Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I am pleased to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, and to have been engaged in the hearings and deliberations thus far for the inquiry into the Australian government's approach to negotiating trade and investment agreements. This interim report includes a number of useful recommendations, which I will touch on briefly.

As we know, we are a trading nation and committed to fair rules of international trade. We have agreements with many countries, and these are generally the outcomes of efforts on the parts of successive governments. The legislation and procedures we put in place to govern the construction of trade agreements need to recognise the fact, and be designed to last across the—sometimes many—terms and different governments that these negotiations often require. The recommendations include: a tripartite trade advisory council that includes representations from unions, business and relevant community organisations; codification of the way in which we publish the aims and objectives of trade negotiations; increased transparency; and regular briefings to relevant parliamentary committees. It is important to note that these recommendations really do no more than borrow what we have seen work in other countries.

I note that many of the union submissions to the inquiry, such as those from the AWU and the ETU, highlight government procurement and the importance of ensuring that free trade is pursued not for the purposes of simply allowing greater profits for business but as a larger and broader goal of serving the national interest across many facets of our cultural, economic and social lives. I commend the unions for their approach and for advocating not just for a greater, more codified engagement of unions in trade negotiation processes prior to the completion of agreements but also for being inclusive of other organisations being involved in the same way, naming both business and community interests. I take seriously the caution expressed by some organisations in their submissions that the US model has allowed the predominance of business interest. We seek balance for all relevant voices to be heard.

The recommendation for regular reviews of trade agreements is important in the context of the points I have covered here. We need to be able to hear from those working at the coalface—business, union and community groups—as to the effects, both good and bad, that have followed on from a trade agreement taken as a whole and also in relation to particular provisions.

I agree with the submission by the CPSU that industrial and safety standards, human rights and environmental standards are an important aspect of future trade agreements, and they should also be included in reviewing past trade agreements. As my colleague the member for Fenner has said in relation to policy evaluation, 'We need to bring enough modesty to the task to acknowledge that answers which sound right may not always work in the real world.'

Policy review is a healthy process, and this applies to the agreements we strike with other countries, especially as conditions change and standards develop and improve. Recommendation 5 of this interim report seeks to establish independent and regular reviews of existing agreements, and it is odd that such a requirement does not already exist. Even prospective trade agreements must serve our national interests, and every trade agreement that is already in place must continue to serve our national interest. If upon review we find that an agreement isn't performing in the way we intended then that agreement will need to be revisited.

I thank my fellow committee members, particularly the chair, the member for Adelaide, for his work and leadership. As usual, the secretariat supported the committee in their efficient fashion, and I thank the inquiry secretary, Mr Adrian Daniel, and his team.

See this speech in context