Market accessAPECExport controlsNZ and the WTOOECDTrade AgreementsTrade RelationshipsTrade and economic analysisTrade lawTrade scholarships
Find MFAT's information paper on a country or territory. (We don't have information papers on all countries.)
Although we have tried to use plain English content on the site, you may come across specialist terms and acronyms. Find out what they mean in our glossary of terms.
If you come across a term that isn't included in the Glossary please send us an email.
An area where New Zealand could benefit from a CEP with Hong Kong would be by including provisions in any agreement that focussed on improving the competitive environment for New Zealand and Hong Kong exporters in each other's markets.
There is no single regulatory system or comprehensive competition law in Hong Kong. The absence of anti-trust laws may have led to the domination of some service sectors by major local companies in the form of monopolies. These entities do not necessarily discriminate against the goods or services of any particular foreign players, but they may be able to use their market position to block effective competition. They do not, however, appear to operate in areas in which New Zealand has a direct interest. They are also the focus of a government competition policy that is gradually dismantling some of the monopolies and cartels that have dominated the economy.
Like the Singapore CEP, an agreement with Hong Kong could seek to promote transparency and discipline to the distortions in competition that exist in some of Hong Kong's services sectors, and also provide some clarity into the system of franchises and other restrictions imposed by the Hong Kong Government.
Currently there is no Double Taxation Agreement (DTA) between New Zealand and Hong Kong. Hong Kong does not have any DTAs, apart from one with China. Hong Kong and New Zealand have in the past discussed a possible DTA. However, both sides had felt that given the tax structure in Hong Kong, the fact that Hong Kong taxes only at source, and that New Zealand business had never sought tax relief via a DTA, there was little incentive on either side to negotiate one. The Inland Revenue Department has advised that no New Zealand businesses have identified tax problems in respect of Hong Kong in recent years. This does not mean, however, that problems with taxation might not arise in the future between New Zealand and Hong Kong, in particular if a bilateral CEP establishes an enhanced bilateral trade and economic relationship.
It is standard practice in international, regional or bilateral trade agreements to include provisions to safeguard the ability of each party to the agreement to adopt measures (exceptions) for a limited number of specified purposes without infringing the letter or spirit of the agreement. These for the most part are based on GATT Article XX and include for example measures necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health; to protect public morals; or relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources. Such measures must not constitute arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or be a disguised restriction on trade and investment and the measures must be no more restrictive than necessary to achieve the intended policy objective.
As with the CEP Agreement with Singapore (Article 74) New Zealand would wish to include a provision in any CEP with Hong Kong safeguarding the Government's ability, now and in the future, to adopt measures necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Maori in respect of matters covered by the CEP Agreement
We are interested in receiving comments on the above, in particular information on any taxation issues or competition policy issues that New Zealand exporters, importers or businesses consider might impact negatively on a CEP relationship with Hong Kong.
