Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are amendments that have been circulated in my name to the Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2019. I will be brief in speaking to these amendments. I did ventilate Labor's reason for moving these amendments in my second reading speech. As several speakers have noted in this debate, the effect of this legislation would be to take what is currently a disallowable instrument by the parliament and make that decision about rules of origin and product specific rules a decision of some bureaucrat. It would take away the oversight of this parliament.

We are talking about free trade. It must be fair trade. The community must have confidence that its parliament and its representatives have the opportunity to ensure it is fair trade. Not maybe once every five years and not possibly through an inquiry that you might get up through a committee; in fact, we must have the ongoing right to ensure that the free trade agreements and the rules that govern them remain the province of this chamber, this parliament, to disallow if necessary.

The effect of Labor's amendment today is to reinsert the parliament's right to disallow certain rules under this legislation. As Senator Lambie just said in her speech, any time the government—this government in particular—says it is just making some technical changes, we really shouldn't worry ourselves about it, it'll be streamlined and all so much better, we need to be alert to the fact that they are taking away the oversight of this parliament. The effect of the amendment that has been circulated is to reinsert that oversight by members of this parliament. So I ask members—particularly those who have expressed a view that the parliament should retain that oversight function—to support the amendment.

By leave—I move the amendments circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (line 18) to page 4 (line 7), to be opposed.

(2) Schedule 1, items 9 to 13, page 4 (line 28) to page 8 (line 23), to be opposed.

(3) Schedule 1, items 19 to 21, page 10 (line 23) to page 13 (line 18), to be opposed.

(4) Schedule 1, items 27 and 28, page 15 (line 23) to page 17 (line 32), to be opposed.

(5) Schedule 1, items 34 and 35, page 19 (line 23) to page 22 (line 26), to be opposed.

(6) Schedule 1, items 41 and 42, page 24 (line 23) to page 27 (line 16), to be opposed.

(7) Schedule 1, items 47 and 48, page 29 (line 18) to page 32 (line 2), to be opposed.

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

My questions are brief and there are a number of them. Minister, is it true that in 2018 nine of Australia's 15 free trade agreements were amended by the Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Act 2018 and that this bill simply modifies the remaining six free trade agreements?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I can confirm that that is the case.

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

Minister, based upon the comments of Senator Carr and Senator Ayres—because we listened to them and we went back and did some more research—did the 2018 bill pass with the support of the opposition?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I can confirm that the identical bill passed with the support of Labor. In fact, Senator Carr himself spoke in support of this same legislation two years ago for other free trade agreements. In fact, I think his words were that it was a 'simple administrative process'.

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

Did the 2018 bill even go to a division in the Senate?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is, no, it did not.

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

Minister, was this same harmonisation system incorporated directly into our free trade agreements with Indonesia, Peru and Hong Kong? Were those also passed by the opposition?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I can confirm that Labor did support these exact same amendments in those bills that you've just listed.

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

Is this same provision in the upcoming TPP-11 now called the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I believe it is.

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

Have the ALP and the Greens given any indication of whether this same harmonisation should be removed from that agreement?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I get some clarification of the question again and I will confirm with the officials here.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts, could you please repeat your question?

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

Sure. Is this same provision in the upcoming TPP-11 now called the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, I misheard you. They're actually separate agreements.

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

Minister, if a change to a harmonised item has a detrimental economic outcome for Australia does that change or is there parliamentary scrutiny of that change?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are a couple of questions resident in that. Despite the assertions of those opposite here in the chamber today, there, of course, still is parliamentary scrutiny of this bill through JSCOT—that has not changed. Again, this bill is exactly the same as the bill that this chamber passed in 2018.

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

Is it possible in any way for a change to the harmonised register to allow for a product to be dumped in Australia or in any way cost Australian jobs?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. I can say unequivocally the answer is no. This has no impact on antidumping. This is not an antidumping piece of legislation.

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

Is there any point to Labor's amendment?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not quite sure a personal opinion is appropriate for me to answer. However, what I can say is that two years ago, the Labor Party, including Senator Carr, strongly supported these exact same measures for these FTAs subject to this bill, as they did two years ago for those other countries FTAs. So it is hard to see that there is anything else but playing some very base politics in this today, because they were supported two years ago.

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

This is my final question. In 2018 apparently Senator Carr spoke on the first bill. In his comments he said that it should be non-controversial, according to Hansard. I want to make my earlier comments clear. Despite Senator Ayres and Senator Carr's comments, we went back and did our research and this is what we have come up and—

Honourable Senator:

An honourable senator interjecting—

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

We have done our research. We asked a number of people—crossbenchers and the government. We have done our research. I want to make it very clear that One Nation opposes free trade agreements, because we don't believe they're fair trade. I'm pleased to see Senator Keneally now using our label. We want fair trade. Having said that, and having made that very clear this morning, I again say that we will support this, because it doesn't have any material impact. All it does is reduce the burden to companies, employers and jobs in this country, and it reduces the bureaucracy and the cost to the taxpayers. That is why we are supporting this. We will continue to oppose free trade agreements, but we will make whatever we have better in any way we can.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In fact I've got the comments from Senator Carr—again, completely contradictory to what he said two years ago. This is what Senator Carr said two years ago about the identical bill for the other set of free trade agreements. In the Senate debate on the 2018 bill, Senator Carr argued that the bill should have been introduced as non-controversial legislation, given its minor administrative effect. In fact, he said this: 'These are minor amendments ensuring consistency between our legislation and the various texts of the agreements.' I will leave it to other members of this chamber to make their conclusions about his position now.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When you come up with these great ideas that you're going to do this and pass the powers over to someone else—it blows me away that One Nation's got stuck into it! It absolutely blows me away that they're falling for this crap. Who would have guessed? What unintended consequences were on your whiteboards when you did this?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not really sure of the nature of your question. Can you just clarify exactly what you're asking?

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you telling me that when you decided to do this everything was all positive and you didn't have one thing where you thought, 'Ooh, maybe that could happen'—unintended consequences? I just want to know this, because there'll be unintended consequences, so I just want you to put this down on paper so I've got it.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer is very clear: this is not a new measure. We did this two years ago with the support of the opposition, who said it was uncontroversial. It was a simple administrative matter. And this bill here today is doing the exact same thing for another tranche of Australia's free trade agreements, to bring them into alignment with the ones that we, again, in this chamber agreed to in 2018.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What power does the Australian Senate have to overrule changes to the harmonised commodity description and coding system?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that question. There are two parts to my answer. The first is that my advice is that these regulations have never been disallowed in this chamber, which I understand is why those opposite and the governments two years ago agreed that this was an administrative process. But in terms of the parliament's ability to scrutinise future changes to FTAs, does this make any change? No, it does not. The bill removes the need to replicate technical changes to the PSR schedule of an FTA in a separate regulation establishing the rules of origin for that FTA—that is, the step that creates a disallowable instrument would no longer occur. JSCOT will continue to provide parliamentary scrutiny of future technical changes to the PSR of a relevant FTA through its standard treaty review processes.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Since my name's been brought into this in such a manner tonight by the obviously Dorothy Dix questions that have been provided by the government to One Nation, I think it's appropriate that I should respond. As to the claims that they've researched, the idea of One Nation doing research I think is all part of the humour—the comedy routine that is undertaken from time to time by the senators claiming to represent the more reactionary elements of the nationalist movement in this country. I'd like to deal specifically with the claims that are being made. This is an amendment. This is—

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr, Senator Roberts is on his feet with a point of order.

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

Senator Carr has made an improper statement. We did, as I said, research with crossbench senators, and we did not write Dorothy Dixers.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I'm not sure that's a point of order. I'll give the call back to Senator Carr.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The situation here is very simple. It's a lesson that all senators should take note of. If the facts change, what do you do? You change your mind. That's been the custom and practise of good political operators for time immemorial. It's all very well for you to quote from the Hansard. I'm quite capable of changing my mind if I have the facts. The facts are these: We now have a situation in this parliament where we pass something like 2,000 bills a year; 50 per cent of them are carried with measures that contain instruments for delegated legislation. Of those in recent times, 20 per cent of all the legislation we've been carrying has a non-disallowable instrument built into it. We ourselves are taking away our rights to examine legislation.

I've been on the front bench of this parliament for some 23 years. In this parliament, I've had the privilege of serving on other committees. As a consequence of that, I've had the opportunity to look at the detail in which this legislative practice has grown, instrumentally, under governments of all descriptions, where we've turned over our responsibilities to the Public Service, and we should not allow that to continue. That's the fundamental principle that this amendment proposes: that we address our responsibilities. If there's a problem, we have the chance to fix it. It is no more complicated than that, Senator Roberts, you great expert on international trade. It's no more complicated than our capacity to say, 'Sorry, Mr Bureaucrat, you've got it wrong.'

What I can also tell you is that, in those 23 years of service on the front bench, repeatedly I understood how free trade agreements could be abused—particularly the rules of origin and the capacity of various companies and various countries to shift goods around the globe. We should not allow these measures to be shifted off to some minor consideration by a parliamentary committee without the resources, by members of parliament without the resources, to deal with these questions properly. JSCOT is not an appropriate vehicle for parliamentary scrutiny. It is a joke. It is a joke to suggest that anything other than a rubber stamp measure is going to be applied.

Our job as members of parliament is to ensure the protection of the interests of the Australian people. We have been abrogating that responsibility by allowing so much of the legislation that goes through this parliament—and I'll hazard a guess, Senator Roberts—unread. We find the circumstances when we examine the facts: 50 per cent of it is allowing delegated legislation to be sent off by unelected, faceless bureaucrats, and to 20 per cent of that we have denied ourselves the chance to say, 'No, that's not right.'

This amendment simply says that the proposal this government is trying to impose on us now—to take away the right that is there now—should not be taken away. You say, 'Oh, it's never been used.' Well, that's no excuse to take it away. How ridiculous! That's the sort of mentality that One Nation comes up with, isn't it—like your 'detailed research'. You've got to get it from a ministerial office. You've got to get approval from a ministerial office before you'll come to some consensus with the government. And you call yourselves senators. What a joke.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just say in relation to what can only be called a rhetorical flourish from Senator Carr that that is a spectacular backflip—

Debate interrupted.