Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Customs Amendment (New Zealand Rules of Origin) Bill 2011. This bill contains amendments to the Customs Act 1901 to implement changes to article 3 of the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agree­ment.

The Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement, otherwise known as ANZCERTA, is Australia's longest standing bilateral free trade agreement, having been in force since 1983. One aspect of ANZCERTA is the rules of origin, often referred to by its acronym ROO. In negotiating the current rules of origin, which came into force on 1 January 2007, it was agreed that a review should take place within three years of the rules taking effect. Australian and New Zealand officials commenced the review in late 2008 and completed it in March 2010. The amend­ments in the bill address some imperfections identified in that review. The amendments will result in a range of practical changes. For example, the changes made to ANZCERTA will reduce the administrative burden on business and will facilitate the eligibility for duty-free entry of goods into both markets. It is expected that these benefits would be passed onto consumers. The amendments will also provide greater consistency between the rules of origin in the ANZCERTA and the free trade agreements that Australia has with other countries.

The ANZCERTA amendments were tabled in parliament in June last year, and I understand that the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties inquired into those amendments. Public hearings were conduc­ted in November 2010 as well as a further two hearings in February 2011. On 11 May 2011, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommended that Australia take binding treaty action. The government also consulted widely with the Australian indus­try throughout the process. Specifically, the bill will amend division 1E of part VIII of the Customs Act to (a) insert a new definition of 'aquaculture', (b) amend the definition of 'manufacture', (c) amend the definition of 'produce', (d) amend the provisions dealing with 'wholly obtained goods', (e) amend the provisions dealing with eligibility based on the last process of manufacture, (f) insert a new section to provide that goods are not New Zealand-originating goods merely because of certain operations and (g) make consequential amendments to the verification powers in division 4D of part VI of the Customs Act.

These amendments make sensible changes to definitions under the Customs Act, and I support them. They also highlight issues of concern that have arisen in recent years as a result of trade agreements between Australia and other countries, particularly with New Zealand. There is growing concern amongst Australian primary producers that Australian primary production is being increasingly placed at risk because of imported products which can either originate in a country of concern or come into Australia via a country like New Zealand, which Australia would generally feel secure in trading with.

A current example is the concern of Australian potato growers that the import­ation of New Zealand potatoes could place at risk the Australian potato-growing industry because of the zebra chip disease that has been detected in New Zealand grown potatoes. The zebra chip disease was first detected in Central America in the 1990s. It then made its way to New Zealand, where it was first detected in 2008. If the Australian potato industry were infected with the zebra chip disease, the livelihoods of over 2,000 Australian potato-growing families would be placed at risk because there is currently no known effective control procedure for this disease. I have to date presented petitions to this House signed by around 648 growers who are concerned about this matter. Their concern relates to the fact that they understand that there is a push to have potatoes imported from New Zealand.

The member for Maranoa touched on another matter that I also wish to speak on, and that is the issue of apple growers in this country and their concerns about the importation of apples from New Zealand. In particular, they are concerned that the disease fire blight has been detected in New Zealand apples and, not surprisingly, they do not want to risk that disease being brought into Australia. Australia lost its appeal to the World Trade Organisation on this matter. I must say that I commend the minister for having appealed it in the first place. But, unfortunately, we lost the appeal. I underst­and that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Ludwig, has now ordered that an import risk analysis be carried out prior to any approval of apple imports into Australia from New Zealand.

In South Australia we also have an important apple industry—particularly in the Adelaide Hills, which adjoins my electorate of Makin. I know that the apple growers there are concerned about the importation of New Zealand apples into this country. I have spoken with them on several occasions and in fact was able to organise a meeting between them and the previous agriculture minister, Tony Burke, to discuss their concerns. They have argued quite strongly that if we are going to allow in apples from New Zealand then at the very least we need to ensure we have the necessary safeguards in place and that those safeguards are well policed. They too are very concerned about the disease fire blight coming into this country, and I understand that one of the very reasons Australia is able to export much of its fruit and vegetable produce is that it is seen as a country that is relatively free of many of the diseases that other countries unfortunately have. If we were to in any way infect our own products, that would no longer be the case and I have no doubt that it would affect the export of Australian produce to overseas countries.

In that respect, I understand that over the past year Australia has imported vegetables worth $555 million which is in fact $306 million more than the export value of Australian vegetables over the same period. So we have already reached a situation where we are importing more vegetables than we are exporting. Australian growers, faced with the increased value of the Australian dollar and generally higher production overheads, are already at a disadvantage when competing with overseas growers. The one advantage that they have, and which they value, is the quality of the produce grown here. Jeopardising that quality by importing products from countries where disease has been detected is a risk that they simply do not need. Even with Aust­ralia's strict biosecurity system, prevention of disease entering Australia can never be 100 per cent guaranteed.

It is of additional concern that product originally exported to New Zealand by another country may find its way into Australia. Not all countries grow produce in accordance with Australian and New Zeal­and standards, particularly with respect to the type of chemicals used in production. They may in fact use chemicals that have been banned in Australia. The sooner we have clear country of origin labelling in place in Australia, the sooner Australian consumers will be able to make an informed choice about the products they purchase.

Australia has a very close working relationship with New Zealand. We share food standard regulations under the Food Standards Australia New Zealand process. Both countries, however, enter into their own trade agreements with other countries, which in turn may create a pathway for non-New Zealand product which Australia has conc­erns with entering Australia.

We clearly need to be vigilant in our customs and, in particular, biosecurity processes. The Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agree­ment attempts to define the nature of the trade between the two countries and in turn provide certainty for producers and exporters. The amendments in this bill make clearer definitions in the agreement. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context