Groser Tim: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
Groser Tim: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17367] 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 Essentially we are dealing with the same underlying issue. This part is enabling legislation to make changes to the Electricity Act 1992 in order to allow the concept that we have been discussing under Part 3 and Part 4 the mutual recognition agreement to take place. So let us quickly rehearse the key point here. This is not about adopting China’s standards; this is based on New Zealand standards. But we are relying in this particular defined area on conformity assessments that the New Zealand standards in respect of imports from China have met the requirements of our own Electricity Act—and vice versa in respect of Chinese standards which are often based on similar international standards. Therefore it is taken as read that our exports are consistent with Chinese standards before they leave the shores. 
That has a number of advantages for our exporters and we heard two excellent examples of that from my colleague Mr Tremain. I am familiar with both of those companies. They are the sorts of knowledge-type companies that this country so desperately needs. Of course we would like to see some of them step up in terms of scale. Frankly in order to transform our country we need to have only about 20 Fisher and Paykel Healthcares if you will—I could use another example—to utterly transform this country and get it back into the top league of developed countries. That will be done by small steps including through this very important agreement to provide the best possible framework for the future export growth of those companies which are based on the creativity of New Zealanders that all of us in this Chamber know exists up and down the country. 
The second point I would like to make is that Part 5 is not just about the New Zealand regulations; it is also about reciprocity—the export of New Zealand. If we look at clause 28(2) and (3) we see specific reference to exports from New Zealand “pursuant to the Conformity Cooperation Agreement”. Clause 28(2)(b) adds some definition to that as does clause 28(3). So we are talking about a reciprocal agreement of mutual benefit to both parties to the free-trade agreement. 
China now seems to have acquired the title “the workshop of the world”. It is an intriguing title when one reflects on the fact that a little more than 200 years ago that title was given to the first country ever to make the transition from an agrarian to an industrial base the United Kingdom—the workshop of the world it was then known as. Now we have a new and giant contender. We will be relying on Chinese electronic goods for many purposes in our own country over the next 25 years as a simple reflection of that fact. 
I do hope that this agreement provides New Zealand consumers not only with greater assurances but with the right sort of framework to see cooperation of an overtly commercial nature develop of the type Mr Tremain was indicating in respect of voltage regulators. The voltage regulators used in semiconductor factories are the most sophisticated types of regulators that exist in the world given the fact that each semiconductor factory requires investment these days of between US$4 billion and US$6 billion. So voltage change is a fundamental issue for those companies and it is great to see a New Zealand company has stepped up to the mark and is working with a giant electronic industry in East Asia and particularly in China. I have no doubt that this agreement will help companies of that type. 
I will make just a few observations about the underlying concept of mutual recognition because I think it is a difficult concept to grasp. It is really an alternative to business harmonisation policy in trade agreements. Once we have dealt with the first-tier issues of overt frontier protection then we try to work out how to reduce barriers to trade by measures behind the frontier. This concept is of that type.