Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 and the related bill. But, before I do, I'd like to address a number of the issues that have been raised by my colleagues in this debate today. I would note up-front that the majority of evidence didn't actually go to the specific provisions of the bill itself. Instead, much of the debate from those opposite, particularly from my Greens colleagues, raised matters that have been dealt with by five previous parliamentary inquiries into this matter, as did the speeches here today. Senator Carr acknowledged that these are Customs amendment bills, but then he did go on, for a substantial period of his speech, in reprosecuting some of the case.

I have to hand it to Senator Hanson-Young and her colleagues here today: I didn't think we'd hear so many Greens ideological buzzwords. It was almost 'buzzwords bingo' between the four of them here today. There was a lot of discussion about chilling effects, neoliberalism and economic rationalism. But, as the minister has just said, it was very clear from the debate today—as Senator Kitching has just acknowledged—that they haven't read the bill, and the debate would have been significantly enhanced had they actually addressed the detail of the bill.

There are four issues that I would like to briefly cover that were raised in the debate today. The first is the issue of modelling. Some of the speakers mentioned that they wanted more modelling to be done. But I do note the significant amount of modelling that has been done, which has been mentioned before in this place. Just because you don't like the outcome of the modelling doesn't invalidate it. We have heard from Senator Kitching on the Victorian government modelling which clearly showed there were significant short-term benefits and even more benefits in the longer term, so I think that's a real furphy and I'm glad my Labor colleagues have made that very clear.

The second issue that has been raised in the debate is consultation. Both Labor and Greens colleagues indicated that they didn't think there had been enough consultation. I can advise senators that there were 1,000 briefings with 485 stakeholders, so I'm at a loss to understand who wasn't actually consulted. In these 1,000 briefings with 485 stakeholders, all the states and territories were consulted, as were all federal government departments, all relevant peak bodies, and hundreds of companies, academics, unions and civil society groups. I'm not sure what more consultation those opposite would like to have seen.

The third issue that's been discussed at some length in this debate is labour market testing. It is very clear from the debate from both us and the opposition—while they have ideological views—that, as I think Senator Kitching acknowledged, this is not new and it is a reciprocal requirement. We can hardly ask people to do something we're not willing to do ourselves. Again, the evidence does not support what my Greens colleagues and some from the Labor Party have been saying about labour market testing. The evidence is very clear. Listening to those opposite, you'd think that, under our free trade agreements with China, Japan and Korea, 457 visas and other visas would have skyrocketed. In fact, for those three countries the experience has been that 457 visas have actually dropped by 10 per cent since those treaties were negotiated. Again, it is not new. It is something we have done for a long time, and there is absolutely no evidence to show that it would be any different under this agreement.

The fourth issue I'd like to briefly mention is this issue of ISDS. It is a complete and utter furphy. As Senator Kitching has just reminded us, it's actually a very good thing and it's something that's been very longstanding in a wide range of treaties that we have entered into. It is simply a Labor union ideological policy issue. There is no loss of sovereignty. Despite all the huffing and puffing from the Greens senators this afternoon, there is no loss of sovereignty, as the minister has very clearly said. I will foreshadow that, for those reasons I've just outlined, the government will not be supporting the three foreshadowed second reading amendments.

Moving on to the legislation itself, the Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 amends the Customs Act 1901 to implement Australia's obligations under the TPP-11. These amendments are complementary to those contained in the Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018. I'd like to take this opportunity to speak to the two bills that are in front of us here today, as they are very much related.

I'm very pleased to have this opportunity to conclude the debate on this important agreement. There is absolutely no doubt that the TPP-11 is one of the most comprehensive trade deals ever concluded by Australia. It will eliminate more than 98 per cent of tariffs in a trade zone that spans the Americas and Asia, with a combined GDP worth $13.7 trillion. Despite the arguments or the rhetoric from those opposite, particularly the Greens, Australian farmers, manufacturers and services exporters will benefit from new market access opportunities in economies with nearly 500 million consumers. It will provide better access for farm exporters, including for beef and sheepmeat producers, dairy producers, canegrowers and sugar millers as well as cereal and grain exporters. There will be new opportunities for our rice growers, cotton growers, woolgrowers, horticultural producers and great wine exporters. One manufacturer will benefit from the elimination of tariffs, for example, on industrial goods. Our services exporters will have access to liberalised and improved regulatory regimes for investment, notably in the mining and resource sectors, telecommunications and financial services.

TPP-11 is truly a next-generation trade agreement. For the first time in a trade agreement, TPP-11 countries will guarantee the free flow of data across borders for services, suppliers and investors as part of their business activity. I know from feedback from industry that that is a great thing for them. This movement of information, or data flow, is relevant to all kinds of businesses.

If Australia and five other countries can complete ratification before 31 December this year, there will be two opportunities for tariff reductions—the first on entry into force and the second on 1 January 2018. But, on the other hand, if—as those opposite and on the crossbench suggest—it is entered into this year without Australia, our exporters would absolutely and unequivocally be placed at a significant competitive disadvantage. That will benefit no Australian business and it certainly will not benefit Australian workers. For example, New Zealand and Canada would have superior access to the Japanese beef and dairy market, better access to the Japanese cheese market and better access to wine markets in Mexico. Why would we knowingly and willingly give our market competitors a leg-up over us?

The deal signed on 8 March 2018 is one that fundamentally serves Australia's national interest. Its scope and level of ambition cannot be underestimated. It will create new opportunities and greater certainty for our businesses and encourage job-creating foreign investment. That is very clear and, despite what those opposite have said, that will occur. It will make Australian exports more competitive, so our farmers can sell more produce, our professionals can provide more services and our manufacturers can make and sell more goods.

Our involvement in the negotiation of this deal means Australia plays a key role in setting 21st century rules for commerce across the world's fastest-growing region. This will enable us to tackle new trade and investment barriers as they arise, helping our businesses weather the increasingly challenging global trading environment. Here in Australia, this agreement has undergone a level of scrutiny that I suspect is almost unprecedented compared with any other free trade agreement. It has been the subject of five parliamentary committee inquiries, and, after the TPP-11 was tabled in the House of Representatives on 26 March this year, it was examined by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. On 22 August, the committee recommended that Australia take binding treaty actions in respect of the TPP-11.

For all of these reasons, I urge the parliament to support the swift passage of the TPP-11 implementation legislation because I and this government want Australia to remain leaders amongst trading nations—a country that is not afraid to show our trading partners by concrete actions that we are committed to a future of liberalised trade and investment. This is what these TPP-11 implementation bills represent. Our early ratification of the TPP-11 demonstrates Australia's leadership in pursuing liberalised trade globally, and I believe it embodies the government's strong commitment to maximising trading opportunities for Australian businesses, both large and small.

The TPP-11 outcome is a feature of an ambitious and confident trade policy—one that didn't turn back at the first hurdle. It is an audacious but pragmatic and successful approach. That, in my view, has been the hallmark of this government's trade and investment policy. I have great pleasure in commending these bills to the Senate.