Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Hansard source

I must address comments made yesterday during the committee stage related to this bill. Bluster and rhetoric delivered with disconcerting force do not alter the facts and do not bother me. We read Labor's amendment, I listened to the debate and I spoke with the crossbench. I then examined the history of harmonisation and asked questions of the department. I say again: I responded to Senator Carr's and Senator Ayres's comments in previous debate, and we went and got our facts. The result from getting our facts and consulting all those people was a clear understanding that this amendment from Labor is pointless and counterproductive. I did seek, through the questions I asked, to indicate to Labor, to the crossbench and to the many Australians listening to parliament that Labor's amendment was predicated on a thorough misunderstanding of the bill. It became clear, in looking at the history of the bill, that Labor had previously been in support, and I pointed that out. Senator Carr said yesterday, 'You can quote Hansard all you like,' and, yes, I did reference the senator's words in Hansard back to him. The purpose was not to upset the senator. The purpose was to ask—and I thought this was clear from my questions—what has changed? How do you get from being a strong supporter of the bill to being a strong critic, with no change in the fundamentals behind that decision, no change in the facts?

This bill is identical to one in 2018 amending another group of free trade agreements in the same way as this bill does. I recall that Labor voted in support of free trade agreements with this same harmonised system only last year, those agreements being the Indonesia, Peru and Hong Kong free trade agreements. What has changed in these few short months? Well, nothing. Harmonising industry definitions and descriptions makes it easier for exporters to export. Instead of dealing with 15 sets of rules, they only need to deal with one. If a rule change by the World Customs Organization results in a material change to a free trade agreement—a change in commitments which means we lose money or opportunities or control as a result of that change—then the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties are required to examine the change and recommend yes or no, and then parliament can scrutinise their finding, which is presented as a legislative instrument. This is the same procedure that Labor is trying to introduce with this amendment. Labor is introducing a measure that already exists. Labor can huff and puff all they like, but this is a pointless amendment that has the effect of cancelling a system that they voted for only a few months ago. It will make it harder for our exporters to export. It will not protect our industries or workers any more than they are protected now; in fact, it will make things harder for them.

I have no idea what election or social media messaging Labor was trying to set up with this amendment, but I can't see it as an honest one. One Nation remains opposed to Labor's hollow, grandstanding amendment. One Nation remains opposed to free trade agreements that the Liberal-National coalition and Labor pass together, as a duopoly. Yet, as always, we will work honestly with anyone who wants to improve on the mess that the Liberals, the Nationals and Labor jointly create with their free trade agreements. That's why, in this case, we support legislation that reduces bureaucracy, makes it easier for Australian producers to export, minimises the cost to taxpayers and still retains parliamentary oversight.