Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Hansard source

In summation on the Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018, I thought I'd just touch upon some of the comments that have been made, and I thank the member for Kennedy for his contribution and his almost-kind words about me—certainly kinder words about my parents. As someone who did grow up in Far North Queensland and with a strong affection for regional Australia, I appreciate his comments.

I thought I would just address some of the comments with respect to the tobacco industry in my birth town of Mareeba and the suggestion of the member for Kennedy that the passing of the tobacco industry was a consequence of deregulation. Well, that may have been a factor, but there can be no doubt that the single-biggest driver of the wholesale change away from tobacco was actually the introduction of laws to stop people smoking. The way in which we have clamped down significantly on tobacco abuse has seen wholesale transformation of the industry in that part of the world—not a function of deregulation but, rather, a function of changing consumer patterns and habits and the fact that the percentage of the population that now smokes has declined to if not below 10 per cent then very, very close to that. That has been the single-biggest driver.

But here's the good news. When I go back to Mareeba, as I do relatively frequently, I see a community now that has transformed into a whole range of new crops. I see lychee farmers, mango farmers and sugar farmers. Indeed, the town's population has continued to grow. That's not to say that it's not been faced with significant economic challenges. It has been faced with economic challenges. But one of the key drivers of that community has been the precise opportunity to develop new market access for those farmers in that part of the world who now have been able to diversify into different crops, away from tobacco, and be assured that their mangoes, whether they be Bowen or R2E2 mangoes, can get into new export markets, that their sugarcane can get into new export markets, that the beef coming from western Queensland can get into new markets. That is the very example of market access that the TPP-11 is going to continue to provide. That is precisely the reason why I say in good faith to the member for Kennedy that this deal is the right deal for Australia. It continues to open up market opportunity for us.

Can I also address some of the other comments that were made, given that we're debating the amendment that has been moved by the member for Melbourne. Frankly, we have seen absolutely hysterical claims being made about trade deals—not exclusively by the member for Melbourne, but he does give voice to some of the most excessive claims that are completely groundless in terms of fact. He made a comment about there being big, gaping holes in labour and migration laws as a result of trade deals—I think those were his precise words. How completely and utterly absurd. There are no gaping laws in labour and migration laws as a consequence of these trade deals. In fact, the only waiver that's provided in relation to labour market testing is that: labour market testing. The full suite of domestic laws in relation to minimum rates of pay and non-exploitation of workers continues to apply. The waiver is only in relation to advertising domestically. Do you know the reason why that's done? It's done because we get the same market access in return in those other 10 countries with whom we've done this deal. In other words, we have done a deal that says to the other 10 countries involved: 'It's like for like. You give us access and we'll give you access.' Most importantly, we have very narrowly defined the opportunities in which that waiver will apply.

In fact, it was the Australian Labor Party, when they were last in government, that implemented a number of these labour market testing waivers. There's not even any new territory in this for the coalition. In fact, on LMT, labour market testing, we've effectively implemented the same waivers that the Australian Labor Party implemented when they were last in government. Labor's position has clearly changed, and I acknowledge that Labor's position on that has changed. Nonetheless, there's nothing new about this that hasn't been done previously by the Labor Party. The waiver doesn't apply to domestic laws, the waiver doesn't apply to minimum wages, the waiver doesn't apply to standards and the waiver doesn't apply to all of the requirements that are incumbent upon employers in relation to employees. None of those are waived. The only waiver that applies in this particular case with respect to labour market testing is that requirement, and that's in return for having done the deal.

When I hear members opposite talk about how this was a huge sacrifice to make and ought not to have been done—well, the consequence of that would be that they wouldn't do the deal. Any trade deal does require some give and some take, but the consequence is that in net terms, in aggregate terms, the benefits are there to be seen. The benefits in this case are substantial: benefits that drive economic growth, drive exports and drive jobs in this country. It is trade that has delivered us one of the highest standards of living in the world. It is trade that is driving prosperity in regional Australia. It is trade that is ensuring that more Australians have job opportunities than ever before. It is trade which has delivered record volumes of wine exports to markets like China. When I hear people complain about their concerns on aspects of trade deals that are done—yes, they can point to some concerns they may have in limited and discreet areas, but they conveniently ignore the multitude of benefits which have driven this economy, driven jobs and made Australians richer as a direct consequence. That is the benefit that flows from trade deals.

Mr Bandt interjecting—

When I hear, again, the member for Melbourne with his hysterical claims on ISDS, I note once again that not once did he address the concerns that apply with respect to Australian businesses operating abroad. The focus is always this spurious claim that, under these deals, using ISDS, investor-state dispute settlement, there'll be opportunity for evil multinationals to sue the Australian people. That's always the claim that's made: 'This enables foreign businesses to sue the Australian government if we change any laws.' That is wrong as a claim not only because we have complete carve outs on matters such as the environment, defence and small business—a whole host of different areas where we include the carve out in the trade deal—but also because it's not Australia that needs to be concerned. We don't go about flagrantly disregarding our obligations to businesses, be they domestic or foreign. No, we uphold the rule of law and we seek to ensure that we always have a low sovereign risk profile. The reason you have ISDS is to make sure that we look after Australian businesses operating overseas. That's why you have ISDS.

This preoccupation among certain elements of the Australian Labor Party, and indeed the member for Melbourne, to suggest that in some way we have lost control of our national sovereignty on matters in relation to public policy is completely and utterly false—a false claim that I will take this opportunity and every opportunity to comprehensively reject, because it is completely false. We retain the full discretion of public policy because there are exemptions in place. But do you know what I will not do? I will not turn my back on Australian businesses, on Australian investors, on the superannuation of ordinary Australians, invested in multinationals and invested in Australian businesses—for example, BHP—that want to take their processes offshore, that want to open a new mining operation abroad or something like that. I won't turn my back on those Australians businesses, on those mums and dads from Australia who deserve to have their investment dollars protected. If that means that we can bring an action against a foreign government who may not abide by the same principles as the Australian government, then I say we should bring that action. The consequence of the policy that's been espoused by the member for Melbourne and, indeed, some elements of the Australian Labor Party, would be to abandon Australian companies and Australian investors. That's the consequence of the noninclusion of ISDS—to walk away from Australian businesses that operate internationally—and at the very time when we see more Australian businesses than ever before moving offshore and diversifying their businesses.

We want the Australian economy to grow. We're a relatively modest market—25 million people. In the context of the globe, we are very modest indeed. Yet we have businesses that can be global champions and globally competitive, and we need our Australian businesses to go offshore. When they go offshore, guess what? That's export income to this country. When they go offshore, guess what? That's more employment in this country as more Australians get opportunities to work in those foreign markets. Yet, despite all of those benefits, we hear from the member for Melbourne and from certain elements of the Australian Labor Party the desire to walk away from those businesses and not give them the right to bring an action against a foreign government who might say, 'We don't care what you've done; we're nationalising it—tough luck.' How absurd, how preposterous and what a debasement of debate in this chamber that they would twist and manipulate it to make it a debate about Australia's sovereign capability and conveniently never mention the explicit public policy carve-outs contained in these trade deals.

I will always take every opportunity to absolutely knock on the head and reject the ridiculous arguments that are made around ISDS, because they are plainly false. No clearer example need be mentioned than the unsuccessful action of Philip Morris against the former Australian Labor government in relation to the plain packaging of cigarettes, which they lost. Since then, we have actually even further refined and improved the public policy exemptions in our trade deals. So let's deal with facts and not deal with the kind of emotive rubbish that we hear in amendments like this, not grounded in fact and conveniently ignoring the multitude of benefits that flow to Australian businesses, to Australian investors and to Australian workers as a direct consequence of this government standing up for Australian businesses that are operating abroad. We will continue to do that, and I make no apology for its inclusion not only in relation to the TPP-11 but in other subsequent trade deals that have been done or will be done. It's the right thing for this country, the right thing for Australian businesses, the right thing for Australian workers. Having made those comments, I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context