![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
|
Print Chapter 3 (PDF 240KB) | < - Report Home < - Chapter 2 : Chapter 4 - > |
Introduction
Background
Impact of the Agreement
Trade in goods
Trade in services and investment
Economic impact
TAFTA as a mechanism to further regional and multilateral trade
Trade in goods
General provisions
Industry outcomes
Rules of origin
Industry-specific application of the ROOs
Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures
Trade in services
Investment
Investment dispute resolution
Temporary movement of business people
Electronic Commerce
Competition policy
Intellectual Property
Government Procurement
General exceptions
Institutional Provisions
Dispute resolution
Environment and labour
Environmental effects of the Agreement
Developing country
Entry into force
Implementation
Costs
State and Territory Governmen
Consultation with State and Territory Governments
Consultations
Future treaty action
Recommendation
![]() |
|
Introduction |
|
3.1 | The proposed Australia-Thailand Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA, which will also be referred to as ‘the Agreement’) will liberalise and facilitate trade and investment between the Parties. |
3.2 | Chapter 1 of the Agreement determines that the primary objectives of the Agreement are to
|
3.3 | In addition to the core trade liberalisation commitments on goods and services, TAFTA includes provisions concerning the protection of intellectual property, customs procedures, electronic commerce, competition policy and government procurement.2 |
![]() |
|
Background |
|
3.4 | The Committee understands that TAFTA would be Thailand ’s first comprehensive free trade agreement with a developed economy, and Australia ’s second free trade agreement with an Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member nation. In 2003, Thailand was Australia ’s fourteenth largest export destination with two-way trade valued at $A 5.9 billion.3 |
3.5 | The Agreement reflects Australia’s broader regional trade and economic interests. As the National Interest Analysis (NIA) states
|
3.6 | Economic linkages between the two countries to date have been hampered by Thailand’s high trade restrictions and barriers.5 The NIA identifies the most significant feature of the Agreement to be that it will eliminate all tariff barriers and tariff rate quotas on imports of merchandise from Australia that meet the Rules of Origin (ROOs) criteria, either upon entry into force or through a phased reduction. All tariffs will be reduced to zero by 2020, with the majority eliminated by 2010.6 Detailed information on tariff reductions is contained in Annex 2 of the Agreement. |
3.7 | Australia’s Chief Negotiator, Mr Justin Brown from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), advised the Committee that
|
3.8 | This Chapter will briefly examine the substantive parts of the Agreement, and will discuss the key issues raised in the evidence before the Committee. |
![]() |
|
Impact of the Agreement |
|
Trade in goods |
|
3.9 | The NIA notes numerous direct benefits expected to occur as a result of implementation of the Agreement
|
![]() |
|
Trade in services and investment |
|
3.10 | The NIA also outlines benefits to be achieved in services and investment
|
3.11 | Mr Brown stated that
|
![]() |
|
Economic impact |
|
3.12 | The NIA states that although the Agreement will bring significant economic gains for some sectors, it will not have a large overall impact on the Australian economy
|
3.13 | However, the Committee notes that the Agreement may have some negative impacts. A submission received by the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) stated that
|
![]() |
|
TAFTA as a mechanism to further regional and multilateral trade |
|
3.14 | The Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) states that the Agreement aims to ‘add momentum to Australia’s regional and multilateral trade liberalising efforts’.13 |
3.15 | The NIA states that
|
3.16 | In a submission to the Committee, the Ford Motor Company of Australia agreed that the Agreement would further regional trade, stating that
And Firstly, the agreement, together with the proposed Australia-US free trade agreement and Australia-China economic framework study can help "energise" the broader multi-lateral trade |
3.17 | However, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) argued that
|
![]() |
|
Trade in goods |
|
General provisions |
|
National Treatment |
|
3.18 | The Agreement includes an obligation for each Party to extend national treatment to the goods of the other Party. Under this obligation, goods imported from the other country must be treated no less favourably than the same or similarly produced domestic goods after passage through customs.18 |
Anti-dumping |
|
3.19 | The Agreement prescribes that both countries must follow WTO anti-dumping rules and procedures. Article 206 of the Agreement outlines certain agreed practices to be used in determining the volume of dumped imports in investigations and reviews.19 |
Subsidies and counter-veiling measures |
|
3.20 | The WTO obligations of the Parties relating to subsidies and counter-veiling measures are confirmed by the Agreement.20 |
Agricultural export subsidies |
|
3.21 | The Parties commit to work towards the elimination of agricultural export subsidies in the WTO. The Agreement provides for bilateral consultations on policies which may affect trade in food or agricultural products. Both countries agree not to introduce or maintain any agricultural export subsidy on goods exported to the other.21 |
Safeguards |
|
3.22 | The Safeguards Chapter of the Agreement provides a mechanism for protecting industries from injury arising from a rapid increase in imports during the transition period where tariffs are being phased to zero. Special safeguard measures are also included for a number of agricultural products.22 |
3.23 | The operation of the safeguard provisions was outlined to the Committee by Mr Brown
|
3.24 | Mr Brown stated that the transitional safeguards
|
3.25 | The special volume-triggered safeguards are available for some agricultural and fisheries products. These measures apply to industries where there is already high penetration by Thai imports, such as canned tuna and canned pineapple.25 |
![]() |
|
TCF industry |
|
3.26 | The Council of Textile and Fashion Industries of Australia Limited (TFIA) made a submission to the Committee, commenting on the safeguard provisions as they apply to the textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF) industry. The TFIA noted that their members saw the inclusion of adequate safeguards to address the special needs of the TCF industry as a key part of the Agreement.26 |
3.27 | The TFIA advised the Committee that it had recommended to the Government that, among other things, the Agreement incorporate a specific TCF safeguard mechanism, including an automatic ‘snap-back’ provision, triggered by a quantitative measure that would be in place for up to 200 days and would have a lower threshold test than those found in FTAs to which the United States is a Party. Additionally, the TCF requested involvement in the implementation of the mechanism.27 |
3.28 | The Committee notes the TFIA’s statement that
|
3.29 | However, the TFIA goes on to state that the lack of specific safeguard and snap-back mechanisms have been addressed through Article 505, which
|
3.30 | Although the TFIA notes the benefit of these provisions, the Committee acknowledges the TFIA’s request thatthe Committee reviews the need to include a specific chapter on TCF safeguards and as to whether the current safeguards text provides sufficient protection for Australian TCF and other manufacturers. Additionally the Committee must assess whether the language covers a sufficiently wide number of actions or activities that enact the safeguard. 30 |
Non-tariff measures |
|
3.31 | Under the Agreement, neither country will take measures to restrict bilateral imports or exports, except where permitted by WTO rules or by other provisions in the Agreement. Non-tariff measures in these circumstances must be transparent and must not be aimed at creating unnecessary obstacles to trade.31 |
Technical barriers to trade |
|
3.32 | The Committee is aware that, as tariffs are lowered or eliminated, non-tariff measures may continue to be used to frustrate trade. The Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Chapter of the Agreement addresses this by affirming the Parties’ rights under the WTO TBT Agreement and also includes a commitment to promote the harmonisation of technical regulations. |
3.33 | The Chapter encourages both Parties to consider recognising the others’ technical standards as equivalent to their own where they fulfil the objectives of that Party’s own standards. Further, it makes provision for conformity assessment procedures to be made compatible to the greatest extent practicable, and provides for bilateral cooperation on standards issues and establishes contact points for that purpose.32 |
![]() |
|
Industry outcomes |
|
Horticultural products |
|
3.34 | The Committee notes the opinion of Horticulture Australia Limited (HAL) that
|
3.35 | However, HAL notes that ‘the overall balance in horticultural exports is strongly in Thailand’s favour’.34 |
Thai commitments |
|
3.36 | According to HAL, few horticultural items of significance to the Australian industry achieve immediate free trade upon the Agreement’s entry into force. However, within 5 years of entry into force, Thai tariffs will be eliminated on approximately 50 per cent of the value of currently traded fresh produce (A$ 5.4 million) and 30 per cent of the value of currently traded processed produce (A$ 1.9 million). Remaining tariffs will be phased to zero by 2010, with the final tariff (on fresh potatoes) eliminated in 2020.35 |
3.37 | The Committee notes that HAL believes that these tariff reductions give Australia a competitive advantage over other exporting countries without trade liberalisation agreements with Thailand. However, they do not necessarily offer such advantage in comparison with reductions negotiated by Thailand in agreements with other countries. HAL refers particularly to Thailand’s recent agreement with China, under which tariff reductions are ‘significantly above’ those contained in this Agreement, particularly in some product categories which are significant in terms of both Australian and Chinese exports to Thailand and which have been labelled as sensitive in this Agreement (including mandarins and fresh grapes).36 |
3.38 | HAL expressed to the Committee the views of the horticultural industries on these tariff reductions and the safeguard measures in place for Thai sensitive items
|
3.39 | However, HAL does concede that the outcome on horticultural imports, although disappointing, is understandable, given that Thai tariff rates on many agrifoods currently range from 30 to 50 per cent, whereas Australian tariffs are currently either zero or five per cent. HAL states that ‘given this picture, it may not be expected that the Thais would move to a zero regime on the same timetable as Australia’.38 Further, HAL suggests that the outcome reflects possible consideration of Thailand’s status as a developing country.39 |
![]() |
|
Australian commitments |
|
3.40 | The Committee notes HAL’s view that ‘the tariff outcomes for horticulture access in to each of Thailand and Australia from the other are far from equally balanced’.40 Whereas Thai tariffs remain in some product categories until 2020, Australian tariffs will be immediately eliminated upon entry into force of the Agreement.41 |
3.41 | According to HAL, this will cause detriment to certain Australian horticultural industries, which are expected to experience a downside from the loss of the 5 per cent import tariff.42 |
Special safeguard measures |
|
3.42 | The Agreement provides for the introduction of special safeguard measures to be imposed where the volume of imports for a sensitive good exceeds the determined trigger. Under these provisions, the importing country may then increase the duty rate to the current most favoured nation (MFN) rate or base rate (whichever is lower) for the remainder of the calendar year.43 |
3.43 | Thailand has specified six sensitive items (mandarins, table grapes, both frozen or fresh prepared or preserved potatoes and fresh potatoes). Tariffs on four of these items are to be reduced over 10 years. Fresh and seed potatoes will face tariff restriction quotas until 2020.44 Special safeguard measures will apply to these sensitive items. |
3.44 | Australian sensitive items are pineapples (prepared or preserved, either canned or not canned) and pineapple juice (unfermented and not containing added spirit). Tariffs on these items are reduced immediately upon the Agreement’s entry into force, although Australia will be able to access the special safeguards until the end of 2008. In the event of a trigger, Australia may reinstate MFN tariff rate of 5 per cent.45 |
![]() |
|
Dairy |
|
3.45 | For dairy products and margarine, current Thai tariffs range from five to 216 per cent. There are also very strict tariffs on milk powder. Dairy is a significant export product for Australia, with total exports of $1.9 billion in 2003, $64 million of this going to Thailand.46 |
3.46 | The RIS states that
|
3.47 | The Committee notes the dairy industry’s support for the Agreement. As outlined in a submission from the Australian Dairy Industry Council, the Agreement
|
3.48 | However, the industry expressed some disappointment over the time-frame for liberalisation of items such as cheese and skim milk powder. Given that such items are sensitive to Thailand , tariffs will be reduced, but not completely eliminated until 2025 in the case of skim milk powder.49 The Committee is disappointed that whilst Thailand had agreed in Bogor in 1994 to reduce tariffs for some dairy items by 2020 yet the Agreement states that the tariffs will not be eliminated until 2025. |
3.49 | Of particular concern to the dairy industry is the potential for Thailand to utilise the Agreement’s safeguard provisions in a manner detrimental to the Australian industry
|
3.50 | The Committee notes, however, that on balance the dairy industry supports the Agreement, stating that
|
![]() |
|
Manufacturing |
|
3.51 | Thai tariffs on manufactures currently range to 20 per cent for metals, and up to 30 per cent for other manufactures.52 Under the Agreement, Thailand will reduce these tariffs, and will achieve complete elimination by 2010.53 |
3.52 | According to the RIS, lower prices as a result of tariff reductions will allow Australian exporters to become more competitive in the Thai market. In addition, the lowering of Australian tariffs will increase competition for Australian manufacturers, but will also allow for more efficient production for those firms using Thai inputs.54 However, the RIS notes that, according to econ enjoy the largest relative increase in production, amounting to an additional $US 78 million in 2025 for durable goods, and $US 127 for non-durable goods.55 |
3.53 | The RIS acknowledges that as Thailand has competitive strengths in the automotive and TCF industries, the Agreement is likely to impact upon Australian industry, particularly in Victoria and South Australia where there are large auto and TCF industries. These industries will be discussed in detail below. |
3.54 | The Committee notes the statement in the RIS that
|
3.55 | Under the Agreement, Australia has committed to eliminate all tariffs by 2010.57 Specific arrangements for the automotive, TCF and plastics and chemicals industries will be discussed below. |
3.56 | The ACTU is critical of the fact that the CIE modelling does not estimate the impact of the Agreement on particular manufacturing subsectors.58 Further, in regard to the tariff reductions, the ACTU states that
|
3.57 | Similarly, the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) expressed concerns to the Committee that the tariff reductions would be to the detriment of the Australian industry. Commenting on Australia’s current trade deficit in manufactured products, the AMWU noted that
|
3.58 | Several submissions to the Committee expressed concern that the Agreement would affect employment, particularly among regional workers in the TCF and automotive industries.62 Dr Bill Lloyd-Smith stated that
|
![]() |
|
Automotive industry |
|
Outcomes |
|
3.59 | Australia’s obligations under the Agreement include the immediate elimination of current tariffs on all passenger motor vehicles (PMVs), off-road vehicles, goods vehicles and other commercial vehicles of Thai origin. Current tariffs are 15 per cent for passenger vehicles (legislated to fall to 10 per cent on 1 January 2005) and 5 per cent for other vehicles. |
3.60 | The Committee notes that Thailand has made substantial commitments in regards to tariff eliminations on automotive vehicles and products. Upon entry into force of the Agreement, Thailand will eliminate its tariffs on large PMVs, which are currently at 80 per cent. The tariffs on other PMVs will be reduced from 80 per cent to 30 per cent, and will then be phased down to zero by 2010.64 |
Economic benefits |
|
3.61 | The benefits to be gained from tariff reductions under the Agreement were highlighted for the Committee by Holden Australia’s description of current tariff structures
|
3.62 | The Committee notes analysis in the RIS suggesting that differences in comparative advantage between the Australian and Thai industries
The RIS attributes this outcome to the following factors
|
3.63 | However, the Committee notes the RIS’ conclusion that ‘the automotive industry expects exports benefiting from the FTA to be modest initially, but to rise gradually’ .68 |
3.64 | The Ford Motor Company of Australia advised the Committee of the benefits of the Agreement for vehicle sales
|
3.65 | Ford Motor Company notes that there is a significant trade disparity between Australia and Thailand, that
|
3.66 | The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) also commented on this disparity, stating that whilst imports from Thailand had risen
|
3.67 | Ford noted the potential for the Agreement to address the current trade deficit
|
3.68 | Holden Australia also made a submission in support of the Agreement, noting its already substantial trade with Thailand and stating that
|
3.69 | Mr Peter Sturrock of the FCAI informed the Committee of the extent of benefits to the automotive industry under the Agreement
|
3.70 | Despite these opportunities, the FCAI noted that
|
3.71 | However, the FCAI assured the Committee of its support for the Agreement
And
|
3.72 | In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Sturrock advised that all four of the vehicle manufacturers in Australia have expressed support for the Agreement, but noted that
|
3.73 | However, Mr Sturrock noted that
|
3.74 | Ford addressed the effect of increased competition in its submission to the Committee
|
3.75 | The RIS states that, although the Thai market for large passenger vehicles is currently quite small, it is expected to expand under the FTA.81 Mr Sturrock advised the Committee that
|
Complementary automotive industries |
|
3.76 | The Committee heard that the respective product focus of the Thai and Australian automotive industries is complementary, in that Australia focuses upon medium/large passenger cars, while Thailand concentrates on small passenger cars and pick-up trucks.83 |
3.77 | The Committee notes the view of Holden Australia that
|
Non-tariff barriers to trade |
|
3.78 | Although the Agreement offers substantial benefits to the Australian automotive industry through the reduction of tariffs, the Committee acknowledges the importance of the removal of non-tariff barriers to trade, and notes the Ford Motor Company’s statement that
|
3.79 | Mr Sturrock advised the Committee that
|
Parts and components |
|
3.80 | Australia will reduce its tariffs on 98 per cent of the 146 tariff items covering automotive parts and components that are currently at 10 per cent or 15 per cent. These will be reduced to five per cent upon entry into force of the Agreement, and will then be eliminated in 2010. Both Thailand and Australia will eliminate tariffs on the remaining two per cent of these items upon entry into force.87 |
3.81 | All Australian tariffs on automotive parts and components that are currently at five per cent or below will be eliminated upon the Agreement’s entry into force.88 |
3.82 | The AMWU has expressed concern about the impact of the ATFTA on the auto components industry in Australia, stating that
|
3.83 | The RIS acknowledges that while no parts manufacturers have opposed the elimination of tariffs by 2010, some have expressed mixed views on the benefits of the Agreement.90 It further states that the concerns of parts manufacturers have been addressed through phase-in periods for tariff reductions on sensitive items.91 |
3.84 | The Committee did not receive comment from any parts manufacturers nor from the Federation of Automotive Parts Manufacturers. |
![]() |
|
Textiles, clothing, footwear |
|
3.85 | The Committee is aware that, as stated in the RIS, the TCF industries are among Australia’s most tariff-sensitive sectors. In reflection of this, TCF tariffs levels are currently up to 25 per cent (due to reduce to a maximum of 17.5 per cent in 2005). Under the Agreement, Australia will phase its tariffs on most TCF products to zero by 2010, with an initial tariff preference margin of five per cent. For 239 product lines with current tariffs of 25 per cent, the tariff will be phased to zero in 2015.92 |
3.86 | The RIS states that
|
3.87 | The Committee notes the comments of the Victorian Government that the Agreement will place pressure on the TCF industry, and that despite the phase-down of tariff reductions, the industry will ‘nevertheless faceincreased import competition from Thailand’.94 The submission comments that this Agreement is one of a number of factors that, according to the Victorian Government, will negatively impact the TCF industry in Victoria.95 The Government states that economic modelling estimates that these factors will affect employment in the TCF industry, a situation that would be exacerbated by the Agreement
|
3.88 | However, the RIS states that although some industry members have claimed that the Agreement will impact production and result in job losses, the tariff commitments ‘largely reflect those proposed by Australia’s TCF sector during the negotiations’.97 |
3.89 | The TFIA provided comment to the Committee on the Agreement
|
3.90 | The Agreement’s Safeguards and Rules of Origin (ROOs) provisions as they apply to the TCF industry are discussed in those sections of this Chapter. |
Plastics and chemicals |
|
3.91 | Australia will maintain current tariffs of five per cent on 71 plastics and chemical items until 2008, when these will be eliminated. The 71 items are those identified as sensitive.99 Tariffs on other items will be eliminated upon the Agreement’s entry into force.100 |
3.92 | The RIS states that the Plastics and Chemicals Industries Association of Australia expressed concern over tariff reductions throughout the negotiations. According to the RIS, phase-in periods on sensitive items were negotiated in order to allow the industry to adjust to increased competition.101 |
![]() |
|
Rules of origin |
|
3.93 | Under Article 402 of the Agreement, originating goods of a country are those that are either
|
3.94 | In order for goods containing third country input to qualify as originating goods, the input must have undergone a specified change in tariff classification as a result of production processes occurring in the territory of either party. This approach to the determination of origin is known as ‘change in tariff classification’ (CTC).103 The required change for specific products is set out in Annex 4.1 of the Agreement. |
3.95 | For certain products (including textiles, clothing and footwear and machinery), the good being exported must meet a further test of origin: it must contain a defined level of local content as a proportion of the overall value of the good.104 |
3.96 | The FCAI outlined the operation of the ROOs
|
3.97 | According to Dr Simon Twisk from DFAT, the regional value content rule
|
3.98 | The ROOs for the Agreement also include provisions for supplementary issues to be considered in determining the origin of a good.107 |
3.99 | Goods originating from one Party will not qualify for a tariff preference under the ROOs if they undergo further production in a third country prior to importation into the other Party.108 |
3.100 | The ROOs provisions of the Agreement are largely similar to those adopted in the AUSFTA, but differ from those of the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement (ANZCERTA). |
3.101 | The RIS states that the adoption of rules largely identical to those in the AUSFTA address industry concerns over the variation of ROOs systems in preferential trade agreements. The Committee agrees that limiting the number of systems applicable under various agreements eases the burden of compliance on industry.109 |
3.102 | The Committee notes that
|
3.103 | In regard to the issue of trans-shipment, the RIS states that
|
3.104 | As noted to the Committee by Mr John Arndell from the Australian Customs Service
|
3.105 | The Committee notes comments by the AMWU that the ROOs are ‘insufficient to ensure that only products which are substantially produced in Australia or Thailand obtain concessional treatment under the agreement’.113 The AMWU also stated that there is a degree of arbitrariness in the tariff treatment of products under the change in tariff classification approach114
|
![]() |
|
Industry-specific application of the ROOs |
|
Textiles, clothing and footwear industry |
|
3.106 | The Committee notes that under TAFTA, the ROO applying to textiles significantly differs from its AUSFTA equivalent. In contrast to AUSFTA’s ‘yarn forward’ rule, TAFTA uses a simpler CTC requirement with an RVC of 55 per cent. At least 30 per cent of the RVC must be sourced from either |
3.107 | In explaining the operation of the TCF ROOs, and how they differed from those in the AUSFTA, Dr Twisk stated
|
3.108 | However, the TFIA contradicted this statement in its submission, stating that
|
3.109 | The Committee notes comments in the RIS that
|
3.110 | However, in its submission to the Committee, the TFIA expressly disagrees with this statement, commenting that
|
3.111 | The TFIA argues that the rules effectively benefit countries that Australia does not have a bilateral trade agreement with vis-à-vis those with which it does.121 |
3.112 | Further, the Committee notes the submission of the TFIA that
|
![]() |
|
Auto industry |
|
3.113 | For the automotive sector, the ROO requires the product to have undergone a change in tariff classification, and to have met the specified RVC, which varies between products. The specified RVC must be made entirely of Thai product.123 |
3.114 | Mr McKellar presented to the Committee the views of the automotive industry on the TAFTA ROOs
|
3.115 | The Committee also notes the comments of Holden Australia
|
![]() |
|
Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures |
|
3.116 | The Agreement reaffirms that decisions affecting quarantine and food safety will continue to be made on the basis of existing procedures, including scientific assessment of risk. The Parties’ existing rights and obligations under the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures are affirmed. |
3.117 | DFAT’s RIS Annex 2 states that
|
3.118 | The Australian Chicken Meat Federation (ACMF) has expressed a number of concerns to the Committee regarding the operation of the SPS Chapter. The ACMF outlined for the Committee the threat that imported chicken meat product from Thailand presents to the Australian industry
|
3.119 | Of particular concern to the ACMF is the possibility that
|
3.120 | Further
|
3.121 | ACMF also notes that
|
3.122 | Further concerns expressed by the ACMF include |
3.123 | The Committee acknowledges the concerns of the ACMF, but is satisfied by DFAT’s statement that
|
![]() |
|
Trade in services |
|
3.124 | The Committee notes that the Services provisions of the Agreement take a positive-list approach, similar to that in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), whereby those services to which the Services Chapter applies are listed definitively. This differs to the negative-list approach of the AUSFTA. |
3.125 | The Services provisions do not apply to subsidies or grants provided for the supply or consumption of a service or in relation to an investment, or to services supplied in the exercise of government authority, or to government procurement or measures affecting individuals of one Party seeking access to the other for employment purposes. The right of Parties to regulate services in their territories is preserved under the Agreement.134 |
3.126 | The Services Chapter applies to all modes for the supply of services and is based on the GATS. The Chapter incorporates those GATS provisions relating to domestic regulation, monopoly service providers, financial services, air services and telecommunications. It also provides for the cooperation of relevant bodies in each country in developing arrangements for the recognition of professional or educational qualifications granted in the other country. The Chapter provides for enhanced cooperation in a range of areas, in addition to specific commitments for liberalisation relating to market access and national treatment. Where a country extends better access to a third country, the other country may request that such treatment also be extended to it, but there is no obligation to do so under the Agreement.135 |
3.127 | The Committee notes that the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network (AFTINET) and the ACTU both supported the ‘positive list’ approach of the Services provisions.136 However, AFTINET stated that
|
3.128 | Although acknowledging DFAT assurances that public services will not be caught under this definition, AFTINET asserts that public services should be ‘formally and unambiguously exempted from trade agreements, including TAFTA’.138 |
3.129 | The ACTU submission alleges that, according to ‘officials of DFAT’, the consistency with GATS commitments is ‘ Thailand’s policy, and falls short of Australia’s ambitions for the services sector and the Services Chapter of the agreement’.139 |
3.130 | Further, the ACTU expressed concern that
|
3.131 | The Committee inquired into the reason for the statement in the NIA that the TAFTA includes ‘binding commitments that go beyond Australia’s existing WTO obligations and limit the Government’s flexibility in adopting new regulations in some areas in the future.’141 Mr Brown responded that there are
|
3.132 | Further to this, he stated that the commitments in the Agreement, although essentially the same as those made in the Doha Round
|
3.133 | Mr Brown highlighted particularly
|
![]() |
|
Investment |
|
3.134 | The Committee notes that the Investment Chapter includes commitments to liberalise investment in non-services sectors, but that these commitments do not apply to subsidies or grants or to government procurement.145 |
3.135 | The Chapter includes provisions concerning the national treatment of investors of the other Party (with exceptions) and the protection of investments, including an agreement not to expropriate investments made by investors of the other Party except for a public purpose, on a non-discriminatory basis, and with compensation. Investors may transfer funds freely, except where the other Party is facing difficulties in balance of payments or external finances.146 |
Investment dispute resolution |
|
3.136 | The Investment Chapter of the Agreement provides for a dispute resolution process for disputes arising under the Chapter. These provisions allow an investor of one country to directly challenge the other country in either the other country’s courts or in an international arbitral tribunal with the power to make binding decisions. The RIS states that this provision is ‘designed to give additional protection to Australian investors in Thailand.’147 |
3.137 | The Committee notes that this dispute settlement arrangement differs from that of the AUSFTA, which allows investors of one country to challenge the other country in that country’s courts, but not in an international arbitral tribunal. |
3.138 | The Committee received submissions expressing concern that the inclusion of an investor-state dispute mechanism
|
3.139 | However, in relation to the statement that the dispute panel would not be open to the public, the Committee notes comments by Mr Stephen Bouwhuis of the Attorney-General’s Department that the tribunal would make public its decision, including the reasons for that decision, which would be widely available through legal journals and law reports and on the Internet.149 |
3.140 | Further, the Committee notes comments by Mr Bouwhuis in response to AFTINET’s claim that the provisions would give corporations ‘unreasonable legal powers to challenge government law and policy’
|
3.141 | In response to a question from the Committee regarding the decision-making process of an arbitral tribunal set up to review a dispute, Mr Bouwhuis advised the Committee that the tribunal
|
3.142 | The Committee acknowledges those concerns expressed in submissions, but is assured by the response provided by the Attorney-General’s Department. |
![]() |
|
Temporary movement of business people |
|
3.143 | The Agreement makes provision for the temporary entry of intra-corporate transferees, contractual service suppliers and business visitors. These provisions permit 90 days for business visitors and longer periods for intra-corporate transferees and contractual service suppliers. Entrance for longer periods is permitted in accordance with the commitments in Annex 8 to the Agreement. Applications for immigration will be processed expeditiously and will be transparent. Thailand will notify Australia of its documentary requirements for application for temporary entry, which are simplified under the Agreement. The Agreement does in no way affect the rights of either country to regulate immigration.152 |
![]() |
|
Electronic Commerce |
|
3.144 | The Electronic Commerce Chapter of the Agreement contains provisions to ensure that trade conducted electronically between Australia and Thailand remains free. The two countries have agreed to work together to promote electronic commerce. Both countries have agreed to maintain the current practice in not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions between the two countries. The Chapter’s provisions detail the aims of the Parties in relation to domestic regulation, electronic authentication, the protection of customers and personal data and paperless trading.153 |
![]() |
|
Competition policy |
|
3.145 | In the Competition Policy Chapter, the Parties affirm that they will facilitate trade and investment through the promotion of competition and the curtailment of anti-competitive practices. The Parties will cooperate on competition law enforcement.154 |
![]() |
|
Intellectual Property |
|
3.146 | The Agreement’s Intellectual Property Chapter aims to increase benefits from trade and investment by protecting and enforcing intellectual property rights. The Parties affirm the provisions of the WTO Agreements on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) and other relevant multilateral agreements. The Parties agree to take measures to prevent the export of goods that infringe copyright or trade marks, and will cooperate to eliminate trade in goods that infringe intellectual property rights, and to increase awareness of intellectual property rights.155 |
![]() |
|
Government Procurement |
|
3.147 | The Chapter establishes that a bilateral working group of officials are to report within 12 months of the Agreement’s entry into force on the scope for commencing negotiations aimed at developing rules, procedures and transparency standards to be applied in the conduct of government procurement. Pending this, the Parties agree to apply transparency, value for money, open and effective competition, fair dealing, accountability and due process and non-discrimination in their procurement procedures. The Chapter also provides for the exchange of information on relevant laws and policies.156 |
3.148 | The Committee notes the statement by the Queensland Government that
|
![]() |
|
General exceptions |
|
3.149 | There are a number of general exceptions that will apply to the Agreement. These relate to the General and Security Exceptions of GATT Articles XX, XXI, and GATS XIV and XIV bis. The Agreement will not require the disclosure of confidential information contrary to the public interest or legitimate commercial interests. The Parties are allowed flexibility under the Agreement in facing serious balance of payments or other external financial difficulties. Neither Party is prevented from taking action to protect investors, depositors, policy holders or others owed a fiduciary duty by a service supplier, nor to ensure the integrity and stability of its financial system. The Agreement only imposes rights or obligations with respect to taxation measures where there is a corresponding right or obligation under the WTO Agreement or in relation to the expropriation of assets. Where there is an inconsistency between the Agreement and the 1989 double tax agreement between the Parties, the tax agreement will prevail.158 |
![]() |
|
Institutional Provisions |
|
3.150 | A Free Trade Agreement Joint Commission (FTA Joint Commission) is established to ensure the proper implementation of the Agreement and to periodically review the economic relationship and partnership between the Parties. The FTA Joint Commission will meet within one year of the Agreement’s entry into force and then again each year, or as otherwise agreed. There will also be general review of the operation of the Agreement at ministerial level within five years of entry into force and at least once every subsequent five years.159 |
3.151 | Mr Brown advised the Committee that these provisions are
|
![]() |
|
Dispute resolution |
|
3.152 | Under the Agreement, dispute resolution is to occur through a ‘fair, transparent, timely and effective procedure’.161 Any disputes occurring between the Parties are to be resolved firstly through consultations. Where these fail, disputes may be referred to an arbitral tribunal. The tribunal is to consist of three members, one appointed by each Party, and the third (the Chair) appointed by the two members.162 |
3.153 | The dispute settlement provisions of the Agreement do not apply to the SPS chapter. Disputes arising over SPS issues will be determined by WTO provisions. The dispute settlement procedure is also not applicable to chapters where the provisions do not confer specific rights.163 |
3.154 | Dispute resolution provisions concerning disputes that arise under the Investment Chapter of the Agreement have been considered at Paragraph 3.139 of this report. |
![]() |
|
Environment and labour |
|
3.155 | The Committee notes that criticisms have been levelled at the TAFTA because, unlike the AUSFTA, it does not contain specific provisions on labour or the environment.164 |
3.156 | The Committee notes the concerns expressed in submissions over Thailand’s labour record, particularly in the TCF industry.165 In reference to a report prepared by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) for the WTO General Council, the ACTU stated that
|
3.157 | It was stated that, given these conditions, the failure to include provisions on labour is ‘particularly damaging’167 and may ‘further entrench human rights abuses’168 |
3.158 | The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) states that the omission of labour and environment provisions
|
3.159 | In response to a question from the Committee as to why such provisions were not included, Mr Brown stated
|
3.160 | The Committee also requested comment on the impact the Agreement would have on labour conditions and environmental degradation in Thailand, given that provisions on these matters were excluded. Mr Brown replied
|
3.161 | Mr Brown also assured the Committee that it was expected that, over time, Thailand would take on additional labour and environmental commitments
|
![]() |
|
Environmental effects of the Agreement |
|
3.162 | The Committee notes concerns that the potential environmental impacts of the Agreement, for both Australia and Thailand, have not been assessed in either the NIA or the RIS.173 |
3.163 | In its submission to the Committee the ACF expressed concern that
|
3.164 | The ACF argues that this can occur under the Investment Chapter of the Agreement, where an investor challenges the laws of a country in regard to regulation or expropriation of an investment.175 The ACF is also concerned that the services provisions of the Agreement liberalise services such as construction and engineering, environmental (waste management and biodiversity and landscape), tourism services and transport services, which could result in a negative impact on the environment.176 |
![]() |
|
Developing country |
|
3.165 | The Committee notes that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has listed Thailand as a developing country for the purposes of Australian overseas aid.177 The Committee received a submission from AFTINET which states that
The submission then states AusAID’s objective as ‘advancing Australia’s interests by assisting developing countries to reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development’.179 |
3.166 | AFTINET goes on to state that
|
3.167 | The Committee questioned DFAT over the consistency of its approach to trade and development matters. In response to this, Mr Brown stated:
|
3.168 | Mr Brown then explained how these constraints influenced Australia’s approach to negotiations
|
3.169 | Mr Brown noted that, in comparison to Agreements with the United States and Singapore, allowances were made for Thailand’s developing country status in provisions such as those for intellectual property, government procurement, and in the tariff phasing arrangements.183 |
![]() |
|
Entry into force |
|
3.170 | The TAFTA will enter into force 30 days after both Parties provide written notice that their internal processes for entry into force have been fulfilled. The NIA states that entry into force is expected to occur at the beginning of 2005.184 |
3.171 | The Committee notes that Thailand requires only administrative, rather than legislative action for implementation of the Agreement, and that this process is currently well advanced.185 |
![]() |
|
Implementation |
|
3.172 | Implementation of the Agreement will require amendment to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 and the Customs Act 1901 to incorporate the preferential tariff rates that will apply to goods imported from Thailand under the Agreement. Amendments to these Acts may also be required to implement the Agreement’s provisions on safeguards.186 |
3.173 | The Committee notes that the Customs Amendment (Thailand-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2004 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Thailand-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2004 were presented to the House of Representatives on 11 August 2004 but lapsed with the dissolution of the House of Representatives on 31 August 2004. Both bills were reintroduced to the House on 17 November 2004 and were passed by the Senate without amendment on 18 November 2004. |
![]() |
|
Costs |
|
3.174 | The NIA states that, according to estimates undertaken by the Treasury, the financial cost of the Agreement to the Commonwealth Government will be $45 million in 2004/05, $90 million in both 2005/05 and 2006/07 and $110 million in 2007/08.187 |
3.175 | These estimates are based upon the expected loss of tariff revenue from imports from Thailand, and include assumptions that the Agreement will enter into force on 1 January 2005 and that imports from Thailand would grow steadily over time in line with the domestic economy. The estimates do not account for additional lost tariff revenue that could arise if imports from Thailand displaced imports from other countries. However, estimates also do not account for the potential economic growth that the Agreement may generate, or for any additional taxation revenue that may result from such growth.188 |
![]() |
|
State and Territory Governments |
|
3.176 | According to the NIA, the Agreement ‘will not have a substantial impact on the States and Territories’, and no change will be required to State or Territory legislation.189 |
3.177 | The Victorian Government outlined for the Committee the benefits it expected to receive from the Agreement
|
3.178 | The Queensland Government also expects benefits as a result of the Agreement
|
3.179 | However, both the Queensland and Victorian Governments noted concerns over the impact of the Agreement, with the Queensland Government submitting that
and the Victorian Government stating
|
![]() |
|
Consultation with State and Territory Governments |
|
3.180 | The NIA states that
|
3.181 | The Victorian Government agreed that
|
3.182 | The ACT Government has stated that it has no objection to Australia taking binding treaty action in relation to the Agreement, but expressed concern that
|
3.183 | In response to questions from the Committee regarding the level of consultation, Mr Brown stated
|
![]() |
|
Consultations |
|
3.184 | The consultation process for the Agreement involved ‘extensive consultations’ with peak industry bodies and a limited number of individual companies. The NIA states that
|
3.185 | Ms Kathy Klugman of DFAT outlined for the Committee DFAT’s post-negotiation consultation process
|
3186 | The Committee heard concerns in relation to the lack of consultations undertaken with community organisations and unions. AFTINET states
|
3.187 | The AMWU made similar comments
|
3.188 | The Committee acknowledges that no mention is made of consultations with any union or community groups. However, the Committee notes that according to the RIS, the DFAT consultation process commenced with a call for public submissions,202 and that according to information provided by DFAT at the request of the Committee, no unions or community groups are listed as having made a submission to DFAT.203 |
![]() |
|
Future treaty action |
|
3.189 | The Agreement requires regular review. An initial review will take place within one year of entry into force, and annually thereafter. Certain provisions also require consultation and review. Amendment of the Agreement is subject to the normal Australian treaty process.204 |
Recommendation 2The Committee supports the Australia-Thailand Free Trade Agreement and Associated Exchanges of Letters and recommends that binding treaty action be taken. |
1 | Regulation Impact Statement (RIS), Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 5.Back |
2 | National Interest Analysis (NIA), para. 5.Back |
3 | NIA, para. 6. Back |
4 | NIA, para. 7. Back |
5 | NIA, para. 6. Back |
6 | NIA, para. 11. Back |
7 | NIA, para. 11. Back |
8 | NIA, para. 8. Back |
9 | NIA, para. 8. Back |
10 | Mr Justin Brown , Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004 , p. 21. Back |
11 | NIA, para. 9. Back |
12 | Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), Submission, p. 8. Back |
13 | RIS, p. 2. Back |
14 | NIA, para. 10. Back |
15 | Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited, Submission, p. 1. Back |
16 | Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited, Submission, p. 2. Back |
17 | Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), Submission, p. 1. Back |
18 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 5. Back |
19 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 6. Back |
20 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 6. Back |
21 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 6. Back |
22 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 9. Back |
23 | Mr Justin Brown , Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004 , p. 21. Back |
24 | Mr Justin Brown , Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004 , p. 24. Back |
25 | Mr Justin Brown , Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004 , p. 23. Back |
26 | Council of Textiles and Fashion Industries of Australia Limited (TFIA), Submission, p. 3. Back |
27 | TFIA, Submission, p. 3. Back |
28 | TFIA, Submission, p. 3. Back |
29 | TFIA, Submission, pp. 3-4. Back |
30 | TFIA, Submission, p. 4. Back |
31 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 6. Back |
32 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 12. Back |
33 | Horticulture Australia Limited (HAL), Submission, p. 2. Back |
34 | HAL, Submission, p. 4. Back |
35 | HAL, Submission, p. 2. Back |
36 | HAL, Submission, p. 2. Back |
37 | HAL, Submission, p. 2. Back |
38 | HAL, Submission, p. 5. Back |
39 | HAL, Submission, p. 5. Back |
40 | HAL, Submission, p. 5. Back |
41 | HAL, Submission, p. 5. Back |
42 | HAL, Submission, p. 2. Back |
43 | HAL, Submission, pp. 5-6. Back |
44 | HAL, Submission, p. 6. Back |
45 | HAL, Submission, p. 7. Back |
46 | RIS, p. 6.Back |
47 | RIS, pp. 6-7.Back |
48 | Australian Dairy Industry Council, Submission, p. 1. Back |
49 | Australian Dairy Industry Council, Submission, p. 1. Back |
50 | Australian Dairy Industry Council, Submission, p. 1. Back |
51 | Australian Dairy Industry Council, Submission, p. 1. Back |
52 | RIS, p. 1.Back |
53 | RIS, pp. 7-8. Back |
54 | RIS, p. 8. Back |
55 | RIS, p. 8. Back |
56 | RIS, p. 10. Back |
57 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations, p. 20. Back |
58 | ACTU, Submission, p. 2. Back |
59 | ACTU, Submission, p. 3.Back |
60 | TAFTA is referred to as ATFTA in some submissions. Back |
61 | Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), Submission, p. 7. Back |
62 | Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network (AFTINET), Submission, p. 5; Dr Bill Lloyd-Smith , Submission, pp. 2-3. Back |
63 | Dr Bill Lloyd-Smith , Submission, p. 2. Back |
64 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 9. Back |
65 | Holden Australia , Submission 12, p. 1. Back |
66 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 9. Back |
67 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, pp. 9-10. Back |
68 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 10. Back |
69 | Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited, Submission, p. 2. Back |
70 | Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited, Submission, p. 1. Back |
71 | Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI), Submission, p. 2. Back |
72 | Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited, Submission, p. 1. Back |
73 | Holden Australia , Submission, p. 2. Back |
74 | Mr Peter Sturrock , Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004 , pp. 33-34. Back |
75 | Mr Peter Sturrock , Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004 , p. 34. Back |
76 | FCAI, Submission, p. 1. Back |
77 | FCAI, Submission, p. 2. Back |
78 | Mr Peter Sturrock , Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004 , p. 36. Back |
79 | Mr Peter Sturrock , Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004 , p. 34. Back |
80 | Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited, Submission, p. 2. Back |
81 | RIS, p. 10. Back |
82 | Mr Peter Sturrock , Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004 , pp. 38-39. Back |
83 | Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited, Submission, p. 2; Holden Australia , Submission, p. 2. Back |
84 | Holden Australia , Submission, p. 2. Back |
85 | Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited, Submission, p. 1. Back |
86 | Mr Peter Sturrock, Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004, p. 34. Back |
87 | RIS, p. 9. Back |
88 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 20.Back |
89 | AMWU, Submission, p. 7. Back |
90 | RIS, p. 10. Back |
91 | RIS, p. 15. Back |
92 | RIS, p. 8. Back |
93 | RIS, pp. 8-9. Back |
94 | Victorian Government, Submission, p. 2. Back |
95 | Victorian Government, Submission, p. 3. Back |
96 | Victorian Government, Submission, p. 3. Back |
97 | RIS, p. 8. Back |
98 | TFIA, Submission, p. 1. Back |
99 | RIS, p. 10. Back |
100 | RIS, p. 10. Back |
101 | RIS, p. 15. Back |
102 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 7. Back |
103 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 7. Back |
104 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 8. Back |
105 | FCAI, Submission, p. 4. Back |
106 | Dr Simon Twisk, Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004, p. 30. Back |
107 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 8. Back |
108 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 8. Back |
109 | RIS, p. 11. Back |
110 | TFIA, Submission, pp. 1-2. Back |
111 | RIS, p. 11. Back |
112 | Mr John Arndell , Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004 , p. 30. Back |
113 | AMWU, Submission, p. 12. Back |
114 | AMWU, Submission, p. 12. Back |
115 | AMWU, Submission, p. 12. Back |
116 | RIS, p. 12. Back |
117 | Dr Simon Twisk, Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004, p. 30. Back |
118 | TFIA, Submission, p. 2. Back |
119 | RIS, p. 12. Back |
120 | TFIA, Submission, p. 2. Back |
121 | TFIA, Submission, p. 2. Back |
122 | TFIA, Submission, p. 2. Back |
123 | RIS, p. 12. Back |
124 | Mr Andrew McKellar, Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004, p. 35. Back |
125 | Holden Australia Ltd, Submission, p. 3. Back |
126 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 11. Back |
127 | Australian Chicken Meat Federation (ACMF), Submission, p. 1.Back |
128 | ACMF, Submission, p. 2. Back |
129 | ACMF, Submission, p. 2. Back |
130 | ACMF, Submission, pp. 2-3. Back |
131 | ACMF, Submission, p. 3. Back |
132 | ACMF, Submission, p. 3. Back |
133 | Mr Justin Brown, Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004, p. 28. Back |
134 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, pp. 12-13. Back |
135 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 13. Back |
136 | AFTINET, Submission, p. 6; ACTU, Submission, p. 1. Back |
137 | AFTINET, Submission, p. 7. Back |
138 | AFTINET, Submission, p. 7. Back |
139 | ACTU, Submission, p. 1. Back |
140 | ACTU, Submission, p. 1. Back |
141 | NIA, para. 14. Back |
142 | Mr Justin Brown, Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004, p. 27. Back |
143 | Mr Justin Brown, Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004, p. 31. Back |
144 | Mr Justin Brown, Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004, p. 27. Back |
145 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 13. Back |
146 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 14. Back |
147 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 14. Back |
148 | AFTINET, Submission, p. 8. Similar concerns were also expressed by the ACTU, Submission, p. 2 and the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), Submission, p. 2. Back |
149 | Mr Stephen Bouwhuis, Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004, p. 26. Back |
150 | Mr Stephen Bouwhuis , Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004 , pp. 26-27. Back |
151 | Mr Stephen Bouwhuis , Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004 , p. 25. Back |
152 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, pp. 14-15. Back |
153 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 15. Back |
154 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 16. Back |
155 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 16. Back |
156 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 17. Back |
157 | Queensland Government, Submission 10.1, p. 1. Back |
158 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 18. Back |
159 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 19. Back |
160 | Mr Justin Brown , Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004 , p. 22. Back |
161 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 19. Back |
162 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 19. Back |
163 | RIS, Annex 2, ‘Australian Obligations’, p. 19. Back |
164 | ACF, Submission, p. 1; AFTINET, Submission, p. 8; ACTU, Submission, p. 3. Back |
165 | ACTU, Submission, p. 3; AFTINET, Submission, p. 8; AMWU, Submission, p. 9; The Uniting Church in Australia, Submission, pp. 1-2. Back |
166 | ACTU, Submission, p. 3. Back |
167 | AMWU, Submission, p. 9. Back |
168 | The Uniting Church in Australia , Submission , pp. 1-2. Back |
169 | ACF, Submission, p. 6. Back |
170 | Mr Justin Brown, Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004, p. 29. Back |
171 | Mr Justin Brown, Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004, p. 29. Back |
172 | Mr Justin Brown , Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004 , pp. 29-30. Back |
173 | ACF, Submission, pp. 1 and 8. Back |
174 | ACF, Submission, p. 1. Back |
175 | ACF, Submission, pp. 2-3. Back |
176 | ACF, Submission, p. 5. Back |
177 | List of Developing Countries as Declared by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, < http://www.ausaid.gov.au/ngos/display.cfm?sectionref=2789411849> (accessed 27 August 2004 ). Back |
178 | AFTINET, Submission, p. 3. Back |
179 | Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), AusAID Strategic Plan: Improving effectiveness in a changing environment, Canberra , 2001, cited in AFTINET, Submission, p. 3. Back |
180 | AFTINET, Submission, p. 3. Back |
181 | Mr Justin Brown, Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004, p. 28. Back |
182 | Mr Justin Brown, Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004, p. 28. Back |
183 | Mr Justin Brown, Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004, p. 28. Back |
184 | NIA, para. 2. Back |
185 | Mr Justin Brown, Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004, p. 23. Back |
186 | NIA, para. 12. Back |
187 | NIA, para. 15. Back |
188 | NIA, para. 15. Back |
189 | NIA, para. 16. Back |
190 | Victorian Government, Submission, p. 2. Back |
191 | Queensland Government, Submission 10.1, p. 1. Back |
192 | Queensland Government, Submission 10.1, p. 1. Back |
193 | Victorian Government, Submission, p. 1. Back |
194 | NIA, para. 16. Back |
195 | Victorian Government, Submission, p. 1. Back |
196 | ACT Government, Submission, p. 1. Back |
197 | Mr Justin Brown, Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004, p. 31. Back |
198 | NIA, para. 17. Back |
199 | Ms Kathy Klugman, Transcript of Evidence, 26 July 2004, p. 31. Back |
200 | AFTINET, Submission 6, p. 5. Back |
201 | AMWU, Submission 8, p. 3. Back |
202 | RIS, Annex 1, p. 1. Back |
203 | Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Submission 14. Back |
204 | NIA, para. 20. Back |
Print Chapter 3 (PDF 240KB) | < - Report Home < - Chapter 2 : Chapter 4 - > |