House debates
Wednesday, 20 October 2021
Bills
Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021, Customs Tariff Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021; Consideration in Detail
10:46 am
Craig Kelly (Hughes, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 6), after the paragraph beginning "Subdivision E" in section 153ZQA, insert:
• Subdivision EA provides that goods are not RCEP originating goods if safety approval of the goods has been sought but has not been obtained or has been refused.
(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 13 (after line 20), after Subdivision E, insert:
Subdivision EA — Safety
153ZQIA Safety
Goods are not RCEP originating goods under this Division if:
(a) the producer or importer of the goods, or an entity related to the producer or importer of the goods, has applied for approval of the goods under a safety law of:
(i) if the goods were wholly obtained or produced in a Party—that Party; or
(ii) otherwise—the Party in which the goods were produced; and
(b) that approval has not yet been granted or has been refused.
I will quickly go through them. This particular bill gives special preference to goods that are of RCE, which is the agreement of the partners origin. If a good is made in that country, it gets special treatment. However, the purpose of this amendment is based upon safety. It seeks to exclude goods from that provision—exclude them from giving those preferences—if:
(a) the producer or importer of the goods, or an entity related to the producer or importer of the goods, has applied for approval of the goods under a safety law of:
(i) if the goods were wholly obtained or produced in a Party—that Party; or
(ii) otherwise—the Party in which the goods were produced; and
(b) that approval has not yet been granted or has been refused.
If goods are made in foreign country, and in that foreign country they attempted to obtain some safety or regulatory approval and it is not given in that country—if the regulatory authorities in the country of manufacture say, 'That good is not yet approved' or 'We do not think it's safe to be distributed in this country,' they cannot export that to Australia and expect to get these preferential tariff arrangements.
Now, some may think that would never happen. It would never happen if goods were imported into Australia for use in Australia, and yet in the country of manufacture, the country of origin, the regulators have said: 'Hang on a minute. We're not going to grant this particular good safety approval, because we have concerns about that particular good.'
Let me give you an exact example of why this bill is needed and an exact example of why this is something that would be caught by this amendment. I quote directly from the Wall Street Journal on 15 October 2021. The headline says 'FDA delays Moderna COVID vaccine for adolescents to review rare myocarditis side effect'. It says:
Agency holds off decision on expanding use of shot to 12-to-17-year-olds while it looks into risk of rare heart condition
The article goes on:
The Food and Drug Administration is delaying a decision on authorizing Moderna Inc.'s Covid-19 vaccine for adolescents to assess whether the shot may lead to heightened risk of a rare inflammatory heart condition, according to people familiar with the matter.
So, in the USA, their regulators, the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, have not approved Moderna vaccines for 12- to 17-year-old children because they are not sure. They are applying the precautionary principle, and yet that good, which is manufactured in the USA, is exported to Australia. And what have we done? I'll quote directly from a release by the minister of health on 5 September. It says:
TGA approves Moderna vaccine for 12 to 17-year-olds. Australia's medicines regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, has provisionally approved the use of the Moderna (Spikevax) COVID-19 vaccine for adolescents aged 12 to 17 years.
This enables this vaccine to be injected into Australian children. We have regulators in the USA that say that this good is not fit for 12- to 17-year-olds in America, where it is manufactured. But it's being exported to Australia where our regulators say, 'Maybe it's okay, don't worry and just shoot this stuff up into kids.'
Do parents around the nation know this? Is any media outlet in the country reporting that this substance is being injected into Australian teenagers? It's made in America, but the American say, 'This is not safe for American teenage kids.' How many children in Australia are we putting at risk because of this madness? What is the TGA doing by approving something to be injected into Australian children, when it cannot be injected into American children? It's a good that is made in the USA. (Time expired)
10:51 am
Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to 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.
10:54 am
Craig Kelly (Hughes, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I thank the minister for his explanation. But, just to be clear, what has been outlined is that goods can be manufactured in the country of origin where that country decides that the particular goods carry such a dangerous risk to the citizens of that country that the regulators in that country do not allow the use of those goods for that particular purpose, and yet those particular goods can be imported into Australia and used for a purpose that is unlawful and outlawed in the country of origin. I think that puts Australians at risk. I think that is the wrong policy, and I commend these amendments to the House. I hope that they have support.
Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.
Question agreed to.
Bill agreed to.