Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before the debate is resumed, I remind the committee that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering report No. 79 and report No. 80 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I intend to make some remarks regarding both report No. 79 and report No. 80. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report No. 79 contains a review of 10 treaty actions, all of which are recommended for binding treaty action. The extradition treaty with Malaysia and Exchange of Notes adopts the no-evidence approach to extradition requests. Under the current arrangements for extradition to and from Malaysia, the requesting party is required to provide a brief of evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case. The no-evidence approach requires a provision of sufficient information to determine that the person is sought in legitimate pursuit of the enforcement of the criminal law of the country making the request. The adoption of the no-evidence approach is part of an international trend towards simplifying extradition treaties. As Malaysia retains the death penalty for a number of offences, the extradition treaty with Malaysia provides a number of safeguards to ensure that a person extradited to Malaysia under the treaty will not be subject to the death penalty. Bilateral extradition treaties are reliable and effective means by which a country may request or grant the surrender of fugitives.

Protocol V on the explosive remnants of war is the fifth protocol to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects. The convention is an important instrument of international humanitarian law, and Protocol V extends the scope of the convention to include measures to minimise the risks and effects of explosive remnants of war. The committee was informed that the Australian delegation played an active role in the negotiation of Protocol V and advocated striking a balance between addressing the humanitarian impact of explosive remnants of war and legitimate military needs. The delegation also supported a pragmatic approach to clearance responsibilities outside a state’s control. The committee was also informed that Protocol V is consistent with Australia’s commitment to limiting the impact of armed conflict on civilian populations.

The amendments to the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement to ensure compliance with changes to the homogenised commodity description and coding system will, through changes to how goods are identified, seek to avoid possible confusion and subsequent delays in processing of goods by customs authorities. The homogenised commodity description and coding system, or HS, is an international system for classifying goods traded internationally.

The World Customs Organisation, of which Australia and its free trade partners are members, oversees the HS. Revision and amendment to the HS occurs every five years to reflect changes in commodities trading. HS 2007 creates new HS tariff line numbers to reflect a new product entering the market, the deletion of a tariff line number where a commodity is no longer traded, or the movement of a tariff line number from one subheading or category of goods to another to account for changes in the use of the good. The committee was informed that amendments to the Thailand-Australia Free Trade Agreement are currently being negotiated but will come before the committee for review. The committee was also informed that there will be further amendments to the Singapore free trade agreement and the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement in the future.

I want to move on to report No. 80. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report No. 80 contains the review of two treaty actions—firstly, the treaty between the government of Australia and the People’s Republic of China on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters and, secondly, 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, of 28 March 1983. I spoke quite extensively in the House with regard to this particular treaty last sitting week. Both treaty actions are recommended for binding treaty action.

The mutual legal assistance in criminal matters treaty with China is similar to the other 24 such agreements Australia has in place. The mutual assistance treaty with China will assist Australian efforts to combat transnational crime in the Asia-Pacific region. In relation to the amendments to ANZCERTA, the opposition members of the committee have included a dissenting report to report 80. The opposition members of the committee support comments included in paragraph 2.69 and recommendation 1 of the report. On balance, opposition members of the committee recognise that the agreement will increase trade between Australia and New Zealand in a mutually beneficial way and serve to strengthen existing economic ties between the countries. However, the opposition members of the committee remain extremely concerned about the impact on jobs as a result of the change to the rules of origin in respect of the category of goods manufactured by Albright and Wilson Australia. Opposition members of the committee dissent from recommendation No. 2 and make a new recommendation:

(a)

binding treaty action be taken; and

(b)

negotiations between Australia and New Zealand commence immediately to secure agreement on retention of the RVC method of calculating ROO under the current ANZCERTA for tariff line 3402.20 before the Amending Agreement comes into force.

As I said in the House, this is extremely important for Australia because we currently have a company here that, although it is owned overseas, employs Australian workers and has profits going into Australia and the situation arising whereby that company will be significantly disadvantaged as a result of these changes—drastically disadvantaged because they stand to lose 65 jobs and over $2 million of profit going into our country.

The reason this has occurred is because there was inadequate consultation by the department with companies that could be adversely affected by these changes. When it was finally pointed out to the department that this company could be suffering dramatically as a result of the introduction of these measures the government said, ‘Look, we are sorry that this is going to happen to you, but we don’t intend to do anything about it because you were too late in responding to us.’

I find that this is absolutely outrageous. You have a company that knows they are affected. They have come before the government in good faith and said, ‘We need these changes to take place and take force,’ but because they got in a little bit late they were not included. This was not the case with other industries. You can appreciate that, if this applied across-the-board and the government had been consistent, there may be some justification here. But no. In the clothing and textile industry, when it was brought to the government’s attention that there was a problem, that they were going to lose jobs and income as a result of these changes, the government excluded men’s suits, for example, from this agreement so that it would not impact harshly on Australian business. They also did the same with regard to some aspects of motor vehicle parts I believe.

What we have here—make no bones about it—is a situation where the government, those people who pretend they represent business and support business, are seeing 65 jobs go and millions of dollars of profit going from Australia to New Zealand. What they are doing is handing New Zealand—it is a New Zealand registered company—all this money and jobs to the exclusion of Australians. This is something that could have been prevented, and the government chose not to prevent it. It is a disgraceful neglect of Australia’s interests in this particular case. The government get up there and say, ‘Look, we really care for business,’ but when it comes down to it, even though they could have done something about it, they have decided not to.

The opposition members of this committee believe there is something that can be done. If the department gets out there now and starts these negotiations with New Zealand before these measures come into effect on 1 January 2007 there is a chance that something can be done to protect the interests of Australians, Australian jobs and Australian profits. But it takes courage on the part of this government. They need to get out there and do it. I am not hopeful that they will, because their record in this regard is quite appalling, but we as opposition members believe they must. They must stand up for Australia first and cease this particular outrage on Australian workers. We commend the report and particularly the dissenting report 80 to the House.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I thank my colleagues who have already spoken on this—the member for Swan and the member for Lyons. They have extensively pursued in the treaties committee an issue of great importance to my electorate, and I do appreciate that and I want to publicly record my thanks to them for pursuing this issue that is of so much importance to 65 people who are currently employed by Albright and Wilson at a site in Yarraville on the Maribyrnong River in my electorate. What I want to emphasise in addition to the details that the members for Swan and Lyon have put forward is that there is still time for the government to fix this problem. There still is time. If the Howard government has the will to actually pay attention to the plight of Australian workers and to be concerned about those 65 people in my electorate, there is time for it to fix this problem.

What is required, as has been outlined by my colleagues, is actually a fairly simple change to the agreement that has been reached between Australia and New Zealand. There is no reason that this agreement cannot come into effect on 1 January as is intended, because there are other benefits to the country in this agreement. However, there is time for a separate negotiation to be entered into and for there to be an agreement to include this exception in a schedule or for there to be any understanding that says this one small item that is affected by this agreement could remain as it currently is. By doing that—if the government were prepared to make this concession to go back to the New Zealand government and ask to negotiate this particular provision for this product—we would save 65 jobs in my electorate and we would do absolutely zero harm to the trade relationship between Australia and New Zealand. It is a nonsense to suggest that this is going to damage that relationship. In fact, it would just mean that business would be able to continue in the way that it does.

I am very disappointed that the government has decided to not only decline a recommendation from the Labor members who issued a dissenting report in part on this treaty but also ignore the government members, who flagged their express concerns. They were not prepared, as the member for Lyon has said, to include it as a recommendation. They said, in paragraph 2.69:

The Committee believes there should be ongoing negotiation between Australia and New Zealand in order for tariff line 3402.20 to be exempted from the new ROO as was done, for example, for men’s suits.

That was signed by all members of the committee, and it is urging the government to take this request seriously. It is not very often in negotiating complex trade agreements that there is a clear resolution to a problem like this. It is not hard, and we want the government to do more for the workforce in my electorate in order to try to protect their jobs and the business that is there.

I am extremely disappointed that I received a letter today from Warren Truss, the Minister for Trade and Deputy Leader of The Nationals—a person who I would have thought would be acutely sensitive to the loss of jobs in Australia—which said that he is not prepared to reopen negotiations on this agreement at this late stage. We do not require negotiations for the whole agreement to be reopened. We require negotiations to be entered into on one tiny aspect that was not properly taken account of during negotiations. It is to include an exemption which exists for other products—so we know that an exemption process can work—and, by doing that, to make sure that the jobs in Australia are continued and a relationship worth some $7 million continues between an Australian company and a New Zealand company.

The whole purpose of this agreement is to improve trade between New Zealand and Australia, but this one particular change is actually reducing trade between Australia and New Zealand. It is allowing a New Zealand company to go and buy a product at a cheaper rate in China rather than buying it from Australia and still continue to get a tariff exemption when it then imports its material into Australia. That is not the purpose of this agreement. It should not be allowed as a result of this agreement. It was a mistake by the department and the negotiators not to know about it to start with. Of course, the company wishes it had known about it early enough to be involved in those early negotiations, but it is frankly unrealistic to expect that a busy company dealing with its trade and commerce every day is going to see one ad in the Financial Review on one day, and it is unrealistic to think that that is adequate to draw people’s attention to this change.

In fact, the change was brought to the company’s attention when Unilever New Zealand sent them a letter saying, ‘We hereby give you six months notice that we’re not going to buy product from you anymore because when this agreement between Australia and New Zealand is entered into we’ll be able to get it cheaper from China.’ What does that actually do to improve the trade relationship between Australia and New Zealand? Absolutely nothing. I call on the government to reconsider its opposition to negotiating an exemption. It is never too late. To say that we wish it had been involved and included in the negotiations to start with is well and good, but do we just throw up our hands and say that we missed that part of the process and that the jobs and livelihoods of these 65 people in my electorate do not matter anymore? Surely, when there is time to fix it, and with a little bit of pressure and leadership from the Australian government, I am sure the New Zealand government would not want to jeopardise the rest of the agreement just for this single change.

I do understand that the New Zealand government have said that they are very unenthusiastic about making this change at this late stage, because a large New Zealand company will get a windfall profit as a result. But surely at the government-to-government level our obligations are not just to give a company a windfall benefit. Our obligations are to look at how we can improve trade and create closer economic ties between the countries—not just to allow a New Zealand company to get an edge which they currently could not have if they wanted to maintain their tariff protection. It seems to us quite unreasonable and quite contrary to the spirit of the agreement.

I am extremely concerned, as I think any member of this House would be if they found that a business was going to close in their electorate and that jobs were going to be lost. I know that there have been previous agreements in different areas to exempt products when this sort of situation arises. I strongly call on the government to reconsider its opposition to this. Some members here might not be aware of this, but I do know that Minister Vaile, when he still held the portfolio, did specifically raise this issue with the New Zealand government. I appreciate that, but I now urge his successor to take this on more enthusiastically. I call on him to recognise that his role as the Minister for Trade is to actually enhance trade between the countries, not reduce it.

It will be a very sad day, when this agreement comes into effect on 1 January 2007, if the result is to immediately lose jobs in Australia—and, in case anybody listening is unclear about this, those jobs will not move to New Zealand. In negotiating an agreement for closer economic ties between Australia and New Zealand, maybe people would accept the movement of jobs across the Tasman. But even that is not what is happening. This is actually just giving a New Zealand company an opportunity that other companies do not have to buy the product from China and, when they produce the detergents and other washing products that are then imported back into Australia, still get the full exemption that they currently get when they buy product locally and manufacture it in New Zealand. That cannot be the result that was intended by this agreement, and I strongly urge the government to reconsider this.

I have been working closely with Albright and Wilson. They are obviously very keen to make sure that their business can continue. They are going to lose about 20 per cent of their factory turnover if this contract is lost. But it is not just jobs in my electorate that will be jeopardised. Albright and Wilson are also supplied by other Australian companies, like Penrice in South Australia. No doubt their business will be affected by this change as well.

I am glad that the treaties committee process allowed the committee even at a late stage to be able to assess the importance of this change and the impact it might have on jobs in my electorate. I am glad that the tabling of the report allows me to speak on it, but, after all, the purpose is to bring to the government’s attention any problems with a treaty agreement that they are about to enter into. This is a particular problem. It has been brought to their attention. They can fix it. Those 65 people in my electorate deserve more attention than the current government have given them to date. There is still two months to act, and we hope that the government will get their act together, reopen negotiations on this one small aspect of the agreement, do all they can to save those jobs in my electorate and support a local business that is trying to support our local workers. I strongly urge the government to do so.

Debate (on motion by Mrs Gash) adjourned.