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

I move:

        Schedule 1, item 1, page 9, after subclause (5), (after line 15) insert

     (5A)    If the goods are goods of the kind specified in tariff item 3402.20. in Annex G to ANZCERTA Product Specific Rules of Origin published in March 2006 the regulations must specify that the goods are required to have a regional value content of at least 50%.

I think I have already covered the purpose of the amendment I am moving: it is to ensure that a business in my electorate is able to continue successfully manufacturing products and employing 65-odd constituents. The amendment I am moving is a very small and simple exemption that the government could make that would ensure that those jobs in my electorate are protected. They could agree to exempt tariff line 3402.20 from the changes that are proposed in this bill. As I flagged, the government has repeatedly ignored numerous representations by the company, me and my colleagues and the recommendations on this change of its own Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. The government has indicated it will not pursue negotiations with New Zealand on this tariff line. They have given no indication that the necessary exemption will be included in regulations, a method that would also be possible. Labor is moving this amendment because the government has failed to negotiate in any way to save these 65 jobs in my electorate.

I must remind the House that asking for such an exemption is not new. The regulations to this bill will include exemptions for the gentlemen’s apparel and automotive industries, as has already been discussed. The government recognised that cheaper, dumped products from countries like China could hurt these Australian industries, but this amendment simply provides the same protection to Australian detergent manufacturing and the $7 million in exports generated by Albright and Wilson as is given to some other industries. The amendment ensures that the existing method for calculating regional content for the tariff line is retained. Without this amendment, Albright and Wilson estimate that they will lose at least 20 per cent of the factory turnover at Yarraville and that this will put all of their jobs in jeopardy. I urge the government to reconsider its position. It is a small amendment. It is an easy amendment; it does not have an impact on the rest of the negotiated agreement. We strongly support this amendment.

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

Given the comments I made, it is a bit rough of the honourable member for Gellibrand to say that the government has ignored her constituents. I will simply make the point that the government became aware of the concerns raised by Albright and Wilson regarding the impact of these new rules of origin only after negotiations with New Zealand and the industry had been completed. We made every effort to see whether the company’s requested existing tariff item, detergents, could be retained exclusively for up to five years. The Minister for Trade, Warren Truss, met with the company in early November 2006. The Minister for Trade personally raised this issue with New Zealand’s trade minister, Mr Goff, at the recent APEC meetings in Hanoi on 14 November. As I said earlier, New Zealand is unwilling to reopen the finely balanced package which was agreed. Consultations with the Australian industry associations established that there was no consensus on Albright and Wilson’s request. That is the case but we will remain in consultation with the company. We will keep it under review, but obviously an amendment as proposed, which has not been agreed with New Zealand, is not something that can be accepted by the government.

Question put:

That the amendment (Ms Roxon’s) be agreed to.