Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting the amendments moved by the member for Hughes, and I make it very clear that the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement preserves Australia's right to impose restrictions on imports necessary to protect human life and health. The right is made clear in the agreement's general exceptions as well as the agreement's technical barriers to trade and sanitary chapters. The rules of origin are not relevant to this as they relate only to whether goods qualify for a preferential rate of import duty. These amendments propose to impose a new circumstance that would make goods that would otherwise be originating under the agreement no longer originating goods. That is something we cannot allow. Broadly, the circumstances proposed by these amendments are where a producer or importer or a related entity has made an application for approval under a safety law of a party, and such approval has not yet been given. The proposed amendments do not define what is to be considered a safety law. The circumstances are not stipulated in a finalised agreement, and, as such, the new section would insert circumstances that are neither stipulated in the agreement nor agreed to by the parties to the agreement.

These bills implement obligations under the agreement in relation to the rules of origin, and I make that point clear. Their purpose is to ensure that Australia's domestic laws are in conformity with Australia's international obligations, and that is so important. On the issue of entry into Australia, the provisions of these bills are guided by the terms of the agreement. The proposed amendments would also only affect whether or not the goods are given preferential tariff treatment due to Australia implementing the agreement. They would not prevent such goods, even if they were defined, from being imported into Australia. The proposed amendments would be outside the scope of the agreement.

See this speech in context