EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Select Legislative Instrument 2012 No. 177
Issued by the Authority of the Minister for Home Affairs
Customs Act 1901
Customs (Prohibited Exports) Amendment Regulation 2012 (No. 2)
Subsection 270(1) of the Customs Act 1901 (the Act) provides, in part, that the Governor‑General may make regulations not inconsistent with the Act prescribing all matters which by the Act are required or permitted to be prescribed or as may be necessary or convenient to be prescribed for giving effect to the Act or for the conduct of any business relating to Customs.
Subsection 270(1) of the Customs Act 1901 (the Act) provides, in part, that the Governor‑General may make regulations not inconsistent with the Act prescribing all matters which by the Act are required or permitted to be prescribed or as may be necessary or convenient to be prescribed for giving effect to the Act or for the conduct of any business relating to Customs.
In particular, section 112 of the Act allows the Governor-General to make regulations which prohibit the exportation of goods from Australia.
The Regulation adds three chemicals, alachlor, aldicarb and endosulfan, to Schedule 2 to the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations 1958 (the Principal Regulations) consistent with Australia’s obligations under the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (the Rotterdam Convention).
Australia is a party to the Rotterdam Convention. This is an international treaty promoting shared responsibility and cooperative efforts in the international trade of certain hazardous chemicals. Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention contains a list of chemicals which are subject to the Convention’s Prior Informed Consent Procedure, which provides for information exchange regarding the import and export of those chemicals. It aims to ensure that countries do not export listed chemicals to other countries that have not provided their consent to receive them.
In June 2011, the fifth Conference of the Parties agreed by consensus to list three additional pesticides, alachlor, aldicarb and endosulfan, in Annex III. The minor treaty action was considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties which agreed that binding treaty action may be taken (Report 124, tabled 10 May 2012).
Regulation 4A of the Principal Regulations prohibits the exportation of chemicals listed in Schedule 2 of those regulations unless one of the circumstances in that regulation applies. Schedule 2 contains a number of chemicals including those listed in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention.
The proposed Regulation would add alachlor, aldicarb and endosulfan to Schedule 2 to the Principal Regulations to ensure their export is regulated.
The Regulation implements an international obligation under and international agreement. No consultation with industry was conducted in respect of the changes made by the Regulation.
The Regulation commences on the day after it is registered.
1205943B
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
(Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011)
Customs (Prohibited Exports) Amendment Regulations 2012 (No. 2)
This legislative instrument is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in the definition of human rights in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.
Overview of the Regulation
The Regulation adds three pesticides, alachlor, aldicarb and endosulfan, to Schedule 2 to the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations 1958 (the Principal Regulations) consistent with Australia’s obligations under the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (the Rotterdam Convention).
The effect of adding these pesticides to Schedule 2 is that they are prohibited exports unless one of the circumstances in regulation 4A of the Principal Regulations applies. Essentially, export of these pesticides would only be allowed where prior permission had been granted by the Minister.
Human Rights implications
This legislative instrument does not engage, impact on or limit in any way, the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in the definition of human rights at section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.
Conclusion
This legislative instrument does not raise any human rights issues.
Attorney-General