a biosecurity risk screening levy collected by NZCS on behalf of MPI at rates that can vary 
between NZ$12.77 and NZ$18.40 (as per the Biosecurity (System Entry Levy) Order 2010). 
 
 Could New Zealand provide information on the research funded by the levy on imports of 
steel, etc.? What service is rendered for this fee, and to whom?  
 Are any of the other fees applied by value or volume on imports?  
 Are similar fees applied to similar domestic production? 
 The Heavy Engineering Research Levy is paid to the New Zealand Heavy Engineering Research 
Association for the Association's use for the purp oses of promoting and conducting research and 
other scientific work into or relating to the heavy engineering industry. More specific purposes are detailed in section 12 of the Heavy Engineering Research Levy Act available at 
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1978/0081/latest/DLM25391.html   
 
The Heavy Engineering Research Levy is paid on the weight of goods produced domestically or imported. The latest rates are contained in the Heavy Engineering Research Levy Notice 2013 
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/p ublic/2013/0227/latest/w hole.html#DLM5203411 .  
 
In addition to the fees identified in paragraphs 3.45 to 3.47, anti-dumping or countervailing duties 
may be applied on specific imports in certain circumstances.  
 The Health Promotion Agency (HPA) levy is pa yable on both New Zealand manufactured and 
imported alcohol products. The biosecurity levy is not charged on domestic production, as it does 
not present a biosecurity risk. The synthetic green house gas (goods) levy is payable by those who 
import HFC or PFC in goods and motor vehicles from 1 July 2013. The Heavy Engineering Research Levy applies to all imported and locally produced goods specified in Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 of 
the Heavy Engineering Research Levy Act. 
 3.3 Measures Directly Affecting Exports 
3.3.5 Export promotion and marketing assistance  
 Page 58, Paragraph 3.118 
 
The Report states that the International Growth Fund (IGF) of NZ$30 million aims to support export businesses with high growth potential. Th is program appears to be inconsistent with the 
obligations under Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement. 
 
 When will New Zealand bring this program into consistency with its obligations under the 
WTO by eliminating the export contingency noted in the Report? 
 
The International Growth Fund is not inconsistent with New Zealand's obligations under the SCM Agreement.  
 
 Otherwise, please explain how this program is not inconsistent with the obligations under 
Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement. 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 92 - 
 
  The International Growth Fund is not inconsistent with New Zealand's obligations under the SCM 
Agreement. There is no export contingency. The ai m of the fund is to enhance the capability of 
firms.  
 
 When does New Zealand expect to notify the program which was not included in its last 
Article 25 of the SCM Agreement Notification (G/SCM/N/253/NZL)? 
 
The International Growth Fund was not notified under in New Zealand's 2013 notification as it did 
not meet the criteria for notification. Specifically , New Zealand does not consider that the Fund is 
either specific or that there is a benefit as provided for under the SCM Agreement. There have been no changes to the Fund since 2013 that would change New Zealand's assessment of this fact. 
 
 Is it New Zealand's position that this program is not subject to the notification requirements 
under Article 25 of the SCM Agreement? 
 
Yes.  
 If so, could New Zealand explain why this program should not be subject to the notification 
requirements? 
 See above. 
 
3.3.6 Export credit insurance and guarantees  
Page 58, Paragraph 3.121  
 The Secretariat states, "the New Zealand Export Credit Office (NZECO) continues to provide trade 
credit insurance and financial guarantee products that complement those available in the private 
sector for exporters and banks." Accordingly, in  its export credits submission for the 2015 WTO 
Export competition survey (G/AG/W/125/Rev.2/Add.2, dated 19 May 2015), New Zealand provided a description of how premium rates for NZECO's programs vary (question 4) but did not provide 
the actual annual average premium rates by program.  
 
 Can New Zealand provide this information? 
 
The NZECO database records its premium rates but does not have a report that can be used to calculate the average premium rate. 
 
NZECO's database cannot calculate an average premium because such a result has no benefit. Every premium rate is dependent on the unique variables of each transaction e.g. the buyer's country risk classifications (as agreed between the OECD Participants to the Arrangement on 
Officially Supported Export Credits), the credit rating of the debtor (where you apply a mix of 
objective financial information along with some subjective analysis regarding management ability and sales forecasts relative to their market), the tenor of the credit term, the terms of the 
repayment and any risk mitigations.  
 Especially in regards to NZECO's short-term tr ade credit insurance product (where NZECO has 
covered transactions across 60 different countries), there may be annual fluctuations between its 
average premium rates due to NZECO underwriting a hi gher percentage of policies into higher risk 
countries. The export credit guarantee product is also open to wide annual average variations 
simply because a premium for a 3-year term w ill be widely different than a 7-year term. 
 
Page 58, Paragraph 3.121  
 
In reference to the description of the New Zealand Export Credit Office in the Secretariat and to 
the question 8 of the 2015 WTO Export compet ition survey (G/AG/W/125/Rev.2/Add.2, dated 
19 May 2015): 
 
 Can New Zealand provide program use for agricultural products by year, instead of 
aggregated over the time period 2009-2014? 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 93 - 
 
  The agricultural products NZECO supported by year, during the period 2009–2014, were: 
 2009: Wool, Wine, Meat, fruit, dairy 
 
2010: Wool, Meat, seafood, pelts, fruit, wine, honey, dairy 
 
2011: Breeding cattle, seeds, Meat, Wool, dairy, seafood  
2012: 
Meat, seeds, wool, honey, fruit, dairy, seafood  
2013: 
Wine, wool, fruit, honey, logs  
2014: 
Fruit, seeds, dairy, wool, wine, pelts  3.4 Measures Affecting Production and Trade 
3.4.5 Government procurement 
3.4.5.3 Foreign participation  
Page 66, paragraph 3.177 
 The Secretariat report states that "Upon ratification by New Zealand, the GPA is set to apply to 
procurement of goods, services, and construction  w o r k s  b y  a  l i s t  o f  e n t i t i e s  f r o m  c e n t r a l  a n d  
sub-central government agencies, as well as other entities such as state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Ratification of New Zealand's accession to the GPA entails a Parliamentary treaty examination process that is currently under way. The Agreement will enter into force for 
New Zealand on the thirtieth day following the deposit of New Zealand's instrument of accession to 
the Director-General of the WTO."  
 Could New Zealand please update WTO Members on the status of Parliament's examination 
of the GPA accession and a description of any other formalities necessary to authorize New Zealand to deposit its instrument of accession? 
 
The Parliamentary treaty examination process ha s been completed and we are now finalising 
domestic implementation. This includes comple ting the necessary steps to ensure that all 
New Zealand government entities, including State Owned Enterprises (SOEs), which have 
obligations under the GPA, are bound to comply with these obligations under New Zealand 
domestic law. We are on target to complete these steps within the time allowed by the GPA Committee decision. 
 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 4.2 Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries 
4.2.2 Border measures 
 Page 75, Paragraph 4.20:   
 
The Secretariat report states, "The kiwifruit industry is the only sector where export management 
measures remain. Under the Kiwifruit Industry Restructuring Act (KIRA) 1999 and the Kiwifruit 
Export Regulations 1999, the regulator, Kiwifruit New Zealand (KNZ), has given the Zespri Group 
Ltd. an automatic but not sole right to export kiwifruit to all markets except Australia. All other 
traders wishing to export kiwifruit to markets other than Australia must get prior approval from KNZ in order to export the fruit. This gives Zespri a quasi-monopoly on exports to markets other 
than Australia. Traders can export kiwifruit to Australia without prior approval from KNZ and 
independently from Zespri. No significant change s were made to the KIRA or the Regulations 
during the review period. Between 2009/10 and 2012/13, Zespri accounted for more than 97% of total exports of kiwifruit each year."  
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 94 - 
 
   Does the NZ Government have plans to change the legislation regarding the Kiwifruit sector 
in NZ? 
 
There are no plans to reform the current export management arrangements for the New Zealand 
kiwifruit sector. Zespri Group Limited receives no distorting subsidies, tax advantages, special 
financing, preferential access to foreign exchange or any other support from the New Zealand government. 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 95 - 
 
  BRAZIL 
PART I: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 
 3.2.6.1 – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures 
Page 50 (Para 3.59) 
 Questions: 
 
1. The 2012 Amendment to the Dumping and Co untervailing Duties Act suspended existing 
anti-dumping duties on residential building materials and suspended the application of any new anti-dumping duties on imports of resident ial construction materials. Does New Zealand 
apply a public interest analysis to support these kind of suspensions? 
 The amendment was made in 2014 and was the first time that New Zealand has used primary 
legislation to suspend anti-dumping duties. Public interest considerations were taken into account 
when Cabinet decided to use a legislative amen dment to suspend the anti-dumping duties on 
resident building materials. These public interest considerations were primarily to lower the cost of 
constructing residential housing. Cabinet has also recently approved the adoption into 
New Zealand's anti-dumping and countervailing duti es regime of a bounded public interest test, 
which will apply to all products. The adoption of  a bounded public interest test must be made 
through an amendment to legislation and is th erefore subject to approval through the usual 
parliamentary process. 
 2. Does New Zealand have any anti-circumv ention legislation currently in force?  
 
New Zealand does not have any specific anti-circumvention legislation currently in force.   
2. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
 Page 32 (Para 2.29) Paragraph 2.29 mentions the participation of New Zealand in the negotiations of the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership (TPP). According to information avai lable, one of the subjects raising particular 
concern among negotiating countries is the chapter on intellectual property rights.   
Question: 
(i) Do the negotiating countries intend to include provisions ensuring that the resulting 
text of the agreement does not encroach on the exceptions and limitations to 
intellectual property rights of the TRIPS Agreement, in particular those related to 
public health? Please elaborate. 
 We are unable to comment on the details of FTAs under negotiation, but can confirm that in all 
trade agreement processes New Zealand seeks provisions that protect the Government's right to 
regulate for legitimate public policy interests, including health.    
3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
 Page 67 (Para 3.186) 
Paragraph 3.186 describes the procedures for obtaining a patent right in New Zealand. 
Additionally, it is of notice that New Zealand signed the "Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic 
Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization", adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its tenth meeting on 
29 October 2010 in Nagoya, Japan. 
 Questions: 
(i) Has New Zealand experienced cases of misappropriation of genetic resources thus far? 
If so, what measures have been undertaken by the public authorities? 
 
New Zealand has not yet signed the Nagoya Protocol. Accession to and implementation of the 
Nagoya Protocol is currently under discussion by the New Zealand government. These discussions are being thoughtfully undertaken to ensure implementation is consistent with the principles of the WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 96 - 
 
  Treaty of Waitangi. No national-level cases relating to misappropriation of genetic resources have 
come to our attention thus far.   
(ii) Does the Government of New Zealand plan to include a requirement that patent 
applicants provide information regarding the origin of the genetic resources and 
traditional knowledge involved in patent applications? If not, how would the Government of New Zealand address cases of misappropriation of genetic resources in 
patent applications? 
 The New Zealand Government has not made a decision on whether to include a requirement that patent applicants provide information regarding the origin of the genetic resources and traditional 
knowledge involved in patent applications. Including a disclosure requirement was a 
recommendation made to the Government by the Waitangi Tribunal in its report "Ko Aotearoa Tēnei" (the Wai 262 Report). The Government is still considering its response to the Wai 262 
Report.  
 You can find a copy of the Wai 262 Report here: 
https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Docume nts/WT/wt_DOC_68356416/KoAotearoaTeneiTT2Vol1
W.pdf . Disclosure of origin is discussed on pages 203-206. The recommendations relating to 
disclosure are on page 212.  
 
The Government currently addresses cases of misappropriation of genetic resources through the 
Patents M āori Advisory Committee, which was established under the Patents Act 2013. The 
Commissioner of Patents may seek advice from the M āori Advisory Committee on whether an 
invention claimed in a patent application is:  
 
(i) derived from M āori traditional knowledge or from indigenous plants or animals; and if 
so,  
(ii) whether the commercial exploitation of that invention is likely to be contrary to M āori 
values. 
 
Any advice provided to the Commissioner is not binding on the Commissioner. The advice provided 
by the M āori Advisory Committee assists the Commissioner determine whether a claimed invention 
is novel or inventive, or contrary to morality (which may include that the commercial exploitation 
of the invention would be likely to be contrary to M āori values).   
 Page 86 (Paragraph 4.77) 
4.77. An overseas incorporated entity wishing to register as a branch in New Zealand must have 
bank status in its home jurisdiction and the appr oval of its home supervisor to carry out banking 
activities in New Zealand. Branches of overseas banks are not subject to minimum capital requirements, but the parent bank must demonstr ate that it meets the prudential requirements, 
including minimum capital standards, imposed on it by its home supervisor. However, the RBNZ 
may require a foreign bank to operate through a locally incorporated entity rather than a branch in certain circumstances, i.e. when the bank is systemically important; when the bank intends to take 
retail deposits in New Zealand and there is deposito r protection in the bank's home jurisdiction; or 
when supervisory arrangements (including disclos ure requirements) and market disciplines in the 
home jurisdiction are deemed inadequate. 
 
Questions:  1. How do New Zealand financial authorities identify other jurisdictions inadequacy on 
supervisory arrangements and market disciplines? Is there a public list? Or are there casuistic 
evaluations?  
There is no public list of jurisdictions that are considered to have inadequate supervisory 
arrangements or market discipline for these pu rposes. In considering this issue, the RBNZ 
conducts an internal review of the regulatory requirements, supervisory arrangements, and 
disclosure obligations that apply in the bank’s home jurisdiction. These types of assessments are 
carried out on a case by case basis and are just one of several factors that the RBNZ takes into 
account when deciding whether to register a branch as a bank in New Zealand.  WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 97 - 
 
  2. Is it allowed the establishment of branches of overseas banks whose parent banks are 
established in countries recognized as tax havens, ev en if they could be considered as shell banks? 
 Any application to register a branch as a bank in New Zealand will be considered on its merits, but 
final decisions rest with the RBNZ. As indicated, there is no public list of jurisdictions from which 
we will not allow an overseas bank to register as a branch.  
However, we would not contemplate the registration of a "shell bank" as that term is commonly 
interpreted. It may also be difficult in general for the RBNZ to be convinced that a "tax haven" type jurisdiction would impose an adequate level of supervision or market discipline. In addition, we note that in deciding whether to register a bank, the RBNZ will consider its ownership 
structure. Amongst other things the RBNZ will need  to be satisfied that the owners of a bank will 
have incentives to monitor its activities closely and influence its behaviour in a way that will improve or maintain its soundness (these kinds of incentives are likely to exist where the owners 
have made a substantial financial commitment to the bank and where there may be reputational 
consequences for the owners if problems were to become evident in the bank). 
 
Page 86 (Paragraph 4.78) 
4.78. The RBNZ closely monitors banks compliance with the prudential supervision regime, but does not guarantee banks against failures. Currently, there is no formal deposit guarantee scheme. In the event that a registered bank fails, the RBNZ will seek to avoid significant damage 
to the financial system. It may act as the lender of last resort and also use its crisis management 
powers, which include giving directions to a registered bank that is in difficulties, and recommending that a bank in financial distress be placed under statutory management. 
 
Question:  
3. In case of bankruptcies, what are the RBNZ  main strategies to cope with bank runs? 
 In the event that the RBNZ’s crisis management powers (issuing directions, lender of last resort, statutory management, etc.) are insufficient to manage the risk of a bankruptcy and a consequent 
bank run, the RBNZ has the option of recommend ing the adoption of an Open Bank Resolution 
(OBR). In an OBR, the bank is closed overnight and a statutory manager is appointed. An estimate of the bank’s losses is made, and a proportion of creditors’ funds sufficient to cover these losses is 
frozen. The Bank then reopens that next day, with creditors being able to access the unfrozen 
portion of their funds, which are then guaranteed by the Government.    
PART III: OTHER QUESTIONS  
 There is no reference to TiSA (Trade in Services Agreement) in the Secretariat or the Government Reports, despite its relevance to the future of trade in services and the GATS system. 
 
Questions:  
4. How does New Zealand coordinate/reconcile post financial crisis guidelines strengthening 
financial regulation (G20, FSB, BIS, Basel III) and financial services liberalisation on TiSA negotiation? 
 
New Zealand is not a member of the Basel Commi ttee, FSB, or G20 but supports the underlying 
rationale of the reforms promoted  by these bodies in recent years. New Zealand’s approach has 
generally been to adopt international standards at an early stage, but sometimes subject to 
refinements to reflect New Zealand conditions.  
 New Zealand considers it is possible to balance an outcome on financial services in TiSA, with the 
maintenance of a robust regulatory environment that protects the integrity of domestic and 
international financial systems and complies with international best practice. More specifically, all of New Zealand’s free trade agreements have included an exception for prudential regulation which 
ensures the government retains the right to institute and amend any regulation to protect 
investors and depositors or to ensure the integrity and stability of the financial system more broadly. New Zealand considers that this is the key mechanism for dealing with any circumstances 
where there may be a conflict between achieving the desired objectives around trade and financial 
stability.  WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 98 - 
 
   
5. In the New Zealand perspective, is TiSA intend ed to be a plurilateral negotiation or a future 
multilateral agreement?   
As a long-time proponent of the multilateral trading system and services trade liberalization, 
New Zealand supports a TiSA that is capable of being multilateralized. TiSA is open to all WTO Members who share the current participants' high level of ambition for the liberalisation of trade in 
services. 
  WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 99 - 
 
  CHILE 
PREGUNTAS DE CHILE - TPR NUEVA ZELANDIA 2015 
 
Informe de la Secretaría: WT/TPR/S/316 
 
I.- 4.5.1) Características y compromisos multilaterales. Página 98, párrafo 4.64.  Se señala:….las inversiones de "personas extranjeras" por un monto superior a un umbral 
determinado deben ser autorizadas con arreglo a las disposiciones de la Ley de Inversiones 
Extranjeras de 2005.  Pregunta 1)  Chile agradecería si Nueva Zelandia pudiese indicar cuál es ese umbral determinado, 
y cuáles son los requisitos para acceder a la autorización. 
 II.- Sección 3) Políticas y prácticas comerciales por medidas, 3.4) Medidas que afectan la 
producción y el comercio, 3.4.4) Comercio de Estado y empresas comerciales del Estado. Página 
73, párrafo 3.156. Se señala: 
"…, Zespri Group Limited es la única empres a comercial del Estado de Nueva Zelandia." 
y 
Sección 4) Políticas comerciales por sectores – 4. 2) Agricultura, silvicultura y pesca, 4.2.2) 
Medidas en frontera, 4.2.2.2) Medidas relacionadas con la exportación. Página 89, párrafo 4.20. Se señala:  
"La industria del kiwi es el único sector en que siguen aplicándose medidas de gestión de las 
exportaciones ."  
 
"Esta disposición confiere a Zespri el cuasimon opolio de la exportación de kiwis a mercados 
distintos del australiano ." 
 
"…. Entre 2009/2010 y 2012/2013 más del 97% del total de las exportaciones de kiwis 
correspondió a Zespri ." 
 Preguntas: 
Tomando en cuenta que la empresa comercial del Estado neozelandés ZESPRI – principal 
exportador de kiwi del mundo – se ha visto envu elta en investigaciones en mercados de destino 
(por fraude aduanero y conductas anticompetitivas), el Gobierno de Chile está interesado en saber 
si:  
 Pregunta 2)  ¿Está en conocimiento el Gobierno de Nueva Zelanda de la conducta empresarial del 
monopolio estatal de ZESPRI en los mercados de destino?  
  
Pregunta 3)  ¿Existe algún mecanismo de control a disposición del Gobierno de Nueva Zelanda, 
que permita prevenir que una empresa comercial el Estado cause efectos desfavorables en los 
mercados de destino; en particular respecto de prácticas anticompetitivas en desmedro de los 
productores y exportadores de otros países proveedores, y de los consumidores locales?   Pregunta 4)  De no existir un mecanismo como el descrito en la pregunta anterior, ¿Tiene 
contemplado el Gobierno de Nueva Zelanda establecer algún tipo de control de esta naturaleza?   
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 100 - 
 
  QUESTIONS FROM CHILE – TPR NEW ZEALAND 2015  
 
Secretariat Report: WT/TPR/S/316  
I.- 4.5.1) Features and multilateral commitments. On page 98, paragraph 4.64, it states that: 
"Investments by "overseas persons" over a specif ied threshold require consent under the Overseas 
Investment Act 2005."  
 
Question 1) Chile would be grateful if New Zealand coul d indicate what the specified threshold is, 
and what the requirements to gain consent are.  
Relevant thresholds are set out in the Overseas Investment Act 2005.  
 Investments in "significant business assets" require approval if the value of the securities, or the 
price paid for the assets, or the value of the New Zealand assets of the target company (including 
its subsidiaries) exceeds NZ$100 million. If the significant business asset acquisition takes the 
form of the establishment of a new (green fiel ds) business, the threshold of NZ$100 million is 
based the total expenditure that is expected to be  incurred in establishing the business before the 
business is commenced. Different thresholds apply to  Australian investors consistent with the New 
Zealand-Australia CER Investment Protocol.   
Land is "sensitive land" if it sensitive under Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Act. Part 1 of Schedule 1 
sets out land area and land type thresholds.    
There is no threshold that applies to fishing quota investments (all acquisitions of fishing quota by 
overseas persons are captured). The overseas investment fishing provisions are found in sections 56 to 58 of the Fisheries Act 1996. 
 
II. – Section 3) Trade policies and practices by measure, 3.4) Measures Affecting Production and Trade, 3.4.4) State trading and state-owned enterprises. On page 73, paragraph 3.156, it states that: 
 
"Zespri Group Limited is the only state-trading enterprise (STE) in operation in New Zealand."  
And 
 Section 4) Trade policies by sector – 4.2) Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries, 4.2.2) Border 
measures, 4.2.2.2) Export measures. On page 89, paragraph 4.20 it states that: 
 "The kiwifruit industry is the only sector where export management measures remain." 
 
"This gives Zespri a quasi-monopoly on exports to markets other than Australia." 
 "…Between 2009/10 and 2012/13, Zespri accounted for more than 97% of total exports of kiwifruit 
each year." 
 Questions: 
Taking into account that Zespri, the state-trading enterprise of New Zealand and main exporter of 
kiwifruit in the world, has been implicated in investigations in destination markets (regarding customs fraud and anti-competitive behaviour), th e Government of Chile would like to know the 
following: 
 
Question 2) Is the New Zealand Government aware of the business conduct of state monopoly 
Zespri in destination markets? 
 
Zespri Group Limited is a private commercial entity, and like all businesses is necessarily subject to the laws of any market in which it operates. The New Zealand Government has no equity shares 
in Zespri Group Limited, and it is not a Government owned commercial entity. As with all 
New Zealand businesses, the New Zealand Government expects Zespri Group Limited to always operate within the law.   WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 101 - 
 
  Question 3) Is there a control mechanism available to the New Zealand Government that may 
prevent a state-trading enterprise from causing undesirable consequences in destination markets, in particular with regard to anti-competitive pr actices to the detriment of producers and exporters 
of other supplier countries, and local consumers? 
 
Zespri Group Limited is a private commercial entity, and like all businesses is necessarily subject to the laws of any market in which it operates. Zespri Group Limited competes on the global 
market for horticultural products. Zespri Group Limited receives no distorting subsidies, tax 
advantages, special financing, preferential access to foreign exchange or any other support from the New Zealand government.  
Question 4) If there is no such mechanism, has the New Zealand Government considered 
establishing any type of control to this effect?  
See previous response. 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 102 - 
 
  COSTA RICA 
PART I: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 
 Page 41 (paragraph 2.60) 
 2.60. En los cinco años transcurridos hasta junio de 2013, la Oficina de Inversiones Extranjeras examinó 755 solicitudes de inversión; de ese total, se aprobaron 655 solicitudes, se retiraron 47, 
33 caducaron y 10 fueron denegadas. Todas las solicitudes denegadas tenían que ver con tierras 
sensibles. No se denegó ninguna solicitud que guardase relación únicamente con activos comerciales importantes. Durante el mismo período, la Oficina llevó a cabo 2.196 evaluaciones para controlar el cumplimiento de las condiciones con posterioridad a la transacción. Se determinó 
que en 2.096 casos se habían cumplido las condiciones; en 78 no era necesario realizar un control 
completo; en 17 no se habían cumplido las condiciones y en 5 solo se habían cumplido parcialmente. La Oficina publica en su sitio Web el tiempo medio que demoran las evaluaciones a 
lo largo de 12 meses. La información es actualizada al final de cada mes. 
 Page 42 (paragraph 2.61)  
 
2.61. A raíz de un examen realizado en 2009/2010, el Gobierno decidió no modificar la Ley de Inversiones Extranjeras de 2005. Sin embargo, conv ino en introducir varias modificaciones en el 
Reglamento de Inversiones Extranjeras de 2005. As í, con efecto a partir de diciembre de 2010, se 
añadieron dos factores adicionales: un nuevo factor -"intereses económicos"- que tiene por objeto 
permitir que se determine si la inversión extranjera salvaguarda y promueve suficientemente los intereses económicos de Nueva Zelandia, y un factor "de atenuación", que tiene por objeto 
permitir que se determine si la inversión extranjera brinda a Nueva Zelandia oportunidades de 
vigilancia y participación. Además, en diciembre de 2010 se publicó una nueva directiva ministerial en que se aclaraba la política del Gobierno en materia de inversiones extranjeras y, en particular, 
los factores de la "prueba de beneficios" que pueden tener mayor o menor importancia en la 
evaluación de determinados tipos de inversiones. Se considera que mediante esas modificaciones, junto con las efectuadas en 2009, se ha logrado un equilibrio adecuado.  
Questions: 
 
1. Can New Zealand please explain if the decision  to deny foreign direct investment is subject 
to further review? 
 If an application for consent is declined, an applicant may seek judicial review of the decision to 
decline. Judicial review is the review by a judge of the New Zealand High Co urt of any exercise of a 
decision-making power, to decide whether or  not the decision was lawful or valid. 
 2. Can New Zealand please further explain what are the elements that the government 
considers for  "economic interests"  and "proof of benefits" in the evaluation to determine the 
feasibility of FDIs?   
In Box 2.1, page 35 it is stated that: '"Benefit to New Zealand" is assessed having regard to 
21 factors that are listed in section 17 of the Ov erseas Investment Act 2005 and regulation 28 of 
the Overseas Investment Regulations 2005'.  
 
The "economic interests" factor referred to in paragraph 2.61 is one of the 21 factors used to assess whether an overseas investment in sensitive land will, or is likely to, benefit New Zealand and is set out in regulation 28(i). Regulation 28(i) reads as follows: 
 
28 Other factors for assessing benefit of overseas investment in sensitive land 
The other factors that are referred to in section 17(2)(g) of the Act for assessing whether an 
overseas investment in sensitive land will, or is likely to, benefit New Zealand are as follows: 
 
(i) whether New Zealand's economic interest s will be adequately promoted by the 
overseas investment, including, for example, matters such as all or any of the 
following: 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 103 - 
 
  a. whether New Zealand will become a more reliable supplier of primary products in 
the future;  
 
b. whether New Zealand's ability to supply the global economy with a product that 
forms an important part of New Zealand's export earnings will be less likely to be 
controlled by a single overseas person or its associates; 
 
c. whether New Zealand's strategic and security interests are or will be enhanced; 
 
d. whether New Zealand's key economic capacity is or will be improved. 
 
 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 104 - 
 
  TURKEY 
THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 
 
1.1. Introduction, p. 10, para. 1.4. 
 
It is mentioned in the Secretariat Report that, "…In particular, a pronounced slowdown in the demand for imported soft commodities from China (New Zealand's largest trading partner) and a 
strong decline in commodity prices could have a significant impact on New Zealand's growth 
prospects."  Considering New Zealand's increasing dependency on Chinese demand particularly in soft 
commodities, could New Zealand explain whether it has any policies or plans to mitigate risks 
associated with slowing demand from China?  
New Zealand's product and market diversification, supported by our FTA agenda, means that we 
have a solid platform from which to grow our exports over time. We have already diversified our exports away from the traditional agriculture base (e.g. wool, meat and dairy) to include 
horticulture, wine, forestry, fisheries and aquacult ure. This is complemented by a strong niche 
manufacturing sector in resource-based and high-tech products; and services exports – tourism, education and, more recently, commercial services. We have also diversified our export markets providing exporters with more options should de mand from China be curtailed. New Zealand now 
has trade agreements in force with 15 individu a l  m a r k e t s ,  r i s i n g  t o  2 7  o n c e  T P P  a n d  G C C  
negotiations are successfully concluded and including Korea. New Zealand's FTA agenda provides exporters many markets in which to sell their products, including for example the ASEAN region 
(which is undergoing significant economic and soci al transformation and is likely to provide an 
additional source of demand  for soft commodities).  
 
Furthermore, the economic reforms of the last 25 years have increased the resilience of the 
New Zealand economy. New Zealand's domestic economy today, and in particular our agriculture sector, is operating in a much more competitive environment. Further, the combination of flexible exchange rates, labour and product markets have enabled us to weather a number of significant 
shocks over the last ten years (e.g. the Asian financial crisis, the burst of the technology stock 
bubble in 2000/01, and most recently the Global Financial Crisis in 2008). New Zealand also has some headroom to accommodate slowing Chinese demand through monetary and fiscal policy, 
given low levels of public debt and scope for further declines in interest rates – unlike many other 
developed economies. In addition, our ba nking system remains well capitalized. 
 
It is also important to note that while slowing Chinese demand over the next few years appears 
l i k e l y  ( a n d  m a y  l e a d  t o  m o r e  s u s t a i n a b l e  a n d  b a l a n c e d  g r o w t h  i n  t h e  l o n g e r  t e r m ) ,  C h i n a ' s  contribution to global economic activity will continue to increase and New Zealand remains well-placed to benefit from the continuing impact on consumption of rising per capita incomes, as 
well as greater urbanization.  
 1.7. Trade Performance, p. 20, para. 1.7.2 
 
It is stated in the Secretariat Report that, "The direction of New Zealand's merchandise trade has 
changed significantly during the review period, wi th China becoming New Zealand's largest single 
trading partner, ahead of Australia, and other As ian emerging economies gaining more importance 
as trading partners. In fact, China's strong and rapidly growing demand for New Zealand's agricultural commodities (in particular dairy and forestry products) has been the major driver of New Zealand's rising commodity export prices and terms of trade in recent years."  
 
Given that China-Australia Free Trade Negotiat ions have been successfully concluded on 
17 November, 2014, could New Zealand elaborate on whether it expects Chinese demand, 
particularly in dairy and forestry products, to shift from New Zealand to Australia? 
 New Zealand is very competitive at producing dairy and forestry products. Provided the CHAFTA 
doesn't disadvantage New Zealand exporters at the expense of their Australia colleagues, we 
expect continuing Chinese demand for New Zealand exports.  WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 105 - 
 
  2.1 Trade and Investment Regime  – Overview, pg. 27, para 2.3 
 It is mentioned in the Secretariat Report that " New Zealand maintains preferential treatment for 
imports from least developed countries (LDCs) and developing countries (under the GSP) " 
 
Could New Zealand elaborate on the necessary cond itions for being a beneficiary of New Zealand's 
GSP scheme and specify the conditions for graduation from the scheme? 
 
The Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) is an international system of tariff preference 
designed to promote economic growth of developi ng countries. In accordance with the GSP, New 
Zealand grants special treatment to certain goods that are the produce or manufacture of 
countries recognised as a Less Developed Country (LDC) or as a Least Developed Country (LLDC).  
 The countries entitled to preferential tariff treatment under GSP are set out in Schedules 1 and 2 
to the Tariff (Less Developed Countries and Least Developed Countries) Order 2005. Countries 
'graduate' from the GSP programme once they meet certain criteria. 
  Least developed countries are defined by the United Nations as those countries with a per 
capita Gross National Income (GNI) of no more than US$400. 
  Developing countries are considered by Ne w Zealand to be those countries with a per 
capita GNI no greater than 70% of NZ's per capita GNI. 
 
The legal authority to change a recipient's preferential tariff status is contained in s7A(1) of the 
Tariff Act 1988 where by Order in Council a country may be declared to be, or not to be, a least developed country or a less developed country for the purposes of the Act. 
 
2.3. Trade Policy Formulation and Objectives, pg. 28, para. 2.14.  
It is stated in the Report that "New Zealand introduced trade as a new sector priority in its Aid 
Programme in 2014. The purpose is to support Pacific Island Countries build their capacity to trade, including through implementation of the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) Plus, once this is concluded." 
 
Could New Zealand provide detailed information about the "Aid Programme"? 
 
The purpose of New Zealand's aid is to develop shared prosperity and stability in the Pacific region 
and beyond. Since 2009, New Zealand has successfully reoriented its aid programme to focus on 
sustainable economic development. Our investment priorities for 2015-2018 across the Pacific 
include productive capacity building in priority sectors (agriculture, fisheries and tourism) and 
economic infrastructure (including renewable energy, ICT, and transp ort). In addition, the 
New Zealand Aid Programme aims to increase the economic benefits from trade by investing in 
activities that increase market access for Pacific goods, services and labour, facilitate trade, 
improve access to finance and support private sector development.  
 
For more information on New Zealand's Aid Programme, see: http://www.aid.govt.nz/ . 
 
2.5 Foreign Investment Regime, pg. 35, para. 2.59  
It is stated in the Secretariat Report that "For all investments, the relevant Minister or Ministers 
(or their delegate) must be satisfied that overseas investors, inter alia, have business experience and acumen relevant to the investment, are of "g ood character" and have demonstrated financial 
commitment to the investment. In addition, wher e the investment involves sensitive land, the 
relevant Ministers (or their delegate) must be satisfied that the investment will or is likely to 
benefit New Zealand. In relation to investments in fishing quota, the relevant Ministers must be satisfied that the investment will or is likely to be in the national interest (see also Section 4.2.6). 
Box 2.1 lists the different criteria considered in assessing investment applications." 
 Could New Zealand provide detailed information about the criteria of "good character" and its 
implementation? 
 The criteria for consent in section 16(1)(c) (applies to sensitive land acquisitions) and section 18(1)(c) (applies to significant business asset acquisitions) of the Overseas Investment Act 2005, 
and section 57G(1)(d) of the Fisheries Act 1996 (applies to fishing quota acquisitions) require that WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 106 - 
 
  the investor (or if the investor is not an individual) all individuals with control of the investor are of 
good character.  "Good character" is not defined in the Overseas Investment Act 2005 or the Fisheries Act 1996. 
However section 19(1) of the Overseas Investment Act 2005 and section 57I(1) of the Fisheries 
Act 1996 detail the test for good character:. Section 19(1) is set out below.  
19 Applying good character and Immigration Act 2009 criteria 
(1) For the purposes of sections 16(1)(c) and 18(1)(c), the relevant Minister or Ministers 
must take the following factors into account (without limitation) in assessing whether or not a person (A) is of good character: 
(a) offences or contraventions of the law by A, or by any person in which A has, or 
had at the time of the offence or contravention, a 25% or more ownership or 
control interest (whether convicted or not): (b) any other matter that reflects adversel y on the person's fitness to have the 
particular overseas investment. 
 Section 57I(1) of the Fisheries Act 1996 is almost identical to section 19(1).  
 
2.5. Foreign Investment Regime, pg. 36, Box. 2.1  It is mentioned in the Box 2.1. of the Secretariat Report on "Criteria for farm land" that, " In 
addition to the criteria used for an overseas investment in significant business assets and an 
overseas investment in sensitive land, any overseas investment that involves farm land must meet an additional requirement – the farm land or farm land securities must be advertised on the open 
market in accordance with the rules set out in the Overseas Investment Regulations 2005, unless 
a standing advertising exemption applies, or an  specific exemption from the land advertising 
requirements is sought and granted."  
 
Long term leasing and purchasing of farm lands are controversial issues globally, but also specifically in New Zealand (e.g. announcement of the purchase of Lochinvar Station by Shanghai 
Pengxin Group Co. Ltd.).  Due to increasing nu mber of Chinese attempts to buy farm lands 
overseas, could New Zealand provide information whether it has approved or rejected any Chinese 
attempt to purchase farm land in New Zealand?  
Please see the table below detailing proposed investments by Chinese interests that have been 
consented or declined under the Overseas Investment Act 2005 since 2009. This information is publicly available on the Overseas  Investment Office's website. 
 
CONSENTS GRANTED TO CHINESE INTERESTS FOR THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND  
Case No Decision Date Owned (%) Applicant Gross Land 
(Hectares) 
201110035 20-Apr-12 100.0000 Milk New Zealand Holding Limited 7,892.52 
201320091 31-Jan-14 73.9145 SFL Holdings Limited 10.10 
201320041 31-Jan-14 73.9145 SFL Holdings Limited 3,363.01 
201320092 31-Jan-14 100.0000 New Zealand Standard Farm Limited 4,563.52 
201220079 10-Apr-13 100.0000 O:TU Investments Limited 256.91 
201220078 10-Apr-13 100.0000 O:TU Investments Limited 79.63 
201310014 03-Jul-13 100.0000 Shanghai CRED Real Estate Co. Limited 188.30 
201320093 11-Mar-14 8.0100 Accolade Wines New Zealand Limited 47.76 
201420003 14-Nov-14 100.0000 Xindongyue Group NZ Limited 8.11 
200920070 16-Nov-09 22.2100 Agria Corporation 80.32 
201110005 15-Apr-11 21.6172 Agria (Singapore) Pte Limited 60.01 
201320056 20-Feb-14 100.0000 Ling Hai Group Limited 741.58 
 
APPLICATIONS INVOLVING CHINESE INTERE STS FOR THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF 
AGRICULTURAL LAND THAT HAVE BEEN DECLINED 
Case No Dec Date Owned (%) Applicant Gross Land 
(Hectares) 
201010030 22-Dec-10 28.82 Natural Dairy (NZ) Holdings Limited 2,312.51 
 
 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 107 - 
 
  3.1. Overview, pg. 39, para. 3.7 
 It is mentioned in the Secretariat Report that, "The Zespri Group, a company with special authority 
for export of kiwifruit, is the only state trading enterprise currently in operation in New Zealand. 
However, the Government maintains equity shares in several enterprises in various key economic 
sectors such as energy and transport. Accordin g to the authorities, the level of government 
participation in such enterprises has been falling in recent years." 
 
Could New Zealand clarify how the government affect s overseas investment decisions of the Zespri 
Group and other enterprises Government maintains equity shares in general?  
The New Zealand Government has no equity shares  in Zespri Group Limited, and it is not a 
Government owned commercial entity.   
In general, Crown-owned commercial entities operate at arm's length from the Government, and 
have independent boards of directors. The boards are responsible for making decisions on the company's operations, including on overseas in vestments. Directors of Crown-owned companies 
are subject to a number of duties under the Compan ies Act, including the duty to act in the best 
interest of the company.   Shareholding Ministers have a number of powers: 
  if a company requests equity funding from shareholders, the shareholding Ministers have 
discretion as to whether to provide it 
  under the Companies Act, proposed transactions over a certain threshold (50% of the 
value of the company's assets) are "major transactions" that require the approval of a 
majority of shareholders 
  shareholding Ministers also expect companies to consult them on transactions above a 
(lower) threshold. However this is consultation  only; the boards are expected to seek out 
the views of shareholding Ministers and consider them, but are still responsible for making their own decisions 
  under the State Owned Enterprises Act, shareholding Ministers have certain limited powers 
t o  d i r e c t  a n  S O E  t o  a m e n d  i t s  S t a t e m e n t  o f  C o r p o r a t e  I n t e n t  ( S C I ) .  S O E s  m u s t  a c t  
consistently with their SCI. Ministers cannot direct an SOE to carry out or not carry out a specific action, however they can direct a company with respect to the nature and scope of 
the activities to be undertaken by it, as set out in the SCI. Such directions are very rare 
(approximately 8 since the SOE Act was set up in 1986, with the last direction given in 2000) 
  shareholding Ministers also have the power to appoint and remove directors. However 
directors are independent; members of the Government and public servants are not 
appointed to the boards of commercial entities 
 
The scope of Ministers powers of direction over SOEs is set out here: 
http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0124/latest/DLM98050.html  
 
3.2.6.1 Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e – Measures Directly Affecting Imports – 
Anti-dumping, countervailing and safegu ard measures – Anti-dumping and 
countervailing measures pg. 50, para. 3.59 
 
It is highlighted in the Secretariat Report that " The 2014 amendment suspended existing anti-
dumping duties on residential building materials and suspended the application of any new anti-dumping duties on imports of residential construc tion materials for three years with effect from 
1 June 2014. "  
 Considering Canterbury and Christchurch earthquakes which occurred in 2010 and 2011, 
respectively, could New Zealand explain whether the context of this amendment is related with the 
efforts for the acceleration of resident ial recovery after these earthquakes? 
 
The suspension of anti-dumping duties on residential building materials was done to remove a 
barrier to competition in the residential housing construction sector, in particular to benefit the Christchurch rebuild but also to benefit increased residential construction expected elsewhere in New Zealand. 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 108 - 
 
  3.2.6.2 Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e – Measures Directly Affecting Imports – 
Anti-dumping, countervailing and safeguard me asures – Safeguards, pg. 50, para. 3.71 
 It is specified in the Secretariat Report that " The Closer Economic Partnership between New 
Zealand and Hong Kong, China and the Economic Cooperation Agreement between New Zealand 
and Chinese Taipei, both include a provision wher e, if either Party imposes a WTO safeguards 
measure, it shall exclude imports from the other party if such imports are not a cause of serious 
injury or threat thereof. The New Zealand–Thailand Closer Economic Partnership Agreement, the 
New Zealand–China FTA and the New Zealand–Malaysia  FTA provide that a Party applying a global 
safeguard measure may exclude imports from the other Parties where those imports are not cause of serious injury. Under the Australia-New Zealan d Closer Economic Relations Agreement and the 
New Zealand–Singapore Closer Economic Partnership Agreement, a Party imposing a global 
safeguard measure must exclude imports originating from another Party from the measure. " 
 
Considering the nature of global safeguard investigations that are initiated against whole imports 
irrespective of any countries specifically, could New Zealand explain in detail how the assessment about causing a serious injury on a country-by-country basis is made for the mentioned FTA 
partners? 
 New Zealand considers that exempting certain imports from a country or countries from a safeguard measure is consistent with our obligations under Article 2.2 of the Safeguards 
Agreement provided the concept known as "parallelism" is applied to the analysis of whether 
increased imports have caused serious injury to a domestic industry.   
In applying parallelism New Zealand considers that an investigation would first take into account 
imports of a product from all sources, excluding those from Australia and Singapore. Assuming this demonstrated that increased imports from all sources did cause or threaten to cause serious 
injury, an assessment would then be made of the imports from each of the countries to which it is 
contemplated an exemption should apply to de termine whether the imports from each country, 
taken alone, did not cause or threaten serious injury.   
The next step would be to remove the imports from the countries which are not a cause of serious 
injury from the next examination. A determination would then be made of whether the increase of 
the remaining imports caused or threatened serious injury. If this was the case, then a safeguard 
measure could be imposed on the remaining import s and an exemption from the measure could be 
given to imports from those countries which are not a cause of serious injury.  
Because New Zealand has not carried out a safeguard investigation since the WTO Agreement on 
Safeguards came into effect, it has not yet had to apply an analysis on the basis set out above.  3.2.8. Sanitary and Phytosanitary  Requirements, pg. 55, para. 3.89 
 
It is stated in the Secretariat Report that , "The Food Act 2014 updates the Food Act 1981. It 
reforms provisions on trade in food in order to  enhance safety and suitability. It also sets 
guidelines for risk-based measures to improve public health protection. The Act is scheduled to be 
fully in force by mid-2016".   
Could New Zealand explain whether the new Food Act brings any safety measures for exported 
food products?  The Food Act 2014 covers the sale of food with in New Zealand, including food for export. In 
producing food for sale, food businesses must meet the requirements of the Food Act 2014 and 
any other applicable requirements. Such businesses must register a Food Control Plan or National Programme demonstrating how they will identify, control, manage and eliminate or minimise 
hazards or other relevant factors for the purpose of achieving safe and suitable food. Independent 
verification against the Food Control Plan or National Programme is undertaken.  
4.2.6. Fisheries, pg. 79, para. 4.37 
 It is stated in the Secretariat Report that, " The recently passed Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels 
and other matters) Amendment Act 2014 will prohibit foreign-flagged charter fishing vessels 
(FCVs) from fishing in New Zealand waters (within the 200 mile limit) from 1 May 2016. At WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 109 - 
 
  present, FCVs registered as New Zealand fishin g vessels are allowed to fish in New Zealand 
waters, and there are a number of vessels operating under such provisions, which will need to be reflagged as New Zealand vessels if they are to co ntinue their operations. Fish landed from such 
vessels is managed according to the charter arrangements between New Zealand company and 
the foreign vessel owner."  
 Could New Zealand provide more information about Fisheries Amendment Act 2014 allowing a 
number of vessels to be reflagged and charter arrangements procedures to be followed after 
1 May 2016?  The Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Ot her Matters) Amendment Act 2014 will require all 
foreign charter vessels (FCVs) to reflag to New Zealand from 1 May 2016. The Act is also 
supported by a number of non-legislative changes to improve the monitoring and enforcement of 
New Zealand employment, vessel safety and fisheries rules. 
 
The main consequences of the legislation, and a ssociated non-legislative changes, to the current 
charter arrangement procedures for FCVs are: 
• The New Zealand operator of the vessel will have to demonstrate that he/she has full 
possession and control of the vessel, including full accountability for crew welfare, and become the employer of the crew. 
• All FCVs will have to fully comply with minimum New Zealand vessel safety and workplace 
standards. 
• All foreign crew will be required to meet New Zealand fishing vessel crew qualification 
standards. 
• All foreign crew will be entitled to receive minimum New Zealand remuneration levels that 
are paid into New Zealand bank accounts to ensure compliance. 
 
4.4 Trade Policies By Sector – Manufacturing, pg. 82, para. 4.56 
 It is mentioned in the Secretariat Report that " There has been some diversification towards higher 
value-added, knowledge-intensive subsectors (e.g. niche electronic goods, new materials and 
software) in recent years, however, primary food  manufacturing (mainly dairy and meat products) 
and other resource-based industries remain the largest components of manufacturing activity. " 
 
Could New Zealand explain which measures were ta ken in order to achieve diversification towards 
higher value added products?  
New Zealand is an open market economy with sound institutions and good education system. A 
supportive business environment such as this encourages entrepreneurs to innovate and build new high value businesses. The Government has assisted this process through its Business Growth Agenda which is focused on actions to in develop an ecosystem which is supportive of technology 
businesses (broadly defined to include both high and medium high technology manufacturing, 
software and information technology services and knowledge intensive services such as engineering and design). This wide range of initiatives is outlined in the Business Growth Agenda 
Future Direction, available from http://www.mbie.govt.nz/wha t-we-do/business-growth-
agenda/business-growth-agenda-future-direction-2014  The actions are grouped into the six inputs 
businesses need to succeed and grow: export mark ets, capital markets, innovation, skilled and 
safe workplaces, natural resources and infrastructure. Examples include the establishment of 
Callaghan Innovation which provides a range of research and development grants to businesses, technical advice, and services such as the Accelerator Programme, designed to support the rapid formation of early stage ICT and digital tech nology start-ups, and the Incubator Support 
Programme, which encourages the development of early stage, high-growth businesses to 
generate employment growth, commercialise intellec tual property and grow emerging sectors. See 
https://www.callaghaninnovation.govt.nz/ for detail s. Other initiatives include: Government and 
private sector investment to deliver faster broadband to 97.8% of New Zealanders, with 80% 
getting Ultra-Fast Broadband through fibre by the end of 2019; establishing new ICT graduate schools in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch; and increased investment in engineering studies 
at tertiary institutions to lift graduate numbers by 500 per annum by 2017. In addition, 
New Zealand Trade and Enterprise assists firms through a range of programmes such as the Beachheads programme, which connects participating companies to a network of private sector advisors in New Zealand and around the world who can act as mentors and provide insights into 
the realities of growing internationally successful businesses. WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 110 - 
 
   
4.4 Trade Policies By Sector – Manufacturing, pg. 83, para. 4.60  It is stated in the Secretariat Report that " There is no overarching official policy specifically 
targeted at the manufacturing industry. Instead, the New Zealand Government has put in place 
several programmes to assist businesses in the sector, mainly in the form of financial support, technical advice and R&D funding. The Business  Growth Agenda (BGA) outlines Government 
initiatives to support New Zealand businesses to grow and help create a more productive and 
competitive economy, while specific programmes are implemented through government agencies. " 
 Could New Zealand provide further information about the abovementioned programmes and 
whether these programmes are sufficient enough to enhance export competitiveness of New 
Zealand's manufacturing industry?  
New Zealand has a diverse manufacturing sector. Ac tions have tended to be tailored to different 
parts of the sector and are generally directed at  increasing business expenditure on research and 
development through R&D grants administered by Callaghan Innovation and develop firms' 
capability to innovate and export. Callaghan Innovation also provides a range of technical 
assistance. To assist the development of New Zealand's processed foods export sector, including functional foods and nutraceuticals, the Government  has provided funding for the establishment of 
the New Zealand Food Innovation Network, a national network of science and technology 
resources created to support the growth and development of New Zealand food & beverage 
business of all sizes including provision of facilities and the expertise needed to develop new products and process from idea to commercial success. Use of the facilities is on a fee-for-service 
basis. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise has an ex tensive network of off-shore offices designed to 
assist New Zealand manufacturers to establish export markets. Two examples of capability building are the Better by Design programme and The Better by Capital programme. The Better by 
Design programme helps companies increase their international competitiveness by integrating 
design principles right across their business. The Design Integration Programme teaches design thinking and the tools of design integration to management teams through a sequence of learning 
activities. Companies are partnered with experts from  the private sector and activities address real 
company challenges and opportunities. See http://www.betterbydesign.org.nz/ . The Better by 
Capital programme is designed to assist business to become investment ready and identify 
potential investors in particular to help fund international growth. Both these programmes can be 
utilised by firms in a wide range of sectors, including manufacturing. 
 4.5.3.3 Prices, pg. 92, Box 4.2  
 
According to the statement done by New Zealand Commerce Commission, it is mentioned that "Most customers buy broadband together with phone services in a bundle, and bundles were priced 30% higher than the OECD averag e although dropped 14% over two years."  
 
Could New Zealand explain the reason behind these practices in terms of national and international 
retail prices of fixed-line phone and broadband services? 
 
These are retail prices which were driven by the level of competition in retail markets at that time, and also influenced by the regulated forward- looking cost-based wholesale price set by the 
Commerce Commission. 
 Prices for broadband plus voice bundles continue to improve in benchmarking. New Zealand retail prices are now right on the average for the 30GB basket and a substantial 22% below average for 
the 30GB 30Mbps fibre basket, with prices 13-22% above average for 60GB and 150GB 10Mbps 
DSL plans (Source: Commerce Commission Annual Telecommunications Monitoring Report, 2014).  
4.5.4.2 Air transport services and airports, pg. 95, para.  4.121 
 It is stated in the report that "…The Crown holds a 52.3% stake in Air New Zealand. It also holds a 
preferential "Kiwi share", which enables the Go vernment to impose a 10% cap on individual 
foreign shareholdings… The Crown also holds 100% ownership of Airways Corporation of New Zealand Limited...".   WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 111 - 
 
  In different services sectors (such as telecommunication), the Government was accused of 
distorting competition in the market by referring to Kiwi Share Obligation in the past. Regarding this information, could New Zealand explain the current content of "Kiwi share", with its legal basis and current applications? 
 
The Kiwi Share is a single $1 special rights conver tible preference share issued by Air New Zealand 
to the Crown. It confers certain rights and respon sibilities on the holder, the primary intent of 
which is to protect Air New Zealand's access to other countries under inter-government air 
services agreements by ensuring that "substantial  ownership and effective control" of the airline 
remains in New Zealand hands. The Kiwi Shareholder is Her Majesty the Queen in Right of New Zealand.  
 
Air New Zealand's Constitution (Article 3.5) sets out the rights and responsibilities of the Kiwi 
Share and the Kiwi Shareholder. Among other things, the written consent of the Kiwi Shareholder 
is required in respect of any amendment, removal or  alteration of any section, clause or definition 
specified, including those relating to the name of the company, its place of incorporation, its principal place of business, the location of its head  office and the nationality of its directors. The 
consent of the Kiwi Shareholder is also required: (a) for an owner or operator of an airline 
business to hold or have an Interest in an Equity Security in the company; and (b) for a non-New Zealand national to hold or have an interest in shares that confer 10% or more of the total voting rights in the company. 
 
The Kiwi Shareholder's role is separate from the ri ghts exercised by the Minister of Finance, who is 
responsible for the Crown's holding of 52% of the ordinary shares in Air New Zealand.  
 
THE GOVERNMENT REPORT 
 
2.1 Current Economic Priorities, pg. 6, para. 2.21 
 It is mentioned in the Government Report that "Infrastructure underpins growth by providing the 
support of networks demanded by a growing econ omy. It is a catalyst for growth because it 
creates new economic opportunities. Infrastructure assets are typically costly and can take many 
years to plan, commission, build and bring into service. Projecting the future demand for infrastructure is critical to ensuring that the right level of investment is made in the right 
infrastructure at the right time. Almost NZ$16 billion of assets has been added over the last 
three years, including investments in roading, ra il, ultra-fast broadband, irrigation, electricity 
transmission and the Christchurch rebuild. Specific priorities include removing bottlenecks on the 
road network, accelerating Auckland's transport pr ojects, completing the deployment of ultra-fast 
and rural broadband, rebuilding Christchurch, investing in hospitals and schools, and increasing competition and efficiency in the housing sector".  
New Zealand has acceded to the revised WTO Agreement on Government Procurement on 
29 October 2014. Although Parliament's treaty examination process has not been completed yet, could New Zealand share information on foreign cons truction companies' participation and share in 
construction activities in recent years, particul arly in rebuilding activities of Christchurch?  
 The New Zealand Government does not require businesses to state their location of ownership 
when bidding for government contracts. It is therefore not possible to provide information on 
foreign construction companies' participation and sh are in construction activities in recent years. 
 7.1 Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements  – Australia New Zealand Closer Economic 
Relationship, pg. 15, para. 7.10 
 It is emphasized in the Government Report that " Australia and New Zealand continue to work 
closely on a range of issues to progress the SEM agenda. A broad range of SEM initiatives have 
been achieved across the following four themes… " 
 
Could New Zealand express its assessment regarding a possible single market economy between 
New Zealand and Australia in terms of the possibility of arising "balanced benefits"?   "The joint development of a Single Economic Market (SEM) agenda builds on the Australia 
New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Ag reement (known as CER), which underpins our WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 112 - 
 
  close trade and economic relationship. In progressing the SEM New Zealand and Australia are 
guided by principles which seek to create an efficient, certain and seamless environment for businesses operating in both countries. The outcomes of the SEM agenda are intended to optimise net trans-Tasman benefit.  
 
The SEM agenda has delivered significant economic benefits to both countries by lowering business costs and increasing the ease with which businesses and people can operate across the Tasman. 
For example:  
 
  New Zealand and Australia have worked together closely to coordinate policies and 
regulations in a number of business law areas: business reporting, competition and 
consumer policy, corporate law, financial services and reporting, insolvency law and 
intellectual property. This has included outcomes such as equivalent consumer credit requirements and enforcement regimes, comparable disclosures for investors and other 
users of financial products in Australia and New Zealand, and mutual recognition for 
financial advisers. 
 
  the CER Investment Protocol reduces compliance costs and provides greater legal certainty 
for trans-Tasman investors by providing higher thresholds at which foreign investments are to be screened. New Zealand private investors undertaking business acquisitions now benefit from the higher screening threshold of  A$1,078 million (indexed annually), up from 
A$248 million. In exchange, the screening threshold for Australian private investors in 
New Zealand is now NZ$477 million (around A$442 million, and indexed annually), up from NZ$100 million (around A$93 million).  
 
  The introduction of the trans-Tasman retirement savings portability supports and adds to 
the degree of integration between the two countries by allowing New Zealanders and 
Australians to consolidate their financial affairs in their country of residence." 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 113 - 
 
  PERU 
Sobre la base de lo señalado en el documento WT/TPR/S/316  del 11 de mayo de 2015, el Perú 
tiene las siguientes preguntas: 
 
Pregunta 1 
 
4. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES  
4.2. Agricultura, silvicultura y pesca 
4.2.1. Características principales  Párrafo 4.13 - El sector de la agricultura de Nueva Zelandia es un sector orientado hacia el 
mercado, altamente productivo y con un mínimo de intervención estatal. A raíz de la liberalización 
del sector en los años ochenta y noventa, prácticamente todos los subsectores de la agricultura actualmente están desregulados, y las antiguas juntas oficiales de comercialización han sido 
desmanteladas y reemplazadas por organizaciones sectoriales establecidas con arreglo a la 
Ley de Gravámenes sobre los Productos Básicos de 1990.  Las reformas han contribuido a 
convertir a la agricultura en uno de los sectores más productivos de la economía. Según 
estimaciones del Ministerio de Industrias Primarias, entre 1984 y 2007 la productividad del sector 
agropecuario en general aumentó a una tasa compuesta anual del 3,3%, superior a la tasa compuesta anual de aumento de la productividad en el resto de la economía, que fue del 1%.
2 (El 
resaltado es nuestro)  
 
Pregunta - ¿En qué consisten las organizaciones sectoriales establecidas con arreglo a la Ley de Gravámenes sobre los Productos Básicos de 1990 y de qué manera se diferencian con respecto a 
las antiguas juntas oficiales de comercialización? 
 Pregunta 2 
 4. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES  4.2. Agricultura, silvicultura y pesca 4.2.1. Características principales 
 
Párrafo 4.14 -  Desde el Examen precedente, la agricultura ha sido objeto de nuevas reformas. 
Entre los principales acontecimientos en esta esfera cabe mencionar la restructuración de la 
industria lechera. A nivel institucional, el principal cambio fue la fusión del Ministerio de Agricultura 
y Silvicultura con el Ministerio de Pesca, que pasa ron a integrar el nuevo Ministerio de Industrias 
Primarias a partir de abril de 2012.
3 Entre las funciones del nuevo Ministerio figura la de asesorar 
al Gobierno en las siguientes esferas: la política agropecuaria y pesquera a nivel nacional e 
internacional; los resultados sectoriales; el uso sostenible de los recursos naturales; el comercio internacional; cuestiones de política en materia de ciencia e innovación relacionadas con el sector; seguridad alimentaria y seguridad biológica. Además, el Ministerio tiene a su cargo los regímenes 
reglamentarios en materia de seguridad biológica, salud animal y vegetal y seguridad alimentaria. 
El Ministerio también tiene a su cargo la aplic ación del Plan de comercio de derechos de 
emisión para la agricultura y administra la Alianza para el crecimiento de las industrias 
primarias, que es una iniciativa conjunta del Gobierno y el sector de inversión en investigación e 
innovación encaminada a fomentar el crecimiento y la sostenibilidad de los sectores primario, forestal y de la alimentación. (El resaltado es nuestro) 
 
Pregunta - ¿Qué es el Plan de comercio de derechos de emisión para la agricultura?  
                                               
2 Información en línea del Ministerio de  Industrias Primarias. Consultada en: 
http://www.mpi.govt.nz/agriculture . 
3 Previamente (en julio de 2010) la Dirección de Seguridad Alimentaria se había fusionado con el 
Ministerio de Agricultura y Silvicultura. WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 114 - 
 
  Pregunta 3 
 
4. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES  4.2. Agricultura, silvicultura y pesca 
4.2.6. Pesca 
 ¿Existe en Nueva Zelandia alguna clasificación de los tipos de pesca según ámbito geográfico, 
tamaño, tipo de aparejos de pesca, otros? De existir, ¿se les aplica algún tratamiento diferenciado 
en los programas de apoyo y/o de ordenamiento pesquero?  Pregunta 4 
 4. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES  4.2. Agricultura, silvicultura y pesca 
4.2.6. Pesca 
 Recuadro 4.1 Pesca comercial: régimen de  gestión de contingentes de captura 
 
 Para cada población de peces se fija el total de capturas permisibles a un nivel compatible 
con el máximo rendimiento sostenible (es decir, el máximo rendimiento que pueda lograrse sin menoscabar la capacidad productiva de la población a lo largo del tiempo). Después de 
tener en cuenta la pesca no comercial y la mortalidad de cada población causada por la 
pesca, se determina el total de capturas permisibles. 
 
Pregunta - ¿Qué institución determina el máximo rendimiento sostenible y con qué periodicidad?  
 PREGUNTAS ADICIONALES DEL PERÚ AL EXAMEN DE POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES DE  
NUEVA ZELANDIA  
 
1.  Podría detallar Nueva Zelanda, ¿Cuáles so n actualmente las 30 órdenes de gravámenes 
sobre productos básicos? (Párrafo 4.17 Informe de Secretaría). 
 
2.  Podría precisar Nueva Zelanda ¿Cuál ha sido  el impacto de la implementación de las 
reformas aplicadas en el sector lácteo? (Párrafo 4.25 Informe de Secretaría). 
 
3.  Podría explicar Nueva Zelanda ¿Cuáles son los resultados más destacados sobre el Plan de 
comercio de derecho de emisiones, para reducir las emisiones de gases de efecto 
invernadero? (Párrafo 4.29 Informe Secretaría). 
   WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 115 - 
 
  Based on the document WT/TPR/S/316  dated 11 May 2015, Peru has the following questions: 
 
Question 1  
 
4. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.2. Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries 4.2.1. Main features  
 
Question: What do the industry organisation s established under the Commodity Levy Act 1990 
consist of, and how do they differ from the old statutory marketing boards?  
The Commodity Levy Act 1990 does not establish industry organisations. Industry organisations 
choose to form a body corporate under generic New Zealand laws like the Companies Act 1993 and the Incorporated Societies Act 1908. Some of those organisations may choose to seek a levy 
order under the Commodity Levy Act to fund industry-good activities, if the potential levy payers 
vote to have a levy. These industry bodies are not commodity traders.  
Producer Boards were established under their own industry-specific legislation e.g. the former New 
Zealand Wool Board was established by the now repealed Wool Industry Act 1997 and its powers, structure, functions and means of funding were sp ecified in their own legislation, whereas under 
the Commodity Levy Act the levy payers (the producers) decide whether to seek a levy order and 
what activities will be funded out of the levy. 
 Question 2 
 4. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 4.2. Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries 
4.2.1. Main features  
 Question: What is the Emissions Trading Scheme for agriculture?  
The agricultural sector reports biological emissions under the Emissions Trading Scheme. In line 
with other countries, the sector will only have surrender obligations once economically viable and practical mitigation technologies become available and our trading partners make more progress 
on tackling their emissions in general. 
 To address the absence of options for the sector  to reduce emissions, New Zealand is at the 
forefront of the global search for mitigation technologies and was a founding member of the Global 
Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Ga ses. The Government also funds this search 
through the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre, the Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium and the Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change Research 
Programme. Industry also funds the Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium. This 
collaborative research is making good progress, including on: animal breeding; low emissions feeds; inhibitors and a vaccine. 
 
As a result of the absence of agricultural subsidies, New Zealand's agricultural products have a relatively low greenhouse gas emissions footprint when compared to other countries. In fact, over 
the past two decades, New Zealand farmers have im proved the emissions efficiency of their beef, 
lamb and milk by approximately 1% per year on average.  Question 3 
 4. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 4.2. Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries 
4.2.6. Fisheries 
 In New Zealand, is there any classification of the types of fishing according to geographical area, 
size, type of fishing gear, etc? If so, is differe ntial treatment applied for the purposes of support 
programmes and/or fisheries regulation?  A fish species can consist of numerous geographically isolated and biologically distinct populations. 
Each fish species in the Quota Management System is subdivided into separate fish stocks defined WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 116 - 
 
  by Quota Management Areas (QMAs). New Zealand currently has approximately 100 species (or 
species groupings) subject to the QMS. These species are divided into 638 separate stocks. Each stock is managed independently to help ensure the sustainable utilisation of that fishery. QMAs for a species are determined on introduction of that species into the QMS. QMAs are based on a 
combination of biological and administrative factors at the time of introduction. The starting point 
for determining QMA boundaries for each species are the ten Fisheries Management Areas (FMAs) which New Zealand's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is divided up into (for fisheries management 
purposes). While most species in the QMS are managed independently, sometimes groups of 
species are considered together for management purposes. These groups tend to be either groups of similar species caught together; or where identification or differentiation by fishers is difficult.  
The QMS stock "flatfish" includes seven different species within a defined QMA. There is limited 
ability, once a stock is introduced into the QMS, for QMAs or stock definitions to change. 
 
Owing to the nature of fish populations some QMAs incorporate multiple FMAs while others cover 
only part of a single FMA.   
There are a number of regulations that limit the type  of fishing method that can be used in various 
areas and at various times – mesh sizes, methods,  seasonal closures etc. – these are introduced 
for sustainability reasons and are designed to protect juvenile stocks and /or breeding areas.   
There are a very few fisheries that are classified by the type of fishing – for example, squid has 
both a trawl and a jig allocation. However, in terms of regulation there is no distinction made in the way that fisheries regulations are interp reted or implemented in these fisheries. 
 
Question 4 
 
4. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.2. Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries 4.2.6. Fisheries  
Box 4.1 Commercial fishing: Qu ota Management System (QMS) 
 Question: Which institution determines the maximum sustainable yield and how often?  
 
The Ministry for Primary Industries along with it s contracted research providers determines the 
maximum sustainable yield, guided by the Harvest Strategy Standard for New Zealand Fisheries 
and associated Operational Guidelines. These are available online at: 
http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Page.aspx?pk=104 . The frequency of updates varies by species.  
 
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM PERU IN RESPONSE TO TRADE POLICY REVIEW OF 
NEW ZEALAND 
 
1.  Could New Zealand provide details on what the 30 commodity levy orders on basic 
products currently are? (Paragraph 4.17 Report by the Secretariat) 
 The list of the 30 Commodity Levy Orders in force is provided below. Each Commodity Levy Order 
is available in full at: http://www.legislation.govt.nz . 
 
Commodity Levies (Vegetables and Fruit) Order 2013  
Commodity Levies (Mussels, Oysters, and Salmon) Order 2013  
Wine (Grape Wine Levy) Order 2010  
Commodity Levies (Meat) Order 2010  
Commodity Levies (Harvested Wood Material) Order 2013  
Commodity Levies (Asparagus) Order 2012  
Commodity Levies (Avocados) Order 2013  
Commodity Levies (Potatoes) Order 2013  
Commodity Levies (Nashi Pears) Order 2012  WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 117 - 
 
  Commodity Levies (Maize) Order 2012  
Commodity Levies (Arable Crops) Order 2012  
Commodity Levies (Onions) Order 2013  
Commodity Levies (Winegrapes) Order 2010  
Commodity Levies (Pipfruit) Order 2012  
Commodity Levies (Eggs) Order 2010  
Commodity Levies (Tamarillos) Order 2010  
Commodity Levies (Milksolids) Order 2014  
Commodity Levies (Rock Lobster) Order 2013  
Commodity Levies (Paua) Order 2013  
Commodity Levies (Foveaux Strait Dredge Oysters) Order 2013  
Commodity Levies (Non-proprietary and Uncertified Herbage Seeds) Order 2014  
Commodity Levies (Blackcurrants) Order 2013  
Commodity Levies (Summerfruit) Order 2014  
Commodity Levies (Kiwifruit) Order 2012  
Commodity Levies (Cereal Silage) Order 2012  
Commodity Levies (Passionfruit) Order 2014  
Commodity Levies (Feijoas) Order 2014  
Commodity Levies (Citrus Fruit) Order 2014  
Commodity Levies (Wheat Grain) Order 2014  
Commodity Levies (Paeonies) Order 2012  
 
2.  Could New Zealand specify what impact the implementation of the reforms applied to the 
dairy industry has had? (Paragraph 4.25 Report by the Secretariat) 
 
In 2012, Fonterra moved to a new capital structure model known as Trading Among Farmers. 
Regulation of Fonterra's capital structure is limited and primarily designed to address competition policy issues. 
 
The intended outcomes of Trading Among Farmers include:  • Greater durability in Fonterra's capital structure because there is no longer a risk of having 
to redeem unpredictable volumes of shares;  
 • Promoting a dynamic and contestable dairy industry – liquidity in the Farmers Shareholders 
Market and Fonterra Shareholders' Fund will lead to a market based fair value share price 
and stronger incentives against an upward bias in the milk price, which would have a negative impact on competition in New Zealand dairy markets;  
 
• Introducing external capital to the company to broaden the shareholding base to provide 
access to capital and stronger incentives for the company to make the greatest possible contribution to New Zealand's economic growth; and  
 
• Greater flexibility for farmer shareholders to buy and sell shares and manage cash flow in 
their farming business. 
 
There are encouraging signs that Trading Among Farmers is delivering on key policy objectives. For example, there is increasing competition in the farm gate milk market.  
 
Trading Among Farmers has only been in place since November 2012. Further conclusions about the impacts of the change will be possible over time.  WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 118 - 
 
  3.  Could New Zealand explain which are the most significant results of the Emissions Trading 
Scheme, aiming at reducing greenhouse gas emissions? (Paragraph 4.29 Report by the Secretariat) 
 
The impacts of New Zealand's Emissions Trading Scheme are reported in New Zealand's 6th 
National Communication on Climate Change. You can find this here: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate-cha nge/new-zealands-sixth -national-communication . 
This report shows that an estimated 9,810.0 Gg CO2-e emissions will be avoided by key policies 
and measures by 2020. The NZ ETS is assumed to be responsible for the majority of this. However it is challenging to assess with certainty as the impacts of the NZ ETS are difficult to distinguish from other policies. Also, the NZ ETS is a long-term intervention, and its impacts need to be 
evaluated on that basis. 
 Additionally, each year the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) reports on activity in the New 
Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). In 2014, the EPA released three reports: the 2013 
Annual ETS Report; ETS 2013 – Facts and Figures and the 2013 Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Levy Report. The reports provide information on how many businesses were in the ETS, how much 
greenhouse gas they emitted or removed, and give year-on-year comparisons. You can find these 
reports on the EPA website: http://www.epa.govt.nz/e-m-
t/reports/ets_reports/annual/Pages/default.aspx . 
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 119 - 
 
  REPUBLIC OF KOREA 
PART I: Questions Regarding the Secretariat Report 
 Page 35 (Para 2.58) 
 The legislation prescribes the circumstances where an overseas person is required to obtain consent before investing in New Zealand, i.e. acquisitions by overseas persons of sensitive land or 
an interest in sensitive land; 25% or more ownership or control interest in fishing quota; and any 
foreign investment that would result in the acquisition of 25% or more ownership or control interest in "significant business assets" (i.e. assets valued at more than NZ$100 million). In its mode 3 horizontal commitments under the GATS, New Zealand is bound to a screening threshold 
of NZ$10 million. 
 Question 1 
 
According to the Report, "consent is required for foreign investments when they would result in the acquisition of 25% or more ownership of or a control interest in 'significant business assets'. 
"Significant business assets" are shares or assets valued at more than NZ$100 million". It is 
understood that the definition of "significant business assets" is partly based on the value of shares. Could New Zealand clarify whether this defi nition takes into account fluctuations in the 
value of shares? If so, how is this done? 
 
Answer  
Consent is required under the Overseas Inve stment Act 2005 ("the Act") where an overseas 
investor acquires shares in another entity ("the target"), and as a result of the acquisition, the overseas person has a 25% or more ownership or control interest in the target, and 
  The value of the shares, or 
  The consideration provided (i.e. the price paid  by the overseas investor for the shares in 
the target), or 
  The value of the New Zealand assets of the target, including the value of the New Zealand 
assets of the subsidiaries in which the target has a 25% or more ownership or control 
interest exceeds NZ$100 million.   
 
The value of the shares is calculated at a part icular point in time – the date the overseas 
investment was given effect – so it is not necessary to take into account share value fluctuations. "Give effect to the overseas investment" is defined in section 6(1) of the Act, and depending on 
how the transaction is structured, is either the date the agreement to purchase the shares was 
entered into, or the date the purchase of the shares was settled.    It is unusual for the value of the shares to be the trigger for a transaction to become treated as a 
"significant business asset" transaction.  It is more usual for the other two circumstances (price 
paid, or value of the New Zealand assets of the target and its qualifying subsidiaries) to be the triggering circumstance.  However, including the value of the shares as a threshold figure does 
provide an anti-avoidance effect, in that it deters the vendor and purchaser from structuring the 
transaction in a way that an artificially low purchase price is paid.  
Page 55 (Para 3.87, 3.95, 3.96) 
 
New Zealand continues to attach high importance to the protection of human, animal, and plant life or health. As a consequence, it maintains a re latively strict SPS regime. "Risk goods" cannot be 
imported into New Zealand until a comprehensive risk assessment has been completed through 
the adoption of an "Import Health Standards" (IHS).  
Risk goods cannot be cleared for entry into New Zealand unless the risks posed by the goods have 
been assessed and can be effectively managed. Any risk good that does not meet the biosecurity requirements for import (set out in an import he alth standard), or which have not been assessed, 
will not be cleared for entry to New Zealand. Risk  goods require a risk analysis to be undertaken 
before an import health standard can be issued and goods cleared under it.  WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 120 - 
 
  Decisions on issuing import health standards are the responsibility of the Director-General of MPI, 
on the recommendation of a Chief Technical Office r. To date, over 350 IHS have been issued (of 
which about 90 during the review period). The MP I maintains an online system which provides 
detailed information on specific IHS by commodity and by country. 
 
Question 2  
New Zealand maintains relatively strict sanitary  and phytosanitary (SPS) measures. For instance, 
"risk goods" cannot be imported into New Zealand until a comprehensive risk assessment is done through guidelines in Import Health Standards (HIS). Given that about 350 IHS have been issued to date, there might be risk goods which do not yet have relevant health standards and cannot be 
cleared for entry into New Zealand. In terms of scientific bases, elaborate on what is taken into 
account for deciding Import Health Standards (HIS) and how long the decision process takes?  
Answer 
 New Zealand's requirement that an IHS exist for a risk good prior to its importation is consistent 
with the SPS Agreement and places no unreasonable impediment on trade.  New Zealand adopts 
relevant international standards where these standards would achieve New Zealand's appropriate level of protection.   
Requests for IHS are prioritised by assessing importance (criticality to New Zealand), strategic fit 
(with New Zealand government goals), net benefit (for New Zealand in the longer term), feasibility (of being able to do the work), barriers (whether they can be surmounted), and the amount of 
work expected.  More information is available on the MPI website:  
http://mpi.govt.nz/importing/overview/import -health-standards/requesting-a-new-ihs/ .   
There is no set timeline or average time for the development of IHS.  The time period involved in 
the development of an IHS varies, and can, for ex ample, take between 3 months and 3 years.  The 
timeframe for development of a new IHS is dependent upon, but not limited to, a number of factors including the scope of the IHS, the risk a ssessment required, the nature of the consultation 
required including the number of interested & affect ed parties to be consulted, and implementation 
factors.  Information on risk analysis proc edures is available on the MPI website at: 
http://www.mpi.govt.nz/document-vault/2031. 
Page 66 (Para 3.177) 
 An important development, during the review period, was agreement to New Zealand's terms of accession to the revised WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) on 29 October 2014, 
following the submission of its final offer. Upon ratification by New Zealand, the GPA is set to apply 
to procurement of goods, services, and construction works by a list of entities from central and sub-central government agencies, as well as other entities such as state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Ratification of New Zealand's accession to the GPA entails a Parliamentary treaty 
examination process that is currently under way. The Agreement will enter into force for 
New Zealand on the thirtieth day following the deposit of New Zealand's instrument of accession to the Director-General of the WTO. 
 
Question 3  
Korea welcomes New Zealand's announcement of its accession to the revised WTO Agreement on 
Government Procurement (GPA) and looks forward to  the entry into force of the GPA in the near 
future. Please provide a brief description on New Zealand's public procurement market value with a breakdown of the central entities, sub-central entities, and other entities as covered by New 
Zealand's Appendix I offer. 
 Answer 
 
To date, New Zealand has not collected or maintain ed information on the value of the procurement 
covered in its Appendix 1 offer; however, we ar e able to provide estimated annual values for the 
total (rather than covered) procurement undertaken by the entities covered in New Zealand's 
Appendix 1 offer. Expressed in New Zealand dollars, these are as follows:  WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 121 - 
 
  Annex 1 – $10 billion 
Annex 2 – $5.8 billion Annex 3 – $5.8 billion  
Question 4 
 After important amendments were made to the re gulatory regime with the passage of the 2006 
Telecommunications Amendment Act, further amendments were made through the 2011 
Telecommunications Amendment Act. In this regard, what were the main changes in the telecommunications legislative framework, particul arly as they pertain to the participation of 
foreign service providers?  
 
Answer  
The Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband, and othe r Matters) Amendment Act 2011 provides the 
framework for the Government's ultra-fast broadband (UFB) and rural broadband (RBI) initiatives, and implementing the Government's telecommunications service obligations (TSO) reforms. 
Amendments to the Act include: 
 Streamlining the administration of TSO instruments; 
 Consolidating the statutory mechanisms for industry funding of telecommunications service 
and sector development obligations;  
 Establishing a regulatory framework for the enhanced broadband networks that will be 
developed under the UFB and RBI initiatives with the support of Crown funding; and 
 The introduction of measures to facilitate the structural separation of the incumbent 
wholesale/retail provider telecommunications provider. 
There were no changes specific to the participation of foreign service providers. However, as a 
result of the structural separation of Telecom into two complete separate companies (Chorus and 
Spark), New Zealand now has a level playing field amongst retail fixed line operators, with no 
foreign ownership restrictions in the retail sector. 
Question 5 
 
Could New Zealand explain why Spark New Zealand, a major player in the fixed line market, is 
exempt, unlike Chorus, from any company spec ific restrictions on foreign investment? 
 
Answer 
 Following the de-merger of Telecom into two comp letely separate companies (Chorus and Spark), 
some of the previous foreign ownership restrictio ns that applied to Telecom were transferred to 
Chorus. This is because Chorus became a wholesale-only network operator controlling strategic infrastructure previously held by Telecom. These are the only specific limitations on foreign investment in the telecommunications sector. Sp ark, a retailer and mobile operator, has no 
company-specific restrictions on foreign investment and competes with other retailers that do not 
have any company-specific foreign ownership restrictions.   WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 122 - 
 
  THAILAND 
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 
 3.2.3.2 Bound tariff 
 
Para. 3.36 (page 45)  
Question 1:  Could New Zealand inform the progress and timeline of the submission of 
New Zealand's latest bound schedule in HS2012?  Answer: 
 
New Zealand is currently progressing work on the submission of our latest bound schedule in HS 2012, and will provide this as soon as it has been completed. 
 
3.4.6 Intellectual property rights  
Para. 3.185 and Para. 3.190 (page 67-68) 
 Question 2:  Could New Zealand elaborate on the Fair Trading Act 1986, especially on the 
geographical indication protection and registration process. If a goods is has a geographical 
indications registered abroad, would that be protected in New Zealand? 
 Answer: 
 
The Government decided in 2015 to move ahead with bringing the Geographical Indications (Wines 
and Spirits) Registration Act 2006  ('the GI Act') into force. Further review of the Act has 
determined that it will require some technical am endments before implementation. There is also a 
need to develop and promulgate regulations covering the registration procedures and fees. Work 
on drafting these amendments has begun, with the hope that the amendment Bill will be ready for 
introduction into Parliament in the next few months. This means the most likely completed 
implementation date will be in 2016. 
 
Once the GI Act is in force, it will be possible for foreign geographical indications to be registered 
in New Zealand, but only if an application is made in New Zealand to register that indication, and 
only if the indication is protected in its country of origin. 
 
Section 33 of the GI Act provides that a breach of the restrictions on use of a registered 
geographical indication is a contravention of section 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 . Section 9 
reads as follows:  
'No person shall, in trade, engage in conduct that is misleading or 
deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.' 
 
As the GI Act is not yet in force, no geographical indications have been registered in New Zealand.  
If a geographical indication is registered outside New Zealand, protection in New Zealand is not 
automatic.  A foreign geographical indication, whether registered abroad or not, could be protected 
from misuse by section 9 the Fair Trading Act, if the geographical name is used in relation to 
goods or services in a manner that might mislead the public as to the origin of those goods or 
services. Section 13 of the Fair Trading Act also makes it illegal for a person in trade to make false 
or misleading representations as to the place of origin of good or services. 
 
In addition to the legislation referred to above,  a geographical indication, whether registered 
a b r o a d  o r  n o t ,  c o u l d  b e  p r o t e c t e d  f r o m  m i s u s e  i n  N e w  Z e a l a n d  u n d e r  t h e  c o m m o n  l a w  t o r t  o f  
passing off, if the plaintiff can demonstrate:  
(a) it has acquired sufficient goodwill or reputation in the geographical indication in 
New Zealand; 
(b) a misrepresentation by the defendant to the public that causes, or is likely to 
cause, the public to believe that goods or services offered by the defendant are the 
goods or services of the plaintiff; and WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 123 - 
 
  (c) it has suffered, or is likely to  suffer, damage to its goodwill. 
 
Furthermore, a geographical indication identifying spirits, whether registered abroad or not, could 
be protected from misuse under the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code.  Standard 2.7.5 
– Spirits, provides that a geographical indication must not be used in relation to a spirit, even 
where the true origin of the spirit is indicated or the geographical indication is used in translation 
or accompanied by expressions such as 'kind', 'type', 'style', 'imitation' or the like, unless the spirit 
has been produced in the country, locality or region indicated. 
 Table 3.13 Summary of the protection of intellectual property rights, 2014 (page 68) 
 
Question 3:  According to the Table 3.13 of the Secretariat Report, how does New Zealand 
interpret the clause "other characteristics of goods or services" shown in the exclusion or limitation 
to trademark protection? Please explain and give examples. 
 
Answer:  
Section 18(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act 2002  states that the Commissioner of Trade Marks must 
not register - 
… a trade mark that consists only of signs or indications that may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, qualit y, quantity, intended purpose, value, 
geographical origin, time of production of goods or of rendering of 
services, or other characteristics of goods or services. 
 
The purpose of section 18(1)(c) of the Act is to  prevent the registration of marks that are 
descriptive of goods or services or some characteristic of them. These descriptive marks are excluded from registration because, in the words of the OHIM Third Board of Appeal ( Global Chiller 
[2000] ETMR 234): 
 
They must remain available for general use, since competitors have a legitimate interest in employing, without hindrance, in a descriptive 
manner such indications relating to the very nature of the claimed goods. 
 Section 18(1)(c) of the Act lists seven specific characteristics of the goods or services that signs or 
indications may designate, namely "kind", "quali ty", "quantity", "intended purpose", "value", 
"geographical origin" and "time of production of good s or of rendering of services". This list is not 
exhaustive, as evidenced by the concluding "or other characteristics of goods or services". 
 
"Other characteristics of goods or services" would include any characteristic that does not fall within one of the earlier-listed, specific categories , but that is nonetheless descriptive of the goods 
or services concerned. 
 
Signs that describe the subject matter of a pu blication or computer programme, for example 
WEDDINGS for a magazine about weddings, would not be registrable on the basis that they 
designate an "other characteristic" of the goods. 
 Question 4:  What are the criteria New Zealand uses for considering registrability of book titles 
and names of cartoons as a trademark? Have they been registered in New Zealand so far? 
 Answer:  
The Trade Marks Act 2012 does not provide any spec ial or particular provisions concerning the 
registrability of book titles or names of cartons.   The Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand 
apply the general criteria set out under the Act fo r determining whether a sign is registrable as a 
trade mark, including the criteria set out under section 18 relating to whether or not a word mark 
that is a title or name is descriptive (the mark may be refused where for example, it described a well-known fairy tale and/or character) or non-distinctive. 
 
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.  have registrations for a host of book titles  for a range of goods and 
services e.g:  
 752425 SLEEPING BEAUTY WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 124 - 
 
   752430 SNOW WHITE 
 752435 BAMBI 
 752442 CINDERELLA 
 244540-49 HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME  
 665000-4 WINNIE THE POOH 
 THE SAUL ZAENTZ COMPANY dba TOLKIEN ENTERPRISES  have registrations for a host of book 
titles for a range of goods and services e.g: 
  773111/13-5; 777149-52; 782460-62 The Hobbit 
 306541-59 The Lord of the Rings 
 
It is also possible to register a cartoon image as a trade mark. For example, DISNEY 
ENTERPRISES, INC.  have registrations for various cartoon images for a range of goods and 
services e.g: 
  33845 Mickey mouse in class 9 for motion-picture films prepared for exhibition 
 33849 Mickey mouse in: 
o class 16 for books of all kinds, including copying, sketching, painting, story, and 
rag books; pictures, photographs, drawings, posters and postcards; pattern and other cards; printed publications and cartoon strips, and  
o class 28 for playing cards. 
 4.2.2.2 Export measures 
 
Para. 4.20 (page 75)  
Question 5:  As New Zealand notified the Zespri Group Ltd as a state-trading enterprise and 
Kiwifruit Export by the Zespri Group Ltd. appears to be a quasi-monopoly on exports. Could New Zealand indicate whether the implementation of Zespri complies with Article 17 of GATT 1994? 
 
Answer:  
As provided in New Zealand's 2014 notification under Article XVII: 4(A) of the GATT 1994 and 
paragraph 1 of the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XVII, the current export management arrangements for the New Zealand kiwifruit sector comply with Article 17 of GATT.   
 
4.2.3 Domestic support  Para. 4.24 (page 76) 
 
Question 6:  Could New Zealand explain more details about the criteria of payment calculation, 
the total value of the payment in this measure and the criteria of eligibility kiwifruit growers who 
received these payment? 
 Answer: 
 
Rural Assistance Payments provide help to farmers/farming families in need following adverse climatic events, natural disasters or biosecurity incursions. Depending on the nature of the event, payments can be available for up to 12 months for qualifying farmers/farming families. Eligibility is 
reassessed monthly. 
 To be eligible to receive a Rural Assistance Payment a farmer/farming family must meet specific 
criteria including:  
  being a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident; 
  having a primary industry business as their primary income source, and not producing 
sufficient income to meet essential living expenses; 
  an income threshold test; 
  an off-farm cash asset threshold test.  
 WT/TPR/M/316/Add.1 
 
- 125 - 
 
  During the Kiwifruit industry's recovery from the bacterial disease Psa, Rural Assistance Payments 
were available for up to 12 months from the application date, with applications open from December 2012 to December 2013.  A total of  3 kiwifruit growers (out of approximately 
2,600 growers) submitted applications with all obtaining different levels of support. A total 
$14,614.61 was paid during this period. 
  
__________