New Zealand WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 
 Page 35 
 
 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(1) INTRODUCTION  
1. Since its previous TPR in 2003, New Zealand has remained among the world's most open 
economies.  The trade liberalization trend has cont inued with further reduction of tariff protection, 
both unilaterally and through the conclusion of preferential trade agreements (Chapter II).   
2. The tariff remains the main trade policy instrument and a rising source of tax revenue (1.5% 
of total tax revenue in 2007/08 up from 0.7%  in 2001/02).  Under a unilateral tariff reduction 
programme, across-the-board tariff simplification and reductions have been ongoing since July 2006 and are to be finalized in July 2009;  these cuts  have further eroded preferential and concessional tariff 
treatment in place.  During the period under review, New Zealand's average MFN applied tariff 
dropped from 4.1% (2002) to 2.5% (2008);  it is expected to drop to 2.4% in July 2009.  The tariff structure has been simplified considerably, and from 1 October 2008 consists mainly of 
three ad valorem  rates (zero, 5%, and 12.5%) and six specific rates;  "alternative specific" tariff rates 
were eliminated in 2005.  Peak ad valorem  rates have fallen considerably (19% in 2002) and will be 
10% by July 2009.  Although 99.6% of tariff lines ar e bound, the predictability of the tariff may be 
eroded by the leeway to raise applied tariffs provi ded by the average gap of 9.1 percentage points 
(9.7 for agricultural items) between applied and bound MFN rates;  during the period under review, 
New Zealand has not taken advantage of this gap to raise applied tariffs.  Tariff concessions are 
granted whenever suitable alternative goods are not  available from local producers and manufacturers 
or the domestic content of the locally produced item  is less than 25% of its ex-factory cost of 
production. 
3. New Zealand maintains some of the most adva nced customs and trade facilitation procedures, 
a means for upholding the economy's commitment to free and open trade and balancing trade security.  During the review period, New Zealand has change d its preferential rules of origin criteria under 
bilateral or plurilateral agreements  from the regional value content (RVC) approach to the change in 
tariff classification (CTC) method. 
4. No import restrictions, prohibitions or licensing requirements are in place.  However, imports 
of animal and plant products are regulated by  New Zealand's relatively strict sanitary and 
phytosanitary laws;  in the area of food safety, institutional changes have been undertaken and 
provisions are being reviewed.  Some products, notably unpasteurized cheese, live poultry, and fresh eggs may not be imported until their risk to hum an, animal, and plant health is assessed.  Most 
standards are voluntary and the share of those not e quivalent to international standards has fallen.  
There have been minor technical changes to New Zealand's legislation on anti-dumping and 
countervailing measures during the review period, and others are under way on safeguards.  Most 
anti-dumping investigations have been  taken against imports originating in Asia and the majority have 
led to the adoption of final measures.  Long-st anding anti-dumping and countervailing measures in 
place affect, inter alia,  canned peaches.   
5. New Zealand has no barriers to exports.  Reform of state-trading enterprises (STEs) in recent 
years has virtually eliminated their influence on exports of major agricultural products, except for 
kiwifruit.  Exporters benefit from export credit in surance provided by a state-owned institution; 
Government funding is fully recovered.  Drawb acks and refunds of duties (import duty, excise duty 
and, in limited circumstances, GST) are available for exporters. 
6. Economic growth and productivity have been th e focus of government activity for the last 
five years.  Grants are used to support business growth and expansion, including kiwi production.  WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 36 
 
 
Since July 2003, the New Zealand Trade and Enterp rise (NZTE) has helped to develop, promote, and 
increase business and exports.  Three sectors have been targeted:  biotechnology and agritech;  
creative industries;  and information and communicati ons technology.  New Zealand continues to rely 
on public sector research and direct funding for R&D;  a 15% tax credit for businesses doing R&D 
has been in place since 2007/08 (until April 2009).  Excise duty on motor spirits for commercial use is 
refunded.  
7. Developments in the area of government pr ocurement include the establishment of open 
tendering as the normal procedure;  the adoption of mandatory sustainability requirements and targets 
in the categories of timber, wood products and pape r, travel, and light fittings;  and the progressive 
extension of a single procurement policy across government entities.  Under its bilateral and 
plurilateral agreements, New Zealand, an ob server to the WTO Agreement on Government 
Procurement since end 2008, is committed not to  discriminate between suppliers of goods and 
services;  nevertheless, government departments are expected to collect indicative origin and local-content information in all offers to s upply goods or services at or above NZ$100,000.  
Assistance is provided to domestic enterprises, and government departments and bodies to identify 
major procurement opportunities that can be filled through competitive local supply.   
8. During the period under review, no state assets ha ve been privatized;  instead New Zealand 
undertook action involving buy-back, re-nationalizati on, and reversal of part-privatization initiatives 
(Air New Zealand, railways and ferries,  Accident Compensation Corporation). 
9. Intellectual property rights protection has been st rengthened with legislative amendments on 
trade marks and copyright, but implementation in th e area of geographical indications was delayed;  
New Zealand has remained a non-party to most WIPO treaties.   
10. During the period under review, minor changes ha ve been made to the substantive provisions 
of New Zealand's generic competition legislation;  however, comprehensive amendments have been 
made, inter alia,  to the regulatory control provisions in the generic and other industry-specific 
competition legislation to bring the regulation of (e lectricity, telecoms) networks into line with the 
OECD mainstream.  Additional sector-specific legi slation persists (e.g. in the dairy industry, 
electricity, and telecommunications).  Since November 2004, a Leniency Policy and a new Co-operation Policy have proved effective, inter alia,  at breaking cartel behaviour.   
(2) M
EASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS  
(i) Procedures 
(a) Registration and documentation 
11. New Zealand Customs Service (NZCS) operates electronic import documentation services 
available to all importers.  Details required for clea rance of goods include:  the name of the buyer and 
seller;  product description;  selling price;  cost of  packaging, transportation,  and additional costs;  
insurance costs;  and any handling charges.  Importers  may also be required to provide airway bills or 
bills of lading, invoices, and any other documents  requested by Customs.  Other documentation may 
also be required for specified products, including sanitary and phytosanitary certificates for most 
agricultural and processed foods, and permits for goods  subject to import restrictions (section (vi) 
below);  certificates of origin, although not a prereq uisite to entry under preferential agreements, may 
form part of the importer's evidence presented to Cust oms if claim of preferential entry is challenged.  
In general, importers are not required to register wi th any agency unless they wi sh to use the Customs' 
deferred payment system.  New Zealand WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 
 Page 37 
 
 
12. To speed up the processing of international tr ade transactions, New Zealand maintains some 
of the most advanced customs and trade facilitation procedures.1  The NZCS has changed from being 
a traditional "import-focused" revenue collec ting agency into one focused on upholding the 
economy's commitment to free and open trade, and bala ncing trade security with trade facilitation.  
Information on New Zealand's customs procedures a nd policies is loaded regularly onto the NZCS 
website (www.customs.govt.nz/) and mailed directly to customs brokers.  The integrity of customs 
officers is strongly emphasized. 
(b) Preshipment inspection 
13. According to the authorities, New Zealand do es not recognize any preshipment inspection of 
exports to New Zealand in customs areas, such as cla ssification, valuation or quantity.  The Ministry 
of Agriculture and Forestry does, however, pe rform some preshipment inspections overseas for 
bio-security purposes.2  
(ii) Customs valuation and clearance 
14. New Zealand's legislation on customs valuati on is based on the WTO Agreement on Customs 
Valuation and is contained in Section 61 and the Second Schedule of the Customs and Excise Act 
1996.  Valuation is according to the free on board (f.o.b.) value of imported goods.   
15. New Zealand uses the transaction value, or the price paid or payable for the goods when sold 
for export to New Zealand, for cal culating the value of imported goods.3  Where the transaction value 
is unavailable, identical or similar goods value, de ductive value, computed value or residual value 
may be used.   
16. Failure by importers to declare the correct value or to make any other false or "materially 
incorrect declaration" may be subject to administrative penalties under Part X of the Customs and Excise Act 1996.  Decisions taken by Customs may be  appealed to the Customs Appeal Authority;  
any penalties imposed are refunded in full if the appeal  is upheld.  Further appeals may be made to the 
High Court and to the Court of Appeal.   
17. New Zealand Customs Service makes extensive u se of electronic data interchange (EDI) to 
speed up clearance times, promotes "tomorrow car go logistics" by working with companies, and 
participates in single window initiatives aimed at developing and implementing single windows.  The 
NZCS has a performance agreement with the Ne w Zealand Government requiring compliant EDI 
applications for import and export to be processe d within 30 minutes;  manual applications are 
processed within 24 hours.  According to the author ities, this target is achieved in around 99.5% cases 
(99.3% in March 2008), with an average turn around of 7 (previously 12) minutes.  All of 
New Zealand's import and export entries appear to be handled by EDI.  
(iii) Tariffs 
(a) Features 
18. Since January 2007 New Zealand's applied MFN tariff has been based on the HS2007 
nomenclature.  It is applied at the HS eight-d igit level and has 7,288 lines (excluding 7 lines under 
                                                     
 
1 APEC (2007a). 
2 Examples include cars in Japan, grapes in the United States, and citrus fruit in Australia and the 
United States, before they are transported to New Zealand. 
3 Customs and Excise Act, 1996, Second Schedule, Article 2. WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 38 
 
 
HS Chapter 984);  this change cut 144 lines from the previous (HS2002) customs tariff.  The tariff 
comprises MFN and several preferential rates that are granted under bilateral and plurilateral agreements and unilateral concession schemes (Chapter II and section (d) below).  
(b) Applied MFN tariff 
19. New Zealand's tariffs remain relatively low;  un ilateral decisions to reduce or remove tariffs 
have been based largely on economic efficiency considerations.  Under a unilateral tariff reduction 
programme announced on 30 September 2003, acro ss-the-board tariff simplification and reductions 
began on 1 July 2006.
5  Higher tariff rates, e.g. those betw een 17% and 19%, were reduced gradually 
and the peak rate is to drop to 10% in July 2009.  Sp ecific tariff rates were reduced at the same rate as 
ad valorem  tariff rates, and alternative specific tariffs , which applied largely to clothing, were 
replaced with ad valorem  tariff rates on 1 July 2005.  Import tari ffs will be held at their 1 July 2009 
levels until 30 June 2011.  The timing of any furthe r unilateral tariff review is yet to be decided. 
20. During the period under review, New Zealand's average MFN tariff dropped from 4.1% 
(2002) to 2.5% (2008);  it is expected to drop further to 2.4% as from July 2009 (Table III.1).6  
Around 1.5% of the Government's total tax reve nue (0.7% in 2001/02) was from tariffs duty in 
2007/08. 
Structure 
21. Around 99.5% (7,250 lines) of the tariff is subject to three ad valorem  rates (zero, 5%, 12.5%) 
down from 18 rates in 2002.  There are six specific rates (four on alcoholic beverages, two on worn 
clothing and footwear);  average ad valorem equivalents (AVEs) for the period under review were 
estimated at 0.85%, 1.90%, 1.90%, and 1.93% for th e alcoholic beverages lines, and 15.84% for the 
clothing and footwear lines.7  In addition, there are 32 "other" rates.8  Almost 58% of tariff lines carry 
a zero rate (Chart III.1), more than a third (36.2%) are subject to rates of 5%, and 5.6% are at a rate of 
12.5% (19% in 2002);  this maximum rate is to be reduced to 10% as from July 2009.9 
Tariff dispersion and escalation 
22. Although the overall average is relatively low and almost 58% of tariff lines are not subject to 
import duty, tariff peaks in some sectors rema in a potential distortion and thus a source of 
inefficiency.  In particular, while agriculture faces relatively low tariff rates (1.8%, under the WTO 
definition of agriculture), average rates for tex tiles and clothing (4.9%) are significantly higher.  
Domestic tariff peaks affect 5.6% of the tariff;  these peaks have decreased since 2002. 
 
                                                      
4 HS Chapter 98, titled "miscellaneous New Zealand Pr ovisions", includes deployment and emergency 
relief goods as well as ship and aircraft stores exported from New Zealand.  
5 APEC (2007a). 
6 As New Zealand levies ad valorem  duties on the basis of the f.o.b. price, thereby excluding the costs 
of insurance and freight, it affords less tariff protection than most other WTO Members who levy ad valorem  
duties on the c.i.f. price. 
7 These AVEs have been calculated by the authorities using the Paris Methodology. 
8 The "other" rates apply mainly to parts and components, for which the tariff varies subject to the rate 
applying to the machinery, appliance or equipment for which they have been designed. 
9 By 2006, approximately 95% of imports by value entered New Zealand free of duty (APEC, 2007a).  
In February 2009, the authorities suspected that the figure was probably lower but not less than 73.5% or 84% according a preliminary an d incomplete analysis. New Zealand WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 
 Page 39 
 
 
Table III.1 
New Zealand's tariff structure, 2002-09 
(Per cent)  
    MFN 2002 MFN 2008a MFN 2009b Final boundc 
1. Bound tariff lines (% of all tariff lines)  99.6  99.5  99.5  99.6 
2. Simple average applied rate  4.1  2.5  2.4  11.6 
 Agricultural products (HS01-24)  2.1  1.7  1.7  7.2 
 Industrial products (HS25-97)  4.4  2.7  2.5  12.4 
 WTO agricultural products  2.1  1.8  1.8  7.4 
 WTO non-agricultural products  4.4  2.6  2.5  12.3 
 Textiles and clothing  9.5  4.9  4.2  19.2 
 ISIC 1 - Agriculture, hunting, fishing  0.5  0.4  0.4  2.2 
 ISIC 2 - Mining  0.1  0.1  0.1  1.8 
 ISIC 3 - Manufacturing  4.3  2.7  2.5  12.2 
 First stage of processing  0.6  0.4  0.4  1.8 
 Semi-processed products  2.2  1.4  1.4  7.2 
 Fully processed products  5.6  3.4  3.2  15.5 
3. Tariff quotas (% of all tariff lines)  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0 
4. Domestic tariff "peaks" (% of all tariff lines)d  9.4  5.6  5.6  5.9 
5. International tariff "peaks" (% of all tariff lines)e  8.0  0.0  0.0  35.0 
6. Overall standard deviation of tariff rates  5.9  3.4  3.0  12.2 
7. Coefficient of variation of ta riff rates  1.4  1.3  1.3  1.1 
8. Duty-free tariff lines (% of all tariff lines)  54.8  57.7  57.7  37.1 
9. Non- ad valorem  tariffs (% of all tariff lines)  2.7  0.1  0.1  2.8 
10. Non- ad valorem  tariffs with no AVEs (% of all tariff lines)  0.3  0.0  0.0  2.8 
11. Nuisance applied rates (% of all tariff lines)f  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.1 
a October 2008 to June 2009. 
b July 2009 to June 2010. 
c Implementation of the U.R. was achieved in 2004.  Final bound calculations are based on the 1996 tariff schedule.  Only the 
ad valorem  rates, involving 7,011 lines (including the ad valorem  part of 11 compound rates), were used in this analysis. 
d Domestic tariff peaks are defined as those exceeding three times the overall simple average applied rate. 
e International tariff peaks are defined as those exceeding 15%. 
f Nuisance rates are those greater than zero, but less than or equal to 2%. 
Note: Including AVEs, as availabl e, provided by the authorities.  The 2002 tariff is based on HS 02 nomenclature and consists of  
7,432 lines;  the 2008 and 2009 tariffs are based on HS07 nomencla ture and consist both of 7,288 lines (excluding 7 lines under  
Chapter 98). 
Source : WTO calculations, based on data provi ded by the New Zealand authorities,  and on New Zealand Customs Service 
online information.  Viewed at:  http://www.customs.govt.nz/libra ry/Working+Tariff+of+New+Zealand/ 
default.htm. 
23. Overall, the tariff shows a slight tendency  to escalate, with the average for unprocessed, 
semi-processed, and fully processed goods rising from  0.4% to 1.4% and 3.4%.  The textiles and 
clothing sector shows more significant tariff escalatio n, although the degree of escalation has declined 
since 2002 (Chart III.2):  the average tariff for fully processed textiles and clothing and leather 
products has declined from 14.8% but remains high co mpared with other product categories at 8.5%;  
the tariff for semi-processed produc ts has fallen from 2.8% to 1.5% during this period.  Tariff 
escalation is a potential impediment to the efficient allocation of resources in New Zealand, it also 
constitutes an obstacle to local processing of pr imary and semi-finished goods produced in exporting 
countries, thereby impeding the industrialization of  these developing countries whose exports are not 
eligible to preferential duty-free access to New Zealand's market. WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 40 
 
 
5.6%57.7%
36.2%
05001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,5005,000
Zero 5% 12.5%
Based on tariff rates applied from October 2008 to June 2009. 
Percentages denote the share of total lines.  Totals do not add to 100% as six specific rates are excluded and no tariff
rates were provided for 32 lines (lines where the tariff varies subject to its end use).
WTO Secretariat calculations, based on New Ze aland Customs Service online information. 
Viewed at:  http://www.customs.govt.nz/library/Working+Tariff+of+New+Zealand/default.htm.Number of tariff linesChart III.1
Distribution of MFN tariff rates, 2008a
Tariff rates
a
Note:
Source:  
 
(c) Bound tariff 
24. New Zealand's bound tariff schedule remain s based on the Harmonized Commodity 
Description and Coding System (HS96 nomenclature) .  As a result of negotiations in the WTO, 
New Zealand bound 99.6% of its tari ff lines, of which 96.7% were ad valorem  rates;  192 and 11 lines 
carry specific and compound rates of duty, respectively (usually as alternatives to ad valorem  rates), 
while 35 lines have other rates.10  Bindings were not made for some  20 tariff lines, 18 of which relate 
to transport equipment and two to worn clothing and footwear;  there are no partially bound lines.  As 
of 2004, when the Uruguay Round of tariff cuts were  fully implemented, the average final bound rate 
is 11.6% (Table III.1).  Although a comparison betw een the bound and applied tariffs is not possible 
because of differences in nomenclature and in types of  duty in certain lines (e.g. binding in alternative 
specific or compound duty and applied rate ad valorem ) mainly in textile and clothing, it would 
appear that the average final bound rate is consid erably higher than the current applied MFN average 
of 2.5% (Chart III.3).11  Differences between bound and applie d rates may provide the Government 
with scope to raise applied tariffs, especially in sensitive sectors, although th is has not been the case 
during the period under review.   
 
 
                                                      
10 Other rates apply mainly to parts and components for which the tariff depends on the final 
manufactured product in which they are used. 
11 While the applied tariff is available at the 2007 HS nomenclature, the bound tariff is only available in 
the HS96 nomenclature and is  therefore not comparable. New Zealand WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 
 Page 41 
 
 
0.02.55.07.510.012.515.0
Food,
beverages
and tobaccoTextiles and
leatherWood and
furniturePaper,
printing and
publishing Chemicals Non-metallic
mineral
products Basic metal Fabricated
metal
products and
machineryOtherChart III.2
MFN tariff escalation by 2-digit ISIC industry, 2002 and 2008a
0.02.55.07.510.012.515.0
Food,
beverages
and tobaccoTextiles and
leatherWood and
furniturePaper,
printing and
publishing Chemicals Non-metallic
mineral
products Basic metal Fabricated
metal
products and
machineryOtherAverage applied rate in manufacturing
(4.3%)
Not applicable.
Figures for 2008 apply from October 2008 to June 2009.  Averages for 2002 are based on HS02 nomenclature and for 2008 on HS07.  WTO Secretariat calculations, based on data provided by the New Zealand authorities, and on New Zealand 
Customs Service online information.  Viewed at:  http://www.customs.govt.nz/library/Working+Tariff+of+ New+Zealand/default.htm.n.a.
aNote:
Source :Per cent
First stage of processing Fully processed Semi-processedPer cent
Average applied rate in manufacturing
(2.7%)2002n.a.
n.a.n.a.n.a.2008a
 WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 42 
 
 
0.05.010.015.020.025.030.0
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21Per centChart III.3
Average applied MFN and bound tariff rates, by HS section, 2002 and 2008a
2008 figures apply as of July 2008 to June 2009.  
Averages for 2002 are based on HS02 nomenclature, and for 2008 on HS07.  Final bound rates are ba sed on HS96 nomenclature.  
WTO Secretariat calculations, based on data provided by the New Zealand authorities, and on New Zealand Customs Service online 
information.  Viewed at: http://www.customs.govt.nz/library/Working+Tariff+of+New+Zealand/default.htm.a
Note:
Source :01   Live animals & products        
02   Vegetable products03   Fats & oils      04   Prepared food, etc.05   Mineral products06   Chemicals & products07   Plastic & rubber
08   Hides & skins09   Wood & articles10   Pulp, paper, etc.11   Textiles & articles12   Footwear, headgear13   Articles of stones
14   Precious stones, etc.15   Base metals and products16   Machinery17   Transport equipment18   Precision instrument19   Arms & ammunition
20   Miscellaneous manuf.21   Works of art, etc.MFN 2002
MFN 2008a
Final bound
Average applied rate 
2002 (4.1%)Average final bound rate
(11.6%)
Average applied rate 
2008 (2.5%)
 
 
25. Since its last Review, New Zealand has remained covered by waivers from Article II of 
GATT 1994 to implement domestically the HS2002 (since 2002) and HS2007 (since January 2007) 
changes pending incorporation of such ch anges into its Schedule of Concessions.12  New Zealand 
submitted its draft loose-leaf schedule as affect ed by the introduction of the HS2002, and the 
concordance tables between HS96 and HS2002 in July 2008.13  It is working to respond to queries 
raised by the Secretariat at the end of August 2008.  New Zealand believes it has already responded 
satisfactorily to queries raised by Japan, the EC, and the United States.   
(d) Tariff preferences 
26. New Zealand grants preferential tariff treatment  under four bilateral trade agreements (with 
Australia, Thailand (as from 2005), Singapore, and China (as from October 2008)), and a Trans 
Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership agreemen t (with Chile, Brunei Darussalam, and Singapore) 
under which it grants preferential rates of customs duty14;  unilateral tariff preferences are also 
provided for countries from the Forum Islands (SPARTECA) and to developing countries 
(Generalized System of Preferences) and, as of 1 July 2001, to least developed countries (Table III.2 
below, and Chapter II).  Tariff preferences are also  maintained for goods imported from Canada and 
                                                      
12 WTO Secretariat documents WT/L/713,   21 December 2007 and WT/L/712,  21 December 2007. 
13 WTO Secretariat document G/SECRET/HS02/NZL/1, 22 April 2005. 
14 APEC (2007a). New Zealand WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 
 Page 43 
 
 
for a few products, mainly motor vehicle parts, from the United Kingdom;  as a result, the overall 
average tariff in 2009 for goods imported from Ca nada and the United Kingdom was 0.3% and 2.4%, 
respectively.   
Table III.2 
Preferential trade agreements, 2009  
Agreement Participants Overall 
average rate Coveragea Preferential margin 
Australia and New Zealand Closer 
Economic Relation Agreement 
(ANZCERTA) Australia Zero 3,051 100% of MFN rate 
Singapore Zero 3,051 100% of MFN rate Closer Economic Partnership 
Agreement (CEP) Thailand 0.9% 2,875 10% to 100% of MFN rate 
Trade and Economic Cooperation 
Agreement Canada 0.3% 2,786 10% to 100% of MFN rate 
South Pacific Regional Trade and 
Economic Cooperation Agreement 
(SPARTECA) 15 countries of the South 
Pacific Forumb Zero 3,051 100% of MFN rate 
Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic 
Partnership Agreement (TPA) Brunei Darussalam, Chile, 
Singapore 0.9% 2,875 10% to 100% of MFN rate 
Trade Agreement between the 
Government of New Zealand and the 
Government of the United Kingdom 
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland  United Kingdom of Great 
Britain and Northern 
Island, the Isle of Man and 
the Channel Island 2.4% 8 30% to 100% of MFN rate 
New Zealand-China Free Trade 
Agreement (NZ-China FTA) People's Republic of China 1.9% 2,182 4% to 100% of MFN rate 
Generalized System of preferences 
(GSP)     
Less developed countries (LDC) 89 countri es 2.2% 462 20% to 100% of MFN rate 
Least developed countries (LLDC) 50 c ountries Zero 3,051 100% of MFN rate 
a Based on 8-digit tariff lines.  Only rates that are lo wer than the corresponding MFN rate are taken into account. 
b Australia, Cook Islands, Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Ni ue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Marshall Islands, Samoa, Solomon 
Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. 
Source : WTO calculations, based on data provided by the au thorities and on New Zeal and Customs Service online 
information.  Viewed at:  http: //www.customs.govt.nz/library/Working+Ta riff+of+New+Zealand / default.htm. 
27. New Zealand's preferential duty scheme for less de veloped (i.e. developing)  countries is being 
eroded by the gradual reduction of the MFN tari ff rates and other developments (Chapter II).  
Preferential tariff rates for these countries were frozen at 1 July 1999 rates, and as MFN tariff rates are being reduced as from 1 July 2006 (section (2)(iii)(b)), the margins of preference between MFN rates and GSP rates for less developed countries were elim inated on the majority of tariff lines or reduced 
on others.
15  As a result, the overall average tariff on le ss developed countries' imports is 2.2%, which 
is virtually the same as the average applied MFN rate. 
(e) Tariff concessions 
28. New Zealand has traditionally granted tariff con cessions for customs facilitation, trade policy, 
and social and humanitarian reasons.  Tariff concessi ons may also be granted if suitable alternative 
goods are not available from New Zealand manufacturers/producers or where the domestic content of the locally produced "suitable alternative" is less th an 25% of its ex-factory cost (section (xi) below).  
Data on the share of merchandise imports, by va lue, that entered New Zealand under tariff 
                                                     
 
15 APEC (2007a). WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 44 
 
 
concessions, as well as forgone customs revenue from these concessions from 2003 onwards were not 
available from the authorities.  
29. There are currently 16 "concession references";  the most common relate to those notified 
under "Concession Reference 99" for imports of good s for which no suitable domestically produced 
alternative exists.16  "Reference 99" concessions may be grante d for various reasons.  In addition to 
the general concessions for products not manufac tured or produced in New Zealand, specific 
concessions may be approved for:  sh ortfalls of inputs to manufactur ing;  woven fabrics containing 
wool for use in the manufacture of apparel;  and cer tain capital equipment.  The rest are granted for 
limited periods and, in some cases, may be restrict ed in quantity.  Over the years, the policies for 
granting concessions have changed so that in certa in circumstances, concessions may now be granted 
even if there is a suitable alternative New Zealand production.17  An example of this is capital goods 
where the equivalent imported machinery is mo re efficient.  Reference 99 concessions are 
administered directly by the Ministry of Economic Development due to their impact on tariff policy;  importers may apply for concessions to the Minist ry.  Approximately 450 Reference 99 concessions 
are approved by the Ministry of Economic Developmen t each year.  All approvals are notified weekly 
in the Customs edition of the New Zealand  Gazette  and on the Ministry's website.  Concessions 
become effective from the first day of the month in which the application is received by the Ministry.  
30. Tariff remissions are also granted for expor ts under the drawback, temporary import, and 
export warehousing schemes (section (3)(iv)). 
(f) Tariff quotas 
31. New Zealand has tariff rate quotas for apples, p ears, and hop cones, but allows all imports at 
in-quota MFN rates, which are zero.
18 
(iv) Rules of origin 
32. New Zealand has preferential rules of origin un der its bilateral and pl urilateral agreements.  
As from 2003, New Zealand has moved from using the regional value content (RVC) method to primarily the change in tariff classification (CTC) method.  The rules of origin that apply to the 
New Zealand – Thailand Closer Ec onomic Partnership (2005), the Tr ans-Pacific Strategic Economic 
Partnership Agreement (2005), and the New Zeal and-China Free Trade Agreement (2008) are all 
based on a CTC approach;  there are limited devi ations allowing for RVC and process rules where 
appropriate, i.e. when the CTC approach does not re flect appropriately substa ntial transformation (e.g. 
chemical process rules).  The ANZCERTA (Table III.2 and Chapter II) rules of origin were revised in 
2006 (effective 1 January 2007) and are now based on the CTC approach;  the relevant legislative 
changes were notified to the WTO
19;  the rules are currently under review.  Under the de minimis rule, 
New Zealand also allows that a good that does not meet the CTC rule is still considered to be 
originating if the value of non-originating materi al used in the goods production does not exceed 10% 
of the total value of the good.   
33. Regarding unilateral preferences, the rules of orig in require that at least 50% of value addition 
takes place in New Zealand or the exporting country, and that the last stage of processing takes place 
in the exporting country;  a 45% derogation app lies for apparel imported under SPARTECA.  Since 
                                                      
16 Ministry of Economic Development (2003). 
17 Suitable alternative goods are defined as those which perform the same or similar function as the 
imported good and which would compete directly with the imported good. 
18 WTO document G/AG/N/NZL/43,  17 March 2006. 
19 WTO document G/RO/N/51,  1 June 2007. New Zealand WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 
 Page 45 
 
 
July 2001, cumulation has not been permitted betw een categories of countries (e.g. between less 
developed and least devel oped countries), but is permitted within categories;  no distinction is made 
between WTO Members and non-members. 
34. New Zealand does not maintain formal rules of origin for non-preferential purposes.  
(v) Other taxes 
35. In addition to customs duty, imports, like domestic products, are subject to a 12.5% 
value-added goods and services tax (GST ), which is an internal tax levied on most goods and services, 
and excises (section (4)(i)(a)).   
(vi) Import prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing 
36. No import restrictions or prohibitions ar e operated on commercial grounds.  New Zealand 
abolished all import licensing requirements in 1992;   a licensing system is operated, however, under 
the Ozone Layer Protection Act 1996.  A number of impor ts are prohibited or restricted for health and 
safety reasons or in compliance with internationa l conventions to which New Zealand is party.  
(vii) Contingency measures 
(a) Anti-dumping and countervailing measures 
37. There have been minor changes to New Zealand's legislation on anti-dumping and 
countervailing measures during the period under review ; they related to the statutory investigation 
timeframes and the date from which duties can apply.20  Anti-dumping and countervailing procedures 
are determined under the Dumping and Counter vailing Duties Act, 1988, the Dumping and 
Countervailing Duties Amendment Act 1990, a nd the Dumping and Countervailing Duties 
Amendment Act, 1994.  Final determinations of dumping or unfair subsidization, according to the 
legislation, must be taken within 180 days of ini tiation of an investigation.  No measures may remain 
in force beyond a period of five years from imposition of a duty or undertaking, unless a review is initiated.  Any review must be initiated before the e xpiry date of the original duty.  The procedures for 
a review are the same as tho se for initial investigations. 
38. Under Article 4 of the ANZCER TA Protocol, signed by New Zealand and Australia, as of 
1 July 1990, anti-dumping actions may not be ta ken on goods covered by the agreement.  The 
Protocol extended each country's competition law prohi bitions on the misuse of market power to the 
other's market.  Moreover, Article 15.8 of the ANZ CERTA allows one member state to request the 
other to take action, consistent with its international obligations, against alleged dumping by a third 
country.  Countervailing measures may be taken by e ither member state, but in accordance with the 
relevant WTO provisions.   
39. Since 2003, New Zealand has initiated 17 anti-dumpi ng investigations;  in the majority of 
these cases (11 cases), the investigation resulted in  final measures being taken (Chart III.4).
21  Most of 
the investigations concern articles of  paper (6), followed by oil filters and base metals (4 each).  Most 
investigations were initiated on products imported from Asian countries, including China and 
Malaysia (4 each). 
                                                      
20 WTO document G/ADP/N/1/NZL/2/Suppl.3, 23 February 2007. 
21 These data are from the database maintained by the WTO Rules Division, which is based on 
notifications by Members to the WTO. WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 46 
 
 
0123456
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Initiations Final measuresa
0123456Prepared
foodstuffPortland
cementChemical
productsPaper and
articles thereofArticles of base
metalsOil filters
01234ChinaHong Kong, ChinaIndonesiaEC25Korea, Rep. ofMalaysiaThailand
Source :  Notifications to the WTO.(b) Initiations b y product (c) Initiations b y origin Chart III.4
Anti-dumping cases, January 2003 to December 2008
(a) By number of initiations and final measures
a     Final measures for the reported initiations.
Number of initiations Number of initiations
 New Zealand WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 
 Page 47 
 
 
40. In December 2008, New Zealand maintained anti-dumping measures (definitive duties only) 
against six WTO Members (Table III.3).22  At end-June 2007, countervailing duties were in place 
against imports of canned peaches from the EC.23  Action on canned peaches was taken largely in the 
1990s as a result of investigations that found the goods were dumped or subsidized and had caused 
material injury to a domestic industry.  The duties on canned peaches would expire in 
December 2008, August 2011, and February 2013 depending on the case, unless reviews initiated 
before the expiry dates find that expiry would likely result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping/subsidization and injury. 
Table III.3 
Anti-dumping measures, 31 December 2008 
Country Product Date of  imposition (review) 
Definitive duties in force 
China Hog bristle paint brushes 31/05/ 1988 (02/04/1992, 19/09/1997, 14/07/2003) 
 Peaches in preserving liquid 21/08/2006 
 Diaries 01/02/2008 
Greece Canned peaches 09/ 03/1998 (15/12/2003) 
Ireland Oral liquid paracetamol 17/07/2006  
Malaysia Certain bound stationary 12/09/2007 
 Diaries 01/02/2008 
 Galvanized wire 27/04/2004 
South Africa Canned peaches 02/ 08/1996 (25/01/2002, 26/11/2007) 
 Galvanized wire 21/12/2002 
Thailand Plasterboard (8.75-10.25 mm) 21/ 12/1989 (26/02/1996, 27/03/2000, 12/12/2002, 
26/09/2005, 11/09/2006) 
 Plasterboard (6 mm - less than 12 mm) 19/11/2000 (26/09/2005, 11/09/2006) 
 Reinforcing steel bar 05/03/2004 
Source:  WTO notifications (document G/ADP /N/180/NZL, 20 February 2009).  
(b) Safeguards 
41. There have been no changes to New Zealand's legislation on safeguards, the Temporary 
Safeguards Authority Act, 1987, amended in 1994.  Th is legislation has been reviewed, however, and 
a bill was introduced into the House of Representa tives in September 2008 to give effect to the 
findings of the review.   The bill, which should repeal and replace the present safeguard regime, 
proposes authorizing the Commerce Minister to impose a separate provisional and final safeguard duty to allow safeguard action to be taken quickly and efficiently;  the inclusion of criteria for 
determining whether the imposition of a safeguard me asure is in the public interest;  safeguard 
investigations by the Ministry of Economic De velopment rather than by temporary safeguard 
authorities;  and extending the timeframe for completing a safeguard investigation from 30 to 75 working days.
24 
42. No safeguards have been applied during the pe riod under review.  Under the ANZCERTA, no 
safeguard measures are permitted for goods covere d by the agreement (since 1990).  However, under 
Article 17, either country may initiate consultati ons, only in the case of goods, if there is severe 
material injury or a demonstrable threat thereof.  According to the authorities, no consultations have 
                                                      
22 WTO document G/ADP/N/173/NZL, 15 July 2008. 
23 WTO document G/SCM/N/178/NZL, 16 July 2008. 
24 New Zealand Government Release, "New Zeala nd's safeguard regime to be strengthened", 
12 March 2009.  Viewed at:  http://beehive.govt.nz/release/new+ zealand039s+safeguard+regime+be+ 
strengthened . WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 48 
 
 
been held under this article since 1990.   In addition, under the NZ-Singapore Closer Economic 
Partnership Agreement, no safeguard measures ar e permitted for goods covered by the agreement 
(since its entry into force on 1 January 2001). 
(viii) Standards and conformity assessment 
43. New Zealand's primary standards body is the Standards Council, a Crown-owned entity.  Its 
trading arm is known as Standards New Zealand a nd operates under the Standards Act, 1988 and the 
Crown Entities Act, 2004.25  Standards New Zealand accepted the Code of Good Practice for the 
Preparation, Adoption and Application of Sta ndards under Annex 3 of the WTO Agreement on 
Technical Barriers to Trade in June 1995, and ope rates New Zealand's TBT enquiry point under the 
Agreement.  Standards New Zealand also re presents New Zealand in other international 
standardization bodies including the Internationa l Organization for Standardization (ISO), the 
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), and the Pacific Area Standards Congress (PASC).  
44. New Zealand cooperates with Australia unde r the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition 
Arrangement (TTMRA), concluded in July 1996  and in force since 1 May 1998.  Under the 
arrangement, a good that may be sold legally in Aust ralia may be sold in Ne w Zealand without having 
to meet further sales-related regulatory requirement s, and vice versa (with only a few exceptions).  
The TTMRA provides for a five-yearly review of its operation;  the most recent review commenced in 
2008 and is under way.  
45. New Zealand has mutual recogn ition agreements (MRAs) with other countries and regions; it 
considers that these can remove unnecessary barri ers to trade and reduce transaction costs for 
businesses, although, in practice, they ha ve not proved as effective as expected.26  In April 2008, 
New Zealand concluded an agreement with Chin a on cooperation in the field of conformity 
assessment in relation to electrical and electronic equipment and components;  the agreement entered 
into force on 1 October 2008 togeth er with the free-trade agreement.27  An arrangement between the 
New Zealand Commerce and Industry Office and th e Chinese Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in 
New Zealand, which covers conformity assessmen t processes for electrical and electronic products, 
including electrical safety and EMC, entered into effect in 2005.28  Under their Closer Economic 
Partnership Agreement (2001), New Zealand and Si ngapore have an MRA for conformity assessment 
for electrical and electronic equipment.  An agreement between New Zealand and the European Communities for mutual recognition of conformity assessment (NZ/EC MRA, 1998) for CE marking covers seven product sectors:  medicinal products  (good manufacturing practices (GMPs), inspection, 
and batch certification);  medicinal devices;  tel ecommunications terminal equipment;  low voltage 
equipment;  electromagnetic compatibility;  machinery; and pressure equipment.  An EFTA/NZ MRA mirrors the EC/NZ MRA.  
46. New Zealand also participates in the APEC Sub-Committee on Standards and Conformance, 
which has already established regional MRAs coveri ng electrical and electronic equipment and food 
products.  New Zealand is a full participant in th e APEC Electrical and Electronic Equipment MRA. 
                                                     
 
25 Standards New Zealand's activities are user funded, primarily through the sale of standards 
publications and contracts with industry and the Government for standards development purposes. 
26 WTO document G/TBT/W/295, 30 October 2008. 
27 This cooperation agreement was negotiated in parallel with the China-New Zealand Free Trade 
Agreement (Chapter II) and has been incorporated as an Annex to the FTA.  It is based on risk management 
principles to facilitate trade and improve compliance, an d covers a selected range of electrical and electronic 
products where a sufficient level of mutual confidence could be demonstrated. 
28 APEC (2006), Chapter 50. New Zealand WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 
 Page 49 
 
 
In addition, New Zealand has adopted the principl es of Phase One of the APEC Tel MRA as these are 
compatible with New Zealand's regulator y framework for network connection.  
47. New Zealand is participating or has observer membership in 146 ISO and 114 IEC 
Committees and Sub-Committees.  Around 43% of New Zealand standards are currently derived from 
international standards.  In addition to internationa l participation, New Zealand's efforts are focused at 
the regional level, on development of joint Aust ralian/New Zealand Standards through cooperation 
with Standards Australia.  Of the 2,986 sta ndards in the Standards New Zealand catalogue, 
approximately 81% are joint standards (Table III.4).29  There are currently 334 joint Australian/New 
Zealand standards development committees, wh ich include 814 New Zealand representatives 
appointed by Standards New Zealand. 
Table III.4 
New Zealand standards, 2002-08  
  2002 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 
Total number of standardsa 2,561 2,735 2,808 2,875 2,933 2,986 
Per cent developed by New Zealandb 15 38 27 23 41 19 
Per cent developed jointly by Australia & NZ 76 80 77 78 80 81 
Per cent of total equivalent to ISO standards .. .. 22 23 24 24 
Per cent of total equivalent to IEC standards .. .. 18 18 18 19 
Per cent of total equivalent to ISO and/or IEC 35 39 40 41 43 43 
Per cent for which no internationally equivalent 
standard availablec 65 .. 60 59 57 57 
.. Not available. 
a According to the authorities, although they do not keep statis tics on the percentage of standards that are mandatory, this wo uld be 
very low.  
b Includes Joint Standards where Ne w Zealand held the Secretariat. 
c "Internationally" defined as ISO, IEC, ISO/IEC, and CISPR. 
Note: Figures based on financial year July-June. 
Source:  New Zealand authorities. 
48. Where international or joint standards are not considered suitable, New Zealand Standards are 
developed.  A drafting committee is established by St andards New Zealand;  the key considerations in 
forming a Committee, are that it should be representa tive and balanced to ensure that interests are 
adequately represented.  If a standard cited in an Ac t or Regulation is to be reviewed, or when a new 
standard is likely to be cited, the relevant Government agencies are re presented on the Committee.30  
A public consultation period of six to eight w eeks is provided on a draft standard and after 
incorporation of any relevant comments, it must be  approved by the New Zealand Standards Council.  
The approved standard must then be no tified through Standards New Zealand's Standards Update 
Magazine  and on its website.31  At the end of June 2008, ther e were 85 New Zealand representatives 
on 11 standards development committees.  Prepara tion of a New Zealand or joint Australia/New 
Zealand standard takes between six months and two years, depending on the nature of the standard 
and the issues involved, to obtain a consensus.  A doption of the unaltered wording of an overseas or 
international standard takes between two and three months.   
                                                      
29 Standards New Zealand catalogue.  Vi ewed at:  http://www.standards.co.nz. 
30 For joint Australia/New Zealan d Committees, the representation fr om each country needs to be 
balanced, as does the total representation of the Joint Committee. 
31 Viewed at:  http://www.standards.co.nz/news/Standards+Update.htm [26 September 2008]. WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 50 
 
 
49. Most standards in New Zealand are voluntary .  Of the 2,986 standards in Standards 
New Zealand's catalogue, approximately 11% have lega l effect in New Zealand through direct citation 
in a law administered by a government agency.  Th e majority of these cited standards are mandatory, 
in that they are the only means of complying with the particular requirements of the law.  The 
remaining cited standards are not mandatory per se , but may be used as one means (among others) of 
complying with the legislation.  Of the remaining 89% of standards that are not cited in law, most still have a potential role in regulation, in that they can be used to demonstrate compliance in one of New 
Zealand's performance-based regulatory regimes (e .g. building and construction).  The authorities 
indicate that only a small share of standards contained in the official catalogue are fully voluntary. 
50. The Testing Laboratory Registration Council, a Crown entity that operates under the Testing 
Laboratory Registration Act 1972 and Crown En tities Act 2004, is one of New Zealand's 
two accreditation bodies.  It accredits testing and ca libration laboratories, insp ection bodies, radiology 
services, reference material producers, and proficie ncy testing providers.  More commonly known by 
its trading name, International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ), the Council is a member of the 
International Laboratory Accreditation Coope ration (ILAC) and Asia Pacific Laboratory 
Accreditation Cooperation (APLAC), and is party to a range of other mutual recognition 
arrangements, including with the European coope ration for Accreditation (EA).  The Council also 
owns a majority stake in a certification body, Tela rc SAI Ltd, and operates the New Zealand Quality 
College, which provides training in management systems and related aspects of accreditation.  
51. The Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand (JAS-ANZ) is New Zealand's 
second accreditation body.  Headquartered in Canberra,  with an office in Wellington, JAS-ANZ is an 
international organization established under a treaty between New Zealand and Australia.
32  I t  
accredits inspection and certification bodies (conformity assessment bodies that certify quality management systems, environmental management syst ems, personnel, or products or auditor training 
courses or personnel, and bodies that license products).   JAS-ANZ is a member of the International 
Accreditation Forum (IAF) and P acific Accreditation Cooperation (PAC), and a signatory to the 
APLAC MRA for inspection body accreditation.  It is  also a party to several other MRAs, including 
the Multilateral Cooperative Accreditation Arrangeme nt (MCAA), which includes the United States, 
Canada, Mexico, Japan, Chinese Taipei, and the Republic of Korea.   
52. The Measurements Standards Laboratory of Ne w Zealand (MSL) is New Zealand's national 
metrology institute.  Operating under the Measure ment Standards Act 1992, it is responsible for 
providing for the use of uniform units of physi cal measurement throughout New Zealand, and for 
establishing and maintaining standard s of measurement of physical quantities.  MSL operates within a 
Crown Research Institute.  It is a signatory to the Comité International des Poids et Mesures (CIPM) 
MRA, and cooperates with a range of international bodies.  MSL is also a pa rticipant in the Asia 
Pacific Metrology Programme (APMP). 
53. The Measurement and Product Safety Servic e (MAPSS) (previously known as) Trading 
Standards Service of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs has responsibility for ensuring that goods are 
exchanged on the basis of recognized, informed, and accurate metric weights or measures.  It administers the Weights and Measures Act 1987.  New Zealand also works with international and regional groups, such as the International Organiza tion of Legal Metrology (OIML), the Asia Pacific 
Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF), the Bureau Intern ational des Poids et Mesures (BIPM), and with 
Australia and the ASEAN Free-Trade Area (AFTA)  to harmonize measurement standards in the 
region.  
                                                     
 
32 Agreement between Australia an d New Zealand Concerning the Establishment of the Governing 
Board, Technical Advisory Council and Accreditation Review Board of the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand (the JAS-ANZ Treaty), March 1998. New Zealand WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 
 Page 51 
 
 
(ix) Sanitary and phytosanitary measures 
54. New Zealand's relatively strict sanitary and ph ytosanitary measures are based primarily on the 
Biosecurity Act, 1993, the Animal Products Ac t 1999, the Agricultural Compound and Veterinary 
Medicines Act 1997, the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001, and the Food Act 1981.  
New Zealand's approach to the development of SPS standards is based on the use of risk analysis 
consistent with international standa rds.  The authorities are of the view that the pursuit of a "zero risk" 
policy is not realistic and could be coun terproductive, both globally and domestically.33  The policy 
means that products cannot be imported until a risk analysis assessment has been completed.34 
55. During the period under review, no criticism was made of New Zealand's SPS measures in the 
WTO Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measur es.  New Zealand has remained a particularly 
active participant as well as a provider of technical assistance overseas.  New Zealand is a mainly agricultural country and is heavily dependent on  exports of agricultural commodities and agri-food 
products, which receive relatively little government  support (section (4)(ii)(b) and Chapter IV) and 
are sold at world market prices.
35  Therefore, the authorities believe that SPS measures are necessary 
to ensure that New Zealand's reputation as a relia ble exporter of high quality agricultural products is 
not jeopardized by pests and diseases, and that its pe ople, natural resources, animals, and plants are 
protected.  On receipt of a request from an exporting country, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ) works with th at country bilaterally to establish a country- 
and/or commodity-specific import health standard that mitigates the risk associated with importing 
that product (for example poultry meat, which can be  expected to contain infectious bursal disease 
virus).  National treatment is ac corded so that standards applied to imported goods match those 
required of domestically produced goods.  
56. The process of developing SPS measures has not  changed since New Zealand's previous 
Review.  The relevant agency determines the accep table level of protection in relation to a product 
proposed for importation, followed by the develo pment of SPS standards that take into account 
international obligations, standa rds, and guidelines.  A period of  consultation with concerned 
domestic and foreign parties follows, after which th e required SPS standard is published.  Compliance 
checks are carried out at the borde r upon entry into New Zealand, followed by a period of post-entry 
quarantine, if necessary. 
57. Since 2002, the New Zealand Food Safety Auth ority (NZFSA) has been responsible for the 
administration of legislation covering food sold domestically, primary processing of animal products 
and their export, and the use of agricultural compounds  and veterinary medicines.  The NZFSA is the 
lead agency for food safety and h as a mandate to protect consumers by providing an effective food 
regulatory programme covering food produced and c onsumed in New Zealand as well as imports and 
exports of food products.  In pursu ing this mandate, the overriding priori ty is to protect consumers.  
Since 1 July 2007, NZFSA has been a st and-alone public service department.
36  NZFSA was 
restructured in July 2005 to achieve better cons istency in the development and implementation of 
standards for managing risk associated with the pr oduction, processing, domestic distribution, import, 
                                                      
33 WTO document G/SPS/W/20, 22 June 1995. 
34 As a result of risk analysis assessments imports of  some non-pasteurized chees es i.e. Gruyere, Sbinz, 
and Emmenthal (from Switzerland), Roquefort, and raw milk extra hard grating cheeses is now permitted.  
New Zealand does not import fresh eggs or poultry. 
35 In New Zealand, 99% of gross farm receipts are generated at world prices without support (OECD, 
2007a). 
36 Prior to this change, from July 2002-07, NZFSA op erated as a semi-autonomous body attached to the 
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF). WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 52 
 
 
and export of food.37  Major reviews of provisions affec ting domestic and imported foods were 
initiated in 2003.  The two reviews have largely been completed and recommendations have been 
made to the Government.  The outcomes of both revi ews will be developed into legislation that will 
put in place a food regulatory programme for the whole domestic food industry that takes a risk-based 
approach, provides for the comprehensive and target ed regulation of imported food, and ensures the 
delivery of safe and "suitable" food in New Zealand.  
58. In October 2008, New Zealand issued a st andard under the Food Act (1981) requiring 
importers to be listed with NZFSA;  the purpose of this  requirement is to ensure that importers receive 
relevant information and advice relating to fo od safety in the event of a food recall. 
59. MAFBNZ is the lead agency in designing and implementing the country's biosecurity system.  
Established in November 2004, it replaced MAF's Bio security Authority and was entrusted with wide-
ranging responsibilities with an impact on international trade, i.e. SPS measures.38  MAFBNZ works 
closely with NZFSA in the development of SPS me asures, particularly for risks that have both 
biosecurity and food safety dimensions.  MAFBNZ, inter alia :  delivers economic, environmental, 
and social analysis underpinning biosecurity interv entions; designs the interventions and develops the 
standards to best manage risks at the border;  clears incoming cargo from overseas;  and designs 
interventions and develops sta ndards for the management of post-border biosecurity risks.  
MAFBNZ's cargo and passenger clearance busin ess groups identify and manage any potential 
biosecurity risks at the border and provide domes tic and offshore technical inspection and clearance 
services.  On 1 July 2007, MAF Quarantine Serv ices was integrated into MAFBNZ New Zealand.39 
60. New Zealand's Biosecurity Strategy, which w as published in August 2003, deals with the 
mounting pressures on the country's biosecurity system.40  The strategy sets an overall direction for 
biosecurity;  identifies areas of priority for bio security programmes;  applies to primary production 
(agriculture, horticulture, forestry), public health , and indigenous terrestrial, marine, and freshwater 
environments;  provides guidance to all involve d in biosecurity;  raises public awareness and 
understanding of biosecurity.  It also has regard to international obligatio ns.  In 2007, MAFBNZ 
released a new strategic plan d escribing the goals and actions that  it will put in place over the next 
five years (to 2012) to further deliver the outcomes described in the Biosecurity Strategy.41 
61. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), an independent statutory authority, sets 
joint food standards (composition and labelling) for ite ms sold in Australia and New Zealand.  Under 
the joint Australia New Zealand Food Standard s Code, all food businesses and manufacturers are 
required to label their products in accordance w ith the standards in the joint Code (since 
20 December 2002).  Major labelling requirements in clude compulsory nutrition information panels 
for most packaged food, percentages characterizin g ingredients, and declaration of the major food 
allergens. 
                                                      
37 APEC (2006), Chapter 5. 
38 MAF online information.  Viewed at:  http ://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/profile/businesses/ 
[3 July 2008].  These changes were notifie d to the WTO in 2004 (document G/SPS/GEN/517, 
19 October 2004). 
39 MAF Biosecurity New Zealand onlin e information.  Viewed at:  http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/bio-
strategy [3 July 2008]. 
40 MAF Biosecurity New Zealand onlin e information.  Viewed at:  http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/bio-
strategy [3 July 2008]. 
41 MAF Biosecurity New Zealand online information.   Viewed at:  http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/ 
files/biosec/sys/strategy/biosecurity-s trategic-plan.pdf [14 January 2009]. New Zealand WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 
 Page 53 
 
 
62. Between 1 May 2003 and 1 Ma rch 2009, 261 notifications were submitted under the WTO 
Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the SPS Agreement).  This includes 239 regular 
notifications of new or changed SPS regulations and 22 emergency notifications.  During the same 
period, New Zealand made 40 notifications (including  1 relating to both Article  2.9 and 5.6) under the 
WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. 
(x) Government procurement 
(a) Features 
63. Since its previous Review, New Zealand's gove rnment procurement policy principles have 
mainly been:  best value for money "over whole lif e";  open and effective competition;  full and fair 
opportunity for domestic suppliers;  improving business capacities includi ng e-commerce capability;  
and recognition of New Zealand's interna tional trade obligations and interests.42  In 2008, a 
sixth principle was added, requiring sustainably produced goods and services wherever possible, having regard to the economic, soci al, and environmental effects over their lifecycle.  New Zealand 
endorsed the APEC Non-Binding Principles on G overnment Procurement as revised in 2006 
incorporating the 2004 APEC Transparency  Standards on Government Procurement.
43 
64. There is no general legislation or regulation in place on government procurement.  In this 
regard, public-sector entities are expected to act li ke private companies to achieve best value for 
money in their purchasing decisions.  Although there is no centralized purchasing agency, all purchasing decisions taken by government agencies are subject to guidelines issued by the Ministry of 
Economic Development, last  revised in August 2007.
44  In 2006, Cabinet endorsed the Mandatory 
Rules for Procurement by Departments, which apply to central government departments, the 
New Zealand Police, and the New Zealand Defence Force for purchases at or above NZ$100,000 for 
goods and services, and at or above NZ$10 million for construction services.45  The mandatory rules 
establish open tendering as the normal procedure.  St andards and targets have been introduced for 
core government departments in the categories of timber, wood products and paper, travel, and light 
fittings, aimed at improving sustainable business practice and procuring more environmentally 
friendly products.  In May 2007, it was agreed that a single procurement policy be extended to 
agencies beyond core departments;  the authorities are developing plans for the progressive implementation of the single procurement policy across the state sector, commencing 2008/09.  
65. New Zealand does not gather procurement data on a regular basis due to the decentralized 
nature of purchasing, and because this is not considered  a priority.  As detailed data are not available, 
the size of New Zealand's government procurement ma rket is difficult to estimate but OECD averages 
suggest that it is in the range of NZ$14 billion to  NZ$20 billion per annum, that is, 7.9% to 11.2% of 
GDP (2007/08). 
66. Since December 2008, New Zeala nd has been an observer to the WTO plurilateral agreement 
on Government Procurement (GPA).  As procuremen t is deregulated and decentralized, in the past 
New Zealand has argued that joining the GPA would involve increased administrative and transaction 
                                                     
 
42 Ministry of Economic Development online info rmation.  Viewed at: http://www.med.govt.nz/ 
templates/ContentTopicSummary____29393.aspx [3 July 2008]. 
43 These principles are: value for money, open and effective competition, fair  dealing, accountability 
and due process, and non-discrimination. 
44 Ministry of Economic Development (2007). 
45 APEC Secretariat online information, Government Procurement Resources - New Zealand .  
Viewed at:  http://www.ap ec.org/apec/apec_groups/committee_on_trade/government_procurement/resources/ 
new_zealand.html [3  July 2008]. WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 54 
 
 
costs by requiring re-regulation of what it sees as its already open and non-discriminatory 
procurement regime.  Although this argument lo st significance following the introduction of the 
Mandatory Rules for Procurement by Departments, th is position is being kept under review in light of 
developments in procurement and trade policy.  Nonetheless, New Zealand has participated in the 
Working Group on Transparency in Government Procurement and in the Working Party on GATS 
Rules on the issue of government procurement in services.  
67. Under the Australia-New Zealand Government  Procurement Agreement (ANZGPA), a single 
government procurement market is maintained fo r both countries;  a five-yearly review of the 
agreement was signed off in 2007 and resulted in re newal with some changes for clarification and a 
new reference to ensure that government procurem ent using e-commerce methods remains consistent 
with the agreement.  The agreement is administer ed by the Australian Procurement and Construction 
Council (APCC), in which New Zealand has full partic ipation rights.  New Zealand is also a member 
of the 2005 Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Pa rtnership (TPSEP) Agreement with Brunei, Chile, 
and Singapore (also known as the P4 Free Trade Agre ement) which includes a chapter on government 
procurement ensuring, inter alia,  national treatment to suppliers originating in these countries.46  
(b) Procedures 
68. Procurement is usually carried out either by an open call for tender or by selective (closed) 
tender following an open call for registration of inter est.  In determining procedures to be followed, 
agencies are required to be guided by the procur ement policy framework set out above and by the 
Auditor General's good practice gui de last updated in June 2008.47  Government agencies usually have 
discretion to publish their purchasing requirements th rough any channels thought to be appropriate, 
such as commercial print media or electronically.  Under the Mandatory Rules for Procurement by Departments, notices of tenders for procurements  valued at or above NZ$100,000 for goods and 
services, and NZ$10 million for construction services , must be published on Government Electronic 
Tenders Service (GETS).  GETS, which is operated by the Ministry of Economic Development, is 
increasingly becoming the "one-stop shop" for cen tralized advertising of government tender 
opportunities, contract award notices, and forward proc urement plans by a wide range of agencies.  It 
would appear that a large proportion of purchasing is carried out through open tenders, although no 
data are available on the exact proportion.  Ho wever, in some cases, where large and complex 
purchases are involved, agencies may issue tenders selectively to certain companies or identify 
potential suppliers through a staged process.  In New Zealand's devolved regime, procurement 
management procedures, including any thresholds, are a matter of autonomous decision by individual 
agencies.  Value thresholds therefore vary from agen cy to agency, but should be consistent with the 
Mandatory Rules for Procurement by Departments, where applicable.  
69. More routine supplies may be purchased through regular contracts with an established list of 
suppliers.  The list is established through registration of interest;  according to the authorities, many 
agencies find it cost effective to purchase under pe riod supply contracts of standing offers arranged 
with suppliers by commercial supply broking companies. 
70. The New Zealand Government has well established historical relations with the formerly 
state-owned company GSB Supplycorp Ltd, which establishes and maintains supply contracts with many central and local government agencies on an open tender basis;  GSB Supplycorp Ltd manages 
contracts and procurement processes in excess of NZ$460 million.  Serco Supply initiates, operates, 
and monitors local purchase contracts unde r a franchise agreement with Supplycorp.
48  Government 
                                                      
46 Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (2005d), Chapter 11:  Government Procurement. 
47 Comptroller and Auditor General (2008). 
48 WTO (2003). New Zealand WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 
 Page 55 
 
 
departments using these companies, or any other th ird party acting as an agent to conduct or manage 
their procurement process, must apply the government procurement policy, including the Mandatory Rules for Procurement by Departments, where appropriate.  
71. The 2001 post-award transparency guidelines and rules for publication of contract award 
notices have been superseded by the Mandatory Ru les for Procurement by Departments.  As of 
May 2006, departments are required to promptly p ublish or inform suppliers that have submitted 
tenders of the contract award decision and to publish a post award notice on GETS.
49 
72. Under its bilateral and plurilate ral agreements, New Zealand is committed not to discriminate 
between suppliers of goods and services in New Zealand, Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, and 
Singapore.50  Public-sector agencies are required not to gi ve preference or weighting to local content 
in itself51, but may consider any practical and commercia l advantages of domestic supply in making 
procurement decisions.  To provide further assura nce that purchasers are according full and fair 
opportunity to domestic suppliers, since May 2007, De partments have been required to include in 
their internal documentation basic reasons, with sen ior management sign-off, justifying the rejection 
of any New Zealand tender for contracts at or above NZ$100,000.  The Industry Capability Network 
New Zealand (ICN NZ)52, with its free sourcing service, helps domestic and Australian private and 
state-owned enterprises, government department s and bodies to identify major procurement 
opportunities that can be fulfilled through competitiv e local supply of goods and services that are 
currently or would otherwise be imported.  
(xi) Local content 
73. New Zealand does not maintain any local-conten t requirements.  However, tariff concessions 
may be granted to importers and manufacturers if th ey can demonstrate that the domestic content of 
the locally produced "suitable alternative" product is  less than 25% of its ex-factory cost of production 
(section (2)(iii)(e) above). 
(xii) State trading 
74. New Zealand does not operate state-trading co mpanies for imports, but it has one for kiwi 
exports (section (3)(v)).  
(3) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING EXPORTS  
(i) Procedures  
75. All exporters are required under Section 49 of the Customs and Excise Act 1996 to lodge an 
export document with the New Zealand Customs Serv ice.  As from 1 March 2004, all export entries 
must be lodged and cleared electronically prior to goods being loaded for export.  To lodge entries 
                                                      
49 Ministry of Economic Development online info rmation.  Viewed at:  http://www.med.govt.nz/ 
templates/MultipageDocumentPage____19689.aspx [7 July 2008]. 
50 For Singapore, a value threshold of SDR 50,000 applies, equivalent to NZ$131,860 (as of 
13 January 2009). 
51 APEC Secretariat online information, Government Procurement Resources - New Zealand .  
Viewed at:  http://www.ap ec.org/apec/apec_groups/committee_on_trade/government_procurement/resources/ 
new_zealand.html [3  July 2008]. 
52 ICN New Zealand is an operating unit within New Zealand Trade & Enterprise (NZTE), the 
Government's national economic development agency;  until June 2004 it was known as New Zealand Industrial Supplies Office (NZISO). WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 56 
 
 
electronically, traders may either install EDI (Ele ctronic Data Interchange) software, or use the 
New Zealand Customs Service Online Declarations website.  Information re quired includes details 
about the exporter, description of the goods, country  of origin, f.o.b. value, as well as the permit 
issuing authority, if relevant.53  The NZCS maintains a performan ce agreement with the Government, 
which requires compliant EDI applications for exports  to be processed within 30 minutes.  According 
to the authorities, this target has been achieved (section (2)(i)(a)).   
(ii) Export prohibitions and restrictions 
76. Export prohibitions and restrictions are maintained  mainly for health and safety reasons or to 
comply with international obligations under various agreements (e.g. UN sanctions).  They are also 
maintained in the case of some ag ricultural products, including meat and dairy products , in order to 
manage trade partners' import re quirements (e.g. country-specific ta riff-rate quotas), and in the case of 
some horticulture products and ki wifruit, for marketing reasons.54   
77. New Zealand does not appear to have price c ontrols on exports.  According to its latest 
notification to the WTO, all contracts for sale/export of kiwifruit, the only item still subject to a regulatory-enabled export monopoly, are driven so lely by commercial considerations and world 
market prices.
55 
(iii) Duty and tax concessions 
78. Drawback and refund on duties (import duty, ex cise duty, and in certain cases GST) paid on 
goods imported into New Zealand is available for exporters under Section 117 of the Customs and 
Excise Act 1996.  Any person who can provide evidence as to the amount of duty paid on the goods 
they are exporting may make a claim for drawback of duty.  There must be a visible audit trail that 
confirms that duty was paid upon importation and th at links this to the import entry on which that 
duty was collected.  Full duty drawback is allowed,  or, for goods used in New Zealand, a lesser 
amount (Regulation 67 of the Cust oms and Excise Regulations 1996).   Under the Act, drawback may 
be allowed for:  goods imported into New Zealand that are later exported;  goods manufactured and 
exported from New Zealand;  imported parts and materials used for goods manufactured in 
New Zealand and subsequently exported;  and impor ted materials, except fuel or plant equipment, 
used in the manufacture of goods in New Zealand and exported.  Re-import of goods exported under 
drawback provisions is permitted (s ubject to payment of appropriate customs duty), except for certain 
types of motor vehicles.  Motor homes and camper va ns may not be re-imported within 12 months of 
the date of export. 
79. Between 2003/04 and 2007/08 the amount of du ties refunded more than tripled, from 
NZ$6.8 million to NZ$25.8 million, while the nu mber of cases ranged from 2,534 to 2,899 with 
average reimbursement per case peaking at NZ$9,147 in 2007/08;  the main product categories benefiting from such refunds were articles of knitte d apparel and clothing, tobacco and manufactures 
thereof, beverages, and mineral fuels.  Over the fi ve years ending 30 June 2008, the f.o.b. value of 
exports under drawback averaged NZ$226.6 million per year, duty refunded averaged 
NZ$13.4 million resulting in an average annual coefficient of reimbursement of 5.94%. 
                                                     
 
53 New Zealand Customs Service online informati on.  Viewed at:  http ://www.customs.govt.nz/ 
exporters/Customs+Requirements/Clearance+of+Goods.htm [9 July 2008]. 
54 New Zealand Customs Service online informati on.  Viewed at:  http ://www.customs.govt.nz/ 
NR/rdonlyres/7AE179D6-B1BF-44C8-B0A5-EE934E1D3012/0/FactSheet04.pdf [18 January 2009]. 
55 WTO document G/STR/N/10/NZL, 8 November 2004. New Zealand WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 
 Page 57 
 
 
80. Under Section 116 of the Act, goods imported te mporarily into New Zealand may be waived 
duty, if the Chief Executive of Customs is satisfied that the goods have been exported or shipped or 
packed for export in a Customs Controlled Area, or destroyed within 12 months from the date of their 
importation.  Duty remissions are also available fo r goods held in Customs controlled areas such as 
export warehouses and duty-free shops.  Customs controlled areas must be licensed by New Zealand 
Customs Service and are subject to audit and control by customs officials.  
(iv) State trading 
81. According to New Zealand's latest notificati on to the WTO, since 2004, Zespri Group Limited 
has been the only state-trading enterprise (STE) in operation in New Zealand;  this entity has special 
export authority56, i.e. not accorded to other exporters of kiwifruit destined for markets other than 
Australia.  In 2003/04, Zespri Group Limited purch ased 90.1% of domestic production and accounted 
for 82.7% of New Zealand's kiwifruit exports.  None of the other state-trading enterprises notified in New Zealand's previous notification (in 2001)  are now STEs due to legislative changes.
57  Under 
amending legislation passed in 2007 , Fonterra Cooperative Group's exclusive rights to export certain 
dairy products subject to tariff quotas or other restri ctions in overseas markets (including to Canada, 
the EC, Japan, and the United States), were allocated to various dairy processors.58  In 2008, these 
access rights were shared between Fonterra, Open  Country Cheese Company, Westland Co-operative 
Dairy Company and Tatua Co-op Dairy Company.  New Zealand Dairies Limited and Synlait Limited 
are also expected to take up shares of these markets in 2009. 
(v) Export finance, insurance, and guarantees 
82. Since 2001, the New Zealand Export Credit O ffice (NZECO) has provided export credit 
insurance to exporters and banks against the risk  of non-payment arising from defined political or 
commercial risks.59  No other public-sector agency offers expor t credits in New Zealand.  Its products 
relate to medium- to long-term financing (betwe en one and fourteen years), which is generally 
unavailable from the private sector.  The primary obj ective of the NZECO is to insure/guarantee the 
risk of non-payment of a credit or loan;  it does not provide the actual loan nor does it directly finance 
the credit.  The NZECO provides up to 95% cover against non-payment due to a political problem and 
up to 90% due to a commercial problem;  the scheme must fully cover its costs.  According to the 
authorities, its pricing conforms to WTO and OECD  guidelines, which means that exporters compete 
on price and products or services and not on the fi nancing package.  The NZECO currently supports 
export transactions to Latin America, the Philippin es, and Turkey.  The exports supported by NZECO 
typically have an economic life longer than the cred it term (with a minimum term of 360 days);  their 
total value rose from NZ$5 million (2003/04) to NZ $85.9 million (2007/08).  As of February 2009, a 
temporary change in the NZECO mandate has allowe d it to provide short-term trade credit insurance 
at market rates, on a temporary basis. 
                                                      
56 WTO document G/STR/N/10/NZL,  8 November 2004. 
57 WTO document G/STR/N/7/NZL, 27 July 2001. 
58 Fonterra Cooperative Group is one of the top six dairy companies in the world by turnover 
(June 2006 Rabobank ratings), the world's leading exporter of dairy products and responsible for more than a 
third of international dairy trade.  Fonterra online information.  Viewed at:  http://www.fonterra.com/wps/ 
wcm/connect/fonterracom/fonterra.com/ our+business/fonterra+at+a+glance/ab out+us/key+facts [10 July 2008]. 
59 NZECO online information.  Viewed at:  http://www.nzeco.govt.nz/. WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 58 
 
 
(vi) Export promotion and marketing assistance 
83. Export promotion activities are carried out by the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE) 
under the Crown Entities Act 2004 and the Ne w Zealand Trade and Enterprise Act 2003.60  NZTE 
provides key export information and assistance to e xporters.  Its services include help to:  select a 
market and promote export goods and services;  build  market presence and sales;  access practical 
information;  profile export business online;  find out about training;  and find out about strategic 
projects in specific countries. 
(4) OTHER MEASURES AFFECTING PRODUCTION AND TRADE  
(i) Taxation 
84. Total taxes as a share of GDP remain relatively low  (31.7% in 2007/08, Table I.1) compared 
with the OECD unweighted average (35.9%, 2006).61  New Zealand relies on direct taxes for 70.9% 
(2007/08) of its tax revenues;  this proportion is the highest among OECD countries, but reflects the 
absence of payroll and social security taxes.62  The goods and services tax (GST) remains the main 
indirect tax component followed by excise duties a nd tariffs, which accounted for 1.5% of total tax 
revenues in 2007/08.  The persona l/individual and the corporate/company taxes account for 47.3% 
and 16%, respectively, of total tax receipts (Table III.5). 
(a) Indirect taxes and other levies 
85. New Zealand charges a 12.5% value-added go ods and services tax (GST) on virtually all 
goods and services supplied in New Zealand, both dom estic and imported.  Activities performed by 
public and local authorities are also included in the GST base.  Registration for GST is required if a 
taxpayer is carrying out a "taxable activity" and th e annual turnover from such  activity exceeds (or is 
likely to exceed in any twelve-month period) NZ $40,000.  GST is charged on business-to-business 
transactions but is generally offset by an input  tax credit for the purchaser.  Exempt goods and 
services include financial services (such as the transfer in ownership of debt and equity instruments, life insurance, and reinsurance), residential rent al accommodation, and the supply of fine metals 
(gold, silver or platinum) from a refiner to a dealer.  Long-term (more than four weeks) stays in a 
commercial dwelling are subject to an effective rate  of GST of 7.5% (provided certain criteria are 
met).  A "comprehensive range" of exported goods and services are zero-rated (GST is charged at the 
rate of zero) in situations wher e the consumption occurs or is de emed to occur outside New Zealand.
63  
Since 2005, New Zealand has introduced a "rever se charge" mechanism to tax certain imported 
services and introduced rules that permit domestic s upplies of financial services to businesses to be 
zero-rated in certain cases.  
86. Excise tax is levied on petroleum products, alcoholic beverages, and tobacco products.64  All 
the rates are specific.  There is also a tax on entities that provide gaming activities.65 
                                                      
60 Trade New Zealand, the Government's trade pr omotion agency, and Industry New Zealand, the 
Government's economic development agency, were merged to form Ne w Zealand Trade and Enterprise, on 
1 July 2003 (New Zealand Trade and Enterprise onlin e information.  Viewed at: http://www.nzte.govt.nz/ 
section/11919.aspx and http://www.nzte.govt.nz/section/11728.aspx [14 July 2008]). 
61 OECD (2008d). 
62 OECD (2007e). 
63 Input tax credits can be claimed by the supp liers of these exported goods and services. 
64 Excise rates on tobacco and alcohol are CPI-adjuste d annually to maintain the real value of the 
excise. 
65 The rates are:  4% of betting profit for racing;  5.5% of turnover for lotteries commission;  20% of 
gaming machine profits;  and 4% of casino wins. New Zealand WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 
 Page 59 
 
 
Table III.5 
Structure of direct and indirect tax revenue, 2002-08 
(NZ$ million and per cent) 
  2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 
Total tax revenue (NZ$ million) 40,645  43,482  47,755  52,675 54,502 56,984 
 (Per cent of total)  
Direct taxes 65.5 65.6 67.1 70.1 69.6 70.9 
Income tax 65.5 65.6 67.1 70.1 69.6 70.9 
Individuals 47.5 46.2 45.1 45.4 45.5 47.3 
Company 13.6 15.0 17.0 18.6 17.5 16.0 
Withholding 4.5 4.4 5.0 6.1 6.7 7.6 
Indirect taxes 34.5 34.4 32.9 29.9 30.4 29.1 
Tariff duties 0.5 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.5 
Excise dutiesa 7.2 5.9 5.2 4.9 4.9 4.6 
Goods and services tax, ne t 22.9 23.6 22.4 20.1 20.6 19.5 
Racing and lottery duty 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 
Energy resources levy 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 
Motor vehicle fees 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 
Road user charges 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5 
Stamp and cheque duties 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 
Fringe benefit tax 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 
Other 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 
a This figure comprises "excise duties" imposed on locally ma nufactured goods and "excise-equivalent duties" imposed at the 
same rates on equivalent goods imported direct for domestic  consumption (Part VII (Excise and Excise-Equivalent Duties), 
Customs & Excise Act 1996). 
Note: Year-ended June. 
Source : Data provided by the authorities.  
87. Under the Commodity Levies Act and related Le vy Orders, New Zealand allows producers to 
collect earmarked commodity levies payable to a body corporate or at the first point of sale.  These 
charges, which are either at specific or ad valorem  rates ranging from 0.15% to 5%, are levied on 
domestic sales, imports (never applie d), and exports at similar rates, except for avocados.  No industry 
organization can spend any amount of levy revenue  for any commercial or trading activity.  These 
levies collect an approximate amount of NZ$94 million annually, mostly sales of milk and meat;  the 
revenue is mainly spent on production and marke ting R&D, promotion, and technology transfer. 
(b) Direct taxes 
88. As a result of the 2006 Business Tax Review, th e single company tax rate was lowered from 
33% to 30% for the 2008-09 income year;  it applies to resident- and non-resident-owned firms.  New Zealand's advantage of a relatively low corporat e rate has been eroded over time due to declining 
statutory rates in many OECD countries, thus New Zealand's rate is several percentage points above 
the OECD average.
66  According to the OECD, New Zealand's current international tax system, which 
taxes income earned by some foreign subsidiari es of New Zealand companies, encourages domestic 
firms to stay small and local or to relocate their h eadquarters outside of New Zealand if they plan to 
expand their activities abroad.67  A tax bill currently before Parliament, to be passed by mid-2009, 
will exempt "active" business income earned by fore ign subsidiaries from taxation (Chapter I);  this 
will make New Zealand's international tax system comparable to those of other countries.  This 
                                                      
66 OECD (2007c). 
67 OECD (2007d). WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 60 
 
 
four-year NZ$112.5 million tax exemption for the "active" income (such as income from 
manufacturing or industrial activity) is to be gran ted for New Zealand-controlled foreign firms to 
allow domestic companies to globalize with th e benefit of lower tax and compliance cost.  
89. Changes have also been made to the persona l income tax schedule.  Until October 2008, 
personal income tax was progressive with non-inflat ion-indexed thresholds that had not changed for 
more than seven years, during which time house hold incomes had risen by about 30%.  On 
1 October 2008, the scale was changed to:  12.5%  (up to NZ$14,000), 21% (up to NZ$40,000), 33% 
(up to NZ$70,000), and 39% (above NZ$70,000).  Furt her changes were legislated for and new tax 
rates and thresholds as from 1 April 2009 are:  12.5% (up to NZ$14,000), 21% (up to NZ$48,000), 
33% (up to NZ$70,000) and 38% (above NZ$70,000).  The changes to personal tax also included the 
introduction of an independent earner tax cred it (IETC) from 1 April 2009, which pays NZ$10 per 
week to individuals earning income between NZ$24,000 and NZ$44,000 and who do not receive a 
benefit, Working for Families tax credits, or New Zealand superannuation.  The IETC is reduced by 
13 cents for every NZ dollar of income ear ned between NZ$44,001 and NZ$48,000.  Very few 
exemptions are allowed from either corporate or pers onal income tax so that the tax bases are broad.  
New Zealand does not have a formal capital gains ta x, although certain capital gains are taxed in 
specific circumstances (e.g. in relation to certain land sales). 
(c) Tax incentives 
90. New Zealand's tax system has relatively few concessions by international standards as a result 
of its broad-base-low-rate approach to tax policy.   However, in addition to tariff and excise duty 
concessions (sections (2)(iii)(e) and (4)(ii)(b)) unde r certain concessionary treatment, the timing of 
capital expenditure deductions (e.g. fo r R&D) is accelerated (e.g. in respect of capital equipment used 
in petroleum and mineral mining, fo restry, and film productions).   
(ii) Industrial development policies 
(a) Industrial development 
91. The Government of New Zealand has maintained its "proactive" approach of creating a more 
supportive business and regulatory environment.  Sin ce July 2003, the NZTE has been entrusted with 
helping to boost export earnings, strengthen regi onal economies, and deliver  economic development 
assistance to industries and individual businesses (section (3)(vii)).  NTZE's services and programmes can be used by companies from st art-ups to established groups of exporters.  They include advice, 
training, mentoring, funding, and business and market development assistance.
68  Three sectors have 
been targeted by the Government for particular ass istance because of their potential (Chapter IV):  
biotechnology and agritech;  creative industries (suc h as music, film etc.);  and information and 
communications technology.  However, NZTE also works with other sectors, including the food and beverage, wood building, specialized manufacturing and education sectors.  Since July 2007, NZTE's 
Regional Strategy Fund (RSF) has been helping 14 regions (plus the Chatham Islands) improve the 
quality of their regional business environment th rough the development and implementation of 
regional economic development strategies.
69  Each region may apply for up to NZ$750,000 over 
three years.  The RSF is a follow-on programme from the Regional Partnership Programme's (RPP) 
Strategy and Capability, which was "disestablished" on 30 June 2007. 
92. There are two further regional economic de velopment programmes.  The Enterprising 
Auckland Fund, is a NZ$3 million fund for 2007-10  to support the development of Auckland as a 
                                                      
68 NTZE online information.  Viewed at:  http://www.nzte.govt.nz/section/11909.aspx. 
69 NTZE (2007). New Zealand WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 
 Page 61 
 
 
world-class city.  The Enterprising Partnerships  Fund promotes knowledge-sharing, innovation, and 
the development of globally competitive firms th rough projects that encourage regionally based 
collaborative partnerships and ne tworks.  In 2007/08, NZ$5.9 million was committed for this Fund. 
93. New Zealand continues to place innovation at the core of its economic development strategy, 
recognizing innovation's significant contribution to productivity growth.70  In March 2006, the 
Government's Economic Transformation Agenda  (ETA) replaced the Growth and Innovation 
Framework (GIF) as an overarching economic development strategy.  The Government 
funds a range of programmes aimed at  supporting the following objectives;  improving access 
to finance;  increasing the degree of international engagement of New Zealand firms;  increasing the 
rate of innovation;  and improving the prospect s of newly established firms.  Each year, the 
Government invests in business assistance progr ammes;  total appropriations in 2006-07 were 
NZ$286.495 million.71  
94. Economic transformation, led and coordinated by the Ministry of Economic Development, is 
a high-level government priority.  Total R&D spen ding and business R&D spending in relation to 
GDP are both below OECD averages, and by wide margins.72  Compared with most OECD countries, 
the New Zealand innovation system is characteriz ed by both a larger share of publicly funded 
organizations in total R&D, and dominance of public  labs in publicly funded research.  Public-sector 
bodies, such as the publicly funded  Crown Research Institutes (CRIs), universities, and polytechnics 
are the major entities supplying knowledge and technol ogy for industry.  New Zealand lacks the large 
high technology firms responsible for a large part of business R&D in more industrialized countries.  
The Foundation for Research, Science and Technol ogy (FRST), a statutory authority with an 
independent board, reporting to the Minister of Research, Science and Technology, is the main 
funding agency for industry-relevant research .  In 2007-08, FRST invested more than 
NZ$493 million – almost one third of New Zealand's gross expenditure on R&D – with 59% of these funds going to CRIs, 31% to universities and 10% to the private sector.  Public bodies are encouraged 
to collaborate with each other and to seek privat e sector co-funding for research on generic topics 
relevant to industrial sectors.  The Technology New Zealand scheme, delivered by FRST, provided 
NZ$53 million in 2007-08 to support the development of  research capabilities of technology firms in 
areas important for them and to New Zealand genera lly.  In line with international practice, a 15% 
(15 cents in each NZ dollar) tax credit for bus inesses doing eligible R&D was introduced in 2007, 
taking effect in the 2008/09 income year;  this measure was to be repealed on 30 April 2009.  The 
estimated fiscal costs for 2007/08 and 2008/09 are NZ$37 million and NZ$154 million, respectively, 
and NZ$7 million for 2009/10.  
(b) Subsidies 
95. In its 2007 notification under Article 25 on the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures, New Zealand indicated 13 schemes that provide assistance to industry in 
the form of grants, mainly for increasing bus iness capabilities, growth, investment, regional 
                                                     
 
70 New Zealand seeks to achieve higher income pe r capita through sustainable growth. One of its 
longer-term objectives has been to lift its GDP per capita into the top half of OECD countries.  Given these 
objectives, increasing productivity growth can be s een as the primary policy challenge ahead.  Some 
characteristics of the New Zealand economy have hampered  the innovation system:  the country's small size and 
geographical isolation;  the limited number of large firms operating on an international scale;  and the historic 
importance of agriculture, which has attracted most private and public R&D. New Zealand's performance on 
innovation measures varies from sector to sector (OECD, 2007d). 
71 For more information on the numerous programmes in place, see OECD (2007d). 
72 OECD (2008c). WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 62 
 
 
development and R&D in certain areas (e.g. seafood, biotechnology, forestry).73  Refund of the excise 
duty is available for fuel used for commercial purpo ses by any motor vehicle, vessel or aircraft.  Since 
2006, a NZ$11.5 million Buy Kiwi Made programme h as provided funding (up to 50% of the cost of 
a project) for sectoral or regional initiatives to rai se the profile of domestic products through publicity 
campaigns;  the programme was under review in January 2009.  In 2005/06, spending for these 
schemes attained NZ$102 million;  more than a thir d was under the Technology For Business Growth 
Scheme. 
96. New Zealand does not appear to provide dir ect subsidies for any sector-specific economic 
activities.  In agriculture, New Zealand's producer  support estimate (PSE) remains the lowest (1%) 
among OECD members, with support provided only fo r basic research and the control of pests and 
diseases.74  According to the OECD, market price suppor ts appear to be maintained for eggs and 
poultry.  Border measures imposed to prevent the entry of pests and diseases seem to have an effect 
similar to market price support (section (2)(ix) and Chapter IV).  Government expenditure to assist 
agriculture is also provided in the event of large- scale natural disasters or adverse climatic conditions. 
(c) Pricing arrangements 
97. New Zealand maintains no price controls, othe r than those relating to price regulation of 
electricity transmission and distribution (Chapter IV).  However, the listing of publicly funded pharmaceutical products by the Crown agency PHARMAC (the Pharmaceutical Management 
Agency), a facilitator and funding administrator
75, has put pressure on companies to reduce prices.  At 
end-June 2008, the New Zealand Pharmaceutical  Schedule listed 1,716 prescription and other 
medicines funded by the Government.  The list, which is available online76, is published three times a 
year and updated on a monthly basis;  non-listed medicines are also available in the market.  
PHARMAC was originally set up to mana ge government expenditure for prescription 
pharmaceuticals used in the community and some pha rmaceuticals provided to patients for use while 
in hospital.  Annual public expenditure on the Community Pharmaceuticals Budget was NZ$600 million (2006/07), NZ$636 million (2 0007/08) and NZ$653 million in 2008/09.    
(iii) Role of state-owned enterprises, and privatization 
98. As noted in the previous Review of New Zeala nd, several large SOEs were privatized in the 
mid-1980s, but since 1999 there has been a policy reversal.  During the period under review, no further privatization of state assets has taken place,  and New Zealand proceeded with the buy-back of 
Air New Zealand, the railways and ferries, as  well as the establishment of Kiwibank, the 
re-nationalization of Accident Compensation Co rporation, and the Auckland Regional Council's 
reversal of the part-privatization of Ports of Auckland.
77  As a result, SOEs' share of total revenues on 
GDP increased from 8.1% of GDP in 2003 to 10.7% at  end-June 2008;  at the same time SOEs had 
approximately 15,000 employees.78 
                                                      
73 WTO document G/SCM/N/155/NZL, 6 July 2007. 
74 OECD (2007a). 
75 The Government fully or partially pays the cost of most prescription medicines.  PHARMAC does 
not purchase or resell pharmaceuticals;  its central role  is to manage the pharmaceutical budget on behalf of 
District Health Boards, and to d ecide which medicines are funded by the Government.  PHARMAC online 
information.  Viewed at:  http://www .pharmac.govt.nz/suppliers/AboutPHARMAC. 
76 PHARMAC online information.  Viewed at:  http://www.pharmac.govt.nz/patients/Schedule. 
77 New Zealand Herald,  "Privatisation - NZ swims against tide", 8 May 2008.  Viewed at:  
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10508667 [28 July 2008]. 
78 This figure excludes KiwiRail, which was purchased on 1 July 2008 (CCMAU online information.  
Viewed at:  http://www.ccmau.govt.nz).   New Zealand WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 
 Page 63 
 
 
99. SOEs are required to operate as successful busin esses and, to this end, to be as profitable and 
efficient as comparable businesses not owned by the Crown, a good employer, and to exhibit a sense 
of social non-commercial responsibility toward s the community in which they operate;  at 
end-June 2008, their operating surplus was NZ$723 million.  Their boards have complete autonomy 
on operations, including allocation of resources and pricing of produ cts and services.  The boards are 
required to present to their shareholding Ministers (u sually the Ministers for State-Owned Enterprises 
and of Finance) an annual statement of corporate intent and an outline of business objectives;  these 
are closely monitored by the relevant ministries.  Th e Government is required to  negotiate an explicit 
contract with an SOE if it wishes it to carry out non-commercial operations.79  There are 19 SOEs 
(including Air New Zealand Limited, which is majo rity government-owned but not part of the SOE 
legislative framework) with total revenue of around NZ$14.6 billion80;  most government equity is in 
the New Zealand Railways Corporation (45.8%) and th e three electricity generators (Genesis Power, 
Meridian Energy, and Mighty River Power) (31%).  
100. In addition to the SOEs, there are Crown-owne d entities (CEs) and Crown research institutes 
(CRIs).  SOEs have a solely commercial objective (to be a successful business); CEs and CRIs have 
mixed commercial and non-commercial objectives.  CEs are subject to the Crown Entities Act 2004 
(not the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986).  Some CE s are subject to legislation specific to them.  
There are more than 2,500 CEs with total re venue of around NZ$29 billion.  This includes 
2,463 school boards of trustees, 31 tertiary educa tion institutions, 21 district health boards and 
9 CRIs.81  Local governments have moved beyond basic local services (e.g. water, rubbish sewage) 
into various social and economic activities.  Local councils' commercial investments in sectors such as 
ports seem to earn poor returns and distort resource allocation. 
101. The performance of Crown entities (i.e. SOEs, CEs and CRIs) is monitored by the Crown 
Company Monitoring Advisory Unit (CCMAU), which is administratively linked to the New Zealand 
Treasury but is operationally independent.  Its main  function is to monitor the performance of SOEs 
and other Crown entities and provide advice to shareholding Ministers.82  In addition, the Treasury, as 
the main government agency concerned with overall  public-sector balance sheets, also performs an 
advisory function to shareholding Ministers.  The CCMAU is charged with monitoring 36 Crown 
entities in the areas of energy, land and envir onment, communications, infrastructure services and 
science and innovation.83 
(iv) Competition policy  
102. The main legislation governing competition re mains the Commerce Act, 1986, which aims to 
"promote competition in markets for the long term benefit of consumers within New Zealand".  In 
addition, the Fair Trading Act 1986 prohibits misl eading, deceptive and unfair trading practices and 
                                                      
79 If such an agreement is reached, the Crown w ill appropriately reimburse the SOE for its goods or 
services (Section 7, State Owned Enterprises Act, 1986). 
80 These are:  AgriQuality New Zealand Limited;  Airways Corporation of New Zealand Limited;  
Asure New Zealand Limited;  Electricity Corporation of New Zealand Limited;  Genesis Power Limited;  
Landcorp Farming Limited;  Meridian Energy Limited;   Meteorological Service of New Zealand Limited;  
Mighty River Power Limited;  New Zealand Post Limited;  New Zealand Railways Corporation;  Solid Energy 
New Zealand Limited;  Timberlands West Coast Limited;   Transpower New Zealand Limited;  Kordia Group 
Limited; Animal Control Products; Learning Media Limited;  Quotable Value New Zealand; and Air New 
Zealand Limited (Treasury, 2007b). 
81 Treasury (2007b), p. 165. 
82 CCMAU online information.  Viewed at:  http://www.ccmau.govt.nz/about-ccmau.html 
[30 July 2008]. 
83 CCMAU online information.  Viewed at: http://www.ccmau.govt.nz/companies-we-monitor.html 
[30 July 2008].   WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 64 
 
 
ensures that traders comply with consumer informat ion and product safety standards.  There are also a 
number of sector-specific laws that deal with comp etition, such as:  the Electricity Industry Reform 
Act, 1998;  the Telecommunications Act 2001;  the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act, 2001;  Part 9 of the Civil Aviation Act 1990;  and Part 1 of the Shipping Act 1987.
84  Although the 
telecommunications, electricity, and dairy sectors are subject to sector-specific competition 
regulations85, these sectors continue to be subject to the Commerce and Fair Trading Acts.  In 
addition, the vertically integrated incumbents fo r telecommunications (Chapter IV) and dairy products 
are subject to a specific access regime.86 
103. While the Commerce Act extends to all sectors of the economy, certain entities are partially 
exempt from its provisions.  These include:  PHARMA C (section (ii)(c) above), which has a partial 
exemption from Part 2 (restrictive trade practices) of the Act, although, according to the authorities, 
PHARMAC does not take advantage of this exemption87;  some services (Chapter IV);  and some of 
New Zealand's state-trading enterprises, for the purpo se of funding or for carrying out their activities.  
Concerning state-trading enterprises, the authorities indicated that Zespri ( section (3)(v)), the sole 
kiwifruit exporter in New Zealand must comply fully with the Commerce Act. 
104. The Commerce Act prohibits restrictive trade pract ices such as:  those substantially lessening 
competition, price fixing, the abuse of "unilateral"  market power and resale price maintenance;  and 
mergers and acquisitions that substantially lessen competition.88  To meet changing circumstances, the 
Act has been amended several times.  A 2001 ame ndment strengthened the competition thresholds in 
key prohibitions and increased sanctions for non-compliance with the prohibitions.  The prohibition 
against abuse of unilateral market power was amen ded to lower the threshold of market power from 
that of "a dominant position" to "a substantial degr ee of market power".  Similarly, the prohibition 
against anticompetitive mergers was amended to shif t from a structural test of "strengthening or 
acquiring dominance" to the more economic test of "the likely effect of substantially lessening 
competition".  Where greater intervention is requi red, the Commission is authorized to determine 
prices, revenues, and quality standards for contro lled goods and services under Part IV of the Act.  A 
new Part IVA was introduced to provide for a target ed regulatory control regime for large electricity 
line businesses.89 
105. The Commerce Amendment Act 2005 was passed to reflect new legislative standards relating 
to incorporation of material by reference to tertia ry legislation;  these amendments related to the 
Commerce Commission's (see below) electricity lines business thresholds regime.  Reviews of 
                                                      
84 According to the authorities, "s ector specific competition regulations  are necessary in these sectors 
due to their importance to the New Zealand economy and the significant public detriment caused by the 
concentration of market power."  The telecommunications, electricity, and dairy sectors continue to be subject to 
the Commerce Act.  However, in addition, the vertica lly integrated incumbent for telecommunications, and for 
dairy products, are subject to a specific access regime. 
85 The rationale for this legislation is based on the importance of the sectors to the New Zealand 
economy and the significant detriment cau sed by the concentration of market power.  Where there is little or no 
competition, the Commission aims to foster the outcomes over time that could be expected from competitive 
markets. 
86 The role of the Commerce Commission under th e Dairy Industry Restructuring Act includes 
promoting the efficient operation of dairy markets in New Zealand by regulating the activities of Fonterra to 
ensure New Zealand markets for dairy goods and services are contestable. 
87 According to the authorities, the presence of the exemptions is cr itical because it prevents a great 
deal of potential litigation. 
88 Commerce Act, 1986.  Viewed at:  http://www.l egislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0005/latest/DLM 
87623.html?search=ts_act_Commerce+Act&sr=1 [1 August 2008].  Mergers that would result in the creation of 
a company with assets above a certa in threshold must be reported. 
89 Commerce Amendment Act 2001, Sectio n 9 replacing Sections 36 to 36B. New Zealand WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 
 Page 65 
 
 
Parts IV, IV4A and V of the Commerce Act we re initiated in 2006, a nd in September 2008 the 
Commerce Amendment Act was passed.  The Amendm ent Act fundamentally reforms the regulatory 
control provisions of the Commerce Act 1986.  Speci fically, the Amendment Act's provisions include 
generic provisions for imposing ec onomic regulation on goods and services where competition is not 
feasible.  It encompasses the economic regulation of electricity lines services, gas pipeline services 
and the airfield activities of New Zealand's thr ee major international airports (in Auckland, 
Wellington, and Christchurch).  Other amendmen ts include allowing for the variation of an 
undertaking and providing for the enforcement of  undertakings given under section 69A of the 
Commerce Act 1986 in relation to clearance or authorization of mergers.  Further minor amendments 
to the clearance and authorization regime in the Ac t were also approved.  An amended bill to give 
effect to these policy decisions is pending ( January 2009).  In March 2008, the Cabinet Economic 
Development Committee proposed that the Comme rce Act be amended so that SOEs, except 
Meridian Energy, Mighty River Power, and Genesis Energy, and CRIs are treated as interconnected bodies and are not subject to Commerce Act r estrictions on their ability to cooperate.
90  
106. Under an agreement signed in 1990, the provi sions of the Commerce Act also extend to 
Australia under section 36A of the Act, which prohi bits the use of a dominant position in either 
Australia or New Zealand to restrict entry into any particular market.91  Any alleged dumping of 
Australian products in the New Zealand market is ex amined under section 36A of the Act, rather than 
the dumping provisions of the Dumping and Counte rvailing Duties Act.  In October 2003, the 
Commission signed a Memorandum of  Understanding with the Austra lian Competition and Consumer 
Commission (ACCC), Her Majesty's Secretary of State and Industry, and the Office of Fair Trading 
of the United Kingdom.92  The 1994 MOU with the ACCC w as replaced by the Cooperation 
Agreement between the ACCC and the Commerce Co mmission in 2007.  The two agencies also have 
a Cooperation Protocol for Merger Review, signed in 2006.  The Commerce Commission also has cooperation instruments with the Commissioner of  Competition in Canada (also signed by the 
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission), and the Chinese Taipei Fair Trade Commission 
(also signed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission).  The Commerce 
Commission is an active member of the Internati onal Competition Network and participates in the 
OECD Competition Committee. 
107. The Commerce Commission promotes competition and fair trade in the economy through its 
adjudicative (i.e. clearances and authorizations), en forcement, and regulatory control functions.  The 
Commission's enforcement responsibilities are under the Commerce, Fair Trading, and CCCF Acts, 
and its adjudication and regulatory control r esponsibilities are under the Commerce Act.  The 
Commerce Commission is also the industry-specific regulator for electricity lines businesses (along 
with the Electricity Commission), gas pipelines, te lecommunications, dairy markets, and the airfield 
activities of the three major airports.  Under the newly amended Part IV of the Commerce Act, a 
wider range of forms of regulatory control may be  imposed on controlled goods or services, including 
information disclosure, a mandatory negotiate/arb itrate regime, a customized/default price-quality 
path regime, or conventional pri ce-quality control.  Other than in telecommunications and dairy 
products, the Commission does not have genera l powers to resolve disputes.  Enforcement 
proceedings and appeals against Commerce Commissi on determinations are heard by the High Court 
                                                     
 
90 Ministry of Economic Development online info rmation.  Viewed at:  http://www.med.govt.nz/ 
templates/MultipageDocumentTOC____35641.aspx  [31 July 2008]. 
91 As a result of the agreement under Article 4 of  the 1988 ANZCERTA Protocol on Acceleration of 
Free Trade in Goods, to discontinue as of 1 July 1990 the use of anti-dumping measures against each other, Australia and New Zealand agreed to extend the applica tion of their respective competition laws to each others' 
markets.  These provisions are covered under Section 36 of New Zealand's Commerce Act, 1986 (see 
Commerce Amendment Act, 1990, Sec tion 15) and Section 46A of the Au stralian Trade Practices Act 1974. 
92 APEC (2006), Chapter 8. WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 66 
 
 
of New Zealand, and in the Court of Appeal and th e Supreme Court if leave is granted.  New Zealand 
has a civil regime where the Commerce Commission mu st go to court, rather than an administrative 
regime where the competition agency can make rulings as to penalties and resolve disputes. 
108. During the period under review, the Commission has released a number of guidelines.  The 
Revised Mergers and Acquisitions Guidelines (1 Jan uary 2004) indicate how the Commission applies 
the "substantially lessening competition" test in co nsidering applications for business acquisitions.  
"Safe harbours" of market shares that are unlikely to contravene the Act are provided.  These are (i) where the three-firm concentration ratio in the relevant market is below 70%, and the market share 
of the combined entity is less than about 40%, or ( ii) where the three-firm c oncentration is above 70% 
and the market share of the combined entity is l ess than about 20%.  Other guidelines issued  during 
the review period are:  Guidelines on the Comm ission's processes for the applications for the 
clearance of business acquisitions (November 2008);   Guidelines on the inter-relationship between 
Part II of the Commerce Act 1986 and the Teleco mmunications Act 2001;  Guidelines for broadband 
suppliers;  and Draft guidelines on the Commission's approach to estimating the cost of capital. 
109. Under sections 74A to 74D of the Commerce Act the Commissioner may issue cease and 
desist orders;  the penalty for contravention of su ch orders may be up to NZ$500,000.  In addition, 
penalties for persons contravening restrictive trade practices are the greater of NZ$10 million or 10% 
of turnover, or three times the ille gal gain for corporations;  penalties for individuals, of NZ$500,000, 
may be supplemented by banning serious offende rs from management position in companies.  
110. As from November 2004, a Leniency Policy has been aimed at breaking cartel behaviour:  
immunity from Commerce Commission initiated proceedings  is offered to the first person involved in 
a cartel to come forward with information about  the cartel and to cooperate fully with the 
Commission.  At the same time under a new Co-operation Policy, the Commerce Commission 
undertook to exercise its discretion to take a lower level of enforcement action, or no action at all, 
against an individual or business in exchange for information and continuing  and full cooperation.  
These policies have helped the Commission in th e identification and investigation of cartels, 
particularly international cartels that affect ma rkets in New Zealand.  A review is under way to 
ascertain whether there are any ways to ma ke the policies even more effective. 
111. In recent years most investigations conduc ted by the Commerce Commission have concerned 
fair trading, followed by product safety and consumer  credit issues (Table AIII.1).  A relatively small 
number of these investigations appear to reach the litigation stage;  many are resolved through 
compliance advice letters, warnings, and administrative settlements. 
(v) Corporate governance 
112. Good corporate governance is a pre-requisite for the efficient functioning of capital markets 
and for the allocation of resources into sectors wh ere they can be used most productively.  High 
profile bankruptcy cases around the world have reperc ussions in international capital markets and on 
investor confidence, leading to an examination in several countries of the effectiveness of corporate 
governance policies.  
113. Corporate governance and financial reporting re quirements of companies in New Zealand is 
based mainly on the Financial Reporting Act 1993 and the Companies Act 1993;  companies listing on the New Zealand stock exchange must also comply with the stock exchange listing rules.  The Act 
is administered by the Registrar of Companies.   The Accounting Standards Review Board (ASRB), 
established under the Act, reviews and approves financ ial reporting standards.  As from 1 July 2007, 
Crown entities (section (4)(iii)) fully adopted the New Zealand equivalents to International Financial New Zealand WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 
 Page 67 
 
 
Reporting Standards (NZ IFRS).93  All companies (reporting entities), other than those that are 
exempt, are required to report their financial stat ements on an annual basis.  Reporting requirements 
differ slightly depending on the type of entity.  In gene ral, if a reporting entity is an issuer of stock or 
if it has one or more subsidiaries, its financial stat ements must be audited.  Registration of financial 
statements are required of companies if they are:  issuers of public securities;  overseas companies;  
subsidiaries of companies incorporated outside New Z ealand;  or companies in which 25% or more of 
the voting power is controlled by a company inco rporated outside New Zealand or by a person 
resident overseas.  The Act also stipulates the maximum level of fines that may be imposed on directors if they fail to comply with these requirements.  
114. Companies that are exempt from filing their financial statements with the Registrar of 
Companies are defined as "exempt companies".  These include companies in the lowest financial reporting tier and companies that have been grante d exempt status through the nature of their 
business.  An exempt company, is a company that is not an overseas company or an issuer, and does 
not form part of a group of companies.  To re duce business compliance costs, as of 2006 the exempt 
companies system, which allows certain small to  medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to produce 
financial statements in a simple fo rmat (reporting "core financial details")
94, was extended from the 
criteria of annual turnover of less than NZ$1 milli on and total assets of less than NZ$450,000, to a 
"two-out-of-three" test of:  less than NZ$2 million turnover, less than NZ$1 million in assets, and/or five or fewer full time equivalent employees.
95  In 2005, changes were made to remove reporting 
requirements for New Zealand-incorporated compani es with 25% or more overseas ownership;  the 
Registrar of Companies has exemption powers a nd overseas-incorporated companies may apply for 
these exemptions.  A review of the financial repor ting requirements is looking at the implementation 
of New Zealand's version of th e International Financial Reporti ng Standards (NZ IFRS):  it is 
concerned with establishing which entities should be reporting and to what level.96  As of February 
2006, over 85% of New Zealand companies were micr o businesses employing five or fewer staff;  a 
significant proportion of these companies would fall under the exempt companies regime.97  
115. The New Zealand Securities Commission regulates New Zealand's capital markets and 
requires entities issuing stock to provide investment st atements to subscribers before issuing securities 
to them.  For companies listed on the New Zeala nd Stock Exchange (NZSE), listing requirements are 
monitored by the New Zealand Exchange Limite d (NZX) with oversight by the Securities 
Commission.  The Securities Comm ission enforces securities law and monitors financial reports by 
issuers.  By August 2008, all New Zealand Exchange  listed issuers, other than some dual or overseas 
listed entities, had been reviewed at least once.98  The Commission considers that the general quality 
of financial reporting in New Zealand is good. 
                                                      
93 State Services Commission (2008). 
94 In particular, while reporting entities must prep are their financial reports in accordance with 
generally accepted accounting practices, exempt companie s must prepare financial reports in accordance with 
accounting policies identif ied in the Financial Reporting Obligations. 
95 MED Media Release, Financial Reporting Act Changes will Reduce Business Compliance Costs – 
22 December 2005 .  Viewed at:  http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/Page____15003.aspx [8 August 2008]. 
96 MED Media Release, Financial Reporting Requirement Decision Announced – 8 August 2005.   
Viewed at:  http://www.med.govt.nz/templa tes/Page____13780.aspx [8 August 2008]. 
97 MED Discussion Document, Financial Reporting for Small Companies (the Exempt Company 
Regime) Introduction, last updated 15 November 2005.  Viewed at:  http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/ 
MultipageDocumentPage____4310.aspx [8 August 2008]. 
98 Securities Commission News Release, Cycle 7 of Financial Reporting Surveillance Programme , 
6 August 2008.  Viewed at:  http://www.seccom.govt .nz/new/releases/2008/06080 8.shtml [8 August 2008]. WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 68 
 
 
116. According to a report based on surveys of ove r 125 senior executives of leading companies 
and organizations, by 2006 one third of compan ies had "early adopted" the new IFRS regime99;  the 
activity of audit committees was c onsidered successful.  Owing to the high degree of trans-Tasman 
economic integration New Zealand and Australia ha ve been seeking to align regulatory frameworks, 
to the extent possible, in order to reduce tran saction costs for business.  The idea of setting up a 
regulatory body for overlooking financial stat ements received guarded support.  Auditor 
independence policies are now an entrenched  part of doing business in New Zealand.    
(vi) Intellectual property rights 
117. New Zealand is a contracting party in nine WIPO  treaties;  it has enforced seven of them and 
remains a signatory to the remaining two.  A deci sion has been taken to ratify the Singapore Treaty  
on the Law of Trademarks, the Protocol Rela ting to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the 
International Registration of Marks, and th e Nice Agreement Concerning the International 
Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of  the Registration of Marks.  Ratifications will 
take place following enactment of the Trade Ma rks (International Treaties and Enforcement) 
Amendment Bill, currently before Parliament, mo st likely in early 2010.  Once the Patents Bill 
currently before Parliament has b een passed, New Zealand will be able  to ratify the Budapest Treaty. 
Although New Zealand has not ratified the Nairobi Treaty on the Protection of the Olympic Symbol, the Olympic symbol is protected in New Zealand le gislation (currently the Major Events Management 
Act 2007).  As a WTO Member, New Zealand is oblig ed to have implemented the TRIPS Agreement 
within one year of the entry into force of the WTO.  The New Zealand Agency for International 
Development (NZAID), Ministry for Economic De velopment (MED) and the Intellectual Property 
Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) provide technical assistance activities relevant to the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement to developing and least developed countries in the Asia-Pacific region. 
(a) Industrial property  
Patents 
118. During the period under review, no changes were ma de to New Zealand's patent legislation.  
Protection of patents is based on the Patents Ac t 1953, last amended in 1999.  A Patents Bill was 
introduced to Parliament on 9 July 2008, to replace the 1953 Act.
100  Its purpose is to update 
New Zealand's patent regime to ensure an appropr iate balance between providing adequate incentives 
for innovation and technology transfer and safeguard ing the interests of the New Zealand public.  The 
Bill will provide for stricter criteria for granting a patent, including the introduction of an absolute 
novelty standard, and the requirements that all appli cations be examined for "obviousness" and utility.  
New measures will assist in protecting the interest s of Maori in their traditional knowledge and 
indigenous plants and animals.  The Bill will al so reform the regulatory regime for the Patent 
Attorney profession.  The Bill has yet to have a firs t reading in Parliament;  it is expected to be 
referred to a Select Committee during 2009, which will consider public submissi ons on the Bill.  The 
Bill is unlikely to be passed in to law before early 2010.  
119. The term of protection for patents is 20 years from the date of filing, thus meeting the 
minimum requirements of the TRIPS Agreement.  Patents of addition, which are granted for 
improvements in the original invention may also be granted, but not for longer than the term granted 
for the original patent.  Both product and process pate nts may be granted.  Patents may be filed by any 
                                                      
99 PricewaterhouseCoopers New Zealand (2006). 
100 Intellectual Property Office New Zealan d Newsletter, August 2008.  Viewed at: 
http://news.business.govt.nz/news/previous/business/ iponz/month,8/year,2008/?COMPANIESOFFICE=8ae1b1
a15232f19eae3729327eba40dd  [13 August 2008]. New Zealand WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 
 Page 69 
 
 
person claiming to be the inventor or by a pate nt holder in a convention country;  a convention 
country is defined as a party to any international agre ement to which New Zealand is also a party, thus 
extending this right to all Members of the WTO.    
120. New Zealand also grants two forms of endorsement of patents.101  The first is voluntary and 
allows the patent holder to apply for a "licence of righ t" at any time after the patent has been granted.  
The second is compulsory:  any person interested in working a patent may, three years after the grant 
of the patent or four years after the date of filing, whichever is later, apply to the Court for a licence.  
Compulsory licences granted under this provision ar e not necessarily exclusive, may not be assigned 
to persons other than the business in which the li cence holder is involved and are limited to supply 
mainly the New Zealand market  No compulsory licences or patent endorsed "licences of right" have 
been granted under these provisions during the review period.  
121. Patent applications are filed with the Intell ectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ), 
based in the Ministry of Economic Development.   The Office, through the Commissioner, grants 
patents, and registers trade marks and designs.  Curre ntly, all patent applications are examined within 
a week of being filed (for Patent Cooperati on Treaty national phase applications as soon as the 
required documentation is received).102  According to the authorities, the examination process under 
the Patents Act 1953 is less strict than in most ot her countries.  Patent applications in New Zealand 
are examined for subject matter, novelty, and sufficiency of description, but not "obviousness" or utility.  Novelty is determined using a "local novelt y" standard.  The total number of patents granted 
annually and those in force has been declining steadily since 2003.  
Trade marks 
122. New Zealand's protection for trade marks is based on the Trade Marks Act 2002, which 
entered into force in 2003.  The Act has been amended several times, including twice during the 
period under review (2003, 2005);  its 2003 Regu lations were amended in 2006.  The Act was 
amended to clarify several minor technical drafting issues and to introduce the principal of international exhaustion of trade marks rights;  th e Regulations were amended in 2006 to provide for 
use of the ninth edition of the Nice Classification.   In December 2006, the Government agreed to 
amendments to the Trade Marks  and Copyright Acts that would enable the Ministry of Economic 
Development to investigate and prosecute criminal  offences for counterfeiting registered trade marks 
and copyright piracy.  In 2007, the Government also  agreed to amendments to the Trade Marks and 
Copyright Acts to facilitate the New Zealand Cust oms Service to make discretionary prosecutions 
against importers of c ounterfeit and pirated goods.
103  The New Zealand Customs Service is to be 
given specific powers to seize counterfeit and pira ted goods under their control.  These amendments 
are contained in the Trade Marks (Internationa l Treaties and Enforcement) Bill introduced to 
Parliament on 8 September 2008.  
123. Trade marks are granted for ten years, renewabl e indefinitely for periods of ten years.  
Applications may be made to the Commissione r of Trade Marks based in the IPONZ.  A 
Non-Compliance Report or Notice of Acceptance is sent  to the applicant, usua lly within five working 
                                                      
101 See WTO (2003) for more information about New Zealand's patents system. 
102 See also WTO (2003). 
103 Ministry of Economic Development online information, Targets Counterfeit and Pirated Goods - 
Minister of Customs and Associate Mi nister of Commerce Media Statement , 27 December 2007.  Viewed at:  
http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumen tTOC____32536.aspx [13 August 2008];  and Managing 
Intellectual Property Weekly News,  "New Zealand set to Reform Tr ade Marks Act", 7 December 2007.  
Viewed  at:  http://www.managingip.com/Article/1778 223/New-Zealand-set-to-refor m-Trade-Marks-Act.html 
[13 August 2008]. WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 70 
 
 
days of receipt.  This is followed by a Notice of  Acceptance if the trade mark is accepted, and the 
trade mark is advertised in the Intellectual Property Office Journal .  If there is no notice of opposition 
lodged with IPONZ to the registration of the trade mark, a Certification of Registration is issued 
within three months of advertisement of the acceptance of the trade marks. 
Geographical indications 
124. At present geographical indications (GIs) are pr otected under consumer protection legislation 
(the Fair Trading Act 1986) and the common law tort of "passing off".104  The Geographical 
Indications Act 1994 was repealed on 14 April 2008;  the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) 
Registration Act 2006, which is intended to replace the Geographical Indications Act 1994, is not yet 
in force.105  The 2006 Act will allow for the registration of wine and spirit geographical indications 
and will, once in force, complement the existing level of GI protection in New Zealand for these 
products.  No specific date has been identified to bring the Act into force, as implementation issues 
are still being addressed.  The GIs Register to be est ablished under the Act will be maintained by the 
IPONZ and will be viewable to the public.  Appli cations will be considered by the Registrar of 
Registered Geographical Indications.  Details of the registration process, including opposition 
procedures, will be prescribed by regulation.  If the Re gistrar deems fit, s/he will be able to establish a 
geographical indications committee consisting of a member of the New Zeal and Geographic Board, 
the Surveyor-General, and representatives of the relevant  industry, in relation to an application for the 
registration, alteration or remova l of a geographical indication.  Registration will be voluntary as 
existing mechanisms will remain in place for producer s who do not see the need to seek registration.  
Existing mechanisms also remain in place for products other than wines and spirits. 
Plant variety protection 
125. The protection of plant varieties is provided through the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987.  A 
plant variety right gives its holder the exclusive ri ght to produce and sell propagating material of that 
particular plant variety.  In addition, for vegeta tively propagated fruit and ornamental and vegetable 
varieties, the owner has the right to propagate the protected variety for commercial production.  
Protection is granted for 20 years from the date of grant of the plant variety right (23 in the case of 
woody plants).  Applications may be made to the Plant Variety Rights Office in the Ministry of Economic Development.  Eligibility of a new variety for the grant of a plant variety right is assessed 
by growing trials, which may take several years.  In some cases, the results of growing trials 
conducted overseas may be accepted by the Plant Va riety Rights Office.  A review of the Plant 
Variety Rights Act was completed in 2003 and a draft Plant Variety Rights Amendment Bill was 
prepared for public consultation in 2005.
106  Introduction of the Bill has been deferred until the 
Waitangi Tribunal has completed its report on th e "WAI 262" Treaty of Waitangi Claim, which  
                                                      
104 The action of "passing off" is the basis of prot ection against dishonest business practices and can be 
used in cases where the goods or services of one person are represented as being those of another person.  In the 
past, French wine interests used the action of "passing  off" to prevent non-French-winemakers from labelling 
their sparkling wine "Champagne" (Ministry of Economic Development online information, Information Sheet: 
Protection for Geographical Indications in New Zealand , last updated 27 March 2008.  Viewed at:  
http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/Page____1 203.aspx#P46_9355 [3 September 2008]). 
105 The Geographical Indications Act 1994, which was amended in 1996 to provide for a registration 
system for local and foreign geographical indications, was not brought into force and was repealed in 2008 
(Ministry of Economic Development online information, Information Sheet: Protection for Geographical 
Indications in New Zealand , last updated 27 March 2008.  Viewed  at:  http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/ 
Page____1203.aspx#P46_9355 [3 September 2008]). 
106 Ministry of Economic Development online information, Review of the Plant Variety Rights Act  
1987 . Viewed at: http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/ContentTopicSummary____1734.aspx [3 September 
2008]. New Zealand WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 
 Page 71 
 
 
relates to the rights of Maori over indigenous flora a nd fauna.  The date of comp letion of this report is 
not known.  The Bill, when passed, will provide for enhanced rights for plant variety rights owners, 
comparable with those provided under the 1991 revision of the UPOV Convention.  The current Plant Variety Rights Act 1987 provides only the rights provided for in the 1978 revision of the UPOV 
Convention. 
Industrial designs 
126. New Zealand provides protection for industrial designs under the Designs Act 1953, as 
amended in 1996 and 1999.  Under the Act, new and original designs may be registered with the 
Commissioner at IPONZ for five years, extendable for tw o further periods of five years, i.e. a total of 
fifteen years.  Compulsory licences fo r use of the design may be issued at any time after registration if 
an application is made on the grounds that the d esign is not applied in New Zealand.  Where the 
design has not been registered, under the Copyright Act 1994, the copyright in an industrially applied 
design will apply for 16 years, and for 25 years in works of artistic craftsmanship.
107  For a registered 
design, copyright will apply only for the period of the design registration.108  The authorities may also 
use the design either free of any royalty payments or upon agreed terms with the design holder.   
(b) Copyright and related rights 
127. The Copyright Act, 1994 is the principle legislation governing copyright protection for:  
original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works;   sound recordings;  films;  broadcasts;  cable 
programmes;  and typographical arrangements of published editions.  Its implementing regulations 
were amended in 2003 and 2007;  the Act itself was amended in 2008.  The 2008  amendments were to 
ensure that copyright law was up to date with di gital technology and that it:  creates a technology-
neutral right of communication to the public;  clarif ies the liability of Internet service providers (ISPs) 
when it comes to copyright infringement;  updates the existing permitted acts for fair dealing as well 
as educational establishments, libraries, and arch ives;  provides a format-shifting exception for 
copying sound recordings for personal use or the personal use of the household provided certain 
conditions are met;  and gives more comprehe nsive protection to technological protection 
mechanisms (TPMs).   
128. Copyright protection is granted for the author's  lifetime plus 50 years from the calendar year 
in which the author died, for literary, dramatic, musi cal, and artistic works;  and for 50 years from the 
calendar year in which they were made, for sound recordings and films.  For broadcasts and cable 
programmes, protection is for 50 years from the calendar year in which they were first made or 
included in the cable programme service.  
129. Under the Copyright (Removal of Prohibition on Parallel Importing) Amendment Act 1998, 
the Government removed the prohibition in the Copyright Act 1994 on parallel imports of goods 
subject to copyright protection.  The conclusion of a Government review of the parallel importing 
policy in 2007 was to maintain the status quo – th at New Zealand would continue its liberal policy on 
parallel importation for all goods with the exception of  films.  Consequently, there is a nine-month 
ban on the parallel importation of films from their inte rnational release date if their intended use is for 
commercial purposes.  This policy will be reviewed w ithin five years as part of a wider review of the 
Copyright Act 1994. 
                                                      
107 Section 75 of the Copyright Act 1994, which provides that a work has been industrially applied 
where more than 50 copies of the work have been made in three dimensions for the purpose of sale or hire. 
108 Section 74 of the Copyright Act 1994. WT/TPR/S/216/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 72 
 
 
130. By 2003, the Government intended to introduce le gislation to strengthen the onus of proof in 
civil copyright infringement cases, making it easier fo r rights holders to take action against copyright 
infringements in relation to certain imported copyrigh t works.  No progress has been made since then. 
(c) Enforcement measures 
131. Any allegations of infringements of intellectual property rights may be dealt with through the 
civil courts.109  Statutory remedies for infringement include  injunctions, award of damages or account 
of profits, and other remedies are provided under sp ecific intellectual property rights legislation.  
132. Criminal proceedings may also be initiate d by the New Zealand Police for copyright 
infringements in the course of business (sections 131 to 133 of the Copyright Act 1994) and 
counterfeiting registered trade marks (sections 120 to 124 of the Trade Marks Act 2002).  Penalties 
include imprisonment, monetary fines, and seizure, forfeiture, and destruction of infringing goods and 
materials used to produce them.  For criminal cases of copyright infringement or counterfeiting a 
registered trade mark, the court may impose imprisonment for up to five years;  where a corporation is involved, every director and manager will be found guilty of the offence.  Other penalties include 
fines of up to NZ$50,000.  As noted above, the Trad e Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) 
Amendment Bill will amend the Copyright and Trade Marks Acts to facilitate the Ministry of 
Economic Development and the New Zealand Customs Service in investigation and prosecution of 
criminal offences for trade-mark counterfeiting and copyright piracy.  
133. For infringing trade-mark goods or copyright material, additional powers are granted to the 
New Zealand Customs Service, which can suspend the release into circulation of these imports if the 
right holder has lodged a border protection notice with the Service.  The goods may be detained by 
Customs for ten working days, extendable to 20 da ys.  Since 2003, the New Zealand Customs Service 
has accepted notices from 89 companies and conducted 3,274 investigations.  Further action may be 
taken by Customs in accordance with the decision taken by the Court. 
 
                                                     
 
109 Including high courts, and the Court of Appeal.  The final appellate tribunal is the Supreme Court.