Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last Thursday, 4 February, trade ministers from Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, New Zealand, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam gathered in Auckland where the Trans-Pacific Partnership—otherwise known as the TPP agreement—was formally signed.

Australian trade minister, Andrew Robb, was among the 12 delegates who attended the signing ceremony. Before I go any further I would like to take this opportunity to wish the minister all the very best following the announcement of his retirement from this place. I am sure he will go on to bigger and better things. Certainly in my dealings with him while I have been up here as well, I have always found him to be very approachable and very courteous. His hard work and his drive in relation to securing free trade agreements will be legendary, I am sure. Despite the many valid and important concerns that were raised by both the opposition and other people and groups within the Australian community, I am certain that his principal driver and motivation was always to act in the national interest and to get the best deal possible for Australia.

The signing of the TPP deal in Auckland was the public relations exercise that kicks off the domestic ratification process. All 12 of the Asia-Pacific nations party to the TPP now have two years to ratify the agreement. The government this week tabled the TPP in the parliament and this begins our own ratification process, which will involve extensive public consultations where we will all get the opportunity to have a say on the merits or otherwise of the TPP.

The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties will hold public hearings and will receive submissions from the public over the course of the next few months giving agencies, interest groups and the general public an opportunity to make submissions and to attend public hearings. I also want to acknowledge my parliamentary colleague, the member for Wills, who has had a longstanding association with that committee and who is also retiring. He has been one of the best members I have ever met. Good on you, Kelvin, and thank you for the advice on the TPP.

A report to government will be prepared. I certainly encourage everyone who has a view on the TPP to come forward, to have their say and to express their concerns. I will be encouraging my electorate to come forward and have its say. Free trade agreements in general always raise concerns of the community largely around what their governments are trading or giving away in order perhaps to extract benefit and opportunity in the long term.

The TPP has so far been very controversial, not only here in Australia but also in the United States and in Canada. A similar trade pact in Europe is causing controversy there as well. Issues of secrecy and sovereignty are key things of this controversy.

I want to flag today some of the issues of concern that I have with the TPP, and that the people in my electorate see as having a potentially negative impact on the Australian people's national interest. Firstly, let me acknowledge that what the proponents of the TPP assert and believe is that it has the potential to bring great benefits to the Australian economy—especially in relation to the goods and services exports. Ratifying the TPP would see us part of an agreement that accounts for 40 per cent of global GDP, representing one-third of world trade. That, I agree, is a pretty good club to be in.

The TPP, however, is more than a bilateral food trade agreement; it creates a free trade region, meaning that there are opportunities for vast economic benefits to such an agreement. Of course, the Australian economy needs to pitch itself to the opportunities and challenges of the global and regional economy. This is vital for our economic prosperity. But opportunities for growth in jobs is also key to our prosperity. The Australian people expect us to take all steps necessary to create job opportunities for them so that they too can share in the prosperity that comes with the so-called free trade agreements. They do not want a free trade agreement that denies them job opportunities. They also do not want us to trade away our sovereignty and democratic processes. It is for this reason that the TPP has raised such controversy, and it will continue to do so.

The clauses in the TPP causing most angst and controversy are the investor-state dispute settlement processes, the abolition of labour-market testing for member countries and provisions that potentially impact on the affordability of medicines. The ISDS clause in the agreement allows companies to sue governments over domestic laws that may impact on their commercial interests. This is, indeed, a great threat to our sovereignty. Many people in the community see this for what it is and are opposed to it: it is a vehicle for enhancing corporate power ahead of government power, thus impacting on the democratic process.

Already, if you want an example, there is a challenge from Philip Morris Asia regarding our plain-packaging legislation. The arbitration proceedings brought against our government by Philip Morris could be a sign of things to come—where corporate interests can override the people's interest and the people's sovereignty. Any capacity, such as the ISDS provisions, in this TPP, that give companies from the 12-member countries the opportunity to bring arbitration proceedings against the Australian government, would not be acceptable to the Australian people.

It is precisely this threat to the government's right to legislate in the public interest—with our concerns of being challenged by corporations and their commercial interests—that is being rejected. The concern around the ISDS clause also centres around the fact that the international tribunals adjudicating ISDS actions are not equivalent to our own domestic courts. The arbitrators are not truly independent and there is no precedent for appeals; furthermore, if a company were to bring proceedings against Australia, such as the Philip Morris case, the Australian government would likely have to spend millions of public dollars defending its position.

Our second concern relates to the free movement of people, within the TPP countries signatory to the agreement, which seemingly allows for a working-visa regime that does not require labour-market testing at any level and in many categories is uncapped. In an environment where unemployment is very high and many Australians are struggling to get jobs—as high as 27 per cent of youth unemployment in parts of my electorate alone—I cannot understand why our government would allow the abolition of labour-market testing.

At the risk of being labelled a protectionist, even though I am for a bigger and more open Australia, I believe that Australian workers should always be entitled to first consideration in the Australian job market. Our young people are being trained and educated with the intention of getting jobs. We are constantly investing in their future so that they can take their place in the workforce. We cannot afford a TPP that undermines their prospects, especially the job prospects of people in my electorate.

Furthermore, in many cases, the labour-market provisions are not reciprocal, which means Australians are not afforded the same opportunities as other TPP countries. We cannot sign off on a deal that does not give Australian workers the same level playing field and I say this on behalf of the people in my electorate who have already lost jobs—especially in the car industry—as a result of previously lauded free trade agreements.

Our third concern relates to the inclusion of copyright and intellectual-property provisions for biologics. It is the first time such matters have been included in a free trade agreement. Biologics are incredibly important and are used to treat various cancers and other serious diseases that are prevalent in the Australian community. Any threat to the affordability of medicines in this Australian community will be resisted by the community. Last week there was a briefing in this parliament where the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network presented a letter signed by 59 community organisations that represent over two million Australians as well as a petition from GetUp! and SumOfUs, signed by 305,000 Australians, stating their strong concerns about workers rights and the cost of medicines in the TPP. The concerns and actions of this organisation should not be written off as the actions of the so-called 'usual suspects'. These are legitimate organisations representing legitimate concerns as expressed by legitimate Australians.

I agree with the many community groups, including the public health advocates and unions, who have asked the government to refer the TPP to the Productivity Commission for an independent assessment, because only after an independent assessment and a full and frank public consultation where legitimate concerns are raised and responded to can we truly understand the impact of the TPP and determine what provisions should be accepted and what provisions should be rejected or amended.

This is an important free trade agreement. I have acknowledged that in my speech here today. It does boast many benefits for Australia now and into the future but it also does raise serious concerns which if not heeded and dealt with appropriately may have ramifications for the Australian people now and into the future.

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the support for the TPP from the member for Calwell and also would like to add to her comments wishing the member for Wills all the best in his future.

Today I rise to speak on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and to commend Minister Robb and his negotiating team for delivering yet another outstanding outcome for the nation in trade negotiations. The negotiation of the TPP commenced in 2008 and also includes Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, New Zealand, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam. These 12 countries represent about 40 per cent of the global economy and a quarter of world trade. Five of these countries are in the top 10 of Australia's export markets by value, and in 2014-15 they took over $99 billion of Australian exports. This is an important outcome for many export industries right across Australia and, more specifically, in my electorate of O'Connor.

Many of the reforms under the TPP are in the form of removal and reduction of tariff barriers or non-tariff barriers such as quotas and regulatory compliance on business. The industries across O'Connor and the entrepreneurs and their employees who make them successful are heavily reliant on timely and reliable access to export markets. Some of the well-known industries in the electorate include aquaculture, forestry, agriculture and horticulture. With reduced tariff and non-tariff barriers to a number of key markets, I look forward to more prime lamb, beef and pork from the Great Southern finding its way into export markets. Cereals and oilseeds from the Wheatbelt and seafood from the south and south-east coast around Albany and Esperance will also benefit from improved market access. There are a number of exporters of fine wines from Mount Barker, Cranbrook and Denmark that will be able to take advantage of the improved access to overseas markets. The members of the Southern Forest Food Council, which is based in the south-west of my electorate around Northcliffe, Manjimup, Pemberton and Bridgetown produce a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, gourmet specialty foods and value-added dairy products. Many of them are focused on supplying domestic markets, but, as the Asian middle class continues to grow, export opportunities will emerge.

The mineral extraction industries in the Goldfields have been hugely important for O'Connor over many years, with gold and nickel featuring prominently. The remaining tariffs on Australian minerals, petroleum and LNG exports to signatory countries will be eliminated under the TPP. The energy and resources sector will see significant new opportunities for oil and gas exploration and the export of associated technology. Increasingly we see that mining and resources technology and associated software and equipment that is developed in the electorate by mining companies and mining contractors is being exported. Harlsan Industries Australia, based in Kalgoorlie, exports specialised drilling equipment around the world. They work with their clients to select and supply the right equipment and technical support for the task, drawing on the expertise they have developed from years of supporting the domestic drilling industry in Australia. Hahn Electrical Contracting commenced operations in Kalgoorlie in 1990, providing services to the mining sector. It has subsequently grown to become one of Australia's largest providers of electrical products and services to the mining and industrial markets.

I expect there will be opportunities for companies such as Harlsan Industries under the TPP with a reduction of tariffs on manufactured goods. Hahn Electrical Contracting already operates overseas. They and other service companies may take advantage of the new investment opportunities under the TPP that will provide a more predictable and transparent regulatory environment for investment. There are also reforms to the regulation of transport services and Australian freight, and logistics companies stand to benefit. As a farmer I know how important an efficient logistics chain is to deliver our products to the world at competitive prices. I welcome any improvements to the regulatory regime that will cut the costs of logistics chains for our exporters.

I want to address some of the concerns that constituents have raised and to assure them that there are a number of safeguards around the implementation of the TPP. A coalition government would never be foolhardy about the important matters that we have been in entrusted with. A common misperception is that the signing of the TPP means that the agreement immediately comes into effect in Australia. That is not correct, as any required changes must be codified into Australian law, and that requires scrutiny by the Australian parliament. Before any binding treaty action is effected in Australian law, the TPP text and a national interest analysis will be tabled in the parliament for 20 joint sitting days. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties will conduct an inquiry into the TPP and report back to the parliament. The parliament must consider any legislation or amendments to existing legislation that may be necessary to implement the agreement.

A number of constituents who have contacted my office were under the impression that the TPP was somehow being negotiated in private. That is not correct. The 12 countries involved in negotiating the TPP agreed to keep the treaty text confidential, as well as other relevant documents exchanged during the negotiation process. This was to facilitate a candid and productive negotiation. This, however, did not impede the Australian government or prevent it from consulting widely with relevant stakeholders. State and territory governments were consulted, as were peak industry bodies, individual companies, unions, consumer groups and other non-government organisations.

A common claim has been that medicines and other medical supplies will somehow be subject to the whims of big business and consumers will face hefty price hikes for prescription medicines. That is simply not true. The TPP requires no changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The coalition would not agree to such a provision, and it is time for whoever is responsible for this scaremongering to stop peddling such misinformation.

Food standards and biosecurity regulations will not be changed under the TPP. Australia will maintain control over the standards we have set to prevent the possible incursion of pests or diseases across our borders.

Another false claim that has been propagated is that foreign companies will in some form be granted legal capacity to sue the Australian government if their business interests are somehow impinged on. That is a crude misrepresentation of what is known as investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS. The ISDS is a mechanism that is included in all free trade agreements or other investment agreements. It provides foreign investors with the right to seek redress from an international tribunal if they believe action taken by a host government breaches investment obligations. In other words, it is a mechanism that provides an opportunity for investors, including Australian companies, to protect their investments overseas. For example, if an investor believes that a government in another country is applying domestic law in a discriminatory manner, the investor can have their claim determined by an independent tribunal. ISDS cases are usually decided by three arbitrators who are independent of both government and the investor.

Australian companies have previously used ISDS to protect their investments in foreign jurisdictions. It is nonsensical to argue that such a provision should not be included as part of the TPP. Perhaps critics of the agreement would have Australian companies taking a chance in investing overseas with no such protection.

The signing of the TPP follows on from the good work done by Andrew Robb in negotiating the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement and the Japan-Australia Free Trade Agreement. These high-quality trade agreements will deliver billions of dollars of additional export income to Australia in the years ahead.

I will continue to communicate as widely as possible across my electorate the importance of Australia continuing to pursue trade liberalisation and the benefits that flow to the Australian community and our citizens. I commend the agreement and I acknowledge the work done by the negotiating team and Minister Robb, as well as Minister Robb's predecessors in the role of trade minister.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a trade agreement between 12 countries around the Asia-Pacific rim. It accounts for approximately 40 per cent of global GDP. In addition to Australia, the TPP covers Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, New Zealand, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam.

On our side, we are pleased to have joined the TPP negotiations, which we did in March 2010. The negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership concluded last October, with the agreement formally being signed by ministerial signatories in New Zealand at that point. It is fair to say we recognise the benefits, or at least the potential benefits, that will flow to Australia from a trade agreement such as the TPP, including increased market access for our goods and services. I believe the TPP will improve access to our markets, firstly, by eliminating 90 per cent of all tariffs applied to Australian exported goods to TPP member countries and, secondly, to liberalise access to Australian services and industries in the TPP market itself.

Increased market share for Australian goods and services is a good thing, particularly around those areas covered by the Asian rim. We think it will be an opportunity to boost business opportunity and export earnings. There are a couple of issues I would like to come to, but I think the Trans-Pacific Partnership can be seen as a stepping stone for closer economic ties as well as general engagement amongst the Asia-Pacific neighbours. Some of the concerns that we have had have been subject to assurances given by the minister responsible for the final negotiation in the concluding of the agreement, such as assurances that the agreement will not impact adversely on Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. No matter what the TPP achieves, it should not impact on the price and availability of medicines made available in this country.

Labor has always led the way in the argument against investor-state dispute settlement provisions. I know something has already been mentioned about that, but in relation to this it should be said that we oppose the ISDS in respect of Korea and also the China free trade agreement. The truth is the China free trade agreement would have been concluded long before should we have been in a position to agree to the investor-state dispute settlement provisions. We are putting a lot of stock in that, in the tribunals that exist or will exist in those countries that we are dealing with. We have all confidence in our courts, which we are now conceding and giving jurisdiction to foreign bodies to be able to use to act in determining trade issues involving TPP countries. That is an issue for us.

One area that has not been covered so far, but that I think is pretty significant, is that the Trans-Pacific Partnership has a number of things involved in trade and is also designed to enhance pro-labour principles in eliminating the discriminative practices in respect to employment, amongst other things. It is right that we use trade agreements such as the TPP to leverage against those agreements to achieve proper and positive outcomes, particularly in the human rights space. For instance, Australia supports Vietnam's inclusion in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and as a consequence of enhancing their trade position, I think it is appropriate that we do take a greater interest in matters affecting human rights in Vietnam. While Vietnam is being welcomed and treated as a valued trading partner under the terms of the TPP, regrettably it continues to imprison human rights and labour rights activists at an alarming rate. Vietnam is party to a number of human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment—just to name a few. However, despite Vietnam's human rights obligations under domestic and international law, many people are still being detained and imprisoned for exercising their civil and political rights and defending the rights of others. They continue to face this harassment, intimidation, persecution and imprisonment. We concede, in a regime like that, our dispute-settlement procedures. That should flag some concern for all.

Concerning the issue of labour rights, the TPP signatories have agreed to advance the pro-labour principles and specific legal reforms. According to the agreement, the TPP parties will agree to protect the rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining, the elimination of all forms of force and compulsory labour, the effective abolition of child labour and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. Moreover, the TPP parties will have to pass laws or regulations about minimum wages, work hours, and occupational health and safety. Further, the TPP signatories are supposed to ensure access to impartial and independent tribunals that will guarantee the labour laws.

These labour changes are probably designed in respect of countries trying to address the abysmal labour-rights records of Vietnam and Malaysia. I have an extract from The New York Times of 5 November 2015 that says:

Vietnam is still run by a repressive, one-party communist regime, and the "unions" that currently exist there are heavily managed by or affiliated with the government. So its agreement to allow independent unions—and to enact many more specific reforms laid out in a side deal with the US—

This is referring to the TPP side agreement with the US—

certainly looks very significant.

Many of us who care about human rights are looking to the regulations underpinning the TPP as being a once-in-a-generation opportunity, particularly for the people of Vietnam.

We on our side will continue to scrutinise the Trans-Pacific Partnership to ensure it delivers economic benefits without undermining Australian public policies in areas of affordability, medicines, environment protections and balanced intellectual property laws. We will also maintain our position on the investor-state settlement provisions and ask that they be closely monitored.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to rise on the TPP today and a particular pleasure as the chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. I want to open with an acknowledgement of the enormous contribution to Australia's growth in international trade we have seen from Minister Andrew Robb as well as from the current Deputy Prime Minister and former Howard government trade minister Warren Truss. Both of them have, today, confirmed their plans to retire from parliament. Their contribution to trade is something we should celebrate, because it has been very significant, particularly in the last couple of years. It sets Australia up for many years of openness and prosperity that has been so fundamental not just to our history but will be to our future.

Australians have an innate understanding of the contribution of openness to our prosperity. We only have to look at our relatively short European history to understand how that openness has contributed to prosperity—since that first bale of wool. That first bale of wool left John Macarthur's shearing shed, went to the port and was delivered to England. That was on the back of our first genuine trade agreement. It was not in the form of our modern trade agreements, but there was a very clear understanding between us and England that our wool would go into their market freely, without any serious inhibition. That was the beginning of an extraordinary history of trade in this country.

We saw, as we progressed through the 19th century, a shift from exports in wool to exports that included gold and meat. Then, by the time we got to the 20th century, we saw an extraordinary opening up of trade in coal, particularly with Japan, in the 1950s and sixties. This was soon after the Second World War, but there was an openness and understanding from Australians of how important these markets and free trade were to our prosperity.

More recently—and I see that the member for O'Connor is sitting next to me, and, as a Western Australian, he will understand this well—there was the opening up of the iron ore trade, which is an extraordinary story in its own right. We worked with the Japanese to open up that iron ore market, which ultimately moved from Japan to China. It has been an absolute backbone of our economy in recent years, particularly the Western Australian economy. But it has also made an enormous contribution to Australia more generally.

As we move into the postmining boom, growth in trade is now broadening—from that very strong focus on resources to, in recent years, rapid growth in agricultural trade, higher value agricultural products, as well as our more staple commodities. We are seeing that trade growth extending very rapidly into services. We are seeing extraordinary growth in tourism and financial services—and we have no doubt that that will broaden more in years to come. This is instinctive for Australians. This is at our core. We absolutely understand that openness, trade, these fast-growing countries to our north are fundamental to our prosperity in the future, just as trade was fundamental to our prosperity in the past.

Open trade has its critics. Those critics are not new. We have seen some argue that the economic benefits are small. When we look at the TPP, we see modelling that some claim as justification for trying to shut our borders to trade. As someone who has been heavily involved in economic modelling over many years, let me say to those people: those models rarely represent the reality.

When the New Zealanders entered their free trade agreement with China, no-one could have foreseen the scale and depth of benefit that would be delivered by that free trade agreement. The reason is very simple: when countries trade more, they specialise more. The modelling never captures the full extent of this. This is Adam Smith's pin factory, as each country specialises in the part of the pin manufacturer that they are really good at. Our fundamental competitive advantage is leveraged—used—when we open up trade and do what we are best at.

In a modern world prosperity comes from being best in the world—and let me tell you: Australian are the best in the world at producing resources. We are the best agricultural producers in the world, and we are well on the way to being absolute leaders in tourism, education, financial services, health services. I have no doubt that opening up these trade agreements will lead to that specialisation and focus on excellence, which is what Australians have always done and will continue to do for many years to come. So the critics, who rely on some static and, I would even argue, lacklustre economic modelling, should look a little more broadly, get out into the real world and, particularly, look at some of those very successful trade agreements that we have seen in our region in recent years.

Before I entered politics I had the opportunity to co-author a report in 2012 into the extraordinary opportunities for commodity exports in fast-growing Asian markets. I saw how enormous that growth potential was. It is why the recently signed bilateral agreements with Japan, Korea and China have been of the highest priority for this government. Just a couple of months ago, I tabled in this place, as Chair of JSCOT, the committee's report into ChAFTA, the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. I said in tabling that report:

China is currently Australia's largest trading partner, with two-way trade worth $160 billion … One hundred and seven billion dollars of this … is exports, and that number is going up fast. Our exporters stand to gain greatly from reduced export costs from this agreement, just as we expect businesses and households to pay less for our $52 billion of imports. Together—

these trade agreements—

… will open up the major Asian markets to Australia's consumers and industry.

Turning to the TPP: this is an agreement of absolutely unprecedented scope. It will establish more seamless trade across 12 countries by setting commonly agreed rules and promoting transparency of law and regulations. It will provide greater certainty for businesses, reduce costs and red tape and facilitate participation in regional supply chains. It will also address contemporary trade challenges in ways that have not been addressed in Australian FTAs. It will stand as a model for future agreements.

The agreement will include state-of-the-art e-commerce provisions. For agriculture, it will eliminate tariffs on more than $4.3 billion of Australia's dutiable exports of agricultural goods. A further $2.1 billion of exports will receive preferential access through new quotas and tariff reductions. We will see new access for beef, dairy, sugar, rice, grains and wine. Of course, they are all important markets for my electorate of Hume.

I am also very excited about the opportunities for the Australian services sector. I have mentioned some of those services, but one in particular that we should be very focused on is financial services, as we see very rapid growth of Asian capital markets as they move from sending their capital into the US bond market. Instead of doing that, they will be investing it directly in their own capital markets, and they will need enormous amounts of support and expertise to develop those capital markets in years to come. I have no doubt Australia will play a significant role in exactly that, aided by the TPP.

The process from here will include an inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. This will be important in looking at these all-important issues: the investor-state-dispute mechanism, labour conditions and treatment of intellectual property. I am confident that those issues have been given due consideration in the formulation of this agreement, but it will be important for JSCOT to fully scrutinise those issues in its upcoming inquiry.

The day we stop preaching the benefits of openness is the day our economy starts to focus inwards and starts to go backwards. The 12 countries that negotiated the TPP make up almost 40 per cent of the world's GDP. This is a platform for Australia's future prosperity.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me say from the outset that I am not a critic of open trade; indeed, I support it. However, I also do not want to see Australian trade regulated in a way that actually constrains free trade as opposed to liberalising it. The TPP is a document of 16,000 pages. I have not read the 16,000 pages, and it is unlikely that I will. However, that is 16,000 pages of more rules, regulations and compliance that will be required for the parties that wish to trade between one another. What I will do is rely on the expertise of others who have experience in both interpreting international agreements and deciphering how agreements interact with other agreements that Australia is already a signatory to. I will also look with interest at any comments made by the parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Treaties after that committee has reported to parliament on the treaty. I find it regrettable, however, that neither the opposition nor the parliament nor the treaties committee had access to the agreement until after it was signed.

I am not convinced, nor have I seen any rational explanation, as to why the TPP and other similar agreements are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary ratification before they are signed by the government of the day. In my view it is a serious flaw in our democracy that should be addressed. No law can be made without being approved by parliament and then assented to by the Governor-General here in Australia, yet the government of the day can currently sign agreements that bind Australia to international laws over which Australia has no control or power to change. Parliament's ability to reject enacting legislation is not sufficient. Furthermore, scrutiny by the parliament prior to signing most likely would result in a better agreement, just as it results in better laws. I also believe that such agreements should be subject to an independent national interest test being provided to the parliament—an analysis which we have some confidence in—prior to the signing of the agreement, but that is not the case at the moment.

What we know about the TPP is what has been reported about it by the minister through leaks and by comments made about it in other countries. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a trade agreement between 12 Asia-Pacific countries, which account for approximately 40 per cent of global GDP. It covers Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, New Zealand, Singapore, the USA and Vietnam. Notably, it does not include China and Taiwan—therefore I do not know how compatible the agreement is going to be with the recently-signed China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, as one example. What I do know is that the agreement has drawn much criticism from within signatory countries and from within Australia. That criticism cannot simply be dismissed as misinformed fearmongering. As we have seen with other agreements, clauses within them can be used to challenge government decisions or alleged trade breaches, even if the purpose of those challenges is simply to delay a trade transaction.

The 600-plus Investor-State Dispute Settlement clause cases are very real. The statistics over the cases that have been settled to date speak for themselves. The winners of those cases are mostly the multinationals. Indeed, my understanding is that of the cases that have been settled, about one-third have been ruled in favour of governments and two-thirds have been either settled out of court or won by the multinationals concerned. Assurances given by the government that Australia has written in ISDS protections are yet to be tested in the courts. There are also questions about labour movement, pharmaceutical patents and copyright, which I have little doubt will also lead to more protracted and expensive court cases.

While talking about expense: the Philip Morris case, whereby Australia's plain-packaging tobacco laws were challenged, cost around $50 million. Indeed, some will argue that, in time, the cost of those court cases could well outweigh any benefits that may have flowed back to Australia as a result of being a signatory to the TPP and other agreements.

Concern about trade agreements has come from many quarters: the Productivity Commission; the Chief Justice of the High Court, Justice Robert French; industry leaders; the trade union movement, academics; and numerous community groups have all raised concerns about these agreements. From my observation none of these groups have any personal vested interest in the matter, and therefore I see no reason why they would raise their concerns other than for genuine reasons about problems that they foresee with the agreements. The flip side of that is that most of the agreements seem to be driven by multinationals, and for them there is a lot of money at stake. It seems that they are the ones who are driving these agreements, so I ask the question of those who criticise any critics of these agreements: what is in it for the critics? What is in it for those people who raise the concerns? I think very little, other than the best interests that they have for the broader community.

The TPP has also been the subject of considerable political division in other signatory countries, including in the USA, New Zealand, Vietnam, Japan and, I believe, in Malaysia; so every other country has also had its own internal concerns about it. Indeed, with respect to the USA, I understand that it has now become a presidential election issue.

A more serious concern is a recent report by the World Bank that the TPP would grow Australian GDP by only 0.7 per cent by the year 2030 and that the main winners would be the developing countries. Those figures are obviously based on extrapolation. Nevertheless, they point to a very real concern in the report put together by the World Bank with respect to the TPP.

Advocates of these agreements point to an increase in trade between Australia and its trade partners in recent years—as the member for Hume did when he spoke only a few moments ago. What they fail to say is that most of the increase in trade took place before the signing of any agreements; it was occurring without agreements being signed. They also fail to acknowledge the effect that the fall in the value of the Australian dollar has had and is having on trade. Indeed, the lower Australian dollar would significantly overshadow the promised reductions in tariffs that are tied to these agreements.

Claims about the benefits of trade agreements are not supported by the monthly trade figures either. Australia has now recorded 21 consecutive monthly trade deficits, with the value of exports during December 2015 falling by $3.5 billion, below the cost of imports, according to ABS figures. Australia's export earnings slumped by five per cent during December, led by a 9.3 per cent decline in the value of rural goods exported. I repeat that: the value of rural goods also dropped. Australia's cumulative trade deficit for 2015 has now blown out to $32.7 billion. That is more than double the 2014 deficit. That happened after we signed several trade agreements, but members on the government benches keep telling us just how good those agreements have been for the country. The figures simply do not stack up—and these are not my figures; these are figures from the ABS. Again, they speak for themselves.

Multinationals appear to be the winners from the TPP. Time will tell just who will benefit from it. Anyone who tries to predict what might or might not happen is purely speculating at this point in time. But there is good reason to have concerns about this agreement based on the agreements we have already signed and the actions that have arisen from those agreements.

The last point I would make about trade more broadly is this, to go to the very comment I opened with: I support free trade. But I see these agreements as creating more regulations and more barriers for the people that want to trade with each other across the world. The multinationals of the world know very well how to manage their affairs at the global level; they have proven that time and again. It seems to me that the demand for exports and imports will be driven by community demand and by the price of the goods that are being offered—more so than by any free trade agreement.

Debate adjourned.