Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Customs Tariff Amendment (2012 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2011. The bill amends the Customs Tariff Act 1995 as a result of the fourth review by the World Customs Organisation of the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System by effecting changes required by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, relating to food security; the Rotterdam Convention, relating to hazardous chemicals and pesticides; and the Montreal protocol, relating to halogenated hydrocarbons.

As noted in the bill's explanatory memorandum, the harmonised system is a system of goods classification based on six-digit codes. The six-digit classification uniquely identifies all traded goods and commodities and is uniform across all countries that have adopted the harmonised system. The harmonised system multipurpose goods classification is used as the foundation for customs tariffs and for the collection of international trade statistics. It comprises about 5,000 commodity groups, each identified by a six-digit code arranged in a legal and logical structure, with well-defined rules to achieve uniform classification.

Australia is a signatory to the harmonised system. Since 1988, the harmonised system has formed the basis of Australia's commodity classifications for traded goods, both imports and exports. The World Customs Organisation, the administering body, reassesses the harmonised system every five years to reflect changes in industry practice, technological advances and variations in international trade patterns. The World Customs Organisation completed the fourth review of the harmonised system in June 2010. The harmonised system requires Australia, along with other countries who are signatories, to apply these changes from 1 January next year.

The bill's EM also notes that this bill will make 800 technical amendments to existing classifications in the Customs Tariff Act and states:

The amendments concentrate particularly on environmental and social issues that are of global concern, including the use of the Harmonized System for identifying goods of specific importance to the food security programme of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

Other amendments from the fourth review of the harmonised system have resulted from changes in international trade patterns. The explanatory memorandum further states:

These include deleting more than 40 subheadings due to the low volume of trade in specific products, separately identifying certain commodities in either existing or new headings, and reflecting advances in technology where possible. Finally, a number of amendments aim to clarify texts to ensure uniform application of the Harmonized System Nomenclature.

The coalition supports the passage of this bill, which gives effect to the harmonised system changes while maintaining existing levels of tariff protection and margins of tariff preference. The coalition supports efforts at progressing international trade which we believe will deliver the greatest benefit to the global economy and to Australia. We therefore commend the bill to the House.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Customs Tariff Amendment (2012 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2011. This bill is well supported and well understood across both houses. While it does a lot of different technical things, it does one very important thing—that is, to make sure that Australia meets its World Customs Organisation, or WCO, commitments. Australia does that as part of a global network of customs organisations that have made a commitment to ensuring that there is a tracking system and a six-digit-number system for goods that are imported and exported. There are over 200 countries participating in the system and Australia is one of the signatories. We are currently in the fourth review of that system.

This bill before the House has approximately 800 amendments, which is an awful lot, covering a range of different subheadings. Those amendments are mainly to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. As I said, these changes result from a World Customs Organisation review—a review of the harmonised commodity system, also known as the harmonised system. This system is unique and it uniquely identifies everything that is traded, everything that moves in and out of member countries—of which there are over 200—right across the world. Its uniqueness is that it is uniform and that it is agreed to by all the countries that use the system. Since 1988, this system has formed the basis of Australia's commodity classification for traded goods.

But like all things, even those that work well, the system needs review from time to time as things change, as goods come on and off markets or as we find that there are new classifications needed for particular chemicals, products or dangerous goods. Some of these latter items need to be closely monitored and identified as they travel from one country to the next for a whole range of very good reasons, not the least being environmental and social impacts. The driving forces behind this fourth review, in fact, are those two key areas of environmental impact and social impact across the globe. It was agreed that these issues were of global concern and that this harmonised system for identifying goods of specific importance was needed.

It would not surprise members in this House to understand that some of these goods relate specifically to food security, something about which I have spoken many times before—food security and food programs, particularly their relationship to the agricultural organisations of the United Nations. As you can probably understand from that, it is quite a complex system of tracking goods—particular agricultural commodities and products—across a lot of countries. There are literally tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of movements. To maintain the proper integrity of the system, it is vital for any country that it not only understands what goods travel in and outside of its jurisdictional borders, but that it can properly track, monitor and respond to anything that occurs with such goods.

There is a particular emphasis in this review on certain fish and certain fish products. These, in recent years, have become particularly important as there is more trade, particularly among ASEAN countries, of particular fish products. The tracking of these products may be for health reasons or security reasons, but it may also be tracking of rare or protected species. It is a really important part of this system to properly inform governments of the movement of specific types of products. It can be very helpful in formulating policies and ensuring appropriate customs and border protection with respect to these products.

The new amendments will also create some new subheadings, specifically for chemicals—recognising new chemicals or altered chemicals and making sure there is proper tracking of those as well. That will include particular pesticides and—something which I think is really important and which has come back onto the agenda after some many years—ozone-depleting products. Members and senators, I am sure, can recall the very successful campaigns to rid the world of ozone-depleting chemicals and gases. The success of those campaigns was very important, but we need to continue to monitor and track any new chemicals, new products or new gases that are coming onto the markets through these unique identifiers. This will facilitate the monitoring and control of international trade in these products under the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. It is quite comprehensive; hence there are these 800 amendments contained within it. There is obviously a lot of change.

The bill also amends schedules 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Customs Tariff Act 1995. This will give effect to the application of duty on imported products, particularly from the United States of America, Thailand, Chile, New Zealand and ASEAN nations which are under Australia's bilateral free trade agreements. Something the bill does not do is change existing levels of industry protection and margins of tariff protection on imported goods, including goods imported under the free trade agreements. That is an important part of this bill. It isolates all of those products to the harmonisation system and does not impact or impinge in any way on the very complex system of World Trade Organisation regulations and agreements to which Australia is a signatory. This bill will ensure that we maintain the existing levels, so no-one ought to have any fear or concern that any of its 800 amendments will have some sort of material impact on the customs and other protection measures currently in place. Another bill which is coming to the House shortly will deal more specifically with antidumping measures, and there is certainly much more that can be said and needs to be done in those areas.

This bill ensures that Australia does meet its obligations under the harmonised system in a manner consistent with that of our major trading partners. It helps to monitor and control trade in chemicals, including ozone-depleting chemicals, and will provide certainty to our importers and exporters. It is fair to say that Australia has a pretty strong track record in its capacity to deal with its trading partners, whether that be through bilateral free trade, through free trade generally speaking or through the World Trade Organisation. Australia does have a strong reputation not only for meeting its obligations and understanding what those obligations are but also for being a fair actor.

Something not acknowledged enough in these debates is the way in which Australia conducts itself in the global trade market. That is not to say that it is an equal and fair playing field and that all countries play by the same rules, because the reality is that they do not. While it is a complex and sophisticated set of arrangements around trade, Australia ought to understand better that it is a fast-moving environment, an environment where trading partners and trading organisations can react much more quickly and robustly than our own regulatory systems or the agreements that we set up sometimes do. It is something that ought always to be in the back of our minds when we talk about trade monitoring and controls and when we look at the systems that are in place.

The bill before us today is certainly well supported by everyone in this House. It is a bill for which the Hon. Brendan O'Connor, in his role as Minister for Home Affairs and responsible for a range of other portfolios, ought to be commended. I commend the bill to the House.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Customs Tariff Amendment (2012 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2011 and to support the comments of the member for Stirling. This bill has no financial impacts on the economy, except perhaps creating a lot of reading for the thousands of customs agents around the nation. The bill makes no changes to any existing level of tariff or any existing tariff preferences. This bill merely contains some 800 amendments to the existing classification numbering system in the Customs Tariff Act 1995, which resulted from the fourth review of the International Convention on the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System, commonly referred to as the harmonised code. These amendments are fully supported by the coalition.

The Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System is an international standard system of names and numbers for classifying traded products that are exported and imported throughout the world. Australia is a signatory to this harmonised system. This standardised system of classifying products has been developed over a period of 100 years and is currently maintained by the World Customs Organisation, based in Belgium. The harmonised system has the aim of facilitating international trade and is used by more than 200 countries and economies throughout the world. Today, over 98 per cent of all merchandise and international trade is classified using this method.

The harmonised coding system provides a vital tool in facilitating international trade as, firstly, it provides an organised basis for each nation to set their customs tariff schedules whereby the rates of duty payable are transparent and easily understood by both importers and exporters; secondly, it provides a method for the collection of international trade statistics for administrative and statistical purposes; and, thirdly, it provides a background to enhance effective trade negotiations between all countries. The harmonised system is therefore the universal economic language and a code for goods. It is an indispensable tool in international trade.

The harmonised system uniquely identifies all traded goods and commodities with a six-digit code. These six-digit codes are uniform across all countries that have adopted the system. However, countries may also use additional digits to create eight-digit codes for their own domestic purposes. The Customs Tariff Act provides an eight-digit classification made up of a six-digit international classification supplemented by two digits for our own domestic tariff purposes.

I will give a few examples of how the harmonised code system works to uniquely identify all traded goods and commodities. The entire classification system is organised into 21 sections and 96 chapters. The first two numbers of each six-digit code identify the commodity's chapter. The 96 chapters begin at 01, which includes all live animals, and then proceed to categories with increasing complexity. As an example, let us say you are interested in importing or exporting pink batts for, who knows, as far-fetched as it may seem, some government one day may have lost its way to such an extent that it dreams up some harebrained scheme that spends billions of dollars to give away free pink batts to all and sundry. Sometimes, fact is stranger than fiction. In any such tax-free funded giveaway, the local industry would be unlikely to supply all of the demand required. This would result in thousands upon thousands of containers of pink batts being imported into the country from all corners of the globe. Therefore, knowing what the six-digit harmonised code for pink batts is becomes important.

Pink batts are made of fibreglass, so the place to start to look to find their six-digit harmonised code is in section 14, which include articles of stone, plaster, cement, asbestos, mica and similar materials, ceramic products, glass and glassware. Within section 14 there is chapter 70, entitled 'Glass and glassware', which includes commodities such as float glass sheets, toughened safety glass, mirrors and drinking glasses. Therefore, the first two numbers of the six-digit harmonised code for pink batts is 70, taken from chapter 70. Drilling down further, subchapter 70.19 includes products made of glass fibres including glass wool and articles thereof. Drilling down even further, you will find the six-digit harmonised code for pink batts is 70.19.39. Once you have the harmonised code, you can look at the Australian customs tariff rates to find that the duty payable on pink batts is five per cent.

As another example, again far-fetched, let us imagine for the sake of an argument that during a brainstorming session the same government came up with the idea of giving away free television set-top boxes. Again, fact is sometimes stranger than fiction. Therefore, knowing what the six-digit harmonised code is for set-top boxes should be important, although the government might decide just to pick a number for the price at random—say, $400 each.So the place to start to look to find the six-digit harmonised code for set-top boxes is in section 16 of the code, which includes machinery and mechanical appliances, electrical equipment, sound recorders and reproducers, televisions and parts and accessories, and articles such of. Then within section 16 is chapter 85, which includes TV image and sound recorders and parts and accessories of such articles. Then, drilling down further, you will find the six-digit code for set-top boxes is 85.29.90. With this number, you will be able to look up the Australian Customs tariff schedule to find that the rate of duty payable on set-top boxes is five per cent.

Of course, the government could bypass this step and just pick up the phone and call Harvey Norman and ask Gerry what his advertised price is to supply and install set-top boxes, which I understand is less than $150. Then they could ask Gerry what special deal he could do on a million units. This step would save the government the burden of finding out what the harmonised code for set-top boxes is. If the government had employed the negotiating skills of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship following his recent five for-one-deal with the Malaysians, who knows what deal he could have got out of Gerry?

All products, even dangerous pollutants, have six-digit harmonised codes. We have all heard the minister for global warming—I am sorry; the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency—talk about carbon pollution. But when the minister talks about carbon pollution what he is actually referring to is that dangerous pollutant called carbon dioxide. I am not sure why he is so confused and gets the two muddled up. It may come as a surprise to many that this dangerous pollutant is actually a commodity that is traded internationally and has its own unique six-digit harmonised code. Firstly, carbon dioxide falls within section VI for the harmonised codes, titled 'Products of chemical or allied industries'. Then, within section VI, there is chapter 28, titled 'Inorganic and Organic chemicals and their compounds'. This section includes chlorine, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, sodium, calcium, iodine and even distilled drinking water. Therefore, as carbon dioxide is located within chapter 28, the first two numbers of its six-digit code are 28. Drilling down further you will find that the six-digit code for carbon dioxide is 28.11.21. Therefore, when someone imports or exports carbon dioxide for the purpose of injecting this dangerous pollutant into soft drinks, beer or champagne or even to use it to increase the growth of plants they will need to know the six-digit harmonised code is 28.11.21. That will enable them to find out the rate of duty payable. Surprisingly, the tariff rate on this dangerous pollutant is zero. While the government is trying to tax it, you can actually import carbon dioxide into Australia for free.

While carbon dioxide has the harmonised code of 28.11.21, carbon is classified under a completely different code. Carbon, which includes carbon black and other forms of carbon, has the harmonised code of 28.03.00. Therefore, if the House is going to support this bill, I call on the minister to get it right, to respect the international harmonised system of which Australia is a signatory and, when he talks about pollution, to stop getting these harmonised codes mixed up.

Getting back to the reasons for this bill before the House, the World Customs Organisation reviews the harmonised code every five years to consider amendments to the code to reflect changes in industry practices, technological developments and international trade patterns. The codes have been revised through the years. Some codes have been deleted completely, others have been placed elsewhere in the classification, some codes have been combined and others have been split into two or more.

The latest and fourth review of the harmonised system occurred in June 2010, with some 800 amendments. Just one example of these 800 new changes is the creation of two new subheadings to separately identify live ostriches and emus. Before, ostriches and emus were classified under the same heading—something that every schoolchild knows is not correct. Other amendments from the fourth review of the harmonised system include deleting more than 40 subheadings due to the low volume of trade in the specified products. No doubt, when the time comes for the fifth review, the category of pink batts could be high on the list for those to be considered for deletion. Given that over the next decade there will still be thousands and thousands of containers in storage throughout Australia, it seems that there will be very little need for international trade in this product in the future.

Other changes include new subheadings for specific chemicals controlled under the Rotterdam convention, which is designed to promote shared responsibility and cooperation among parties in the international trade of certain hazardous industrial chemicals and pesticides. The aim of the convention is to protect human health and the environment from potential harm and to contribute to the environmentally sound use of hazardous products. The Rotterdam convention is very important. As with the weakening of our economy with the carbon tax, this will only reduce our ability to deal with real pollutants and real poisons like mercury and other heavy metals and organic carcinogens.

In conclusion, as Australia is a signatory to the harmonised system convention, we are obligated, along with all other signatories worldwide, to implement these changes to the harmonised codes from 1 January 2012. Hence the need for the bill, which has the full support of the coalition.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank my predecessor, the member for Hughes, for a highly entertaining and thoughtful speech on the Customs Tariff Amendment (2012 Harmonised System Changes) Bill. He used some prime examples which I think were very illustrative of the importance of the bill but also was able to highlight, somewhat tongue in cheek, how ill-conceived and ill-thought-out government programs can actually distort trade. It is indeed a very sad situation for the pink batt industry here in Australia, where domestic competition has been flooded by overseas imports of pink batts. That has had a detrimental impact on the local industry, including in my home town of Hamilton. I think the member for Hughes has given a lot of thought to this bill. His illustrations of the importance of a harmonised code and those examples, in particular, of pink batts, have been able to highlight that it is better that government refrains from entering the marketplace, apart from where it is absolutely vital that it do so when there is no true competition, an issue that I know my dear friend is also very keen on. In that situation we do not mind the government looking to ensure that we have proper practices, but in other examples, as highlighted, we do not need government in our lives.

The harmonised system which is overseen by Customs is incredibly important for our international trade. For Australia, a country of 20 million people with rich resources, international trade is vitally important, so it is essential that there be well-ordered rules around that. This bill continues in that regard, making sure that every time we harmonise our tariffs, international trade can flow as smoothly as possible. That is why, on both sides of the parliament, there is support for these harmonised system changes. In relation to the six-digit codes, we have seen consolidation regarding some items which are now not traded as they were historically, whereas we have seen newer products expanding. There is then a need for those to be added in more detail to the harmonised coding system. We on this side support that purpose, as does the other side, because ultimately it will help and encourage a trading nation such as Australia.

With respect to international trade, obviously there is the World Trade Organisation multilateral agreement and there are all the rules whereby goods are traded. There are also our bilateral free trade agreements with the US, Thailand, Chile, ASEAN and New Zealand. The bill obviously will make trade within the World Trade Organisation and within our bilateral free trade agreements flow a lot more efficiently for our businesses and, once again, this is to be commended.

One thing, though, on which I do not think there is agreement by either side is what the government and, in particular, the trade minister are doing to ensure that we continue to see movement on the international trade agenda, or the bilateral trade agenda, for countries looking to further liberalise their tariffs and import duties. Sadly, today in parliament we learnt that Australia's Minister for Trade is heading overseas to the US for a WTO meeting and then will go on to Europe for the OECD meeting. He has headed over on this two-week trip. He had an op-ed piece in the Australian today which did not even mention the word 'trade,' what the purpose of his trip is and what he is trying to achieve; it was wholly focused on the budget.

I would just like to say to the trade minister that people are doing good work in harmonising tariff codes, and maybe he could concentrate on doing some work on Australia's trade agenda. All he seems to be focused on is the Treasurer's job. I know that the Treasurer is doing an appalling job but, sadly for the Minister for Trade, he also is not doing much of a job. We have seen no new initiatives in the trade area. We have seen no new calls for bilateral free trade agreements with countries. We have seen no movement whatsoever on the Doha Round. It is very sad that the leadership that Australia used to show in this area, which was very much at the forefront of pushing for further trade liberalisation, further reductions in tariff duties and customs duties, has ceased to be the case. We now get a trade minister who heads overseas for a two-week trip—it is not a trip for two days—and, even before he goes, does not enlighten the Australian people on the purpose of his visit and what he is trying to achieve.

The sad thing is that I do not think he knows what he is trying to achieve. As I said, he seems more focused on the Treasurer's job than on doing his own. I call on him to show some leadership, because my understanding is that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and those hardworking officials within the trade sections of the department are incredibly confused by his leadership or lack thereof. They do not know what our agenda is and whether, as it sometimes is purported, we are focusing more on the multilateral arrangements and therefore we are getting a conclusion to Doha or whether, once the Prime Minister goes to Japan and China, all of a sudden we will swing back and focus on trying to conclude bilateral free trade agreements with China and Japan, which were started under the Howard government. It would be very good if he could actually sit down and concentrate on his own job rather than on the Treasurer's job and start to show some focus on where Australia needs to go with regard to its trade policy, because it is vitally important for this trading nation that we continue to push for trade liberalisation both multilaterally and bilaterally. Officials are doing their job; we see that through this bill. We have had another round of harmonised changes to customs tariffs, which is to be welcomed. It has consolidated some and expanded others, and it means that our business community, who want to trade, will be able to do so in a more effective and efficient way. What we desperately now need to see, though, is our Minister for Trade following the lead of the officials and actually sitting down and working out what he wants for Australia's trade policy and then implementing that.

We on this side support this bill. I just hope that we can see from our trade minister an application similar to the application that has gone into the tariff harmonisations.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is one of the most interesting contributions to a debate I have heard in a very long time. It came from an opposition member whose shadow Treasurer could not even find the time to get up here this morning to move a motion that stood in his name because he was too busy doing the numbers to take over the leadership of the opposition and too busy protecting his own job.

The member for Wannon said he does not know what the Minister for Trade is doing overseas. I was mystified, too, because he said the minister was, 'sadly', going to a WTO meeting. Is that nothing to do with trade? I am really surprised, because I was under the belief that the WTO was an organisation that looked at trade and was very much involved in trade, and I would be very sad if Australia's trade minister did not present himself at a WTO meeting. I would be very worried if our trade minister was here in Australia trying to do the numbers just like the Shadow Treasurer is trying to do the numbers to protect himself and shore up his position. It is really a matter that is of great concern to me.

Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, if I could slip over to the legislation: forgive me for saying this, but it actually is not about pink batts. The detail of the legislation has nothing to do with pink batts. Rather, it is about providing certainty for Australia's importers and exporters and ensuring that Australia classifies its goods and commodities in accordance with a harmonised system and in a manner that is consistent with major trading partners. This is about ensuring Australia's trade position, and I am appalled at the contributions I have heard from the opposition in this debate. The Customs Tariff Amendment (2012 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2011 contains amendments to the Customs Tariff Act. The amendments will implement the changes that have been agreed to because Australia is a signatory to the International Convention on the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System. Reviews of that system take place every five years, and we are implementing changes that have come through the fourth review.

The fourth review was completed in June 2010. Out of that review, some very practical financial and legal changes were recommended, some fairly minor in nature but very important to preserve the existing level of our industry protection and the margins of tariff preference. This is very important for Australia's trading future. It is very important to us from a customs tariff and trading perspective. The changes focus on environmental and social issues that are of global concern. I did not hear anything mentioned in contributions from the opposition about any global concern. I did hear a fleeting reference to the legislation and to putting in place the changes resulting from the review, but there was very little comment on the legislation.

Given the importance of this legislation and that some of the changes relate to ensuring the food security program of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, I can only say that I am extremely disappointed that those on the opposition side just want to play politics, to come here to talk about anything except this exceptionally important piece of legislation that ensures Australia's trading position. This bill will provide certainty for Australian importers and exporters and ensure that Australia classifies its goods and commodities in accordance with the harmonised system and in a manner that is consistent with major trading partners. I will conclude by assuring members of the opposition that the Minister for Trade is out there looking after Australia's trading interests and that is why he is attending the WTO meeting.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am here to support the Customs Tariff Amendment (2012 Harmonised System Changes) Bill 2011, like, I assume, every other member here. No doubt my colleagues opposite also support it, but they might have had a bit of a spin on it; I do not know. They did? How did I pick that? I support this legislation. The purpose of this bill is to implement changes resulting from the World Customs Organisation's fourth review of the International Convention on the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System. Madam Deputy Speaker, you might think that this piece of legislation is not on the cutting edge of parliamentary reform, but we need to go into just a little bit of detail to understand why this is significant, why we stay on top of our game, why we have these reviews and why that is important for a country such as ours, which is an import and export based nation.

Australia is proud to be a signatory to the harmonised system convention along with the other 200 members of mainstream economies. Essentially the system is a list of numbered descriptions of goods which plays an integral part in our customs system. As one would expect, constant ongoing review is needed to ensure that this list is kept up to date. These amendments reflect those changes. I can speak of my own electorate and the types of industries that exist there. One of the biggest sectors would be importing and exporting. People need to have these commodity descriptions and coding systems, particularly in relation to food and other substances. And we need to have these reviews to ensure that our systems and processes are kept up to date. Australia is a signatory to the harmonised system convention and is required to implement the changes within it on 1 January 2012—that is obligatory. There are some important changes that have occurred since the last review. I am pleased to see that the particular focus of this latest review has been on the environmental and social factors. Practically speaking, this means identifying goods that are central to world humanitarian programs, such as food of specific importance to the food security program of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. In addition, the harmonised system will create new subheadings for specific chemicals and ozone-depleting substances controlled under the Rotterdam Convention and the Montreal Protocol.

These are things that can make a very significant change, and we have seen that in the past, particularly where controlling ozone-depleting substances in our environment is concerned. Not only have we moved to control those areas; we have done a fair bit so far towards repairing the damage that has already occurred to the ozone layer. So, while it may look insignificant, that is another area where we can apply ourselves to making sure that there is consistency among the mainstream economies in these harmonisations; we actually can deliver first-rate results.

I understand that these changes may not be seen as being at the cutting edge of regulation or as things to be highlighted in international agreements, but they are important. Changes like these, developed through research and international cooperation, help secure and protect us from the dangers that can flow from the importing and exporting of goods. It is also important to note that the bill will preserve the existing levels of trade protection and the margins of tariff protection that apply to imported goods, including goods imported to Australia under our free trade agreements.

These reviews take place every five years, and our importers and exporters know that, by doing these reviews, the government knows the framework within which they are operating. That being said, the government has been mindful of ensuring that industry gets as much time as possible to prepare for these changes and is in a position to implement them in their businesses. That is why industry—the stakeholders—have been widely consulted and kept up to date with the relevant information and will be through to the conclusion of the review itself. No doubt we will see a number of awareness seminars take place through the department in due course, and these will be significant in helping our industries and those importers and exporters understand their obligations, how the system will work and how they can work within the system to ensure that their businesses are run as effectively and efficiently as possible.

Australia is a trading community and is often at the forefront of advocating the implementation of positive change in this area. This nation is somewhat geographically challenged relative to the main economies of the globe—we are a long way from everywhere else—so it is essential that this government implement best practice, and that must be consistent with the practices of all our major trading partners. That is precisely what this bill seeks to do—to keep us up to date and consistent with our trading partners and to provide a framework which our importing and exporting industries can understand and operate within. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.