Michelle Landry (Capricornia, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to discuss the vital importance of international trade—particularly with our close ally Singapore—to Capricornia. Capricornia, in Central Queensland, holds a diverse and strong economy based on primary and mineral production. We are in many ways the backbone of Queensland's economy, providing billions of dollars in GDP and royalties each year, while generating the vast majority of the state's—and indeed the nation's—energy needs and growing high-quality food for customers the world over. Central Queensland is an absolute engine room, and we want to keep it that way.

While it is all very well and good to have a great product, it is equally important to be able to sell it. As a National within this coalition government, I am proud of what we are achieving in the sphere of trade. Liberalised trade has underpinned Australia's 26 years of continuous economic growth. Our free trade agreements are generating new opportunities for local businesses and creating jobs, something I am very passionate about. While Central Queensland is such an economic powerhouse, we are doing it tough at the moment. Since the end of the most recent mining construction boom, we've seen property prices fall, businesses go to the wall and many of the good, reliable jobs disappear. It is vital now, more than ever, that we continue to grow and develop our export markets so we can address this downturn in one industry with gains in another.

In 2015 the prime ministers of Australia and Singapore signed a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, CSP, to further integrate our economies, militaries, institutions and people. The CSP is broad-ranging in its scope and brings benefits to Australia across a range of sectors and throughout the country, including rural and regional Australia. Investment from Singapore has the potential to help unlock opportunities in Australia's north. Northern Australian communities like Rockhampton, Sarina and Clermont stand ready to be the beneficiaries of stronger trade, tourism and investment links with Singapore.

The Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement is a massive economic asset in a broader national sense, particularly for Central Queenslanders. Central Queenslanders understand trade and realise just how important it is to have open trade with our Asian neighbours like Singapore. Singapore and Australia are such natural partners, sharing centuries of history together both as part of the British Empire and as two countries committed to free trade and open markets. Singapore is in many ways a doorway to Asia, a real key trade market through which so much of South-East Asian economies rely. In 2016, two-way trade between Australia and Singapore amounted to $23 billion. Singapore is our largest trading partner in ASEAN and the seventh largest overall. The free trade agreement with Singapore promises to boost competition for Australian exporters by addressing behind-the-border barriers, delivering new access and greater certainty to service suppliers.

Central Queenslanders, perhaps more than most Australians, are well aware of our close relationship with Singapore as we play host to thousands of Singaporean military personnel each year. Exercise Wallaby is on the Shoalwater Bay military training grounds in my electorate of Capricornia. As we speak, roughly 4,000 Singaporean troops, airmen and seamen are joining Australian troops for vital training, war games and live-firing operations. This exercise provides a welcome boost to the local economies of cities and towns like Rockhampton and Yeppoon, particularly for businesses in transport and logistics, accommodation, retail, dining and entertainment.

The Singaporean influence cannot be underestimated in our community and is undoubtedly another string to the bow of Central Queensland's economy. This benefit is set to become a real game changer for our region, as Singapore is set to dramatically increase its presence. Under the plan, Singapore will not only more than triple the number of personnel they send to Australia but also expand the time for which they will be here. Singapore is also investing $2 billion into improving the training, infrastructure and prioritising local businesses for the works at two training sites in Queensland, one of which is Shoalwater Bay. This will mean roughly a $1 billion investment in training infrastructure that will remain Australian, and will do what I am absolutely committed to—that is, creating jobs.

The amendments tabled for this free trade agreement are an important addition to what has been a monumentally beneficial agreement between two of the region's great nation's since its acceptance under the Howard government in 2003. Moving forward, a greater range of Australian businesses will be able to utilise SAFTA to better tap into the Singapore market. These amendments place an emphasis on our burgeoning services industries, a sector easily overlooked when it comes to international export but one with significant export appeal. New opportunities for education as an export exist through increased recognition of tertiary qualifications obtained at Australian universities in law, medicine and allied health—again, excellent news for Central Queenslanders studying through one of the country's finest education facilities and its largest external study university, CQ University. These changes will allow local universities to be far more competitive in the global market for education. I firmly believe education is one of the great opportunities for our economy as the growing middle class of South-East Asia looks for educational products to help deliver their children the edge in life they need to succeed in the modern world. The process will also make it easier for our great Australian universities like CQ University to set up campus in Singapore. Up until now, they've not been able to call themselves a university.

The opportunity for Australian companies to tender for valuable procurement contracts with the Singapore government is an exciting opportunity, particularly for the myriad of Central Queensland businesses with skills transferrable across the globe. This increased opportunity, teamed with a marked reduction in red tape, should see relationships, and therefore trade, between our two great countries continue to grow well into the future. Red-tape reduction will come in many forms, especially with regards to certifying origin. Exporters will be able to self-certify, rather than paying through the nose for a third-party certifier to tell them what they already know.

Another key aspect of the amendments deals with international business travel. An enormous number of Australians travel to Singapore for business for varying reasons—some for a day, some for a month and others end up making their lives there—and the same can be said for many Singaporeans in Australia. It is vitally important where we have such high numbers of expats from each country that we have guaranteed access for Australians to work and stay in Singapore, while keeping security and safety paramount. As far as Central Queensland is concerned, the stronger our ties with Singapore, the better. We see so much benefit from our already strong relationship that more can only be a good thing.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017, which is part of a suite of measures designed to facilitate trade and investment between our nations. The proposed legislation will simplify administration and reduce compliance costs for traders operating under the agreement by introducing new product-specific rules of origin for goods that are imported into Australia from Singapore. This is simpler than the existing 50 per cent content rule that requires businesses to record all production costs. Goods which satisfy the new rules of origin in the amended agreement will be able to enter Australia at preferential rates of customs duty.

Procedures for claiming the preferential treatment will be modernised and traders will now be able to self-certify that their goods meet the rules of origin. These procedures will also provide exporters with flexibility to continue to have goods certified by third parties. The new rules will operate as an alternative framework for goods claimed to be the produce or manufacture of Singapore for a transitional period of three years, after which the framework for produce or manufacture of Singapore will be repealed, and only eligible goods that are determined in accordance with the new rules of origin will be subject to preferential rates of customs duty.

The amended agreement will enter into force after the governments of both Australia and Singapore have completed their respective domestic treaty approvals processes, having exchanged notes confirming the completion of their respective domestic procedures. At this time both countries are working cooperatively to facilitate the entry into force on 1 December 2017.

In 2016 Australian investment in Singapore reached $61.5 billion, while Singaporean investment in Australia amounted to $99 billion. In terms of services, Singapore is our third-largest trading partner, with international services amounting to $10 billion annually. Singapore is our 11th-largest trading partner in terms of merchandise trade, with combined imports and exports totalling $12.6 billion in 2016.

I attended the Australia Singapore Exchange Conference, which was held at Suntec City in Singapore between 28 September and 1 October. Delegates from Australia travelled to Singapore to network with representatives of the Singaporean business community, the objective being to strengthen the trade and investment relationship between our nations. The Australian Deputy High Commissioner to Singapore, Ms Kate Duff, was in attendance. I would like to acknowledge the visionary and proactive work of the organising committee, in particular Mr Roy Yeo, Faith Tay, Paul De La Cruz, Nicholas Tay, Clinton Cheng, Yang Ping, Sim Lai Ngin, Chong Rong Rong, Shaun Aw, Helen Qin, Lily Phua, Denise Twigger and Jon Szeto. Mr Yeo and his dynamic team are committed to developing stronger business links between Singapore and Australia.

I was pleased to participate in pre-conference visits with two local chapters of Business Networking International—a tour of the Beyonics Advanced Manufacturing facility; a visit to the Singapore Cruise Centre to see the passenger facilities for the cruise ship industry; and a visit to the Metro department store chain, which stocks a number of Australian-sourced items, such as canned abalone, honey and cosmetic products.

I delivered the keynote address at the conference, promoting sectors of the Western Australian economy that are attractive for Singaporean investment, including mining, resources, and energy; hospitality and tourism; retail and wholesale; property development and land subdivision; agriculture, food processing, agribusiness, fisheries; and the development of northern Australia.

The Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement is in the process of being comprehensively updated, with a greater focus on services and improved exchanges in the areas of innovation, science, education and the arts. Under the upgraded arrangements, Australian industries, including education, law, financial and professional services, will gain improved access to Singaporean markets. Australia and Singapore will establish a framework to support mutual recognition of professional qualifications. Exciting new updates will provide greater certainty for Australian lawyers and law firms operating in Singapore. Australia has locked in existing opportunities in the legal sector, including the ability for Australian lawyers to practise Singapore law and to work in international commercial arbitration. There will also be scope to have Australian qualifications recognised by Singapore, giving lawyers, engineers, accountants and medical professionals greater certainty to practise in Singapore.

Singapore will also recognise Australian tertiary qualifications, including juris doctor degrees, as well as those in allied health, such as physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech therapy, from a number of Australian universities. Finance firms will also be able to provide a range of services on cross-border transactions with Singapore. This includes investment advice, portfolio management services and brokerage services for insurance of maritime, aviation and transport-related risks. Australia will raise the Foreign Investment Review Board screening threshold for private Singaporean investment in non-sensitive sectors from the current $252 million to $1,094 million, consistent with the approach taken in the Trans Pacific Partnership and North Asian free trade agreements.

Australia will locate one of its five start-up landing pads in Singapore to promote innovation and entrepreneurship. This initiative will support emerging Australian technology companies to gain a foothold in Singapore and the wider Asian market. Furthermore, the Singapore-Northern Australia Agribusiness Development Partnership will involve an ongoing program of activities focused on encouraging and attracting Singaporean investment to develop northern Australia.

Singapore and Australia have made commitments on work rights on a reciprocal basis: Australians will enjoy longer lengths of stay for independent executives, contractual service suppliers and their families, up from two months to three years. Longer lengths of stay will apply for intracorporate transferees and their families, up from two years to three years with a new maximum stay of 15 years. A more streamlined process will be implemented to facilitate temporary entry and work permits for Australian professionals and business people. Similarly, Singaporeans will have exclusive access to a new long-term, multiple entry visa option by 1 January 2018, making it easier to travel to Australia for business and pleasure. The Visitor (Subclass 600) visa will allow travellers, with just a single application, to visit Australia for up to three months at a time over a six-year period. The new visa option was announced during the Prime Minister's official visit to Singapore and will further strengthen ties between our countries. There are currently an estimated 7,578 Singaporean students studying in Australia. In terms of tourism, 709,000 Singaporeans visited Australia in 2016 and about one million Australians visited Singapore.

Located at the heart of Asia, Singapore offers Australian businesses access to global markets. Strategically located to serve the Asia-Pacific, one of the world's fastest-growing regions, Singapore's well-established business infrastructure, global connectivity and trade linkages enable investors to access the approximately four-billion-strong Asian market within a radius of seven hours flight time. Singapore continues to be well regarded as a AAA-rated economy with strong growth potential and a sound and stable location for business expansion and investment.

The 2018 ASEAN summit will be held in Australia, with Singapore as the chair. Australian businesses, including firms in my electorate, will benefit from greater access to the Singaporean market through increased trade and investment. Australian companies are already winning high-value contracts with the Singapore government in sectors such as road transport, construction and engineering. This legislation is part of a suite of measures designed to facilitate trade and investment between our nations. It seeks to achieve this by simplifying administration and reducing compliance costs. The future looks promising, with improved cooperation and stronger ties between our nations. I commend the bill to the House.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The 2003 Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement was the second free trade agreement that Australia entered into. The benefit of the institution of that agreement was that Australian imports into Singapore became tariff free. In June 2015, there was a comprehensive strategic partnership signed between Singapore and Australia, and one of the priorities under that partnership was to undertake a third review of the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement.

I'm very hopeful that this free trade agreement will build on the already strong trade relationship that exists between Singapore and Australia. The two-way trade between our nations in the 2014-15 financial year was $28 billion. I'm hopeful that this revision will help us to build on that trade. One of the benefits of this revision will be to continue to increase free trade between the two countries by working on removing some of those behind-the-border impediments to trade—some of those non-tariff trade impediments. I hope that this free trade agreement will have that benefit. Labor supports trade liberalisation. I think we've all made it very clear that we would prefer to be working towards multilateral trade liberalisation through the World Trade Organization. Nonetheless, and despite some misgivings about the preferential nature of bilateral agreements and whether they improve net trade or are simply diversionary, this is an agreement that we hope will have some mutual benefits for Singapore and Australia.

I wanted to speak on these Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement bills specifically because, in relation to previous legislation and on previous occasions, I have raised concerns about investor-state dispute settlement provisions in trade agreements, particularly bilateral trade agreements. Everyone in this room would be aware of the difficulties that have arisen in relation to investor-state dispute settlement provisions, including a case against Australia in respect of our tobacco labelling. Tobacco labelling was one of the most significant pieces of public health improvement in recent decades, and I'm pleased that Australia was successful in fending off an ISDS-based complaint about cigarette and tobacco labelling.

It is of interest to most people that we ensure that our national sovereignty is not impeded or eroded through the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement provisions in free trade agreements. I have long been a critic of ISDS provisions, so I did want to make a couple of observations about the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement does contain an ISDS provision, one of the investor-state dispute settlement provisions which are obviously provisions that allow for investors, if they invest in one of the countries involved, to then go to an arbitration process to seek to have their rights as against the country determined in the event that the country does something that causes harm or loss to that investor. The ramifications for sovereignty in those cases are obvious, and so I maintain my criticism of ISDS provisions. I wanted to acknowledge that there has been some improvement in the ISDS provision in relation to the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Those improvements go to some of the public criticisms that have been made of investor-state dispute settlement processes internationally over a number of years. It is encouraging to see that there's an acknowledgement in this agreement that there do need to be limitations on ISDS provisions.

In this revision of the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement there are more explicit safeguards protecting the Australian government's right to regulate in relation to public interest and public welfare, including some explicit rights to regulate in relation to protecting public welfare when it comes to matters relating to health. Obviously tobacco labelling is an important example of that, but you can imagine all sorts of other areas in which it might be in an investor's interest to consider action against a sovereign government in relation to health regulation in that country. So it is pleasing that that is there. Similarly, it is pleasing that there is an explicit provision regarding the environment and our government's right to legislate and regulate in respect of environmental matters.

Members will also be aware that one of the arguments sometimes used in investor-state dispute settlement is that a particular policy of a nation effectively represents indirect expropriation of an investor's property. There's a provision in this revised agreement that deals with that, and it says that mere government regulation, provided it is not discriminatory, will not be considered to be indirect expropriation of the investor's property other than in rare circumstances, and that is very positive as well.

Finally, government action that might be considered to be inconsistent with an investor's expectations should not be considered to be a breach of the minimum standard of treatment obligation in the free trade agreement, which again is a positive thing. We want governments to be able to act in the best interests of the nation without having to worry about being pulled into some sort of secretive international arbitration process and have legislative authority overridden because of wanting to uphold free trade agreements. It is positive to see that there is some acknowledgement of those problems.

When I say 'acknowledgement', it is quite pleasing to note that there are process-related improvements for the ISDS, not just substantive improvements. One process improvement that is really important is the requirement that those ISDS hearings be conducted in public, so the public can find out what happens—they are not the secretive behind-closed-doors ISDS provisions that we've come to expect in other free trade agreements. Similarly, there's some provision for ensuring a code of conduct for arbitrators, which is included in the agreement. Again, arbitrators have been criticised as being a bit like an international club that do their work in secret and it's a small number of people in the international arbitration field who are specific to investor-state settlement dispute procedures. Having a code of conduct for those people is an improvement.

This is not me saying it's great that we have ISDS provisions—I maintain my concerns about sovereignty and the erosion of sovereignty; however, I thought it was important to acknowledge there has at least been some movement in this new revised trade agreement in coming to terms with some of the real and genuine concerns and criticisms that people have had in relation to free trade agreement ISDS provisions.

There are other measures. There are measures in relation to creative arts, Indigenous cultural heritage and other cultural heritage, and tobacco-specific provisions. I don't wish to delay the chamber any further, but I wanted to put on record my continued concern in respect of investor-state dispute settlement provisions and my sense of encouragement that there is now some international acknowledgement of the improvements that need to be made.

Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to thank the member for Griffith for her contribution. There's much merit in what she says—that this government would prefer multilateral agreements to bilateral agreements. However, we live in a world where it is very difficult to get the World Trade Organization to agree on a particular outcome. Indeed, farmers in India have been holding up an agreement with the World Trade Organization for nearly two decades now. ISDSs are also very important measures by which people can find ways to enforce free trade agreements. There are certainly process improvements and enhancements that we can make—there's no doubt about that—but to throw the baby out with the bathwater would be a regressive step. As I'm sure the member for Griffith agrees, it is important that we live in a world of law, not a world where might is right.

Free trade is the cornerstone of the Liberal tradition in Australia. It allows Australians to have access to a wide range of goods and services that would otherwise be unattainable for the average consumer. It allows Australians to project their business and professional expertise across borders. In short, it allows Australians to thrive, unencumbered by the constraints of protectionism that those opposite would introduce if they were given the chance. There has been no greater force in pulling people out of poverty than free trade. There has been no greater deterrent to war and conflict than free trade. It was the postwar regime of free trade and open markets that saw European nations rise from the rubble of war and re-emerge as competitive and developed economies. It is free trade that will help to sustain our economy into the future and ensure that Australians have the means to succeed in a free and democratic society.

This government has a mandate to secure the economic future of our country. As part of this commitment, we must modernise and adapt our trade agreements to better suit the dynamically changing demands of the global marketplace and to facilitate trade and business between our nations with greater efficiency. After all, it is this commitment that has helped to fuel over 26 years of uninterrupted economic growth. It was a Liberal government that implemented the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement in 2003, marking a new chapter in an economic relationship that has since proven to be of immeasurable benefit to both Australia and Singapore. Allowing Australian businesses to finally access the countless export opportunities in Singapore has elevated that country to becoming one of our largest trading partners. Australian businesses have chosen to invest heavily in the Singaporean economy. Likewise, our businesses have been on the receiving end of considerable Singaporean investment, totalling over $31 billion of foreign direct investment in 2016 alone.

This bill will build on our existing economic partnership and create new opportunities for Australians and their businesses to thrive overseas. It will allow them to expand their footprint into South-East Asia, whilst cutting the red tape that has so often hindered entrepreneurial ambitions in the past. Singapore is not only a key economic hub in its own right; it is also a gateway into the rapidly expanding economies of Asia. With a burgeoning middle class that is set to more than double over the next decade, Asia should be of great interest to any Australian business seeking to increase its export opportunities. With existing infrastructure to support the expansion of our businesses into a lucrative market, Singapore is an ideal starting point for such ventures.

By addressing and mitigating behind-the-border barriers to trade, this bill will allow Australian businesses of any size to tap into increasing consumer demand in Asia, boosting our global competitiveness. We are increasing the threshold at which outbound investment into Singapore requires approval, from the previous $252 million, by four times. That means much faster investments requiring less hurdles. Ultimately, it means greater productivity and efficiency for our businesses, and more highly paid jobs and opportunities for all Australians. Another change we are implementing to the same end is simplifying the certification-of-origin process, meaning more time for Australians to spend doing business instead of in their business. Professional services contribute one-third of our total exports to Singapore, so this bill includes provisions to ensure that Australians are better able to offer their services in Singapore, with more and wider-spread recognition of Australian accreditation in fields like law, medicine and health. For Australians, this means they can now much more easily transition into life in Singapore, earn competitive wages and compete for lucrative private-sector and government contracts.

Those opposite constantly lament the cost of living in this country, yet, at the same time, they oppose our trade agreements at every corner. The one solution to rising prices has, time and time again, been proven to be free trade, but there they stand, steadfast in their opposition to measures that will actually help those they claim to represent. This is yet another example of Labor kowtowing to the demands of union leaders whose aims are motivated by the quaint idea that protectionism doesn't make our low-income earners less well off. This is nothing new. We have seen it before in many of our attempts to integrate with the global economy. We have seen it in our negotiations with China, we have seen it with our negotiations with Japan, we have seen it with our negotiations with South Korea, and I assure you that we will see it again here. After all, we know the Leader of the Opposition does not believe in the proven benefits of free trade. As he said himself, 'There is no such thing as fair trade.' If ever there was proof that those opposite don't believe in the future of Australia, here it is.

There are people in my own electorate of Mackellar that have experienced the other side, the dark side in which trade does not exist and free markets do not exist—and, guess what: neither do free people. They hail from countries like China, Cambodia, Vietnam, the former Soviet bloc and, sadly, many others. Having experienced what living under communism was like—or, dare I say, even economic socialism—they fled to Australia for this very reason. Take China, for example: plagued by a historic tradition of protectionism and insulation from global markets, its people were suffering from wide-reaching poverty, mass starvation and a stagnant economy. Once faced with a large, rural, poor population isolated from vital services and deprived of access to goods, economic liberalisation has pulled hundreds of millions out of poverty whilst allowing for equitable access to consumer goods and services. Through liberalisation of its economy, the quality of life increased exponentially for the average Chinese person, as has the opportunity for their businesses and investments around the world. China's integration into the global economy and the impact that this has had on its citizens is a testament to the nature of free trade, not as an economic policy benefitting only big business, but as a proactive approach to improving the lives of every citizen.

Their story is personal to me. It is reflected in my own. As I talked about in this very chamber during my first address to parliament, my grandparents fled the oppressive communist regime of the Soviet bloc. Economic isolationism was not just a term found in economic books; to them, it was a stark reality. It led to a suppression of free enterprise, competition and new ideas, but, importantly, it brought to the fore an incessant need for a pervasive state to control its own people. Coming to Australia was a dream come true. Finally they were in a society in which they could flourish, in which their ideas were given free reign and where ambition and hard work were rewarded. That is what free trade does: it gives people the power to decide over their own destinies.

Even in less extreme forms, excessive economic regulation hinders growth. It stifles the very creativity and need for self-expression in all human beings and it hurts the people whom it is meant to help. We celebrate value in all truly free and democratic countries. Free trade is the silver bullet to global poverty, achieving what countless charity drives and government aid packages could not. Free trade and economic liberalisation have improved living standards, created jobs and pulled the global community closer together. I use this metaphor from Thomas Friedman all the time, but it never gets old:

No two countries with a McDonald's have ever gone to war with each other.

Tightening our economic bonds with one another in this globalised world increases our threshold for going to war with those very nations. It makes war a more costly exercise and therefore a less likely one. In a world in which we find more and more similarities with one another, predominantly through building trade relationships, we are pushed and incentivised to work together to cooperate, but to build rather than destroy.

If history has taught us anything, it is that there is nothing to be gained from economic isolationism. Protectionism and excessive economic regulation has long been the mainstay of authoritarian governments whose main aim has always been to control their citizens rather than see them prosper.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're not always sure why you're asked to add remarks, but you are asked to add remarks, and we'll see how they go.

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed. I'm pleased to make a contribution to add some words of support and provide a bit of context for our support. I do so as the vice-chair of the Singapore-Australia Parliamentary Friendship Group, along with my colleague, the member for Moore, Mr Goodenough, and also as someone who has a longstanding interest in good policy and the architecture to develop Australia's trade relations broadly, but particularly with South-East Asia. My former work, before I entered the parliament, was with the Victorian Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, working in the trade and engagement area. I've led trade missions to South-East Asia in a range of sectors. So I have a great personal interest as well as reflecting Labor's long and strong support for good trade policy and trade agreements.

I'll try to focus on the substance of the issues. I'm not inclined, with my head cold, to respond to some of the propaganda which we heard interspersed with some sensible comments that somehow the world is black and white and everyone on the side of truth and righteousness over there loves trade and trade agreements, and that somehow we're all Neanderthals who don't. If you look over the last few decades and, indeed, the history of this trade agreement, there's been strong bipartisan support from the Hawke-Keating government, which was not much loved by the parties opposite when they were in government, but, as the years go on, we hear more fond remarks from the Treasurer and the Prime Minister about the glory years of Hawke and Keating and their economic contribution to Australia.

To the context for this trade agreement, Australia sits at the bottom of a region of 4½ billion people—the fastest growing part of the world. The world's economic centre is returning to Asia faster than at any time in human history. Indeed, that's been the norm—that the economic centre of the world was around north of us. This is full of opportunity for us—and some threat, as we're seeing. Importantly, these opportunities have to be seized. Good outcomes don't just happen magically. They require sustained effort over many years by all sides—all parties of government at the very least, both in trade policy architecture, the day-to-day efforts, trade missions and Austrade's work and so on, and the deal-making. These agreements can be fine as far as they go, but, ultimately, it's up to Australian business to take advantage of them, particularly in the case of trading with South-East Asia, to make best use of that incredible resource which we have as a diverse country—our diaspora populations. There's an enormous amount of research that indicates that migrant diasporas, including a wonderful Singaporean diaspora, many in my electorate who settled from the 1970s and 1980s and who started businesses and are trading with Singapore now, and that those cultural networks and the trusted relationships, with families moving backwards and forwards, are also critical enablers to take best advantage of the trade architecture which may be in place from time to time.

With that broad context, I think to be fair of bipartisanship in aims and sometimes differing objectives, I would also make the point that bilateral agreements can be good as far as they go. But, in trade theory, they're always suboptimal to good multilateral agreements. I don't think any sensible economist would dispute that a broader multilateral agreement is going to give you a better outcome over the long term than a series of sometimes patchwork bilateral agreements. We are in an era where, for a range of reasons, good multilateral agreements improvements have been hard to come by. But that doesn't mean that every trade agreement is a good trade agreement. That's a really important thing to note—that it's too easy when we might raise legitimate concerns about aspects to then play the silly partisan game which we heard in question time again today that, all of a sudden, when you raise a query or a concern about a trade agreement, like we did with aspects of many that have gone in recent times, somehow, therefore, you're against free trade and you hate the whole thing, which is just nonsense.

As the committee that looked at this made clear—and Labor is supporting this legislation; it implements a couple of the key aspects to the new and improved agreement, as they say; the tariffs and customs changes—importantly, we did make some comments raising concerns about aspects of the agreement. And they're not new concerns. They're things which we've said for some years. They're things which we took to the last election. They're things which we've said in the parliament. They're things which we've said consistently in relation to other trade agreements. They go to good scrutiny. So the point that I made was that not every trade agreement is a good trade agreement. You don't sign a deal just because you can get one. You sign a deal when you're absolutely convinced in a transparent and robust way that it's in the national interest. To that effect, Labor maintain our concerns, as we provided in the additional comments to the main report, about the lack of transparency in negotiation and, importantly, the lack of independent economic analysis.

Amusingly, perhaps for those who watch the parliament and the workings of the parliament, strangely it's not just Labor that says that—it's not just Labor MPs. We've seen in this parliament alone two government-controlled committees—that's right; controlled by those opposite—publish reports which back up the points which we're making here in relation to this bill and this agreement. On the Indonesia-Australia investment relationship and trade agreement, the trade and investment growth committee only a few months ago issued a report that said there should be independent economic scrutiny of trade agreements. This is a good practice and a good policy—that you shouldn't just sign these things because you're the government and you can. If you believe what you say and you believe the advice that DFAT is giving you, then you should have the confidence to put them to some external scrutiny—expose the assumptions. It shouldn't be that controversial.

That committee recommended that any future Indonesia-Australia free trade agreement should be subject to independent scrutiny—for example, by the Productivity Commission or a similarly competent body. Indeed, there have been other committees controlled by the government that have signed up to the same principle. In supporting this legislation, which is necessary to give effect to some of the customs and tariff aspects of the agreement, we do maintain our concern about the lack of transparency in negotiation and the lack of independent economic analysis across these sorts of agreements.

The second point, and a consistent point we make, is that the SAFTA update will undermine Australia's migrant visa program by failing to apply labour market testing for contractual service suppliers. In plain English, that means that, under this new and improved government agreement, jobs in Australia will be able to be filled by workers from Singapore without being offered to Australians first. It doesn't mean we're against free trade or against economic growth to maintain that simple, firm principle that we shouldn't trade away labour market testing rights. It is a globalised world and we welcome that. Interconnectivity is great economically and it's great strategically. Countries who trade are less likely to end up in conflict in the broader region. That's all true.

There are a couple of things we believe shouldn't be globalised without proper scrutiny. One is labour market testing and people's jobs. The other is the ISDS clauses that we've got great concerns with. Notwithstanding our support for this legislation to give effect to this aspect of the agreement, we are concerned that, yet again, another agreement by this government weakens labour market protection for Australian workers. It's no great comfort when they say, 'Oh, well, there's a theory here that says we might grow the pie in a couple of aspects of the agreement.' That's fine, but you could be the one who loses your job because of the way this government approaches trade agreements with an ideological bent. It's not a controversial view. Many of their own members sign up to this unanimously committee after committee. I do not understand the blind ideology that stops them from accepting it's a reasonable proposition.

I should have mentioned at the start that there is continued bipartisan support for this. As was rightly said, the Howard government first signed this agreement in 2003 and it was updated by the Gillard government in 2011. The continued attention to updating the agreement is welcome. The final point I'd make is that ISDS clauses have been in the SAFTA. In a sense, there are changes which we welcome. There are some improvements to acknowledge the right and the ability of governments to regulate in the public interest, and that's been one of our serious concerns about ISDS clauses broadly. This agreement does acknowledge that governments have a right to regulate to ensure protection of public welfare, including health and environment; that non-discriminatory regulatory actions to safeguard public welfare objectives are okay; and that government's action, which may be inconsistent with an investor's expectations, does not constitute an agreement of the minimum standard of treatment obligations, even if it results in loss or damage to the investor.

These things form an important part of the context for the specific provisions of the bill in relation to the new rules of origin for goods imported from Singapore and the new procedure to claim preferential tariff treatment for goods that originate in Singapore, and the transitional provisions around that. In recognising that there are changes and improvements is also to concede that there are problems, therefore, in the other ISDS clauses which this government continues to have operative and pursue in other agreements.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017. If you go back to 1965, to the time when Singapore became a nation, you would have to say their prospects did not look good. Here was a small island nation with virtually zero natural resources and a small migrant population. At that time in 1965 it was almost the height of the Vietnam War. We had the North Vietnamese, the Communists, wanting to infiltrate the rest of the countries through South-East Asia. Back in 1965, there was still a legitimate argument about which economic system would provide the greatest prosperity for its citizens. Was it the Communist socialist model promoted by Russia and the North Vietnamese, or was it the free market capitalist model promoted by the West?

We ask today why Singapore is so successful, and there are two things. Firstly, Lee Kuan Yew spoke in his autobiography about the importance of America and Australia's intervention in the Vietnam War. He said:

… the communist underground was still active in Singapore—

at the time of action in Vietnam—

America's action enabled non-communist Southeast Asia to put their own houses in order. By 1975, they—

the South-East Asian nations—

were in better shape to stand up to the communists. Had there been no US intervention—

of course, with Australia's support—

the will of these countries to resist would have melted and Southeast Asia would have most likely gone communist. The prosperous emerging market economies of ASEAN—

that we see today—

were nurtured during the Vietnam War years.

Singapore went down the track of free trade. They understood the importance of free trade—how that brings prosperity to your nation.

I was reading an article the other week and thought, 'This actually says everything that needs to be said about free trade.' It's by a gentleman called Allan Golombek. He said:

Imports are not a necessary evil; they are a necessary ingredient. Companies requiring inputs toward a finished product need to get the best price, quality, and service levels they can to compete. They need the widest potential network of potential suppliers. Being able to import—and therefore obtain the best possible terms and conditions from domestic and foreign suppliers—is crucial to being able to efficiently make products for export.

He continued:

In fact, the opportunity to import helps achieve productivity and prosperity more than the opportunity to export, because it does more to broaden choice. Importing widens the circle of potential suppliers competing to meet the needs of consumers and intermediate producers. It forces domestic companies to become more efficient and compete more effectively. It generates economies of scale, spreading production costs over a wider and larger market. It allows countries to utilize comparative advantage, importing goods and inputs from countries that are most efficient at making them. And it transfers knowledge, allowing importers to benefit from technological spillover.

That pretty much sums up Singapore's approach. And what have they achieved? One of the most successful and wealthiest societies on the planet.

We contrast that with those who decided free trade and free market capitalist policies are not the way to go. We look at a nation like Venezuela that, in contrast to Singapore, has more oil wealth than Saudi Arabia, but instead spurned free trade—that said capitalism is no good, that went for their thing of equality and social justice. What do we see in Venezuela today? A nation that once had a higher GDP than Australia—a nation that was once ranked fourth in the world with GDP—we now see in absolute collapse. Inflation there runs at 460 per cent. They have the world's worst economic growth at minus eight per cent. We see a nation where there are food riots and they slaughter the zoo animals for food. They have one of the highest murder rates in the world. Last year, there were over 21,000 murders in the nation of Venezuela, at a rate of 90 per 100,000. In contrast, Singapore had 16, at a rate of 0.3 per cent. In Venezuela, we see the re-emergence of diseases that were once eradicated—diseases like diphtheria. We see increases in child mortality. We see the final stages of socialism, where they even run out of toilet paper.

There cannot be a greater contrast—a greater example—between Singapore and Venezuela to show what is the greatest way to create prosperity for a nation's people and their economy, and yet we still have people in this parliament and state parliaments around this nation that argue against free trade. While the historical evidence of how it drives prosperity is there, we still have so many people who want to argue against free trade. Among all the wonderful things this coalition government has done, one of the best is the free trade agreements with China, with Japan and with South Korea, and now we can add this free trade agreement with Singapore to the list.

I will go through some of the things that this free trade agreement will achieve. Firstly, it will enhance our education opportunities. There will be new opportunities, through increased recognition of tertiary qualifications obtained from Australian universities. In the legal field, it will be simpler for Australian lawyers and law firms operating in Singapore to obtain and retain accreditation. In the financial markets, Australian financial service providers will be able to provide services to Singapore, including banking, insurance, fund management, portfolio management and brokerage. Professional services will benefit.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 17:31 to 17:46

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to speak on the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement amendment implementation bill. Given that he is in the chamber, I really want to commend Minister Ciobo on his efforts in putting this Singaporean deal together—it is very important to have any amendment to the free trade agreement, or SAFTA, signed in an agreement. The free trade agreement is one of the pillars of our close relationship with Singapore. As a member for an electorate that exports some fine quality products and produce around the world, and services that will be available in Singapore as a result of this agreement, I acknowledge the work of the minister. The minister, having visited my electorate not so long ago, understands the capabilities and the capacity not only of my electorate but of those around Australia and the opportunities this agreement provides.

As a trading nation, Australia relies on trade—there's no other way of putting it. Every new free trade agreement that we do brings another opportunity for those who provide goods and services, as this one does. I represent the amazing region of the south-west, and the Margaret River region in particular, and my electorate already exports to all areas of the globe and especially into Asia. Singapore is one of the main gateways for this fast-growing region. The OECD estimates the global middle class will swell to 4.9 billion people by 2030—two-thirds of whom are expected to reside in Asia, with China itself having one billion of that global middle class.

SAFTA provides unprecedented access to Asian markets through the trade hub that is Singapore. Opportunities in the Margaret River region and throughout the south-west—as the minister is well aware, and he supported me strongly in achieving the necessary federal funding—have been boosted with the upgrade for the Busselton-Margaret River Airport to international status, with international and domestic freight. This is really a critical issue in my electorate. It opens up the whole of the south-west, not just the immediate Margaret River-Busselton area, to allow the export of products directly into Singapore and then onto Asia. It is an amazing transformative project and opportunity. My electorate has things like the wonderful wine that we're internationally known for, and Amelia Park's beautiful lamb and beef. We have that amazing and wonderful delicacy, marron, and Brad Adams down at Augusta has his ocean-grown baby abalone. Then there is the Margaret River Chocolate Company, which produces a handmade premium product, a wonderful delicacy. Vasse Virgin is producing some amazing olive oil, raw soaps and natural products. There are also the artisan cheeses and yoghurts. Then there are niche companies like the Margaret River Fudge Factory, which is an experience in itself, or Nauti-Craft, which recently won a national award for innovation. There are lots of opportunities.

We will see people coming to and from the region as a result of this free trade agreement and we will see even more opportunities. The SAFTA does a number of things, removing the tariffs on exports to Singapore across the board and giving market access for Australian exporters of services, particularly around education, the environment, telecommunications and professional services. I look at all the expertise we have in the irrigation space in the south-west. Harvey Water is a multiaward-winning provider of irrigation. It is a co-op run by local farmers. They've done extraordinary, groundbreaking work. I'm sure this is the sort of expertise that is transferable. That sort of expertise fits into the services space. There will also be opportunities in education—for Manea college, for example—and for telecommunication companies, law firms and insurance companies. When we get people coming into the south-west, into Busselton and the Margaret River region, through that wonderful airport, we'll be able to offer them a range of amazing experiences.

The free trade agreement provides a more open and predictable business environment, exactly what businesses call for both in Singapore and in Australia. It includes competition policy, government procurement, intellectual property, e-commerce, customs procedures and business travel. This is just the beginning. These amendments are a key economic plank of the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. This is another high-quality trade deal completed by the Turnbull government. It builds on the agreements with China, Thailand and South Korea and the Singapore agreement itself, delivering significant economic benefits and driving strong growth in the value of Australia's exports. I want to see more of those opportunities for businesses and my region of the south-west of Western Australia. I thank the minister for his efforts.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 are the legislative changes required as part of the recent update to the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 amends the Customs Act 1901 to introduce new rules of origins for goods that are imported into Australia from Singapore. It introduces new procedures to claim preferential tariff treatment for goods that originate from Singapore and it extends the record-keeping obligations that apply to goods exported to Singapore that are produced and manufactured in Australia to Australian-originating goods that are exported to Singapore.

The second bill, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017, provides for duty-free access on entry into force of the amended agreement for most eligible goods. It inserts a new schedule 4A to provide for excise-equivalent rates of duty on certain alcohol, tobacco, fuel and petroleum products and it repeals provisions in schedule 3 of the Customs Tariff Act that provide for excise-equivalent rates on duty on certain alcohol, tobacco, fuel and petroleum products in line with the amended agreement, after the expiration of the three-year transition period.

Labor supports these changes and, more broadly, we support the update to the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The original free trade agreement was signed by the Howard government, with the Goh government, back in 2003, and it was first updated by the Gillard government in 2011. This is the second update to that agreement. Singapore is our seventh-largest trading partner, and last year we exported more than $10 billion in goods and services to Singapore. This update provides a framework for bilateral investments. It also recognises a number of Australian qualifications, which will provide more opportunities for Australian workers in the areas of education, law, e-commerce, telecommunications and professional services. They're all good things. The updated rules of origin will also help cut red tape for exporters and reduce compliance costs. The harmonisation of investor rules for the Foreign Investment Review Board should also help to increase business in both countries. All of that is good news.

The updated agreement also restricts the use of ISDS mechanisms, and this is welcome. As part of the updated agreement, ISDS exemptions have been included for governments to regulate to ensure the protection of public welfare, including in areas of health and the environment. The ISDS provisions will not apply to tobacco control measures and Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Medicare Benefits Schedule, Therapeutic Goods Administration and Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. Measures with respect to the creative arts, Indigenous cultural expressions and other cultural heritage will also not have ISDS provisions apply to them and, likewise, Australia's foreign investment policy, including decisions of the Foreign Investment Review Board. These are important protections; however, I take this opportunity to restate Labor's position: we believe that ISDS clauses should be removed altogether. Sovereign governments should be able to legislate in the national interest and should not be constrained by litigious companies or groups.

A part of the updated agreement that's not in this bill that we don't support is the removal of labour market testing for contractual service suppliers. I've made this point in this place and elsewhere a number of times. This is the sort of stuff that makes Australians angry. Before a company brings a worker in from overseas—an electrician, a carpenter or a mechanic—we think they should first have to go through the basic task of seeing if there is an Australian who can do the job. That's not what is happening here. The government is using trade deals to waive this with a number of different countries.

Despite all the talk from the Prime Minister that this wouldn't happen, it is happening. It also contradicts the government's announcement earlier this year that labour market testing would be mandatory for all temporary skill shortage visa applications. In April, the Prime Minister said:

If a job is able to be done by an Australian, it should be done by an Australian. Every nation is entitled to take that point of view, and we certainly do.

When they announced the changes to temporary work visas, he said:

It will require, in almost all circumstances, in the majority of cases, mandatory labour market testing.

But in the policy document that was also released that day there was a get-out clause. On page 3, it said that labour market testing will be mandatory unless an international obligation applies. That's what's being done here. It is what was done with the Chinese-Australia Free Trade Agreement, the South Korean agreement and the Japanese agreement. They have waived labour market testing in this update. If the government would adopt the same approach with the range of other bilateral and regional free trade agreements they're currently negotiating, the impact would be that around 75 per cent of those who come to Australia to work would do so without labour market testing happening first.

That objection stated, we support the update to the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement and support this legislation. I told the Singaporean Deputy Prime Minister and the Singaporean trade minister that when they visited a few weeks ago. We are two countries with a long and important bond. We're both free and open economies. Our bureaucrats work together to open up our region for even more trade and investment. Our soldiers, sailors and air men and women train and fight together. Many Australians who fought and died in the Second World War lay forever in Singaporean soil. I hope this update will further cement the bonds between our two great countries and lead to more trade and investment.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank members for their contribution to the debate on the Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017. I thank the member for Blaxland for his comments. We have a good working relationship. I think that we have the chance to be motivated by common interest in terms of Australia's national interest; though. of course, we disagree from time to time on the best way that that national interest is served. That notwithstanding, I appreciate the contribution he made in this debate. Although I don't agree with all aspects of his remarks, I appreciate the nature in which he made them.

I particularly thank the members for Capricornia, Moore, Mackellar, Hughes and Forrest who made contributions. I think their contributions highlight the significance of the SAFTA and the opportunities that the coalition is creating for Australian businesses. I note that, across the board, coalition members are genuinely excited about what SAFTA represents.

This new comprehensive strategic partnership between Australia and Singapore does represent incredible potential to keep building on the strong trade and investment ties that exist between our countries. It represents incredible potential because of defence links that exist between Australia and Singapore, which have been further entrenched and help to bind together the work that Singapore and Australia will be able to do today. It represents incredible potential because of the way in which we have, for example, the CSIRO and A*STAR working collaboratively in innovative new areas. It represents incredible potential because of the great work that the landing pad that the coalition has instigated and put into effect in Singapore. It is now well and truly a breeding ground, for lack of a better term, for nascent Aussie businesses that are taking some of their first steps in the world.

For these reasons, I'm genuinely motivated by what I think is going to be a comprehensive and substantial trade and investment deal that will help to change and further develop for the positive the relationship between Australia and Singapore. They do represent a deepening of our bilateral relationship with Singapore. Given, of course, its modern services-based economy, it is, in many respects, a natural gateway for Australian businesses to those rapidly growing markets in South-East Asia. These are markets that we, of course, as a coalition government, have sought to further entrench through our China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, our Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement and, of course, the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement. Singapore is our fourth-largest export market for services. It's a very significant factor for Australia's largest service-driven economy. I note that roughly 76 per cent of the Australian economy is services based—roughly four out of five jobs—and yet, notwithstanding that fact, it only accounts for around 22 per cent of our exports.

SAFTA represents the embodiment of incredible potential when it comes to services exports for our nation. That's why we—and I want to pay credit to my predecessor, Andrew Robb, who started this process with Singapore—were so focused on making sure we put in place this comprehensive deal. The benefits from this deal were also made apparent to me when I travelled, together with the defence minister, Senator Payne, and the foreign minister, Minister Bishop, to what we call the Plus Three dialogue in Singapore only a matter of a month or two ago. I took with me a delegation of Australian businesses, all motivated and excited to make the most of this deal that we're putting through the parliament today. The Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement has mobilised people across a range of industries: agribusiness, those involved in innovation, those involved in higher education, and those involved in defence industries. I was particularly pleased to see Senator Ian Macdonald and the member for Capricornia come with us on that journey to accompany those businesses as well as a number of mayors from local communities, all of whom came to reinforce the message that this is a good deal for Australia.

I should also note that the member for Herbert's in the chamber. I note that the member for Herbert didn't make a contribution to this debate, and I find that extraordinary, frankly. I find it extraordinary because the member for Herbert represents Townsville, a region that is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The member for Herbert replaced the former member for Herbert, Ewen Jones, who certainly wouldn't have been silent about the incredible potential that the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement has for the township of Townsville. He wouldn't have been silent; he would have been talking about and advocating for the myriad benefits that Townsville will enjoy as a direct consequence of the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. He would have actually had the wherewithal to contribute to a debate like this, knowing full well that this debate represents incredible potential for the people of Townsville.

In fact, the member for Herbert, in my view, should be condemned for not having the wherewithal to make a contribution to this debate. She should be condemned for not having the wherewithal to actually make remarks about what the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement will mean for her community. She should be condemned for not backing in Australian ADF personnel and not backing in Australian businesses, especially from her region, all of whom will, of course, stand to benefit as a consequence of the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. It is extraordinary that there's just a wall of silence from the member for Herbert. I want to encourage the member for Herbert to get mobilised, get active and get engaged with the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. If the member for Herbert wants to be an advocate for her community and wants to be someone who's taken seriously in this building, then it's probably important that she speaks about one of the single biggest issues that affects her community directly rather than just sitting, stony faced and mute. In fact, I think that to actually even be in the chamber while the debate is taking place and not contribute to it really reinforces that the member for Herbert has no interest in something like this—something which has such an impact on the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement.

Australia exported some $4.8 billion of services to Singapore in 2016, including some $2.2 billion of professional and business services. Since SAFTA was first signed in 2003, our bilateral trade relationship has grown by over 80 per cent and our bilateral trade relationship has grown by more than 350 per cent. The agreement to amend SAFTA underscores the importance each country places on further integrating our two economies and remaining open for trade and business in the face of what is, unfortunately, it sometimes seems, a more protectionist sentiment that prevails in some quarters.

These two bills implement legislation that will help bring the agreement into force as soon as possible and allow Australians to benefit from even greater access to global markets. The government will move two amendments to the Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 in the Senate to address an inconsistency with the definition of 'harmonised system' that's currently contained in the bill. Since the agreement to amend SAFTA was concluded, the World Customs Organization has introduced an updated version of the harmonised system, and the government amendments will ensure Australia's domestic processes are completed in time to meet entry and to force deadlines.

The agreement to amend SAFTA is our most comprehensive update to a free trade agreement to date. Singapore has given Australia its best FTA treatment, putting our exporters on equal or better footing than our foreign competitors. I particularly want to acknowledge the excellent relationship with Minister Lim, Minister Balakrishnan and, indeed, Prime Minister Lee, all of whom have played a critical role on Singapore's side, as well as the work of the Singapore high commission. All have been mobilised and focused on making sure that this Singapore-Australia free trade agreement embodies the full potential of what is a wonderful relationship between Australia and Singapore.

The conclusion of such a high-quality deal reinforces the leadership of the coalition in delivering new opportunities for Australian businesses. I commend the legislation to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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