Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for the Republic) Share this | Hansard source

This bill ratifies the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership treaty and brings into operation the world's largest free trade agreement—bigger than the European Union, bigger than the North American Free Trade Agreement. Twenty-nine per cent of the world's GDP is covered by this trade agreement, and it's within our region. I simply can't see how we can't be part of this. It's the biggest trading agreement in the world and it's right here within our region. Almost all of the nations of our region that we have an economic relationship with are part of this agreement. There are 15 countries, including ASEAN and including our biggest trading partner, China, with a clear set of rules for nations within the region regarding trade.

We've strengthened economic ties with the most dynamic region in the world, which will quickly develop into the world's largest middle class. That will bring investment opportunities. It will bring increasing trading opportunities, particularly around the delivery of services. When a population moves into the middle class, demand for services, particularly education services, aged-care services and financial and legal services, grows. When you talk about the Asia-Pacific region, one of the leading economies in the delivery of those services is Australia. This provides an opportunity for us to capitalise on that specialty and provide those services to the Asian region as the area grows and as more people come out of poverty and move into the middle classes.

It's traditionally been hard for Australia to break into many of those economies when it comes to services. We've had a great trading relationship with Asia when it comes to delivering commodities, particularly fossil fuel based commodities, but we haven't had success when it comes to providing services for many of those nations. That's because, in many respects, there are a lot of non-trade barriers that have been obstacles to Australian businesses in breaking into those markets. Many of them have seen it as too hard. Making the required changes to business models, getting to understand the different regulations and, in the past, unfortunately, having to know personalities to get things done have prohibited Australia from being successful in breaking into the delivery of services in many Asian markets. This trade agreement will help break down some of those barriers. RCEP countries include nine of Australia's top 15 trading partners, accounting for 58 per cent of Australia's two-way trade and 67 per cent of our exports. The benefits will come in terms of a reduction in non-tariff barriers to trade, such as quarantine and technical standards, which can make it all too hard for many Australian businesses to break into some of those markets.

The agreement provides the opportunity for parties to the agreement to bilaterally negotiate reductions in tariff barriers. Let's face it: although Australia has free trade agreements with most of the nations covered by RCEP, there are still further barriers to trade, in the form of tariffs, that can be reduced, particularly for Australia's agricultural exports into many of these markets. It provides investment protections for companies and businesses that want to trade and do business within Asia. But I reckon that the most important aspect of this agreement—one that will provide benefits, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises in Australia—is that it sets a single set of rules for exporters to trade under, rather than the multiplicity of different rules and procedures under the various free trade agreements that Australia has. In that respect, it's very important in cutting red tape, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. If you're one of those businesses, you've got a product or service that businesses in Asia may be interested in and you're looking to break into that market, having a single set of rules under which you can apply to multiple nations is a big benefit. It's a big benefit for the creation of investment opportunities and jobs here in Australia.

The agreement also contains accountability measures for member states regarding trade. This will be important in combating and reducing corruption in trade. I think it's worth noting that many of the nations that will be party to this agreement are not democracies. In the past there have been issues with doing business in many of these nations, where corruption has unfortunately been ingrained as part of the culture and part of the process of doing business. In Australia, of course, we don't do business that way. There are laws and there are regulations and there are bodies in place to combat those sorts of activities. With accountability measures for trade between member states, the reduction that will come, hopefully, in corruption associated with doing business in some of these countries, particularly in the nondemocracies, will be a huge step for free trade within the region. It will also be a huge step for the development of a rules based trading system within our region. There has been much debate over recent times, particularly the last decade, about the strategic merits of ensuring a rules based trading system for countries operating in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly when you're talking about democracies trading with nondemocracies. This will be important in delivering a rules based trading system that all can work to, apply to and understand, and breaking down some of the barriers that exist.

Like with any free trade agreement, concerns have been put forward by Australians and organisations. I can understand the concern of Australian workers about their job protection and free trade agreements. The first issue I want to deal with is investor-state dispute settlement clauses, ISDSs. The Labor Party has as part of its platform opposition to these on a routine basis being put into free trade agreements. There's a good reason for that. In the past companies have tried to use ISDS clauses in free trade agreements to undermine Australian laws and regulations that were put in place for the good of the Australian people. The classic example of this is the challenge by Philip Morris to laws that were put in place by the Gillard government and then minister Nicola Roxon around plain packaging on cigarette labels in Australia. It was a health measure brought in to discourage Australians to take up smoking or to continue smoking. It was a health measure supported by the Australian population. It was challenged through arbitration under an investor-state dispute settlement clause in a free trade agreement.

Thankfully, Australia won the argument through that arbitration, but it cost the Australian taxpayer a lot of money to defend that action. The notion of a corporation being able to use a clause in a free trade agreement to undermine and challenge an Australian law that was decided democratically by this parliament and the people of Australia for the betterment of the Australian people is something that Labor does not support. Importantly, this free trade agreement does not contain ISDS clauses, so that should not be a problem.

It does not dilute the capacity of the Commonwealth or the states to regulate skilled temporary migration. This is important to the Labor Party, the union movement and workers. No-one likes to see labour brought into the country, particularly on conditions and wages that are lower than for domestic workers. It has been a challenge for Australia to regulate that in the past because typically when we do try to negotiate free trade agreements other nations like to provide opportunities for employment in Australia for their workers. It was a particular challenge with the China free trade agreement. Thankfully, due to Labor sticking to its guns, we were able to strengthen that agreement and get labour market testing as part of that. Nothing in this agreement will undermine the ability of the Commonwealth or the states to continue to regulate for labour market testing and for domestic or international skills assessments.

The final point I'd like to raise relates to Myanmar. I want to point out that I and Labor members condemn the human rights abuses that have occurred in Myanmar following the coup. We have condemned the Tatmadaw's actions. We have asked the government to review military cooperation with this particular group and with the junta. We have asked the government to undertake targeted sanctions. We have asked the government to be much stronger when it comes to defending democracy in Myanmar. We of course sympathise with the people of Myanmar and condemn the actions of the coup leaders.

But the best way to ensure that the concerns of Australians and the concerns of people in Myanmar are heard is through international dialogue. This particular free trade agreement provides an opportunity for Australia to be part of that regional architecture, to put those concerns and to ensure that, hopefully, they can be actioned. One way that potentially could occur with respect to Myanmar is for this free trade agreement to be done, for Myanmar to be admitted as a free trade party and then to be immediately suspended by the parties until they can work out the situation that has developed in Myanmar and return to democracy. That is an option that is on the table that the Australian government could consider.

All in all, this is of benefit to Australia and to Australian workers. I'm pleased that the Labor Party is supporting it. I commend it to the House.

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context