Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, entitled Report 196: Regional comprehensive economic partnership agreement.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—Today, in the absence of the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I make a statement on the committee's report 196. This report details the committee's findings on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, the RCEP Agreement. RCEP is a plurilateral trade agreement between Australia and China, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea and the 10 members of ASEAN: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. It is ASEAN-led and reflects the interests and position of ASEAN. Although RCEP does not deliver much in the way of additional market access, it's significance lies in the broad composition of its membership, which accounts for almost one-third of the world's population and GDP.

RCEP reinforces ASEAN's regional leadership role and simplifies and harmonises rules of origin and other trading standards, which should facilitate growing supply chain integration. In particular, RCEP contains a single set of rules and procedures for Australian goods exporters to utilise RCEP's preferential tariff outcomes across the region and increases opportunities for Australian businesses to access regional value chains. Similar benefits apply to trade and services, investment, intellectual property and electronic commerce.

A number of issues were raised during the inquiry and are dealt with in this report. I will talk to two of these issues. Some inquiry participants were concerned that RCEP may impact the government's ability to implement recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. These, of course, are the chair's notes, as I am doing this on his behalf. I am going to be less polite than he is. They were fanciful allegations, trying to come up with a concocted argument to justify opposition and simply expose the people who made the arguments to absurdity. But, in returning to the chair's remarks: after reviewing the evidence, the committee reached the viewed that RCEP preserves Australia's right to regulate the supply of services in order to meet policy objectives, including in aged care.

Some inquiry participants also raised the recent coup and subsequent repression in Myanmar as a potential reason to delay ratification of RCEP. The evidence heard, though, suggested that no other country would be likely to follow Australia's lead in this regard and it was unlikely to have any significant impact on the behaviour of Myanmar's military rulers. Again, departing from the chair's remarks and inserting my own: it was largely about signalling by members of the opposition on this issue. No-one disputes the human rights abuses related to the military junta and the very serious concerns that arise out of Myanmar, but the suggestion they were somehow going to bow because of a report of a committee is, frankly, again, fanciful.

Returning to the chair's remarks: the committee notes the recent report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade into Australia's response to the Myanmar coup, which recommended the government further consider imposing targeted sanctions upon those responsible for the coup and subsequent repression in Myanmar. The committee supports this recommendation and recommends the government continue to pursue the restoration of civilian democratic rule in Myanmar as a foreign policy priority—and I agree—and consider making a declaration to this effect at the appropriate time of ratification. The committee is of the view that, on balance, it would be in Australia's interests to ratify RCEP and recommends accordingly. On behalf of the committee, I recommend the report to the House.

See this speech in context