Ross Hart (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties entitled, Comprehensive and progressive agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnershipthe so-called TPP-11. I was fortunate to be appointed to this committee to participate in its hearings and deliberations with respect to the review of this treaty. It is vitally important that the treaty-making power of the Commonwealth is undertaken in the very best interests of the nation. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has the responsibility to review treaties and proposed treaty actions. It is particularly appropriate, in this case, that the Commonwealth's treaty action with respect to this treaty, broadly described as a free trade treaty, was the subject of public hearings, the receipt of evidence and submissions and an opportunity for public comment.

It is important to note that the so-called free trade treaties are a misnomer. These treaties generally promote trade liberalisation, in goods and services and in some cases promote freer movement of individuals across international borders.

Labor has supported the recommendations in this report, but the Labor members of the committee have prepared substantial additional comments as to the areas of concern. Those concerns, in context, do not argue against trade liberalisation, but require governments to negotiate trade agreements with greater openness and transparency, with a particular emphasis on economic modelling as to the impacts of the proposed treaty. I will explain why that is necessary, not just desirable.

My electorate of Bass has been impacted historically as a consequence of the reduction of tariffs previously protecting the textile industry. The shockwaves that resulted from the reduction of protection saw substantial job losses in the reconstruction and, ultimately, closure in many cases of iconic industrial capacity within northern Tasmania—names like Coats Patons, Kelsall and Kemp, James Nelson and Waverley Woollen Mills, which would be familiar to every person in northern Tasmania over a particular age. Of these iconic businesses only Waverley Woollen Mills remain as manufacturers, with the industrial legacy of the other substantial weaving and spinning enterprises represented by, sadly, either vacant buildings or, in most cases, re-use of those buildings for other purposes.

This emphasises the challenges represented by trade liberalisation, particularly for this parliament. Trade liberalisation—that is, the promotion of greater trade and the free passage of goods and services—generally leads to benefits within the wider economy. However, the economic effects of trade liberalisation are not evenly shared. There are burdens as well as benefits. The dramatic changes within the Australian economy subsequent to the 1970s, including the significant reconfiguration driven by the Hawke-Keating governments and the subsequent Howard government, saw significant changes within the Australian economy.

It is vitally important to note that, without careful attention to the economic effects of trade liberalisation, including modelling as to the benefits and costs associated with trade liberalisation, government cannot fulfil its function to ensure that those who are adversely affected receive appropriate advice and assistance.

This is a very useful introduction—the first major theme I wish to explore within the additional comments made by the Labor members is economic modelling. What we have is a report which is effectively a supplement to the report that was prepared some two years ago with respect to the TPP. That report recommended that there should be some additional economic modelling surrounding the economic effect of the particular treaty.

The Labor members support that recommendation but, based upon the evidence that's been received during the course of the hearings, they submit that in future treaty negotiation more needs to be done with respect to economic modelling. In particular, in the interests of openness and transparency, economic modelling should be available to the wider community and during the course of negotiation.

It's my submission that it is wholly inappropriate for the Australian community to simply take on trust any government's assurances that a particular aspect of trade liberalisation, whether it's a free trade treaty or some other treaty that purports to liberalise trade or services, is overall in the benefit for Australia without identifying the costs that are associated with that treaty.

There was much evidence received as to what is best practice in other jurisdictions. In Europe it is suggested that, again in the interests of openness and transparency, the general public, and in particular industry and other affected parties, should have access to independent economic modelling during the course of the negotiation of treaties.

Just this morning, in another committee—that is, the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth—evidence was given as to the desirability of the involvement of industry and other affected interest groups in trade negotiation, particularly with respect to electronic commerce. Keeping the government's cards close to their chest with respect to the positive effects of trade liberalisation, without identifying the costs associated with trade liberalisation, may have the effect of significant groups within our communities being adversely affected and the government not being in a position to respond as it should to ameliorate those effects.

The second issue that I want to deal with is an issue of concern with respect to the effect on the labour market of these free trade agreements generally and in particular the TPP-11. There are some concerns that've been expressed in the additional comments made by the Labor members as to whether the proposed treatment of labour market services, and in particular whether there should be testing of the labour market, is sufficiently robust. Indeed, it's probably the case that the legislation, which gives effect to this treaty or subsequent legislation, should take into account the strong desirability of there being adequate labour market testing, because we do not want Australian workers to be subject to the risk of loss of their jobs because of the inflow of overseas workers, particularly where the labour market has not been adequately tested.

There are also significant concerns being expressed, by people giving evidence to the hearings, as to the inadequacy of the arrangements within the TPP-11 as to skills testing. There are particular occupations—for example, electrical contracting and other highly skilled occupations—where skills testing is not just a question of ring-fencing a particular occupation. There are real interests of public safety and good governance involved in ensuring that we maintain the high standards that we have within Australia, particularly in building and construction.

The final issue that I want to deal with as part of this address is the very much vexed area of ISDS, or investor-state dispute resolution, which is incorporated within the TPP-11 treaty. I must say, and this is borne out in the additional comments made by the Labor members, that this goes against the general flow of negotiation of treaties elsewhere, particularly in the EU and a very significant trading partner the United States. The government should look at ISDS with great concern and ensure that Australian policy objectives—legitimate Australian policy objectives—are not curtailed by application of ISDS. I commend the treaty and the report to the House.

See this speech in context