Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Customs Tariff Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014, the KAFTA tariff bill. In doing so, I acknowledge that considerable work has gone into developing this agreement. I acknowledge my support for free trade agreements that are in the country's interest. I also acknowledge that there will be a significant benefit that comes from the implementation of this agreement to a small sector of our Australian economy. There will be a significant boost to exports in the agricultural industry, and it will benefit particularly the beef industry.

This is a piece of legislation that was subject to review by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. It was interesting to note that there was a dissenting report brought down by the treaties committee. I must say that I find the dissenting report very influential in the formation of my remarks on this piece of legislation. I have to question whether this piece of legislation is in the national interest. The dissenting report highlighted many of the issues that I am particularly concerned about. After reading both the report and the dissenting report, I feel that the questions which have been raised in the dissenting report really need to be answered. It was the type of questions—which I will go through in a moment—that were raised in the dissenting report and by many of the submissions to the treaty's committee that have influenced my position on this piece of legislation.

It is interesting that the overall predicted increase in GDP after 15 years is just 0.04 per cent. For such a small increase I think, as a nation, we are making sacrifices that cannot afford to be made. The previous Labor government did not sign the treaty because they were concerned about the ISDS provisions, and, after exploring and reading this thoroughly, I am also concerned about those provisions.

It is interesting to note—and it was brought up by the previous speaker—the impact on the vehicle industry of the implementation of the zero tariffs by 2015, and how that has accelerated job losses in that industry. I think that is a real concern. I do not believe the current government has an industry plan—a plan that looks at developing a response to job loss or developing a jobs plan for the future. I think its knee-jerk reaction and its rush to sign this agreement need to be really criticised.

The government is sending military contracts overseas, whilst Forgacs in my local area is standing down people. It shows that the government has no vision or understanding of industry policy; the government needs to be on the front foot in relation to industry policy.

The AMWU submission to the committee reported that any free trade agreement should clearly benefit our economy—it is something that I and many of my colleagues believe—and not just a small niche. The niche that the agreement benefits is the agricultural industries, and when it is only 0.04 per cent of GDP after four years, you have to question whether or not it was a very proactive, wise decision to make, particularly when it leads to devastating other industries.

This report highlights some of the flaws in relation to enforceable labour, and of course it spends considerable time talking about the investor-state dispute settlement, the ISDS, and the implications it has for the Australian economy and nation. There were 34 submissions that objected to the ISDS and KAFTA. The ISDS provision gives additional specific rights to foreign investors to sue governments for damages in international tribunals on domestic legislation. That actually goes to the heart of our sovereignty and has an impact on our democracy. That should raise concern for every single member of this parliament, because we can legislate in this place and then it can be challenged. I do not think that any member would like to see our sovereignty impacted in such a way. There are a number of concerns about the implications of ISDS. The simple fact that ISDS have no independent judiciary. The arbitration panels are made up of investment law professionals who represent investor complainants, and only investor complainants can take action in ISDS systems. The panellists can also be an advocate one month and an arbitrator the next month. That is quite foreign to our judiciary system here in Australia, where judges cannot be practising lawyers. It is really difficult to see how there can be a level of fairness within this system, because the arbiters are paid by the hour. The incentive to drag out a case is obviously there—with them taking three to five years.

ISDSs have no system for precedents or appeals and therefore decisions can be quite inconsistent. I note that the Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties is in the House. He was very influential, from the report that I am quoting from quite extensively here. As a former member of the treaties committee, I would have to say that if I had been on that committee I would have supported the dissenting report because it does touch on all those issues. Yes, we need free trade agreements with countries, but they have to be in our national interests. We do not have to give away more than we get. We do not have to put ourselves in a position where, in 15 years time or 10 years time, we look back and say, 'We wish we hadn't had that ISDS clause in the contract.'

The safeguards that are included in this free trade agreement are not sufficient. The first safeguard sentence in KAFTA talks about safeguards, health and environment policy and they are really not adequate. It talks about rare exemptions and non-discriminatory regulatory actions by party. These are designed to apply to legitimate public welfare and public health—and issues have been raised around these particular issues in submissions to the treaties committee. 'Fair and equitable treatment' is not sufficient. I have probably spent enough time on ISDS, but to say that as a nation we are risking our sovereignty and democracy covers it fully.

There are some other areas that I have concerns about, such as copyright and IP. I do not think that our interests are significantly covered in KAFTA. There were submissions to the committee from a number of people, strongly criticising the intellectual property chapter of KAFTA. They highlighted that the provisions reflect bad policy and are contrary to the trends in IP law; that is something that should raise concerns amongst all members in this parliament. The dissenting report made some very significant recommendations, and I think that the government should look at those and should consider where it is going to in relation to that.

The other area that I am particularly concerned about is labour rights and migrant work programs. I note that there were a number of submissions to the committee on this particular area. The CFMEU submission to JSCOT on KAFTA raises significant and legitimate concerns in relation to the migrant work program and the impact on the movement of people. I know this has been quite an issue within industry—particularly in the construction and the mining sectors—for a long period of time of how a free-trade agreement will impact on the issuing of 457 visas, the safeguards around it and the implication for Australian jobs. Let's not forget that this is about Australian jobs. I am quite concerned about that because it particularly expands the area where employers could be granted access to 457 visas for Korean nationals without labour market testing. Labour market testing is an important component of the issuing of 457 visas. If that is not required, and Korean national workers can come here on 457 visas whilst Australian workers are disadvantaged by this particular provision of the legislation, I think that is unacceptable. Whilst it removes from the migrant work program the labour rights requirements for Korean nationals, the Korean government has retained the right to apply LMT numerical quotas and other restrictions to Australian citizens and permanent residents under its temporary visa program. To me that is not equitable.

I can see I am running out of time. I commend to the House the minority report of the previous committee. I ask members to think very carefully about this legislation, and I say that Labor in government would renegotiate the clauses surrounding the issues that I have raised concerns about. We truly do question whether or not it is in the national interests and—(Time expired)

See this speech in context