New Zealand’s muted approach to China’s human rights record is usually debated as a moral or diplomatic question. It is also a commercial one. When a single market is big enough to punish political speech, the cost of speaking up lands on exporters, and those exporters should know exactly how exposed they are.
Sophie Richardson, co-executive director of Chinese Human Rights Defenders and a former China director at Human Rights Watch who has been sanctioned by Beijing, calls New Zealand’s record “perfunctory”. Her explanation is economic. New Zealand, which sold China $20 billion of goods last year, is “terribly economically exposed”, and she argues that exposure is why successive governments have avoided plain speaking.
She is right about the mechanism. The question for business is what to do with it.
Beijing has already shown the bill
The leverage is not hypothetical. Beijing banned Norwegian salmon for six years after the Nobel Committee, a body Oslo does not control, gave its Peace Prize to jailed dissident Liu Xiaobo in 2010. When Australia called for an independent inquiry into the origins of Covid-19, Australian beef, wine, barley and lobster were hit with restrictions.
New Zealand exporters noticed. In 2023, Reuters reported that China’s share of New Zealand exports had fallen to 29% from 31% in 2022, the first decline since 2015, as firms began spreading their bets after watching Canberra’s experience.
The exposure sits in specific sectors
Aggregate figures understate the risk. In the year to September 2023, China took 27% of New Zealand’s $70.4 billion in goods exports. That sounds manageable. But the same Stats NZ release showed far heavier concentration in key industries: 62% of logs and wood, 37% of meat, 36% of seafood and 32% of dairy went to China.
Those are the sectors that would absorb a Norway-style shock. A forestry exporter with nearly two-thirds of its market in one country has no realistic short-term substitute buyer. Neither, at scale, does a seafood exporter whose product is perishable.
The NZ China Council-commissioned Sense Partners report in 2025 found China had driven over 60% of New Zealand’s goods export growth over the previous decade. It warned that for some products China’s share is now large enough that a disruption would be very hard to absorb.
Concentration is a choice, not a crime
There is a fair counterpoint. NZIER’s China dividend analysis argued exporters have leaned into China because it has often been the most profitable market, and that concentration should not be confused with vulnerability. Chasing the best price is rational business.
The Sense Partners report made the same point from another direction, concluding that individual firms, not government, are best placed to weigh reward against concentration risk. That is the right answer, and it cuts both ways. If firms own the upside, they own the tail risk too. Quiet diplomacy should not become an implicit insurance policy for boards that never priced it.
Restraint has bought time, not safety
New Zealand has not been spared criticism of Beijing altogether. Back in 2021, Victoria University’s Catherine Churchman counted 20 critical multilateral statements on China since May 2020, on Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Taiwan, with little economic punishment compared with Australia, Canada or Norway. A 2023 Political Science paper framed that caution as structural, persisting under both Labour and National-led governments.
The latest example is New Zealand joining nine other countries in a statement after Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong received a further 10-year sentence. Richardson calls that “the kind of response that, frankly, Beijing has come to expect and manage and shrug off”.
The centre-right critique of this posture is not new. In 2021 the Maxim Institute argued “our trading relationship with China makes it costly to engage in honest foreign policy”, and urged government to fast-track trade deals elsewhere. That remains the most constructive response. Every new free trade agreement lowers the price of a frank sentence in Beijing.
What boards should be doing now
The practical exposure runs both ways. On the supply side, the Institute of Directors has urged boards to do genuine due diligence on China-linked supply chains, particularly materials such as solar panels that may be tied to forced labour in Xinjiang, where reputational damage could follow.
On the sales side, the questions are simpler. What share of revenue sits in China? How long could the business survive a six-month ban? Which alternative buyers exist, and at what discount? Those answers belong in the risk register, not in a conversation about foreign policy.
The moral debate over how loudly Wellington should speak will continue. For exporters, it has already been settled in a narrower way. Moral clarity and risk management are now the same exercise, and the firms that diversify on their own terms will be the ones that can afford whatever New Zealand eventually decides to say.
Sources
- Newsroom: NZ’s light touch on pulling up China over human rights (2026-11-13)
- RNZ: The Detail – NZ’s light touch on challenging China over human rights (2026-11-14)
- Stats NZ: Fall in exports to China continues in the year ended September 2023 (2023-11-09)
- NZ China Council / Sense Partners: How many eggs, in how many baskets? (2025-09)
- NZIER Insight: The China dividend
- Newsroom: NZ-China relations – What’s in it for Beijing? (2021-07-11)
- Maxim Institute: The implicit trade-offs in our relationship with China (2021-08-18)
- Institute of Directors: Author says sufficient due diligence needed to do business in China
Join the discussion
Add useful context, ask a good question, or challenge an idea — keep it specific and respectful.