See
also:
> Press
release:
Success in weathering external shocks helped by radical reforms
|
We have had a very productive discussion of the trade policies and
practices of New Zealand. We owe this to the full and forthright
engagement of the New Zealand delegation, led by Ambassador Groser, to
our discussant, Ambassador Ahmad, and to the Members' lively interest
in New Zealand's policies.
Members have
been impressed by New Zealand's strong economic performance following
wide ranging macroeconomic and structural reforms initiated in the
mid-1980's. The reform programme has made New Zealand one of the most
open economies in the world and has contributed to stable
macroeconomic performance in the face of adverse external and climatic
circumstances.
New Zealand's
liberal stance is reflected in the WTO where it has been at the
forefront of the efforts to reduce trade barriers to agricultural and
non-agricultural products. In particular, in July 2001, New Zealand
became one of the first countries to grant duty-free access to all
products from least developed countries. New Zealand was also active
in pursuing trade liberalization through regional and bilateral
agreements. In this context, in addition to its long standing
relationship with Australia under the Australia New Zealand Closer
Economic Relations Agreement (ANZCERTA), bilateral agreements have
been negotiated with Singapore and a “Pacific three” agreement is
being negotiated with Singapore and Chile.
New Zealand's
economic achievements were praised and it was noted that the
Government was targeting higher economic growth in order to raise per
capita GDP. In order to achieve this goal, the Government had
introduced a “proactive” policy targeting certain high technology
sectors, including biotechnology, information and communication
technologies and creative industries. A decision had also been taken
to halt any further privatization; in this connection, Members noted
that some previously privatized companies had recently been
re-nationalized. In order to attract foreign direct investment, the
Government has also made changes to its policies on foreign investment
albeit maintaining a few restrictions, largely on land, considered to
be in the “national interest”. Members noted
that as a result of aggressive liberalization, New Zealand had removed
import licensing and its tariff had declined to an average of 4.1% in
2002. Concern was expressed, however, over the tariff freeze. Several
Members also raised questions about tariff peaks and escalation,
especially in sectors such as textiles and clothing that were
important to developing countries; however, such peaks are relatively
low by international standards. These sectors were also excluded under
New Zealand's GSP programme for developing countries. The use of
“alternative specific” tariffs, moreover, rendered the tariff opaque
and it was suggested that these mixed rates be replaced with ad
valorem tariffs. Some Members had questions on New Zealand's
intellectual property rights legislation and its intention to join
recent international intellectual property rights agreements. On sectoral
issues, while noting that barriers to New Zealand's agricultural
exports had been a major impediment to more rapid trade and economic
growth, Members had queries regarding New Zealand's export policies
and its heavy reliance on agriculture; they also expressed the view
that SPS measures were perhaps more stringent than necessary,
resulting in an effective ban on imports of some products. With regard
to manufacturing, questions were raised on how exactly New Zealand
planned to implement its “proactive” policies in the targeted sectors. Members also
sought clarification on several more specific issues including:
-
the role of
the Investment Promotion Agency in attracting foreign investment and
FDI policies and procedures;
-
participation
in regional and bilateral trade liberalization agreements;
-
import and
export prohibitions;
-
contingency
measures;
-
subsidies;
-
standards and
conformity assessment;
-
genetically
modified organisms and labelling requirements;
-
government
procurement procedures and accession to the WTO Agreement on
Government Procurement;
-
local content
requirements;
-
export
promotion and finance;
-
intellectual
property rights including legislation on patents, copyright,
trademarks, geographical indications and protection of undisclosed
information; parallel imports and enforcement;
-
fisheries
quota allocation;
-
services;
subsidies for services.
Members
expressed their appreciation for the oral and written responses
provided by the delegation of New Zealand and look forward to
responses to outstanding questions.
In
conclusion, it is my strong sense that we all highly appreciate New
Zealand's liberal stance and active participation in moving the WTO's
trade liberalization agenda forward. New Zealand provides a vivid
example of the benefits of unilateral market-oriented reform. However,
it is also clear from the New Zealand case that the full benefits of
reform require a long period of adjustment, the support of the
multilateral system — particularly through liberal market access — and
a sustained effort. It is in this context that I hope that the DDA
will bear fruit and that New Zealand will take the concerns of Members
into account in its participation in the negotiations, especially with
regard to tariff peaks, largely affecting textiles and clothing, and
SPS measures.
|
|
