US FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION BILL 2004: Consideration of Senate Message

13th Aug 04

Mr VAILE (Lyne—Minister for Trade) (11.24 a.m.) —I move:

That the amendments be considered forthwith.

The SPEAKER —I point out to the member for Cunningham that, while I am not denying him the call, it would be unusual to speak on this motion, which is entirely a matter of timeliness. Opportunity to participate in the debate will follow the decision of the House to consider the amendments forthwith.

Mr Organ —I wish to speak before that, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER —I apologise to the member for Cunningham and I recognise him.

Mr ORGAN (Cunningham) (11.25 a.m.) —I would like to speak to the motion that the amendments be considered forthwith. I would suggest that these amendments not be considered forthwith, because it is not timely. These amendments have not been considered by the House. This House has not had the opportunity in any way to consider in any detail the US free trade agreement and its implications for Australia. Over the last couple of days we have seen those in the Senate discussing, in some detail, aspects of the free trade agreement and various issues concerned with it. They have highlighted that there are many concerns and that the amendments should not be considered forthwith, as is suggested by the current motion before the House.

There are many reasons why these amendments should not be considered forthwith. The bill was first introduced into this House relatively quickly; there was really no consideration given for detailed debate. This bill affects 10 different pieces of Australian legislation and its implications for the Australian people are considerable. So I think we in this House would all have to agree that not enough time has been given to consider the amendments. We have seen the Senate over the last couple of days considering these amendments in incredible detail. So I do not support the current motion that the amendments be considered forthwith. With what has happened in the Senate over the last couple of days, we have seen there are many outstanding issues with the US free trade agreement. This just shows the people of Australia that this House has not considered these amendments in detail. It is important that we have further time to consider the two amendments that are being brought before the House in this manner; they have only just passed through the Senate and the motion now before us that `the amendments be considered forthwith' does not give us any time at all to consider them in detail.

Government member—We've had six months; where have you been?

Mr ORGAN —I notice the interjection that we have had six months to consider them. We have not had six months to consider them at all. These amendments have been passed through the Senate only in the last hour or so. This is not the way this parliament should act, rushing such important legislation through. We now have before us a motion that the amendments be considered forthwith. I oppose that motion on the basis that this is such an important bill; it is such an important issue that we are dealing with here. As I have said, the FTA affects 10 various pieces of legislation in this country. There is much concern in the community regarding the implications that changes to these pieces of legislation will have on ordinary Australians outside the scope of our dealings with the US in connection with the free trade agreement. As I said, it is important that in considering this motion we go back to what we are all here for—and we are all here to represent the people of Australia, to look in detail at the various elements of legislation brought before us.

As I have said here before, we cannot have government by rushing important bills through this House. We need time to consider, we need time to talk to our constituents, if we are going to best represent the people of Australia as we have been elected to do. So the current motion that the amendments be considered forthwith is not an appropriate motion at this time. We have not had time to consider the amendments, and we need to take into account all those issues that have been raised in the other place over the last two or three days. They have raised a lot of concerns as regards the implications of these amendments that we are now talking about considering. Through the whole process, with the passage of the legislation through the Senate, all the debate we have had from crossbenchers such as Senator Bob Brown, Senator Kerry Nettle, One Nation's Senator Len Harris and Senator Aden Ridgeway from the Australian Democrats has raised a lot of important issues about the US-Australian free trade agreement.

Mr Andren —They certainly have.

Mr ORGAN —`They certainly have,' the member for Calare said. And so we are here today—the crossbenchers, in this place and also in the other place, standing up for Australia, standing up for what ordinary Australians are thinking on this issue.

I do not accept at all that these amendments should be considered forthwith; I think we should be taking our time. There is no rush. I ask the Prime Minister: what is the rush? If this is such an important agreement, what is the rush? I know the Minister for Trade, who is at the table, said that he was hoping to have it all finalised by middle to late October. What is going to happen then? I suppose it is to do with the whole election hysteria going on at the moment. But that is not the issue; the issue is `considering these amendments forthwith'. I think we need to take our time with all the issues that are brought before this House, and this is just one example. We have before us very important legislation: the legislation associated with the US free trade agreement. As I said, it deals with 10 pieces of Australian legislation. Have we sat down and discussed those 10 pieces of legislation in any real detail? No, not at all. I think it is a disgrace that there are 10 significant pieces of legislation attached to this proposed US free trade agreement and we have not had the opportunity to discuss that in detail. As I said—

Mrs Gash interjecting—

The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Gilmore! The member for Cunningham has the call. He has the right to be heard under standing order 55, as you should be well aware.

Mr ORGAN —I think it is totally appropriate that we be given time to consider these amendments. It is very important that we take our time to consider issues that are so significant to the people of Australia. If we are going to follow the processes of this House, I think they need to be followed to the nth degree and to the letter, and that is what we are all here for.

Mr Pyne —Stop repeating yourself and sit down.

Mr ORGAN —Rushing through such a significant bill is not in the country's best interest. I look forward to speaking to these amendments should this motion be supported, but at this point in time I am just raising with the House the issue of considering these amendments. I think it is totally inappropriate that we have been called back here on Friday, a non-sitting day, for no good reason. The government should have taken the opportunity to let the Senate deal with this issue, as they have done over the last couple of days. They only finished at 10 o'clock this morning. We should have had the opportunity to go away for two weeks and consider a lot of the issues raised in the Senate by some of the speakers I mentioned previously. They raised a lot of issues so that we could take on board those concerns.

I spoke about the US free trade agreement on the radio this morning, and I was informed that there has been a lot of comment and public concern on this issue, not just from areas such as the urban electorate of Cunningham but from electorates out in the country and all throughout Australia. This is an issue of extreme concern to the Australian people. We have an election coming up, and I think there are going to be a lot of people considering what the government has done with regard to this issue.

I do not think we should be considering these amendments forthwith—and that is what I am speaking to at the moment rather than going into all those things that are wrong with the free trade agreement. I could easily talk about that, but I will not do so at this point because we have to make sure we stay relevant to the motion, and the motion is that the amendments be considered forthwith. There is no point in rushing through these elements—and I will keep repeating that because I think that is the whole point: this is being rushed through.

The opposition is totally supportive of the government on this motion. I do not think that is in the best interests of this nation. I have been in this House for almost two years now, and I have seen a number of bills rushed through. We have not had the opportunity to discuss a lot of these issues in much detail at all. I do not think it is appropriate that haste be taken on any of these bills, whether it is the US free trade agreement bill or any other bill. The government introduces bills without due consideration being given for members of this place having the opportunity to consider the bills in detail, really speak to their constituents, to see whether they are in the best interests of this nation. And obviously there are concerns with this specific bill. So I speak in opposition to the motion that the amendments be considered forthwith, and I hope I have the opportunity later on to expand on some of the views as to why we should not be considering these amendments at this point in time.