Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

Amidst all of this self-congratulation about suits I hate to rain on everybody’s parade, but there are actually some industries that, unfortunately, are not getting similar special treatment. Whilst I understand that there are historic reasons for some exceptions being in place and negotiated as part of this agreement, I am in the unfortunate position where a company in my electorate will be severely affected by the changes that will be brought about as part of the Customs Legislation Amendment (New Zealand Rules of Origin) Bill 2006.

Other members in the House have already spoken on the broader context of the agreement, and I do not want to detract from the general comments made about improving economic relations between our countries and removing the barriers that we can remove, but there is unfortunately sometimes a downside to these arrangements. The downside exists for a detergent producer in my electorate. The proposed change of arrangements from the regional value content method that exists now to the tariff classification method will mean that a substantial amount of trade between Australia and New Zealand will cease to exist and will be replaced by trade between China and New Zealand. The New Zealand company will still be able to provide their product into the Australian market, courtesy of these proposed new arrangements, with the same tariff treatment it would have received when part of its manufacturing process was being undertaken in Australia, with the final manufacture being done in New Zealand and the product coming back into Australia.

I will spend some time on the impact that the proposed arrangement will have on the business in my electorate and on the workers who will no doubt be affected by it. The arrangement will also have the bizarre result of reducing trade between Australia and New Zealand by the significant amount of $7 million, because the New Zealand company has already indicated that, as soon as these new rules are in place, it will obtain its product from China at a rate that the company in my electorate says indicates that it is being dumped. There is no way that an Australian company will be able to take any action, because it will not be dumped in Australia. It does mean that the New Zealand company will have a commercial advantage, but it will not really be a commercial advantage to either of our countries. It is not even a situation where, difficult as it may be for individual workers or members when it affects their electorates, the jobs are being moved from Australia to New Zealand.

The jobs impact is all negative in Australia, and it is not positive in New Zealand. Certainly the New Zealand company will be able to increase its profit line, but it made quite clear in the evidence provided to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties that it was not making any undertakings about passing on any benefits to consumers as a result of this change, and it was not making any undertakings about extra employment in New Zealand. These things will be of little comfort to the workers in my electorate, but it may have been, in the overall picture of the relationship we are continuing to develop between Australia and New Zealand, something that others could at least have seen the sense of. It is very hard to make that argument when the consequence is that a New Zealand company will be able to buy product from China at a rate at which other companies cannot. If another competitor in Australia bought product from China at that rate, the company in my electorate would take antidumping action, as I understand they have either done or contemplated doing in the past.

So this unfortunate situation is made more unfortunate—and I know the discussion between the Deputy Speaker and the member for Cook, who was speaking just before, was good humoured—when you understand that exceptions are able to be made for particular industries. There are exceptions that exist for gentlemen’s apparel; why can’t there be an exception for this particular detergent product, when we know that both Australia and New Zealand participate in the production, where there are good relationships between the companies and where a very competitive market exists? There could not be any suggestion that laundry detergents and products are not a competitive sector of the retailing industry.

I am very concerned, so I have raised this issue. The affected company in my electorate is Albright and Wilson. They wrote to me when they first became aware of this proposed agreement. Disappointingly, they did not see the one advertisement that was in the Financial Review, I think, or the Australian. They were not contacted by the department or through their industry association. I understand that efforts are often made for that to happen and that the department cannot always get everybody, but I think this situation has shown an inadequacy in the process. The only reason the company became aware of it was that the New Zealand company that had the contractual arrangement with them to buy their product had a clause in their agreement that they should provide six months notice if they wanted to stop buying the product from the Australian company. So the New Zealand company, seeing that this agreement had been negotiated, and expecting that legislation would be moved within both parliaments, gave six months notice that they would cease purchasing the product from the company in my electorate. It was only at that time that Albright and Wilson became aware of this proposed change and the negative impact it will have on them.

Immediately we entered into discussion with the then Minister for Trade and the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. We are obviously now dealing with the current Minister for Trade. Unfortunately, the responses from the government have all been interested and polite but not that it is prepared to take any action. Evidence to the committee and elsewhere seems to show that the government and the department are hiding behind the fact that the company was not aware at the earliest stage of this proposed change and therefore, by not being part of the negotiations, had missed its chance.

I do not accept that that is an adequate response when there is still plenty of time to add this proposed change to the agreement. It is a small change. I understand that the New Zealand government is implacably opposed to any change, as no doubt people always are when negotiations have been completed. But if our government had really shown any will or interest in picking this up on behalf of working Australians, I think the New Zealand government might well have considered the issue differently. I am disappointed that Minister Truss has written back basically saying: ‘We’ve taken it seriously, but we’re not going to do anything else. New Zealand is not prepared to reopen negotiations, and we won’t look at any sort of exception.’

The government also refers to an absence of industry consensus on this issue. I would say that it is more than an absence of industry consensus. It would be more accurate to say that the industry organisations have entirely conflicting responsibilities in this area. They have interests that can run completely counter to the interests of individual companies. Unfortunately, in this situation companies like Unilever Australia, with its relationship with Unilever in New Zealand, is a bigger organisation in the industry group than Albright and Wilson. The industry group is not prepared to make representations on behalf of one member when it might affect another member, even though Unilever New Zealand is an entirely discrete company.

It is very disappointing that the government was not prepared to take any action. There are 65 people in my electorate who are quite likely to lose their jobs as a result of the government’s failure to take any action on this issue. It could have been averted. I do not believe that the New Zealand government would be as reticent if the Australian government were prepared to seriously engage on this issue.

All members of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommended—and the dissenting report made an even stronger recommendation—that this issue should have been dealt with, that it had slipped through the department’s consultation process for whatever reason and that negotiations on it should be entered into immediately. But that has not happened. Given that the government has been determined not to take on this issue, we will give it one last opportunity. In the consideration in detail stage of this debate, we will be moving an amendment which would provide for an exception for this line item.

We do not believe that there is any reason for the government not to support it. We will be calling on all members of the House who would be similarly concerned about working people in their electorates who were at risk of losing their jobs because of this action that has been taken to vote with us. If we do not get to the consideration in detail stage in the debate today, the government might reflect differently and be prepared to accept this change. Otherwise, should the loss of these jobs come to pass, it will be on their heads. It will show that there is generally no preparedness on behalf of the government to take account of the interests of the community.

I would like to indicate that we have taken as many steps as possible to support Australian industry, particularly the manufacturer Albright and Wilson and their staff who are situated in my electorate. We have pursued two different trade ministers on this issue. We have been in consultations with the industry minister. Labor members, through the treaties committee, tabled a dissenting report urging immediate negotiations on this issue. I would like to record my thanks to the member for Swan and a number of his colleagues on the treaties committee for pursuing this issue. But still the government has failed to take any action.

We will be asking for an exemption. It is not new to have an exemption in these sorts of agreements. It is not adequate to say that it will be dealt with later. The jobs at Albright and Wilson will be lost and people’s livelihoods will be ruined. The business may well go under completely. All that the government will have delivered through this legislation is the ability for a New Zealand company to buy dumped Chinese product instead of Australian product. That is all that will be achieved if the government votes against our proposed amendment. That is not a good outcome for closer economic relations between Australia and New Zealand. There is no possible excuse for the government to avoid an opportunity to support the maintenance of $7 million worth of trade between our two countries. I urge the government to reconsider what it is doing.

We cannot afford to lose this Australian industry. We know that manufacturing contributes not only to our export performance but also to our research and development. Albright and Wilson employ chemists, administrators and chemical workers. They have industry partnerships with research institutions that encourage product development and innovation. All of this is being put at risk because of the government’s stubborn determination not to take account of the interests of this company. The government has made exemptions in the past. It has made them for gentlemen’s apparel. There are other industries with similar exemptions. There should be one in place for this product, which is made in my electorate. I will be urging the government when we consider the bill in detail to accept my proposed amendment so that this agreement will be able to go ahead with the support of members not just on the government’s side of the House but on our side as well.

See this speech in context