Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

in reply—May I firstly thank the members who have contributed in this debate tonight. I notice the list is somewhat shorter than I originally anticipated, but I thank the members for Griffith, Gellibrand and Cook for their contributions. I note that they have participated in the debate on the proposed amendments to the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement which will allow for a change of tariff classification method to be used along with a regional value content requirement in determining whether goods meet the rules of origin for the CER.

Together with the current last process of manufacture method, importers on both sides of the Tasman will have the option of using either method until 31 December 2011, when the current method will cease to operate. The amendments will simplify the process of determining whether a good from New Zealand is a New Zealand originating good. The current last process of manufacture method can be administratively burdensome for a manufacturer and can lead to uncertainty because of exchange rates, for example.

The proposed amendments will bring greater certainty and be administratively simpler. They will improve efficiency by allowing greater use of imports not produced in Australia or New Zealand, without adverse impact on the ability to claim origin. They are consistent with the international trend to use the CTC approach.

I commend the amendments in cementing even further the strong economic and trade relationship between Australia and New Zealand. It has grown significantly since the entry into force of the CER in 1983. I notice that the member for Gellibrand is proposing an amendment to the regional value content provision, which will require goods classified to be subject to a 50 per cent regional value content in the rules of origin regulation.

Goods classified in 3402.20 are subject to a rule already agreed to by Australia and New Zealand. This rule was discussed and agreed by the industry concerned. Our view is that an amendment along the lines that the member proposes would need negotiations to be reopened with New Zealand, which has indicated that it is not prepared to discuss amendments to annex C of the CER.

The other matter raised was the dumping of goods classified under 3402.20 through New Zealand. The Australian legislation provides that a third-party anti-dumping application can be made. This legislation is consistent with the WTO requirements and, to date, we are not aware of any such action being commenced. I make those observations in relation to the proposed amendment. Obviously, when it is moved, we will be opposing it.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

See this speech in context