Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I join Labor members in speaking to these bills and placing on the record, briefly, some significant concerns I have with the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement. These are matters that in large part are dealt with in the amendments moved by the member for Rankin. I should make clear that these are not objections to free trade per se. Rather, as the member for Charlton said in his contribution to this debate, fundamentally, this is an agreement which was poorly negotiated. These are matters which must be put before the House and before the Australian people. These matters are important, not simply in respect of this agreement which is the subject of the bills before us now but even more so with regard to the prospect of the China agreement which may arise in the not-too-distant future.

The four matters that I will briefly touch upon create a very troubling precedent for that agreement as well as being invidious in their own terms. The first matter I wish to speak to is the question of investor-state dispute settlement. Let me be clear: as a matter of principle, I can see no warrant for investor-state dispute settlement clauses—provisions that, in effect, grant greater rights to foreign corporations than domestic entities. The capacity of such provisions to interfere with Australia's sovereignty, the sovereignty of this parliament, is deeply troubling. I note that Labor in government would renegotiate this agreement to remove this provision and so restore the capacity of this parliament to determine, for example, environmental protections in place of unaccountable private arbitration. I note that over 500 ISDS cases have been brought against governments under treaties at great financial cost to the taxpayers and at a much greater and more troubling democratic deficit.

I am also concerned about the arrangements in relation to labour market testing. Labor opposes the removal of labour market testing in agreements such as this. Fundamentally, why shouldn't employers be asked to demonstrate the existence of a skills shortage before having regard to such provisions? Further to this point—and I note that this was a matter that was unable to be traversed by the Treaties Committee—it is extremely concerning that labour rights may, perhaps inadvertently, be diminished such that preferential access may end up being afforded to the products of forced labour, and I hope this is a matter that is capable of being attended to.

I go now to the question of copyright. As my colleague the member for Gellibrand, who knows far more about these matters than I do or ever will, has said, similar democratic concerns, as noted in relation to the ISDS provision, arise in relation to intellectual property. I simply restate his words and his contribution:

If the government wants to reform Australia's Copyright Act, it should make the argument for this change on the merits, not by hiding behind the flimsy claim that we cannot even debate the issue because of our trade obligations.

That nails the issue.

Lastly, the treatment of the automotive sector simply cannot be ignored. It may be that this is a case, unfortunately, of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, but the treatment of that sector and the workers contained within it cannot go without mention.

In conclusion, I feel it is important that I acknowledge the work of Labor members of the Treaties Committee—and I note the deputy chair next to me here. I also want to acknowledge the range of engagement I have had with a range of stakeholders—the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, the CFMEU, the people of AFTINET and also the National Farmers' Federation—all of which I found invaluable in approaching my engagement on this important matter.

That free trade can deliver tremendous benefits should not and must not become a cloak to avoid detailed consideration of particular agreements. Past experience shows all too clearly that fundamentalist theory does not always deliver its promises in the real world. Free trade is, of course, not an end in itself. Our task here is to secure the best interests of the Australian people—their wellbeing must be our yardstick. A clear benefit right across the economy should be what we are seeking to achieve, not merely sectoral or subsectoral advantage.

Fundamentally, my concerns go to the issue around the investor-state dispute settlement provisions—these are concerns about democracy. Who decides and how they decide are fundamental questions for all of us in this place. We should not ever lightly walk away from our obligations to make these decisions on behalf of the Australian people.

See this speech in context