New Zealand reaches deal with Canada in long-running dairy trade dispute
A dispute panel found in New Zealand's favour; however, Canada failed to fully comply with the panel's ruling. New Zealand threatened further action last year, including the imposition of retaliatory tariffs against Canadian exporters.
'The Government is pleased that this dispute has now been settled, and New Zealand exporters are guaranteed better access to the Canadian market,' McClay said.
Under the agreement, Canada has committed to changing the way it administers its dairy quotas under CPTPP, including faster and more efficient access to quotas for New Zealand exporters, reallocation of underused quotas, and penalties for importers who misuse quotas.
'The CPTPP is a world-leading agreement that unlocks significant opportunities for all parties, but its obligations must be upheld. Today's agreement reinforces support for the rules-based trading system,' McClay said.
He added that Canada was a long-standing friend and trading partner of this country and 'constructive engagement' had brought about a resolution.
Last year, Act Party trade spokeswoman Dr Parmjeet Parmar called the dispute a 'betrayal of our friendship'.
She said if Canada could not comply with the CPTPP, it should be 'booted out of the deal'.
ExportNZ has welcomed the deal, saying it will unlock higher export value for Kiwi business.
Executive director Josh Tan said the outcome was a win for New Zealand dairy exporters, and a win for the rules-based trading system.
'It's essential that our trade agreements function as they were agreed to – particularly in the current global trade context. Likewise, our trade partners should ensure they are playing by the rules.'
Canada was a valuable trading partner for New Zealand, Tan said.
-RNZ
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
43 minutes ago
- Scoop
Inflation Hurts. When Will It End?
Kiwi inflation lifted to 2.7%yoy from 2.5%yoy over the June quarter. But context is key. A reacceleration in imported inflation is driving the move higher. It was food and electricity that continues to bite at our back pockets. Domestic price pressures are cooling. This is the first test for an August cash rate cut. Inflation will likely push further from here. But more important to policy is underlying inflation, which remains within the RBNZ's target band. Spare capacity within the Kiwi economy is keeping downward pressure on domestically generated inflation. Downside risks to medium-term inflation remain. Whether that's a consequence of a slowdown in global economic growth, or a diversion of trade marked at a discount. There is still a case for more accommodative interest rate settings. Kiwi inflation accelerated over the June quarter. Annual headline rose to 2.7% from 2.5%. It's a move in the wrong direction. But context is key. A strengthening in imported inflation is driving headline higher. But domestic price pressures, on balance, continue to cool. And most importantly, the underlying trend in consumer prices is weak. Excluding the volatile movements in food and fuel, annual core inflation lifted to 2.7% from 2.6%. A move that was better than many had feared, and one that will improve into next year. For now, there's little risk this bout of high inflation will persist. Especially given that there's still significant spare capacity in the Kiwi economy. Today's report showed that price increases are becoming less extreme. The proportion of goods and services that increased in price was little changed at 54%. However, the June quarter saw a greater share of the basket record a decline in price, from 30% (185 items) to 35% (210 items). A larger proportion of items either remained flat or increased in price by less than 3 percent in the 12 months to June 2025. The rapid deceleration in imported inflation, which helped to pull down headline, is reversing course. We're no longer importing deflation. Annual tradables inflation lifted from 0.3% to 1.2%. The 4.2% increase in food prices accounted for 28.5% of the lift in headline inflation. Domestic inflation, in contrast, continues its (slow) move south. Annual non-tradables inflation pierced below 4% for the first time in four years to 3.7%. Domestic inflation has fallen some way from its 6.8% peak in 2023, but it is still sitting high above the long-term average (~3%). And that's despite such a weak domestic economy. Such persistence is due to the lingering strength in administered prices. Council rates and insurance costs are running well above historic averages, up 12.2%yoy and 6%yoy, respectively. And households are now contending with high electricity charges, climbing to 9.1%yoy. If we exclude housing-related inflation, domestic inflation prints at 3.5% - the lowest since December 2021. Given excess capacity still sloshing in the economy, domestic inflation should continue to head lower. But the pace of easing is being dictated by factors largely outside of the RBNZ's control. That's a frustration. Inflation will likely push higher in the coming quarter. But like any spike, it will come back down. The economic undercurrents are weak. For monetary policy, the underlying trend in inflation is what matters most. Monetary policy settings today, are set for an economy 12-to-24 months down the track. It takes a long time for movements in the cash rate, and other lending rates, to influence the economy. So, a knee-jerk reaction to a couple of internationally charged price shocks is not on the cards. The RBNZ's job is to look through volatile movements, and set policy for late next year. And in late 2026, inflation is set to slow below the mid-point of the target band (2%). It's why we focus more on core. Core measures of inflation strip out the volatile price movements. Encouragingly, core inflation has been trending south since hitting the 6.7% peak at the end of 2022. At 2.7% (in the year to June 2025), core inflation remains within the RBNZ's target band. Our forecast stirps out the spikes and looks at slack in the economy. And there's a lot of slack, especially in the labour market. Our best guess, incorporating the damage inflicted through the recession we're still crawling out of, has inflation falling to 1.8% next year. If realised, the RBNZ continues to overcook. And we continue to advocate a stimulatory setting of 2.5%.
RNZ News
43 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Why has a bill to relax foreign investment rules had so little scrutiny?
By Jane Kelsey* of Photo: RNZ Analysis : While public attention has been focused on the domestic fast-track consenting process for infrastructure and mining, Associate Minister of Finance David Seymour has been pushing through another fast-track process - this time for foreign investment in New Zealand. But it has had almost no public scrutiny. If the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill becomes law, it could have far-reaching consequences. Public submissions on the bill close on 23 July. A product of the ACT-National coalition agreement , the bill commits to amend the Overseas Investment Act 2005 "to limit ministerial decision making to national security concerns and make such decision making more timely". There are valid concerns that piecemeal reforms to the current act have made it complex and unwieldy. But the new bill is equally convoluted and would significantly reduce effective scrutiny of foreign investments - especially in forestry. Step one of a three-step process set out in the bill gives the regulator - the Overseas Investment Office which sits within Land Information NZ - 15 days to decide whether a proposed investment would be a risk to New Zealand's "national interest". If they don't perceive a risk, or that initial assessment is not completed in time, the application is automatically approved. Transactions involving fisheries quotas and various land categories, or any other applications the regulator identifies, will require a "national interest" assessment under stage two. These would be assessed against a "ministerial letter" that sets out the government's general policy and preferred approach to conducting the assessment, including any conditions on approvals. Other mandatory factors to be considered in the second stage include the act's new "purpose" to increase economic opportunity through "timely consent" of less sensitive investments. The new test would allow scrutiny of the character and capability of the investor to be omitted altogether. If the regulator considers the national interest test is not met, or the transaction is "contrary to the national interest", the minister of finance then makes a decision based on their assessment of those factors. Seymour has blamed the current screening regime for low volumes of foreign investment. But Treasury's 2024 regulatory impact statement on the proposed changes to international investment screening acknowledges many other factors that influence investor decisions. Moreover, the Treasury statement acknowledges public views that foreign investment rules should "manage a wide range of risks" and "that there is inherent non-economic value in retaining domestic ownership of certain assets". Treasury officials also recognised a range of other public concerns, including profits going offshore, loss of jobs, and foreign control of iconic businesses. The regulatory impact statement did not cover these factors because it was required to consider only the coalition commitment. The Treasury panel reported "notable limitations" on the bill's quality assurance process. A fuller review was "infeasible" because it could not be completed in the time required, and would be broader than necessary to meet the coalition commitment to amend the act in the prescribed way. The requirement to implement the bill in this parliamentary term meant the options officials could consider, even within the scope of the coalition agreement, were further limited. Time constraints meant "users and key stakeholders have not been consulted", according to the Treasury statement. Environmental and other risks would have to be managed through other regulations. There is no reference to te Tiriti o Waitangi or mana whenua engagement. While the bill largely retains a version of the current screening regime for residential and farm land, it removes existing forestry activities from that definition (but not new forestry on non-forest land). It also removes extraction of water for bottling, or other bulk extraction for human consumption, from special vetting. Where sensitive land (such as islands, coastal areas, conservation and wahi tapu land) is not residential or farm land, it would be removed from special screening rules currently applied for land. Repeal of the " special forestry test " - which in practice has seen most applications approved , albeit with conditions - means most forestry investments could be fast-tracked. There would no longer be a need to consider investors' track records or apply a "benefit to New Zealand" test. Regulators may or may not be empowered to impose conditions such as replanting or cleaning up slash. The official documents don't explain the rationale for this. But it looks like a win for Regional Development Minister Shane Jones, and was perhaps the price of NZ First's support. It has potentially serious implications for forestry communities affected by climate-related disasters , however. Further weakening scrutiny and investment conditions risks intensifying the already devastating impacts of international forestry companies. Taxpayers and ratepayers pick up the costs while the companies can minimise their taxes and send profits offshore. Finally, these changes could be locked in through New Zealand's free trade agreements. Several such agreements say New Zealand's investment regime cannot become more restrictive than the 2005 act and its regulations. A " ratchet clause " would lock in any further liberalisation through this bill, from which there is no going back. However, another annex in those free trade agreements could be interpreted as allowing some flexibility to alter the screening rules and criteria in the future. None of the official documents address this crucial question. As an academic expert in this area I am uncertain about the risk. But the lack of clarity underlines the problems exemplified in this bill. It is another example of coalition agreements bypassing democratic scrutiny and informed decision making. More public debate and broad analysis is needed on the bill and its implications. *Jane Kelsey, Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau This story was originally published on The Conversation.
1News
an hour ago
- 1News
'Devastated' Sounds Air to axe two routes, sell some aircraft
Regional airline Sounds Air will sell five aircraft and cut two routes from September, blaming rising costs and a "deadlock" over provincial air services. The carrier confirmed it would axe its Blenheim to Christchurch and Christchurch to Wānaka services from September 28, reverting to what it calls a "back to the future" model squarely focused on Cook Strait crossings. The airline will expand its Cessna Caravan fleet for shorter sectors while seeking buyers for five larger Pilatus aircraft, in order to help "rebuild the viability of the business". Sounds Air managing director Andrew Crawford said the airline's hand had been forced. "We are truly devastated that we have been forced into this position after five years of fighting for a solution," he said in a statement. ADVERTISEMENT "It will mean the loss of a number our dedicated and skilled staff, but we are also hugely disappointed for our incredibly loyal customer base who rely on us to get around New Zealand - not only for tourism and leisure purposes but also for regional access to critical healthcare, higher education, and to do business that contributes to regional economies." The Government is hoping to boost tourism with more money for international marketing. (Source: Breakfast) Sounds Air and other carriers, including Air Chathams, wanted the Government to step in and called for a concessionary loan scheme, 1News reported last month. The firm had already withdrawn Wellington to Taupō and Wellington to Westport routes in December. Crawford said the company had been fighting rising costs that threatened regional aviation, and that it faced a "deadlock" between government and private capital markets. "We are not alone in this, Air New Zealand and other regional carriers in New Zealand, and worldwide, have been hit by the same cost increases, and the irony is that our passenger demand has never been stronger," he said in a statement. "Government appears to believe that private capital markets will step in to sort this out, while on the other hand, private capital markets believe that government should step in to level the playing field like they do in other parts of the world, in order to maintain essential regional air services." Sounds Air will continue operating its core Cook Strait routes including Wellington to Blenheim, Wellington to Nelson, Wellington to Picton, Blenheim to Paraparaumu and Nelson to Paraparaumu. ADVERTISEMENT Associate Transport Minister James Meager has been approached for comment.
