Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I might enunciate something I said to you digitally and apologise for my coughing. I assure colleagues it has nothing to do with COVID. It has everything to do with my asthma, which seems to be a little less controlled this morning than I'd like it to be normally. I give a quick shout-out to those who suffer from respiratory diseases who might find themselves coughing regularly. I've noticed in particular as I travel around community that there's a real stigma associated with coughing at the moment, so I give a shout-out to those fellow Australians who, like me, struggle with pulmonary disease. It is a reminder to other Australians to be kind in our judgements of people. Not every cough means someone is suffering from COVID.

In any event, I rise to make a contribution to these two very important bills, the Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021. As I sat here last night, listening to contributions from others, I reflected on a South Australian hero, and I'd like to make a few comments about him in the context of this bill.

I said in my maiden speech that we stand on the shoulders of giants, and in my case, as a South Australian member of parliament and someone who represents a portion of the former electorate of Wakefield, I'd like to mention, particularly with reference to this bill, the Hon. Bert Kelly, who was, of course, the member for Wakefield from 1958 and perhaps more commonly is referred to as the 'Modest Member'. I say this in a debate where others have quite rightly made contributions about how significant free trade is to the modern, globalised, connected world order today.

I hasten to suggest there'd be very few people who would come into this chamber in 2021 and vehemently oppose free trade or suggest that the future for global trade involves crushing and significant tariffs. But, as someone who perhaps knows more about the history of this place than I do, Mr Speaker, you know that that wasn't the case in 1958, when Bert Kelly was elected. His antiprotectionist views were particularly unpopular, and some say his time in that ministry was limited by the fact that he held those views, but, in any event, once he was no longer in the executive, he began writing a column in the Australian Financial Review, initially anonymously under the moniker 'Modest Member'. Ultimately it was fleshed out that he was the Hon. Bert Kelly was of course the Modest Member. I should say that, post retirement, he continued to write that column but referred to himself as the 'Modest Farmer'. As someone in this place who hopes to retire to a career in farming at some point, I'd like to think that I have a bit in common with the Hon. Bert Kelly, who lost preselection in 1977, the year I was born.

I say we stand on the shoulders of giants not only because of what he achieved and his courage but because, quite frankly, the course of Australian political history was probably altered in this space more significantly by Kelly than by any other person. You might not want to take my word for it. Perhaps we can take the word of former Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, who on Bert Kelly's death indicated:

No private member has had as much influence in changing a major policy of the major parties.

This was a person who came to this place in 1958, when protectionism was de jure, and over the course of time he saw, through his humble advocacy, that policy was changed across decades and ultimately to the point where now almost no-one—indeed, I would argue no-one—would argue in favour of crushing tariffs.

Leaving my parochialism and my admiration for Kelly to one side, I will turn to the bill. This bill is important for producers in Barker. Often those in this place hear me talk about the farmers in my electorate, but this bill is important not only for the farmers in my electorate. I see its importance resting principally with food manufacturing in my electorate. Increasingly, my electorate is taking the clean and green commodities that we produce and turning them into clean, green and safe processed foods for the world. Indeed, the electoral division of Barker holds the title of having more Australians, per head of population, employed full time in the manufacturing sector than has any other division in this place. Barker is the home of Australian manufacturing, and I'd like to think that, with the very bullish free trade agenda that's being pursued by this government, its future status not only is safe and secure but will thrive going forward.

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, commonly referred to as RCEP, is another step in that direction. It's a modern free trade agreement between Australia and 14 other nations, no less, in the Indo-Pacific. It has been described as the world's largest free trade agreement. As I said earlier, it complements the myriad free trade agreements that have been established, not least of which are those that have been established since we came to office in 2013, most recently the agreement entered into with the UK. I'll leave for another day my comments on how the harm to Australian farmers that was occasioned by the Common Market turning its back on Australian farmers is about to be addressed—albeit, as I have said publicly, at a time when Australian producers are probably going to find it difficult to fill demand, because we have been so successful in pivoting away from the UK in our trade efforts over the generations since 1972.

In any event, this bill effectively operates to achieve three things. It provides rules, including product-specific rules, in determining imported goods from RCEP-originating countries—RCEP-originating goods. These are preferential rules for the 14 countries and Australia. Of course there needs to be integrity around how we do that, and this bill seeks to achieve it. It also, as part of that integrity requirement, requires Australian exporters to keep sufficient records. That is of course important. Most importantly, in terms of the operation and efficacy of these bills, it creates a new schedule of preferential customs duty rates for goods that qualify as RCEP-originating goods. If the Hon. Bert Kelly were in this place today, he would be cheering on RCEP. It's about creating a lower-tariff environment, a freer trade environment. I'd suggest that, at the time, Kelly was talking particularly about traditional trade routes between our nation and continental Europe, in particular the UK, and probably he did not dare think we could enter into free trade agreements with 14 countries in the Indo-Pacific, the majority of whom don't operate under property-owning democracies. He would be incredibly pleased to see what's occurring.

I've indicated what we're doing in relation to RCEP. I think it's also important to point out that we have engaged in deep consultation, through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, with governments and agencies from the signatory countries. Once in force this will be, as I said earlier, the largest free trade agreement in the globe. RCEP signatory states account for 30 per cent of the world's population and GDP. No other free trade agreement brings together the collective economic weight of ASEAN nations and the major economies in North Asia. RCEP also provides for additional economies to join the agreement in the future, building the significance of the agreement over time. With respect, I suggest that the significance of this agreement might ultimately be borne out geopolitically, as well as delivering an important economic dividend for RCEP member states.

While I'm mentioning the RCEP member states, it's probably important to list them. The RCEP member states are Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, the Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Australia, China, Japan, New Zealand and the Republic of Korea. As I said earlier, that's 30 per cent of the globe's population and 30 per cent of the globe's GDP. RCEP has been ratified by Brunei, China, Japan and Singapore and will enter into force 60 days after one or more of the Asian members and four more ASEAN members ratify RCEP.

I've mentioned economic efforts in my electorate and the fact that they centre around agriculture and food production, principally, but this agreement is far broader than that. It provides for financial services, specialist services and others. It's important to note a phenomenon that I'm seeing in my electorate, which I think is playing out across Australia right now, and it's born of infrastructure that our nation has built, principally over the eight years that we've been in government. Increasingly, in communities in my electorate—principally those on the coast, but not exclusively so—people who work in the service sectors, particularly high-wealth individuals and those with the ability to work remotely, are leaving Victoria and finding a home in coastal villages such as Robe, Beachport and Kingston in my electorate. From there they're servicing their customer base in the service sectors. This reflects the fact that the provision of those services, not only interstate but now internationally, is made that much easier by the RCEP agreement.

Burt Kelly, when he was first elected, in the 1950s, brought to this place views about a free-trade future, but he perhaps never imagined that we would be entering into free trade agreements or preferential trade agreements with 14 nations in the Indo-Pacific, many of whom don't share our system of government. I don't think he could have imagined that, in the relatively near future, we would be at that place, as we are. Perhaps in his mind, in the late 1950s, it would be even more strange that a member of this place representing the electorate of Barker would get to his pins and say, 'There is a real likelihood that, because of this agreement, constituents living in my electorate and working digitally could provide services directly into those Indo-Pacific nations.' Even for someone as visionary as Burt Kelly, that concept would have been a bridge too far, but that's where we find ourselves. It's a happy circumstance we find ourselves in, and it's fair to say that a lot of that trajectory owes its origin to Kelly's initial push to change our views on protectionism. Bear in mind that this was someone who declared himself a modest member and who was also subsequently described by Gough Whitlam as a private member who moved the trajectory of major political parties' policies more than anyone else. And I don't think we should forget the giants whose shoulders we stand on. In that regard, I want to take the opportunity to reflect on the service of the Hon. Bert Kelly, the former member for Wakefield, and how his efforts have, in a sense, allowed us to arrive at this place.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Brand has moved, as an amendment, that all words after 'That' be omitted, with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be disagreed to.

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] I believe in free trade and welcome all the benefits trade can bring us. As an open trading nation, Australia has been a big beneficiary of the multilateral rules-based trading system that has operated for decades. We have a long history of successfully concluding free trade agreements with countries and with collections of countries. We have before us the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, the RCEP. Speakers yesterday artfully articulated the size and economic weight of the collection of states that it encompasses. It brings much of the Indo-Pacific into a trading relationship. This has been a very difficult period for many Australian exporters, with disruptions brought about by the global pandemic, and ongoing trade disputes have highlighted the need for an effective policy for trade diversification.

RCEP, while in many ways welcome, is not a policy for trade diversification. Let's examine what RCEP is. RCEP will be the world's second most important trade agreement on arrival, ranking only below the WTO itself. RCEP countries include nine of Australia's top 15 trading partners, accounting for 58 per cent of Australia's total two-way trade and 67 per cent of our exports, which is obviously very significant. Importantly, RCEP includes our near-neighbours, ASEAN countries and New Zealand and our major trading partners—China, Japan and South Korea. In this context, Australia's participation in RCEP affirms the importance we place on our Indo-Pacific geography. The experiences of Australian exporters over the past few years have emphasised the significant impact of geo-economics on our domestic economy. And the COVID-19 global pandemic has shown the critical role that regional supply chains have in ensuring that products make the timely transition from the raw material to the consumer's hands. Noting growing uncertainty and unease, now more than ever Australia needs to diversify its trade both in markets and in products.

RCEP will provide a single set of basic rules for Australian SMEs exporting to RCEP member countries, making regional value chains cheaper by simplifying previously fractured trading regimes and cutting red tape. Labor supports such measures that encourage SMEs to boost exports and create more jobs for Australians. SMEs currently account for only 14 per cent of Australia's exports, whereas in G7 countries they account for 25 per cent, and the European Union average is 35 per cent. However, exporters contribute more than nonexporters to jobs and productivity, on average employing more staff, paying higher wages and achieving higher labour productivity compared with nonexporters. So lifting SME exports to 25 per cent of Australia's exports would increase our GDP by an estimated $36 billion—which, as I'm sure all honourable members would agree, a very good thing. Labor has previously raised concerns over the Morrison government's refusal to commission independent economic modelling for the RCEP. That must be said and put on the record—again. We called for the final treaty text to be publicly released before the agreement was signed, to allow it to be scrutinised, but unfortunately that did not occur.

Greater transparency is absolutely vital to building community support for fair and open trade. We know there is ongoing unease and concern in the community about the potential dangers of free trade agreements, and this unease can only be addressed through engagement and transparency. Labor has been in consultation with the union movement and other civil society stakeholders throughout the negotiations and the eventual signing of RCEP. We have written to the trade minister to clarify issues relating to the government's ability to regulate our domestic aged-care regime under the agreement to ensure the recommendations of the royal commission into aged care can be realised. I and my colleagues look forward to the government's assurances on these matters being placed on the parliamentary record in the course of this debate.

RCEP does not include an investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, mechanism. It is worth noting that the use of ISDS clauses is in decline in Australian trade agreements. Importantly, RCEP does not include any commitments in relation to waiving labour market testing for migration purposes beyond those in our existing trade agreements with RCEP signatories. An Albanese Labor government would ensure that future reviews of RCEP would ensure Australia's national interest is pursued without undermining Australia's ability to democratically set our own policy. This includes in relation to migration, labour standards, aged care, child care, government procurement and the environment.

There are some positive elements to the RCEP, but there are also issues which the government must address, not just with RCEP but with the government's entire posture relating to trade policy. I've had the opportunity to think a great deal on the question of our trading relations with our region. In June 2019, I chaired the Indo-Pacific Trade Taskforce of the federal Labor Party. We undertook extensive consultation with experts, officials, industry and other figures. Our task force's final product, a 42-page report with 13 distinct policy recommendations, really got to the core of the need not only for trade diversification but also for a focus on trade as a pathway to economic growth.

Our recommendations go some way further than the approach of the current government, which has been to negotiate and conclude trade agreements and then, once they have that announcement and the front-page story, move onto the next thing, without necessarily doing the hard work required to activate these agreements. What they don't understand is that the trade agreement is, in fact, only the first step in improving trade with a country or a collection of countries. There needs to be ongoing attention to issues and non-tariff barriers and a constant dialogue with industry and businesses on the course of trade.

We share just one recommendation that goes to this: increasing major exporters' Asia capability via a mutual DFAT secondment program. Subject to additional funding and security clearance requirements, major Australian exporters and investors on long-term deployment in an Indo-Pacific market could receive training from DFAT's Diplomatic Academy; a short-term placement in the relevant DFAT countries section, to sensitise them to the national interest; and an in-country briefing by post. DFAT and Austrade officers on pre-deployment training could spend three to six months embedded in one of the top exporters or investors in their market. This would benefit regional and rural businesses outside the Canberra-Sydney-Melbourne triangle. Obviously, as someone who represents an electorate in regional Australia outside that triangle, I think it would be excellent if we could jump on and make the most of such recommendations, because government has a role to play in enhancing trade diversification and increasing our prosperity on the back of trade. That is something that this government would do well to remember. It's the hard work that is required, not just the signing of agreements, as important as they are.

One source of controversy in the process of developing RCEP has been the inclusion of Myanmar, and I will go to that briefly. The coup in Myanmar earlier this year, the ongoing violence by the military regime and the ongoing denial of the rights of the people of that country are completely at odds with not only our values but the values of free and open trade. While the exclusion of Myanmar from RCEP may have proven to be too difficult when the agreement included the rest of ASEAN, there are nonetheless concrete steps that this government can take to ensure that Myanmar's inclusion in RCEP does not convey legitimacy to the regime and their actions. In June the government chaired Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade recommended sanctions against the Tatmadaw regime. In August the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties embarrassingly had to remind the Morrison-Joyce government once again of the need to act. Specifically, the JSCOT inquiry into RCEP recommended that the government:

… continue to pursue the restoration of civilian, democratic rule in Myanmar as a foreign policy priority, and considers making a declaration to this effect at the time of ratification.

The Morrison-Joyce government's refusal to implement any sanctions since the coup sends precisely the wrong message that Australian does not care, that we are mere bystanders to democratic backsliding in our region.

Australia had a longstanding policy of recognising states and not governments. Nevertheless, Labor calls on the Morrison-Joyce government to engage at a high level with the national unity government of Myanmar. Australia must stand up for human rights. It is well past time for the Prime Minister and the foreign minister to act in support of Myanmar's democracy, to implement targeted sanctions and to support the people and democracy of Myanmar. Australia must once again become a global leader in defending free trade and working with like-minded nations to reform and modernise the World Trade Organization, the WTO, to reflect the realities of today's global economy and reform the stalled disputes process. In the interim, regional agreements such as RCEP that include our greatest trading partners and offer their own dispute settlement processes are integral to maintaining a rules based environment for our trading nation to operate in.

But, as I said, free trade agreements in whatever form they come are not a substitute for an effective policy or trade diversification. It is high time—it is well past time—for this government to create a plan for trade diversification and to implement it. We can create new prosperity from trade, and government must play a part in achieving this. It is the federal government's role to ensure that we are doing the hard work to make sure that trade is diversified not just in the Indo-Pacific region but throughout the world. We have brilliant businesses, we have brilliant industries, we have brilliant workers. Federal Labor will always make sure that Australian workers and businesses have every protection and opportunity to trade with the world. That is how we became the prosperous nation that we are, and it is the federal government's responsibility not just to write and get agreement on trade agreements but to do the hard work to make sure that non-tariff barriers are removed wherever possible, to reform the WTO, as previously mentioned, but importantly to diversify our trade. We face very challenging times to come. We must ensure that we are not overly exposed to any one market. The federal government, the current Morrison government, has simply not done enough to ensure that that exposure is reduced and has not done enough to support our exporting businesses. We must lift the number of SMEs that are given those export opportunities. I want to thank everyone who is working hard on this. I want to again encourage the federal government to diversify more so that we have more eggs in more baskets for the ongoing security of our nation and for the prosperity—(Time expired)

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak and give my strong support for the Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021. RCEP was signed by Senator the Hon. Simon Birmingham, the then Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, and his counterparts from 14 countries on 15 November 2020. The other RCEP signatories are Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, China, Japan, New Zealand and the Republic of Korea. While Australia already has free trade agreements with the 14 RCEP parties there are still significant trade benefits that will accrue to Australian importers and exporters.

These benefits include access to a new single set of rules and procedures for accessing preferential tariffs in any of the 15 RCEP markets. It will reduce the compliance burden on Australian importers and exporters by allowing them to use a declaration of origin, a simpler process compared with the certificate of origin process currently in place. It will improve mechanisms for tackling non-tariff barriers including in areas such as custom procedures, quarantine and technical standards. More broadly the RCEP agreement will also offer greater certainty for business investment and rules of ecommerce, make it easier for Australian businesses trading online and provide a common set of rules on intellectual property. It also reinforces Australia's commitment to a rules-based trading framework.

When member for Barker spoke previously he paid due homage to the great Bert Kelly, former member of this place, who argued for free trade long before it was fashionable. I think we could probably assume that I wasn't around in that period from 1958 until the seventies when Bert Kelly was a member of parliament, but I can assume that back in the day the senior bureaucrats in this country, business leaders and almost all members of the public would have disagreed with his position on free trade—removing protections—leading to greater economic efficiencies and how it would massively benefit our country.

It's interesting that in the debate that we are having the moment there is this overwhelming, I guess, opinion from those same bureaucrats, business leaders and probably many members of the public around some of the climate policies that are being discussed. But to go back to the former member for Wakefield Bert Kelly, a nice little corollary for me is that his son Tony Kelly lives in my electorate in the little town of Porongurup. He and his wife Dawn are very dear friends, as are his extended family.

As someone who came to this place as an avowed free marketer, and I'd spent many years of my life campaigning for the deregulation of the Australian Wheat Board, I was very proud to be part of the coalition that signed, in the early days, free trade agreements with China, Japan and South Korea. The benefits of those free trade agreements have been manifested across my electorate, particularly amongst the agricultural sector. Access to broader markets—and a whole range of factors—has been a key part of seeing, for example, canola prices across the Western Australian wheat belt currently nudging $1,000 a tonne. Back in the day when I was farming, pre 2013, the price ranged from around $300 to $500 a tonne. The prices that we are seeing today make farming across the Wheatbelt of Western Australia an extremely profitable business. We have seen farmers investing very heavily in their businesses. We've seen the purchases of new machinery and of other inputs into the agricultural supply chain going through the roof. These are very prosperous times for wheat growers.

Similarly, meat producers—both sheep and beef—are also experiencing fantastically high prices and consistently high prices, too. We have seen prices for lamb at around $8 per kilo, and those prices have been maintained for several years. Previously, we had seen prices spike when there was, for instance, a drought on the east coast and, once the east coast got back to normal production, the prices would fall again. That hasn't been the case this time around. I put that down, in a very large part, to those free trade agreements that we have signed in the last seven or eight years. As I say, my electorate is very much seeing the benefits of those previously assigned free trade agreements.

Australia is an export nation. We have a small domestic population of around 25 million people and, of course, we need to trade with the rest of the world. Trade is a two-way thing. While we export the things that we do best, particularly in mining and agriculture but also some specialised manufacturing and our service industries, we also import from the world. People lose sight of the fact that that also benefits our nation. While I think many of us would lament the fact that the car industry has moved offshore from Australia, the fact is that we are now importing vehicles at the most economically efficient cost from countries in South-East Asia, including countries such as Japan, Korea and increasingly Thailand, and that has a benefit for local consumers. Why should local consumers be forced to pay a high price for a vehicle to protect an Australian industry that is not as efficient as its overseas counterparts? That is a particularly salient point that people need to remember about free trade agreements. It's not just about our exports and exporting the things that we do well; it's also about importing goods and services from countries who do it better than us—and we are winning that particular contest.

When I was growing up, and probably in the times of the great Bert Kelly, Australia ran a trade deficit every month. Every month, we'd be regaled with what the trade deficit was in a particular month and it caused economists and, I'm sure, Treasury bureaucrats enormous angst over how this nation was going to pay its way, because we consistently ran trade deficits. I checked the trade figures for the month of June, July and August of this year and I can report that our nation's trade surplus in June was $11.7 billion; in July it was $12.65 billion; and in August it was $15 billion. What that tells me is that Australia is doing pretty well when exposed to the competition from the rest of the world. We are producing goods and services that people in the rest of the world want and we are importing those goods and services that Australian people need and want, and we are currently coming out in front. I think that is a great result and a great testimony to the vision and foresight of the aforementioned Bert Kelly.

To come back to the RCEP agreement, what it does is expose us to the Asian middle class. Thirty per cent of the world's population live directly to the north of us, sharing a similar time zone. This has certainly come at a time when we need to diversify our trade. In the early 1970s our trade partner and significant economic partner through that period, the United Kingdom, joined the Common Market, and Australia lost one of its largest trading partners. That took some adjustment, and we turned towards Asia at that time. Recently, China has become our largest trading partner by a considerable margin. Through various geopolitical issues, our reliance on that market has become problematic, so it's particularly important and particularly timely that this agreement allows us access to broader markets.

We have much work still to do. To Trade Minister Tehan: congratulations on revisiting the UK and the trade agreement that was recently agreed to—it's not in place yet—and for the work that has been done with the United Kingdom to reopen that market. The EU is also looking to expand its trade opportunities, and certainly Australia is well placed to supply goods, services and particularly agricultural produce to the European Union. That, of course, would massively benefit my constituents. There are a couple of additional areas of opportunity, as I see them, and the first one is India. With its 1.2 billion people, a population which is rapidly becoming more wealthy, the Indian market is particularly crucial. Once again, it's particularly important for us to get our agricultural produce and food into that market, and I'm looking forward to work being done on that. The Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf are not often mentioned, but we also currently export a great deal of agricultural produce into those markets, and any freeing up of not so much tariffs but certainly trade barriers would be much appreciated.

I want to touch briefly on the importance of a rules based system. The barley growers in my electorate had a rude wake-up call and discovered that not everybody plays by rules when, in the middle of 2018, China initiated an antidumping process against the barley growers from Western Australia. An antidumping claim is that subsidised products are being sold under the cost price into a given market. As a barley grower from Western Australia, I can reassure this House and anybody listening or watching that there are no subsidies on Western Australian barley. What we saw as part of this process was that barley marketers and exporters out of Western Australia had to open their books to the purchasers. When I say 'open their books', they had to show their Chinese customers every sale that they had conducted, not just with China but with other markets across the world, to show that they were not undercutting or selling a dumped product or a subsidised product into China. That's not a bad position of strength to be in as a purchaser, when you've been able to have a look at your supplier's books and see exactly what they are selling into other markets for. I suspected at the time—and I'm sure this will be borne out in the World Trade Organization, where we currently have an appeal underway—that this was a spurious claim and that it was simply used to leverage information out of the barley producers from Western Australia.

Finally, I encourage businesses across my electorate to take the opportunity to sell into these markets, new and old. Austrade does have small grants available for businesses to get overseas, to get into these markets, to talk to customers and see if we can provide them with the services and goods that they need. We have trade missions in many of these countries, and there is support from the Australian government for exporters to get overseas, expand our markets and create ongoing Australian jobs and wealth.

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

I have some amendments to move before the third reading, but I'd like to briefly make a few comments on these particular bills, the Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021 and Customs Tariff Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021. They relate to the implementation of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, which Australia is a party to with other nations. I would like to quickly go through those: Brunei; Cambodia; Indonesia; Laos; Malaysia; Myanmar; the Philippines; Singapore; Thailand; Vietnam; Japan; New Zealand; South Korea, formally the Republic of Korea; of course, us, Australia; and, finally, the behemoth amongst all of those nations—China.

I am a great supporter of free trade, but all nations also have to respect the rules. If each nation is able to take advantage of its competitive advantage, it benefits us all. We all end up with greater resources and greater wealth. But the problem we have, amongst the many madnesses that have come across this nation over the recent few years and especially this recent year, is the idea that we will enter into some other international agreement which will put brakes and limitations upon our economy—I am talking about good old net zero by 2050—but those exact same brakes will not apply to China, who of course is a partner in this economic partnership.

When we go down the track of grandstanding in this place, as we all often like to, and say, 'We're going to support net zero by 2050,' and that doesn't apply to our largest trading partner, China, let's be very clear what we are doing. We are putting our nation at a competitive disadvantage—economically, politically and militarily—against the Chinese Communist Party, which is currently running China. Everything under that net zero policy puts our economy at a disadvantage but strengthens the Chinese economy. What type of politician would get elected to the Australian federal parliament or one of our state parliaments and implement and advocate for policies that put our nation at an economic, political and military disadvantage next to China? Unfortunately, that appears to be over 95 per cent of the politicians who have been elected to this parliament. We need to think very carefully about the security risks that our nation has ahead. We cannot simply focus on the idealistic world of free trade if, in doing so, at the same time we are going to be putting our economy at a competitive disadvantage.

One of the amendments moved by the opposition—amendment (2)—calls for the government to adopt the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in relation to Myanmar to introduce Magnitsky-style laws and place targeted sanctions on regimes. There is a good argument that we should employ those Magnitsky-style laws to greater effect and try to put sanctions on those other nations that are abusing human rights—nations that authorise their police force to fire rubber bullets into the backs of unarmed, fleeing protesters. If we see that, we should call it out internationally. There are nations where police officers take a rifle, turn it upside down and spear it into the spine of a protester laying on the ground. When we see things like that, we should call it out. When we see someone laying on the ground, being held down by a police officer and having his head stomped, we should call out those human rights abuses. When we see knees flying into the kidneys of an unarmed protester, we should call that out because that is a violation of human rights. I am not talking about what is happening in some totalitarian regime in some developing nation. I have just given examples of what is happening here in the nation of Australia when it comes to abuses of human rights. So if we're going to go on some frolic—and we rightly should call out Myanmar for their abuses of human rights—we've got to clean up our own act first. We've got to stop those abuses of human rights happening in our country.

Let me give you another example of why Magnitsky laws are important. There is an article that we are a signatory to—the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. And where we see breaches of that declaration, anywhere around the world, we should call it out. I'll give you one section of that particular declaration of human rights, article 3, which states, 'Human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms are to be fully respected.' One of the greatest fundamental freedoms is the right to go to work, the right to do your job, the right to employment. And yet that fundamental freedom is being taken away and suspended around the nation of Australia today. Also, article 6 reads:

Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.

And yet every state government in this nation is currently violating that section of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights by putting sanctions and prejudice and disadvantage on people simply because they have not wanted, for whatever reason, to participate in a global medical experiment. If we're going to ahead and criticise other nations for their abuse of human rights, we firstly need to clean up our own act here. As I foreshadowed, I will otherwise support these bills, but I will be raising a couple of amendments in the third reading stage.

Angie Bell (Moncrieff, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021. Australia has a long and proud history of trade and trade agreements with other nations. It has built our nation since before Federation. In fact, from at least 1700 to 1907, fishermen sailed each year from Indonesia to the Arnhem Land coast and traded with our Indigenous peoples for sea cucumber, which they boiled down, dried on their boats and traded with other nations. Then there was early whaling, followed by the export boom off the sheep's back, the gold rush of the 1850s and our enduring trade partnership with the UK, which we now return to as our closest allied partner, along with the United States.

I've been listening to those opposite, particularly the member for Melbourne, who has been talking about trade and highlighting the ineptitude of those opposite, who simply don't get it and who simply don't understand the value of trade to our nation. Free trade agreements, FTAs, help boost the economy and jobs growth in Australia and deliver new job opportunities to SMEs and big business through greater trade and investment. FTAs give Australian businesses and consumers improved access to a wider range of competitively priced goods and services, new technologies and innovative practices. They promote regional economic integration and build shared approaches to trade and investment between our nation and our trading partners.

We've heard much recently about the trade agreements currently being negotiated by the minister with the European Union, the United Kingdom, Indonesia and India. I congratulate him on his work, which is so important to Australian businesses and families, especially in my electorate of Moncrieff on the Gold Coast. So many family businesses in my electorate engage in international trade. The amendments I will outline shortly are crucial for their domestic and global competitiveness when it comes to exporting and importing.

While I am briefly speaking of the minister I take this opportunity to thank him for the work he did on the Morrison government's $1.2 billion tourism package and half-price airfares that are still in the system. He listened to the tourism industry and delivered what they needed during this pandemic. Australians will be pleased to know that they can once again holiday on the Gold Coast in time for Christmas. Now is the time to rebook those airfares—and around 100,000 have been on hold while the Queensland government has had the borders closed over these past months, making it so difficult for Gold Coast businesses and tourism to bounce back. It has taken a $1 billion hit—$1 billion over the last quarter out of a $6 billion a year industry. I thank the minister for the most recent tranche of support measures—the $600 million 50-50 Commonwealth and state tourism and business hardship package that assisted so many Gold Coast businesses to get them through to Christmas, when borders will reopen and when vaccination rates will be at 80 per cent.

Just this week we saw the Queensland Premier finally come to her senses—use common sense—look at the national plan and agree to it. I'm very pleased that Gold Coast businesses now have a light at the end of a very long dark tunnel. They can at least plan—hopefully, with certainty—for an increased volume of customers from the southern states. Families can be reunited and Queenslanders can return home, all safely in accordance with that national plan.

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, commonly referred to as RCEP, is a modern free trade agreement between Australia and 14 other nations in the Indo-Pacific. It complements and builds upon the established free trade agreements we have with nations in our region. While RCEP covers all areas of a modern free trade agreement, the proposed legislative amendments to the Customs Act 1901 and the Customs Tariff Act 1995 implement only the trade-in-goods commitments Australia has made under RCEP.

The proposed amendments will facilitate trade between Australia and the 14 other nations that are party to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. The amendments provide the product specific rules, the PSRs, for determining if imported goods are RCEP-originating goods. These goods are produced, obtained or include sufficient content from one or more of the RCEP parties. Satisfying these rules qualifies the goods for a lower rate of customs duty when imported into Australia, which translates at the end of the day to lower prices for the importer and, of course, ultimately the consumer. The changes will require Australian exporters and producers to keep sufficient records to enable them to prove, when necessary, that their goods are RCEP-originating goods if they claim a preferential rate of customs duty when they're exporting their goods to one of the other 14 RCEP parties. The amendments seek to create a new schedule of preferential customs duty rates for goods that qualify as RCEP-originating goods. The new rules for determining originating status of goods and record-keeping requirements for exporters and producers will be added to the Customs Act 1901, and the new schedule of preferential customs duty rates will be added to the Customs Tariff Act 1995.

I will briefly outline the changes to the Customs Act 1901 and then the details of changes to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. For those who might be at home listening or who might even be in the car travelling in the country listening to ABC radio, a shout-out to all of you out there. The act will be amended to insert rules for determining if imported goods are RCEP-originating goods. When these rules are satisfied, importers—largely distributors or wholesalers—gain a preferential rate of customs duty when products are imported into Australia. These rules are similar to those used in all of Australia's recent free trade agreements, so it's a matter of updating. The rules, including the PSRs, will be implemented in the same way as they have been for all free trade agreements that use PSRs. The changes to record-keeping requirements that I mentioned pertain to the Customs Act 1901. These obligations will make it possible for RCEP parties to determine the validity of claims made by Australian exporters and producers. Other RCEP parties will also impose reciprocal obligations on their exporters and producers that would allow Australia to undertake compliance activity if, and when, required.

In terms of the Customs Tariff Act 1995, the main amendment will be to insert a new schedule of preferential rates of customs duty for eligible goods that are determined to be RCEP-originating goods. This schedule reflects the commitments that Australia made during these negotiations. Each other RCEP party will have their own schedule that reflects the commitments they made during those negotiations. All of these schedules will be different. For a significant number of goods, customs duty rates will be eliminated when RCEP comes into force. The remaining customs duty rates on most other goods will be progressively reduced over 19 calendar years after the year that RCEP comes into force for Australia. A small minority of goods will not have their duty rates eliminated under RCEP, and customs duties on excise-equivalent goods will also be maintained to ensure consistent treatment with domestically produced equivalents. It's important to note that there is actually no cost associated with making these changes that will benefit Australian importers and exporters. The 2021 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook estimated that implementing the agreement will have no impact on customs duty receipts. In my mind, these changes are therefore necessary to assist Australian exporters and importers with their recovery from the pandemic.

RCEP was signed by Senator the Hon. Simon Birmingham, the then Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, and his counterparts from 14 countries on 15 November 2020. Implementing the agreement underscores Australia's commitment to the rules based international trading system and reinforces our free trade positioning in global markets. It underlines how important trade continues to be for our nation, for jobs and for the prosperity and future of our open and free Liberal democracy.

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, I thank all members for their contributions to this debate on the Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021. I also thank in particular the opposition member for Brand for working so closely with the government. It is such an important bill.

The signing of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement in November 2020 by Australia and 14 other countries signalled a shared commitment to opening up a new trade world and investment opportunities and supporting the rules based trading arrangements. These were especially important signals in the face of the challenges of COVID-19 and, of course, the emerging trade tensions. All signatory states—the 10 ASEAN member states and Australia, China, Japan, New Zealand and the Republic of Korea—share the common goal of promoting productive trade and investment links right across the Indo-Pacific region. The amendments to the Customs Act 1901 and the related amendments to be made to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 are required to implement the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. Primarily, these amendments provide the rules that allow importers to determine whether their goods qualify for a preferential treatment, and that is absolutely great for Australian exporters.

This agreement will look in market access and address non-tariff barriers, creating significant new trade and investment opportunities for Australians across the Indo-Pacific. It will also establish rules, and that provides greater certainty and improves the business environment across the region.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Brand has moved and amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be disagreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question now is that this bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.