Trade | 
    
  
  
    | 5.1  | 
    In 2005, trans-Tasman merchandise trade was  worth $14.4 billion; trade in services another $4.7 billion, and two-way  investment was $61.8 billion.1          | 
  
  
    | 5.2 | 
    Australia’s  exports, worth $9 billion, include refined petroleum ($595m); computers and  computer parts ($534m); passenger motor vehicles ($447m); and medicaments  ($419m).  Imports from New Zealand,  worth $5.4 billion, include paper and paperboard ($292m); crude petroleum  ($282m); non-monetary gold ($229m); wood products ($216m) and other food  products ($207m).2          | 
  
  
    | 5.3 | 
    A particular trade issue bought to the attention  of the committee was that of Rules of Origin.  | 
  
  
     | 
      | 
  
  
    Rules of Origin | 
    
  
    | 5.4  | 
    At the 2004 Closer Economic Relations meeting  held in Queenstown, New Zealand, Australian and New Zealand Ministers agreed to  adopt a Change in Tariff Classification (CTC) approach to  the Rules of Origin (ROO) used in the Australia— New Zealand Closer Economic  Relations Trade Agreement (ANZCERTA). Following extensive consultation with  industry throughout 2005, negotiations for the ROO were concluded, and agreed  to by Australia  and New Zealand’s  Trade Ministers, in February 2006. The ROO amendments are scheduled to come  into force on 1 January 2007.3 
        | 
  
  
    
      
        Factory Cost Method Rule of  Origin (ROO) under ANZCERTA 
                 
          Currently, Article 3 of ANZCERTA specifies that to be  deemed originating goods, goods that are not wholly obtained in Australia or New Zealand  must meet two requirements: 
           
          a) The last process in the manufacture of the goods  must be undertaken in Australia  or New Zealand;  and 
           
          b) At least 50% of the factory or works cost of  the goods consists of Australian or 
           
          New    Zealand materials, labour and overheads,  calculated as follows: 
           
          RVC= TC—VNM 
               TC 
           
          Where 
           
          • RVC is the regional value content 
           
          • TC is the total factory cost 
           
          • VNM is the value of non qualifying content (i.e.  content that is not classified as from the region) 
            The total factory cost includes all material and  labour costs directly associated with the manufacture of the good and overhead  costs that can be assigned to the production of the good such as depreciation, licence fees and rent.4   | 
       
     
       
      
        
          Change in Tariff  Classification (CTC) ROO 
                   
            The proposed amended ANZCERTA Article 3 adopts a CTC ROG  for all tariff items (though some tariff item ROOs also incorporate an RVC or  chemical reaction requirement). Though the amended Article 3 is scheduled to  start on 1 January 2007,  manufacturers and importers/exporters are still able to use the factory cost  method for verifying the origin of goods, if they choose to, up until 1 January 2012. The CTC approach to ROO is based on transformation  of imported materials using the World Customs Organization’s Harmonized System  of Tariff Codes - the  HS Code. A  CTC ROO requires an imported material to come  from a different part of the HS Code than that of the exported product - in other words, the  materials undergo a specified change in tariff classification as a result of  the production process. CTC rules may specify that changes are required at the  chapter level (HS code two-digit), the heading level (four-digit) or the  subheading level (six-digit). Examples of CTC rules in the proposed ANZCERTA ROO  schedule are: 
             
            • CTC rule at  chapter level: 
             
            — “Change to heading 6603  from any other chapter” 
             
            • CTC rule at  heading level: 
             
            — “Change to heading 2712  from any other heading” 
             
            • CTC rule at  subheading level: 
             
            — “Change to subheading  370710 from any other subheading”5  | 
         
        | 
    
  
    | 5.5  | 
    In a submission to the Joint Standing Committee  on Treaties’ inquiry into ROO Albright and Wilson (Australia) Limited, a  chemical company state that, if the change to CTC goes ahead, this would  adversely affect their business by allowing a New Zealand detergent producer to  purchase ingredients from China that, under CTC, will qualify for duty free  entry into Australia. Accordingly this will: 
   . . . not only  adversely affect trade across the Tasman (reducing  exports from Australia  to New Zealand)  but will also jeopardise the ongoing viability of our manufacturing operation  in Yarraville. It should be noted that other Australian exporters of detergent  raw materials will probably be similarly affected, and local (Australian)  producers of detergents will be disadvantaged by the ability of New Zealand  competitors to enjoy lower cost inputs and duty free entry into Australia of finished  detergent products.6  | 
  
  
    | 5.6  | 
    Accordingly Albright  and Wilson (Australia) Limited requested that  the RVC method be exclusively applied for a five year period.7          | 
  
  
    | 5.7 | 
    The committee also took evidence from the  Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources regarding the issue of “Men’s and  Boy’s Suits”.  The Department was able to  confirm that there would be “no impact”8 on this trade with the change in Rules of Origin classification.          | 
  
  
    | 5.8  | 
    In a supplementary submission to the inquiry the  Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade stated that: 
   . . . the Australian  and New Zealand Governments, and industry on both sides of the Tasman are of  the view that the proposed adoption of new ANZCERTA ROO based on a change of  tariff classification approach will bring significant benefits to trans-Tasman  trade by reducing costs for business and simplifying the rules.9          | 
  
  
    | 5.9  | 
    The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties’  (JSCOT) Report Number 80 commented  that Albright and Wilson’s  concerns should have been raised “much earlier in the negotiation stages.”10          | 
  
  
    | 5.10 | 
    JSCOT made a recommendation that “Austrade make  greater use of its database of businesses to consult at a business level as was  done during negotiations for AUSFTA.”11          | 
  
  
    | 5.11 | 
    The Committee notes that JSCOT supported the  Rules of Origin changes.  | 
  
  
     | 
      | 
  
  
    Infrastructure | 
    
  
    | 5.12 | 
    An issue that came to the Committee’s particular  attention whilst in New    Zealand was that of infrastructure.  | 
  
  
    | 5.13  | 
    In discussions the Committee was informed that  very little infrastructure work; particularly work relating to roads, goes  ahead in New Zealand  without some participation by Australian firms. This is because of the relative  size and expertise that Australian firms bring to any joint venture.  | 
  
  
    | 5.14 | 
    It was important that Australian firms join with  a New Zealand  counterpart in gaining infrastructure work because of the expertise in  tendering and regulatory processes New Zealand firms brought to the  partnership.  | 
  
  
     | 
      | 
  
  
    Travel | 
    
  
    | 5.15 | 
    New    Zealand is Australia’s number one source of  short-term visitors, with approximately 1 million visits by New Zealanders each  year. There were approximately 875, 000 Australian visits to New Zealand in  2005.12          | 
  
  
    | 5.16 | 
    There are specific immigration agreements that  facilitate the close relationship between Australia and New Zealand.  These are: 
     - Trans-Tasman  travel arrangement; and,
 
   - Permanent residence visas.
   | 
  
  
     | 
      | 
  
  
    Trans-Tasman travel arrangement | 
    
  
    | 5.17  | 
    The 1973 Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement has  enabled New Zealanders to travel to, live and work in Australia  without restriction and Australians to do the same in New Zealand.  Around 350,000 New Zealand  citizens live in Australia,  plus about 100,000 are visiting at any one time. Around 60,000 Australian  citizens live in New Zealand.13          | 
  
  
    | 5.18 | 
    The legal requirement, since September 1994, for  all non-citizens to have visas for travel to Australia resulted in the  introduction of a Special Category Visa (SCV) for New Zealanders. At the time  of presenting a current New    Zealand passport and completed incoming  passenger card, New Zealand  citizens are considered to have applied for a visa.14           | 
  
  
    | 5.19 | 
    Whilst the SCV allows a New Zealand  citizen to remain and work in Australia  lawfully as long as that person remains a New Zealand citizen, the visa is  not considered a permanent residence visa.15          | 
  
  
    | 5.20 | 
    There is provision in the Migration Act (s32  (2)(a)(ii)) to deal with New    Zealand citizens who may be a character or  health concern.16          | 
  
  
    | 5.21  | 
    New    Zealand citizens, who are suffering from a  prescribed disease or a prescribed physical or mental condition, are considered  to be a Health Concern Non-Citizen (HCNC).17          | 
  
  
     | 
      | 
  
  
    Permanent  residence visas | 
    
  
    | 5.22  | 
    On 26 February 2001, the Australian Government announced  changes affecting New    Zealand citizens in Australia. From  this date, New Zealand  citizens must meet the same requirements as other migrants to be eligible for  Australian citizenship, access certain social security payments or sponsor  their family members for permanent residence.18          | 
  
  
    | 5.23 | 
    Under transitional arrangements, New Zealand  citizens who were: 
  - in Australia on 26 February 2001 as Special Category  Visa (SCV) holders; or
 
  - outside  Australia on 26 February 2001, but were in Australia as a SCV holder for at  least one year in the two years prior to that date, and subsequently returned;  or
 
  - who have a certificate, issued under the Social  Security Act 1991, stating that they are residing in Australia on a  particular date are not affected by these changes.19
           | 
  
  
    | 5.24 | 
    The Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement and SCV  arrangements remain in place and New Zealand citizens retain the  right to travel to, work, study and live in Australia indefinitely.20          | 
  
  
     | 
      | 
  
  
    Tasman Networks Agreement | 
    
  
    | 5.25 | 
    In April 2006 Qantas and Air New Zealand signed an agreement that would have seen them  cooperate on network, schedule, pricing and marketing initiatives for Tasman operations. This agreement was referred to as the  Tasman Networks Agreement (TNA) and did not involve any shareholding.21          | 
  
  
    | 5.26 | 
    In November 2006 the Australian Competition and  Consumer Commission (ACCC) issued a  draft decision proposing to deny authorisation of the Tasman Networks  Agreement. The ACC stated that: 
   . . . limited benefits  from the agreement will not outweigh what the ACCC considers will be significant  detriment to consumers in the form of higher prices and reduced travel options  at key times."22          | 
  
  
    | 5.27 | 
    As a result of this decision Air NZ withdrew its  application to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and  Ministry of Transport (MOT) for approval to operate a codeshare with Qantas on  trans-Tasman routes.  | 
  
  
     | 
      | 
  
  
    Border control | 
    
  
    ePassports and automated border processing | 
    
  
    | 5.28 | 
    In February 2007, it will be possible for both  Australian and New Zealand  ePassport holders to be immigration cleared using an automated border  processing system known as SmartGate. New Zealand commenced the issuing  of ePassports in November 2005.23          | 
  
  
     | 
      | 
  
  
    Identity fraud/multiple identities | 
    
  
    | 5.29 | 
    Members of the committee have had concerns bought  to their attention about Pacific islanders who can, as a part of their culture,  have multiple names which can create multiple identities. The concern is that  these multiple identities could be used to make claims for benefits from  Centrelink.  | 
  
  
    | 5.30 | 
    The committee were assured that whilst this is a  possibility it is not something that would be “unique to the Pacific and/or New Zealand.”24 For example an Australian could have Australian and British passports in  different names.          | 
  
  
    |   | 
      | 
  
  
    Tourism | 
    
  
    | 5.31 | 
    Tourism is a significant driver of two way trade  and the majority of New Zealand visitors to Australia are holiday makers (959,  000 out of a total of 1, 249 000 arrivals in the 2004 - 2005 year). New Zealand  visitors spent approximately A$1.2 billion in the 2004 - 2005 year.25          | 
  
  
    | 5.32 | 
    For the year ended May 2006, there were 2.395  million international visitor arrivals to New Zealand. Top contributing markets  include - Australia  (882,000), UK  (309,000), USA  (221,000), Japan  (148,000), Korea  (107,000) and China  (96,000).26          | 
  
  
    | 5.33 | 
    International visitors spent a total of $6.5  billion in New Zealand  for the year ended December 2005 (excluding international airfares). This is an  increase of $205 million (3%) on the previous year.27          | 
  
  
    | 5.34 | 
    The committee took evidence on the extent of  cooperation between Australia  and New Zealand  in promoting the two countries as tourist destinations. Whilst some cooperation  is possible, such as in large overseas tourist expos, each country has a  distinct “brand” and “it is not feasible for Australia and New Zealand to  work together on dual destination marketing initiatives.”28          | 
  
  
     | 
      | 
  
  
    The committee view | 
    
  
    | 5.35 | 
    The committee has sympathy for businesses that  will suffer under the new Change in Tariff Classification (CTC) approach to the  Rules of Origin (ROO) used in ANZCERTA as put in place by the Customs  Legislation Amendment (New Zealand Rules of Origin) Act 2006. However, the  overwhelming weight of evidence has been that these changes will be hugely  beneficial to trans-Tasman trade.  | 
  
  
    | 5.36 | 
    After the discussions held in New Zealand, it  was the Committees opinion that Australian companies wanting to get access to  infrastructure work in New Zealand enter into joint ventures or other  arrangements with New    Zealand counterparts so as to provide  essential knowledge in the regulatory environment and tendering process in New Zealand.  | 
  
  
    | 5.37 | 
    The committee is satisfied that any issues  relating to multiple identities are not specific to our relationship with New Zealand and  are being dealt with by the appropriate authorities.  | 
  
  
    | 5.38 | 
    Australia  and New Zealand  work very closely on immigration and border control. Data sharing arrangements  are among the best in the world. The committee feels that initiatives to  facilitate travel and improve border integrity have resulted in benefits to  both countries.  | 
  
  
    | 5.39 | 
    The market for the tourist dollar in the  southern hemisphere is one in which Australia and New Zealand compete and the  committee does not feel that there is evidence for any closer ties than those  that already exist.  | 
  
  
    | 1  | 
    Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, New Zealand Country/Economy Fact Sheet, p. 1. Back  | 
  
  
    | 2  | 
    Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, New Zealand Country/Economy Fact Sheet, p. 1. Back | 
  
  
    | 3  | 
    Department of Industry, Tourism and  Resources, submission 29,Vol 2, p.  72. Back | 
  
  
    | 4  | 
    Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, submission 29,Vol 2, p. 72-73. Back | 
  
  
    | 5  | 
    Department of Industry, Tourism and  Resources, submission 29,Vol 2, p. 73. Back | 
  
  
    | 6  | 
    Albright and Wilson  (Australia)  Limited, submission 6, Joint Standing  Committee on Treaties, Treaties tabled on 28 March 2006, p. 1 – 2. Back | 
  
  
    | 7  | 
    Albright and Wilson (Australia) Limited, submission 6, Joint Standing Committee  on Treaties, Treaties tabled on 28   March 2006, p. 2. Back | 
  
  
    | 8  | 
    Department of Industry, Tourism and  Resources, submission 29,Vol 2, p.75. Back | 
  
  
    | 9  | 
    Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, submission 30,Vol 2, p. 79. Back | 
  
  
    | 10  | 
    Parliament of Australia, Joint Standing Committee on Treaties: Report 80, p. 18. Back | 
  
  
    | 11  | 
    Parliament of Australia, Joint Standing Committee on Treaties: Report 80,Recommendation 1, p.  19. Back | 
  
  
    | 12  | 
    NZ Government, Submission 9, Vol 1, p. 103. Back | 
  
  
    | 13  | 
    DIMA, submission  13,Vol 1, p.151. Back | 
  
  
    | 14  | 
    DIMA, submission  13,Vol 1, p.151. Back | 
  
  
    | 15  | 
    DIMA, submission  13,Vol 1, p.151. Back | 
  
  
    | 16  | 
    DIMA, submission  13,Vol 1, p.151. A New    Zealand citizen convicted of a crime and  sentenced to death or to imprisonment for at least 12 months, or has been  deported from another country, is considered to be a Behaviour Concern  Non-Citizen (BCNC). A person that has been excluded from another country on the  grounds that they refused or failed to present a passport; presented a bogus  document; was not a genuine visitor; or the authorities of that country  considered the person to be a threat to national security, is also considered  to be a BCNC. Back | 
  
  
    | 17  | 
    DIMA, submission  13,Vol 1, p.151. Currently, the only prescribed disease is tuberculosis  (being tuberculosis that is not being controlled with medication, and in  respect of which the person suffering from it refuses to sign an undertaking to  visit a Commonwealth Medical Officer within seven days of entering Australia). Back | 
  
  
    | 18  | 
    DIMA, submission 13,Vol 1, p.152. Back | 
  
  
    | 19  | 
    DIMA, submission  13,Vol 1, p.152. Back | 
  
  
    | 20  | 
    DIMA, submission 13,Vol 1, p.152. Back | 
  
  
    | 21 | 
    Qantas, submission 11, Vol 1, p. 143 and  Department of Transport and Regional Services, submission 5, Vol 1, p. 46. Back | 
  
  
    | 22 | 
    ACCC  Proposes to Deny Qantas/Air New    Zealand Tasman  Agreement, ACCC News Release # 254/06, 3 November 2006. Back | 
  
  
    | 23 | 
    DIMA, submission  13,Vol 1, p.153. Back | 
  
  
    | 24 | 
    Mr J Rees, Acting Assistant Director, Entry Policy, Department of Immigration and  Multicultural Affairs, Evidence, 16/06/06, p. 18. Back | 
  
  
    | 25 | 
    NZ Government, Submission 9, Vol 1, p. 103.  Back | 
  
  
    | 26 | 
    NZ Government, Submission 23, Vol 2, p. 37. Back | 
  
  
    | 27 | 
    NZ Government, Submission 23, Vol 2, p. 37. Back | 
  
  
    | 28 | 
    NZ Government, Submission 23, Vol 2, p. 37. Back |