Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

As on so many other occasions, One Nation says one thing and does another. Senator Roberts claims that the One Nation party are out there campaigning against free trade agreements, but in this chamber they've just indicated that in this chamber they'll be supporting this legislation, the Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2019. Senator Roberts indicates that he's opposed to unelected bureaucrats dealing with issues like product-specific rules, but this legislation deletes parliamentary scrutiny for product-specific rules. Like so much of One Nation's activity it's saying one thing to its constituency, particularly in Queensland, and doing another. That's why they were voting with the government this morning to support the big banks, against some sensible amendments that would have made for better financial governance and protected ordinary consumers, particularly low-income consumers in country towns, from predatory practices of the big banks. Yet Senators Hanson and Roberts, as they are so many times, were on the government's side of the chamber supporting the Morrison government's agenda.

Senator Carr's contribution, as it has been on so many occasions on questions of trade and industry policy and protecting the interests of Australian industry, was exactly right. The principles that this bill touches on go to parliamentary scrutiny and to enforcement of product-specific rules. I think that Senator Carr's contribution went to some detail about the importance of product-specific rules—in particular for protecting Australian manufacturers—and the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. This bill means less scrutiny, and less scrutiny inevitably means less enforcement. It is so consistent with this government's approach to all of its responsibilities, not least its approach to trade questions. It's all talk and no delivery.

It is absolutely vital, in the agreements that Australia signs off on and the trade that is conducted, that unscrupulous firms are not allowed to breach these provisions. What stands against unscrupulous firms breaching these provisions, which costs workers jobs—particularly in the suburbs and in our regions—are three things: a good legislative framework, strong parliamentary scrutiny and strong enforcement, and resources behind strong enforcement. We have none of those things in the Australian framework. We have a weak framework of protection against dumping and a low level of commitment from the government to that framework. We are deleting parliamentary scrutiny in this bill. We have a government that is not committed to strong enforcement action, to working with Australian industry and to protecting Australian industry against dumping and against unscrupulous firms who manipulate the complex array of product-specific rules.

Senators Carr and Fierravanti-Wells have been very strong on the issues of parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary accountability and on this parliament not delegating its authority and its proper role. More attention should be paid to the work that they have done in these areas. I'm sure that the parliament and the Senate are going to hear a lot more about it.

If we want to enforce preferential trade agreements for Australian goods, we have to be capable of monitoring whether, in fact, a good is manufactured in Australia or not. This does become more complex as supply chains become longer. The process of regulation becomes increasingly complex and product specific. Take, for example, a radiator. If an Australian company wants to avoid export duties in Indonesia under the Australia-Indonesia FT, it has to prove that its radiators are Australian made. If the radiator is made from imported parts—cooling fans, pipes et cetera—at least 40 per cent of the final product's value must be from the Australian manufacturing process. Salmon exported to Indonesia must be fished in Australia to avoid tariffs, but smoked salmon made from imported fish and smoked in Australia will also avoid tariffs. Those regulations and complex product-specific rules are included in the free trade agreement. Each agreement has a separate PSR system based on the harmonised commodity description and coding system which is used by more than 200 countries.

Labor's amendment to this bill is simple. We would give the Senate more power to scrutinise the way in which those PSRs are updated. There is a balance between efficiency and scrutiny in the way that our legislation oversees trade agreements, and this bill goes too far in delegating authority and in the parliament abrogating its responsibility to effectively monitor what is absolutely in the interests of Australian firms and Australian workers, particularly in the regions. Like in so many other areas on trade, the government has given the game away.

While the bill relates to a technical matter within trade, it reflects a larger problem with the Morrison government's trade agenda. Put simply: it is all announcement and no delivery. The government loves announcing big trade deals, loves cutting the ribbon on a trade agreement and likes a signing ceremony, but they are never there for the hard work of compliance and delivery and supporting Australian exporters.

We've heard the government talk about trade diversification recently as if it's a new conversion and a new problem that nobody had ever thought about before, but what we see is a paltry commitment—a too-little-too-late commitment—to trade diversification. And, of course, in the Morrison government's mind supporting our exporters is all about free trade agreements and nothing else. When it comes to supporting Australian exporters, to backing them and to shifting Australian exports up the value chain to where the good and real jobs are, the Morrison government is nowhere to be found.

Australia has continued to retreat and has continued to decline global value chains. Our exports have become less and less complex. We've become more of a farm and more of a quarry and less of a manufacturer and less of a sophisticated goods and services exporter. The Morrison government's only response is a free trade agreement fetish. The law of diminishing returns in this area has left us desperately trying to draw up agreements with countries as small as Uruguay. Now, I love Uruguay, and people in this parliament would have a great regard for Uruguay—we've got a great history—but why was so much emphasis put into a free trade agreement with Uruguay? Our highest trade volumes with Uruguay over the course of the last decade has been about $24 million, with saddle soap and plastic plates. Why has so much emphasis been put on ribbon cutting for the free trade agreement with Uruguay? It's because it's all about announcement and not about real delivery. The people who understand this best are located in the regions and in the suburbs.

I read, with interest, the National Party's contribution. Remember that the National Party's history in this area has been about being the big supporters of free trade for Australian agricultural exports. They were there when the Cairns agreement was signed. National Party MPs were lining up to support free trade agreements. But we've seen a change of heart from what remains of the bunyip aristocracy that runs the National Party in Australia. They released, to no acclaim and no applause, by way of a brief little skirmish in The Australian newspaper, their manufacturing 2035 plan this week. It's not a surprise that it sunk without trace. If ever the National Party was put in charge of a response to Australian manufacturing, that would be the end of Australian manufacturing. Their approach to manufacturing, their slogans, their bright ideas—to the extent that there's anything good in this document—have been pinched off the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union. To the extent that there's anything good in it, they are ideas that have been taken from others. The National Party pretend they haven't been around for the last seven years of government.

It's been obvious, hasn't it, that the manufacturing industry hasn't benefited from the National Party's role in government. The National Party are in a sort of dreamland, as if they haven't been around not just for the last seven years but for the Howard years. And what have we seen over the course of that period? We've seen a shallow and weak commitment from the Howard government, and then the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, to supporting Australian exporters, an approach that's all about free trade agreements that have prioritised the interests of farmers and miners over the interests of manufacturers. They've put commodities first and dragged us back down the global value chain. We've seen governments that have presided over the closing of the Australian car industry—but there's a lot about cars in the National Party's publication, as if they had nothing to do with the closure of the Australian car industry! There's a lot in the National Party's document about fabrics and textiles. Every wool scouring plant in Australia has closed. Every single one is on the way out. In Wagga, not too far away from where Senator Davey lives, Riverina Wool Combing closed many years ago under the Howard government. The Australian textiles industry is almost gone, and the National Party never raised a finger as Australian wool processing was sent offshore, mostly to China, with some going to Italy. There was never a peep from the National Party over the course of the last two decades, but suddenly now they're interested.

I think that a feigned interest from the National Party in the interests of regional manufacturing is a bit like Idi Amin expressing an interest in human rights or Margaret Thatcher suddenly being excited about the rights and welfare of coalmining workers. Maybe that's a little bit closer to where the National Party are today. Extraordinarily, in this document, which probably won't see the light of day for most Australians, it says, 'Adding to these pressures, Australian manufacturers are paying 91 per cent more for electricity and 48 per cent more for gas over the last decade.' Well, that's right. That's absolutely right. But where have the National Party been on these questions? They couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. What they have been doing is focusing upon one job—not on the jobs of rural Australians, not on the future of regional industries, but on one job: who is going to be the leader of the National Party in the House of Representatives. They've been squabbling over the spoils in Canberra but they're in a dreamland when it comes to the future of regional industry and regional jobs. Not only do they forget their own role in sending all these jobs overseas; the only plan they've really got is to make electricity more expensive for Australian manufacturers—to throw more public resources behind making energy more expensive and consigning more of Australian manufacturing to the dustbin. (Time expired)