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:17362] 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 I will take a brief call on Part 3 “Amendments to Radiocommunications Act 1989”. According to my understanding the purpose of Part 3 is identical in a sense to Part 5 “Amendments to Electricity Act 1992” in that they are the two principal Acts affected by the mutual recognition agreement covering electrical and electronic equipment. I will make brief comments about some aspects of the agreement in relation to Part 3 and when we debate Part 5 I may take another call to look at some other aspects. 
This is a highly technical subject and we should be aware that this debate is linked to deep concern not just in New Zealand but right throughout the world about the relationship between standards and international trade agreements. Some people popularly refer to such agreements—deeply misleadingly so—as a “race to the bottom”. The opponents’ view which is a complete misreading of what this agreement is about is that by entering via the globalisation framework into trade agreements of this type countries like New Zealand or the United States are in some way agreeing to lower their standards to those of other countries—in this case a very large developing country—and that that is “appalling”. That is actually a completely wrong interpretation of what this agreement is about. 
In terms of both the mutual recognition agreement and the broader context of the World Trade Organization and other trade agreements there is nothing to stop New Zealand adopting the standards it wishes to adopt in relation to consumer safety. There is no race to the bottom. There is no reason for New Zealand consumers to be even slightly concerned that this trade agreement will in some way mean a lowering of safety standards on electrical and electronic equipment—far from it. As far as I am aware—obviously I lack technical expertise in this area—we have standards equal to anywhere in the world to protect New Zealanders from poor wiring. We all know we are talking about something that is—potentially—literally lethal. I assume—because I am not aware of a large political debate in this country over this issue—that we have quite adequate safety inspection systems in place. I know that we have issues relating to poor wiring in terms of electrical fires but I am not aware for example of children routinely being electrocuted while opening the fridge which is fundamentally what this issue is about. When we debate Part 5 I will make some other comments about the whole concept of mutual recognition because it is a very interesting feature of the agreement. I have to say I am surprised in the pleasant sense of the word that we have come to an agreement given some of my own experiences in negotiating mutual recognition agreements. It is quite a credit to the negotiators that this agreement is in place. 
The remaining point I want to make relates to the competitive edge that this agreement gives to New Zealand in terms of the recognitions relating to the conformity assessment processes. As I understand the agreement this will be a first for China. Of course in that sense the whole agreement is a first for China—not in terms of all countries but in terms of developed countries. It is not quite correct to say that China has no other free-trade agreements but this is certainly the first in respect of a developed country. The agreement relating to Part 3 “Amendment to Radiocommunications Act 1989” is indeed a path-breaking effort by China in its first attempt to do this with a small but sophisticated country. We should be very pleased that this agreement is being taken forward.