Mr McMULLAN (9:22 PM) —I move:

(3) Page 32 (after line 29), after clause 50, insert

50A Independent inquiry concerning textiles, clothing and footwear industries

(1) Before 1 July 2003 the Minister must cause to be established an independent inquiry into the future of the textiles, clothing and footwear industries. The inquiry must address, in particular, the most appropriate rates of customs duty to apply from 1 January 2005 to the categories of textile, clothing or footwear products specified in the Customs Tariff Act 1995.

(2) After the Minister receives the report of the inquiry established under this section the Minister may issue a written certificate stating that the Minister has received the report and is satisfied rates of customs should be amended from the inquiry certificate day as provided in the Customs Tariff Act 1995 .

(3) The Minister must arrange for a copy of the certificate under subsection (2) to be published in the Gazette.

(4) Subject to subsection (5) the day on which the certificate under subsection (2) is published in the Gazette is the inquiry certificate day for the purposes of the Customs Tariff Act 1995 .

(5) For the purposes of the Customs Tariff Act 1995 if the copy of the certificate issued under subsection (2) is published in the Gazette before 1 January 2005, the inquiry certificate day is taken to be 1 January 2005.

(6) The Minister must cause copies of the report of the inquiry established under this section to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after receiving the report.

The splendid harmony which has just been displayed may break down at this point, but I should say in response to the quiet interjection from the member for Banks, who said that we need more of that, that I do appreciate the minister's and the parliamentary secretary's response to amendments Nos 1 and 2. They are not exactly earth-shattering amendments, but the House works better when modest proposals come forward. I think that it was our responsibility to show courtesy to the minister by giving him advance notice of them, which we did, and he responded positively, and I welcome that. There is no way that he could respond in that way to this amendment because this is a policy disagreement between the opposition and the government, and so of course the government cannot accept this amendment. But it is important to us, and we want to make the contrast clear.

I spoke on the substance of the third amendment during the second reading debate. I will not reiterate that, but I will make clear the form of the amendment and why we are moving it. It goes to the fundamental policy disagreement which we think is the flaw in the package which the government announced in 1997 which this legislation is implementing—that is, they have the two elements that we felt should be in the policy, but they have got them in the wrong sequence. They have said, `The desirable outcome is for every country in the region to move to meet its APEC obligations by reducing tariffs and, as one of those countries, Australia should continue to meet our obligations.' That is reflected in the schedule of amendments in the other bill—the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 —which changed the tariff schedule. And they have a proposal for an inquiry on the way in which market access arrangements are proceeding in other markets—most particularly, but not exclusively, in APEC.

Those two things are sensible. But I would have thought most Australians—and common logic—would suggest that you would have the review first, look at the outcome and then decide whether you are going to proceed. This legislation says, `We're going to proceed, and then we will have a review to see if it was a good idea.' That is a flaw. That it is a logical flaw does not matter all that much; that just annoys people like me. But it is a logical flaw with consequences—with consequences for Australian businesses, with consequences for Australian workers, with consequences for Australian jobs and with consequences for the Australian economy.

Before the government came to its position in 1997 we were advocating that there should be a pause of the circumstance that is in this legislation, and we accept that at the end of that pause, subject to a review, the sorts of tariff changes that are reflected in this bill are appropriate. That was our policy. The government has advocated it. We are not going to change now and say, `We thought it was a good idea before the government said it, and now they have said it we disagree.' Of course that would be absurd. So there is a lot of similarity in position. But this is an important difference—a difference that the industry cares about, that the union cares about, that the workers in the industry care about, that the opposition cares about.

We are not seeking to interfere with the timetable that the government has set down. We are simply saying, `Bring the inquiry forward before the decision instead of after it.' It is really Alice in Wonderland stuff to say, `We will make the decision, then we will have an inquiry.' What if the inquiry says, `This is not a good idea, Minister.' You certainly are not going to legislate to put the tariffs back up again. We all know that that will not happen.

So we should be proceeding in the way that this amendment reflects. We will be dividing on this amendment. But, more importantly, we will be persisting with it in the Senate and seeking the support of the minor parties for it. We think it is consistent with the policy thrust that has been broadly bipartisan in Australia with regard to industry restructuring for the last decade or so—to which we remain committed—but it proceeds in a more logical sequence and it protects the interests of workers and business in the industry without putting in jeopardy Australia's ongoing commitments to APEC or Australia's ongoing bipartisan view that we need to continue to have internationally competitive industries. So I recommend this important amendment to the House.