Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I wish to make some comments in relation to the report that the Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has just spoken on—that is, report No. 80 on treaties tabled on 28 March and 5 September this year. The report concerns the exchange of letters constituting an agreement between the government of Australia and the government of New Zealand to amend article 3 of the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement—ANZCERTA.

As the member for Swan has just commented, the report deals with the matter of Albright and Wilson, an Australian registered company. Under the heading ‘Impact on Competition’ at 2.40, we deal with the issue of how this agreement impacts on that particular company. It is a $100 million chemical company employing approximately 130 people. Some of the chemicals manufactured and mixed in this area go into detergents.

Under the agreement with New Zealand there are rules of origin. Rules of origin concern where products start off. Part of a product might start somewhere and another bit might start somewhere else and it ends up being manufactured into a product. Licensing rules of origin can be a bit complex from time to time. Under the amended agreement, the Albright and Wilsoncompany, which has a factory at Yarraville and employs 130 people, potentially could lose 65 jobs because of the new rules. The company came before the committee to state their case and fight for some changes. There is $7 million worth of trade for this company in New Zealand, so it is not something to be fobbed off lightly. To reduce trade across the Tasman to this extent, I believe, is just damn foolish. Our trade department should have acted a little more in the interest of our country.

The Australian Food and Grocery Council attended to support the other company. Therefore, they supported the loss of 65 jobs and $7 million worth of trade to New Zealand. I do not think they should have put themselves in that position, but they did. When I asked if there was anything in this for the consumer, I was told that they did not know if it was going to lower prices for the consumer and did not know if there were any benefits in changing these rules of origin to the effect that it was going to cost Australia $7 million in trade figures and 65 jobs. They could not tell me this.

This is a real failure by DFAT. This is a failure of our Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Other arrangements were made in relation to suits, textiles and clothing and, I understand, car components. Maybe those two matters are a little closer to you and your electorate, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Barresi. Maybe those matters would have reflected on your electorate—and not on one particular Labor electorate, where these 65 jobs are going to be lost. Maybe they would have been above the radar and maybe they would have had to be dealt with. I do not believe that it is good enough for one company to come to the table, be told the information, receive information well after people have started negotiating change and then—when they are well behind the eight ball—try to catch up and try to state their position. It is not good enough. It is not good enough from our department of trade officials. They need to do a lot better than that.

The ALP members brought down a dissenting report to indicate that we certainly support our trade agreement with New Zealand and our closer economic relationship. I was part of the Tasmanian cabinet when that was being negotiated. I can remember having a meeting about it with trade officials way back then. This has been a good agreement, and we are going well, but this situation takes us backwards. There was a failure of process here, and our department of trade ought to face up to it. It is a very poor outcome for Australia, and we should act on it. I would certainly hope—as the deputy chair of the treaties committee, the member for Swan, has stated—that those officials will go out and endeavour to rectify the issue before this treaty takes effect through these letters.

I was very disappointed in the government members. Their attitude was very poor. Instead of standing up and taking an opportunity to say that the committee means something—here is an opportunity to stand up for the country, to go outside and do something—they failed the test. The chair comes from the same state as the minister;  they are good mates. He could not quite find the energy to stand up and say: ‘Listen, we don’t think this is right; maybe we should give a strike to the department. Maybe we should shake them a bit. Maybe we should rattle the cage.’ He could not even get the government members to do that. He failed at every opportunity to do something for the country. He had the opportunity to ask the department to go back and have another look—do it for 65 workers; do it for $7 million worth of trade—but no, they could not do that.

I believe the treaties committee plays a very good role. There are times when the committee has a very good role to play, and members should stand up and be counted. There was a time for that role to be fulfilled in this matter, but the government members decided not to. They decided: ‘No, we don’t want rattle the chain; we don’t want to offend the minister; we don’t want to have to have an argument. Therefore, we’ll let go of 65 jobs and $7 million worth of trade.’ That is not in the public interest of Australia, and those government members have failed dismally to represent their country.

See this speech in context