Bob Debus (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

in reply—I do thank all of those members who have contributed to the debate tonight. All of them were in support of this legislation to establish a treaty with Chile, which is indeed one of the leading democracies of South America. There are two pieces of legislation: the Customs Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2008, which amends the Customs Act, and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2008, which contains amendments to the Customs Tariff Act.

The customs related legislation amends rules for determining whether goods originate in Chile. The amendments are the result of the free trade agreement that was signed on 30 July this year. The amendments commence on the day that the agreement enters into force, which is expected to be 1 January next year. The rules are essential for the purpose of determining whether goods imported from Chile are eligible for preferential rates of customs duty under the agreement. The bill requires Australian exporters or producers that wish to claim preferential treatment in Chile to keep certain records. The amendments to the tariff legislation provide duty-free access for certain goods and preferential rates of customs duty for other goods that are Chilean originating goods. They provide for phasing the preferential rates of customs duty for certain goods to zero by 2015, and they create a new schedule 7 to the tariff to accommodate those phasing rates of duty.

I should mention several matters that have arisen during the debate. I refer to the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties which were mentioned by the chair of the committee, the member for Wills, and were mentioned again just moments ago by the member for Pearce. Of course I will undertake to draw those recommendations to the attention of the Minister for Trade. I would just observe, in any event, that the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement does contain specific articles on cooperation on the issues of both labour and the environment. The provision on labour, which is article 18.2.4, provides for cooperation between Australia and Chile on labour matters of mutual interest. That cooperation is to be based on the concept of decent work, including the principles embodied in the International Labour Organisation Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. The provision on the environment, which is article 18.2.5, provides that cooperation between the two parties on the environment will reflect both parties’ commitment to strengthening environmental protection and promotion of sustainable development in the context of strengthening the parties’ trade and investment relations. The government’s present approach to these sorts of matters is to consider the inclusion of labour and environment provisions in free trade agreements on a case-by-case basis. These provisions are considered to be appropriate in the particular context of the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement and Australia’s existing trading relationship with that country.

A number of members have drawn attention to concerns that were raised by Horticulture Australia concerning this particular free trade agreement—that Australian horticultural industries may be adversely affected in relation to the phytosanitary measures to protect plant life in this country. Obviously those matters are of great concern. Australia’s quarantine arrangements are amongst the most stringent in the world, as they should be, and of course the Australian government will in fact make no concessions on those strong quarantine and biosecurity arrangement under this treaty. Indeed, I draw attention to the work of the Treaties Committee, where it points out that the measures contained in the treaty at chapter 6 are limited to improving cooperation and communication between Australia and Chile over sanitary and phytosanitary measures within the framework of the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. The committee points out:

In real terms, this means that the Agreement does not override Australia’s quarantine barriers that prevent the spread of pests or diseases, whether in existence at the time the Agreement is made, or imposed during the life of the agreement.

So I hope that the committee’s analysis does give some comfort to horticulturalists who, understandably enough, are concerned about protecting the circumstances of their own industry.

I also point out, particularly in relation to some observations I heard made by the member for Forrest concerning the avocado industry, that the Australian government has been very careful indeed not to put horticultural producers at a disadvantage in economic terms. I would point out that at the present time there is no duty on avocados. There will be no duty on avocados under the terms of the agreement. But the avocado industry, as an example that was raised in the debate, is not disadvantaged by the new agreement in terms of tariff levels.

I say again that we are grateful, and the Minister for Trade is grateful, that members from both sides of the House have been supportive of the legislation to implement this free trade agreement with Chile. It is one that we very much hope will be to the advantage of both countries; obviously, that is the reason why the negotiations to sign the agreement proceeded. I commend the bills to the committee as a consequence.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

See this speech in context