John Forrest (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development) Share this | Hansard source

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a contribution on this important legislation, the Customs Amendment (ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2009 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2009. The subjects have been widely covered by the members for Farrer and Wide Bay but, as the member for Mallee, I want to make a contribution from my allocated seat to speak on behalf of my constituents—particularly as the member for Wide Bay has made reference to mandarines, which are a large source of employment, production and economic activity in the federal divisions of Mallee and Farrer.

The matters relating to these bills have been investigated by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, a committee upon which I serve. It is a very hardworking committee. An enormous number of treaties and international agreements which are necessary come to its attention, but the ones that have caused us the most anxiety are the ones we have had on the free trade agreements, which the current Minister for Trade is hell-bent on settling with too much haste and without thinking of the detail and the repercussions—more particularly for agriculture and most particularly for horticulture, as the member for Wide Bay has made reference.

The matters of the investigation and inquiries were the subject of report No. 102 of the treaties committee, which was submitted in this chamber in June. There are six recommendations in that report, three of which one might consider to be extremely critical of the government. It is good to see standing committees doing their work, because when the committee heard the evidence from the commodity groups associated with horticulture, we were somewhat alarmed that too little attention had been paid to the needs of the commodities in the haste to get this agreement. It is a little bit disappointing because the Minister for Trade has got experience in government as a minister for agriculture and should have much more empathy and consideration for that very important sector of our economy. Horticulture has great expectations. We have known that for years and have instigated efforts to encourage it to grow as an industry. It is currently suffering because of the water crisis across the southern half of the continent. The commodity groups are extremely disappointed that their aspirations have not been achieved in the haste to get this agreement.

I will refer to three of the recommendations made in the report, and it is worthwhile reading them into the Hansard so that when the minister comes into the chamber to sum up on this legislation he might do what he ought to do and respond to them. They are very considered and important recommendations, particularly recommendation No. 2. It says:

The Committee recommends that, in the absence of other measures designed to improve free trade, a free trade agreement negotiated by Australia should not include a tariff outcome on a tariff line that is worse than the existing tariff on that tariff line.

That is what this agreement does, and the committee heard evidence to that effect. The committee’s report says:

… the Committee is at a loss to understand why a worse tariff outcome, that in any case will not apply, would be included in the AANZFTA. If, in such circumstances, Australian negotiators are not able to negotiate a better tariff outcome, then it would be prudent to ensure that any previously applying tariff outcome is carried over to the new free trade agreement.

At least! That has not occurred and other members have spoken on the detail. Recommendation No. 3 says:

The Committee recommends that in future free trade agreements, Australia should negotiate for the binding tariff rate to be the lower of either the rate at the time of binding, or the Most Favoured Nation tariff rate at the time the free trade agreement comes into force.

The member for Wide Bay made reference to inferior outcomes, particularly for horticulture. Indonesia, for example, has increased its tariff on six horticulture tariff items from five per cent to 25 per cent. They did that in 2004 and have not made any commitment to reduce that despite the sacrifices. And we saw examples in the mid- to late-eighties when the Hawke Labor government slashed and burned, and horticulture was the victim of that. I recall my 1993 election and the anxiety of my horticultural growers. I said to them: ‘Send me. I don’t believe in free trade; I believe in fair trade.’

Of course the nation needs access to markets and to do that we have to negotiate better outcomes for those countries that want to sell us something. That is true but the outcomes have to be fair. Horticulture have waited patiently. Horticulture have seen the enormous assistance that manufacturing have got. The member for Wide Bay already made reference to the motor vehicle industry outcome in this which the minister seems more focused on than the industries that come out of regional Australia, particularly horticulture. Horticulture have been waiting patiently. They have been told: ‘Yes, you have to accept a lower tariff regime here for people who want to sell us something. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Be patient.’ But they are running out of patience. To be somewhat fair to the minister, this is not something I would criticise him entirely for. Even during the years of the coalition government, I expressed these strong views about the impatience of horticulture to get the benefits of a fairer trade environment, not free trade, around the world.

Recommendation No. 4 is particularly critical, recognising the fact that many of the horticultural commodities feel left out of negotiations. We contract out the negotiations to commercial entities, to people who are quite skilled at what they do and are good at negotiating. But for agriculture they tend to negotiate the lot, and what we need is commodity related negotiation. They need to know the nuances about particular commodities. Take mandarines for example. The problem with mandarines is that they fall within the issue of regional localism. We all know what a mandarine is; it is a soft-peel citrus fruit. The fact that its original genetic origin is from China is not the issue. It is grown in Australia as a mandarine product. The same situation applies to valencia oranges. It is of Spanish genetic origin but the product is grown here. We have to go through this process to prove that it was actually a product produced in Australia. We have seen the same thing happen with the wine industry with labelling and products that are regionally located in Europe. We accepted their argument and we changed the names of some of the wine products produced in Australia.

Recommendation No. 4 actually supports the evidence that was put to the committee by the horticultural representatives. It says:

The Committee recommends that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade prepare a report for the Committee examining mechanisms to allow negotiators to directly consult with industry representatives during the negotiation process.

I do not want the minister to respond by saying, ‘That’s already done.’ The issue is that it must be negotiated on a commodity by commodity basis such as products like citrus, Leng oranges and table grapes. It must be a commodity consultation, not an across-the-board agricultural consultation.

The minister wants these bills dealt with expeditiously through this place today and through the other place by close of business tomorrow. He expects this to proceed as non-controversial legislation. I think he is being very unreasonable. He has had these recommendations since June this year and he has not responded to them. When he is summing up, I expect him to make a statement in this House about how he is going to respond to this. He has to do justice to the hard work of committees that beaver away, travel the whole nation, collect evidence and listen to Australians. We have been assured that this government wants to govern for all Australians. Yet this committee has put its findings into a report and they have been ignored by the minister. The minister should come into this place and make a statement that he is determined to get better outcomes for horticulture. To do that he has to accept in particular those three recommendations the committee has gone to the trouble to recommend, and maybe then he will have these bills dealt with as non-controversial legislation. There are some benefits in that legislation for the nation. But I cannot stand here as the member for Mallee and not stick up for my constituents, particularly my citrus growers and my table grape growers who have worked jolly hard to invest in their future on the expectation that they will gain greater international market access, and not have my say on their behalf. I will be waiting for the minister to come into the House to sum up and respond to my remarks.

See this speech in context