Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges the importance of open trade and investment policies in growing the Australian economy and creating local jobs;

(2) commends the Government for leading efforts to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership 11 nation (TPP-11) agreement;

(3) welcomes the recent conclusion of this landmark deal which will eliminate more than 98 per cent of tariffs in a trade zone with a combined GDP of AUD $13.7 trillion;

(4) notes the significant opportunities offered by new trade agreements with Canada and Mexico and greater market access to Japan, Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei;

(5) recognises the importance of the agreement for Australia's farmers, manufacturers and service providers in increasing their competitiveness in overseas markets;

(6) notes indicative modelling by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, which found that the TPP-11 agreement would boost Australia's national income by 0.5 per cent and exports by 4 per cent; and

(7) encourages the Parliament to work co-operatively to ratify the TPP-11 agreement so that Australian exporters can take advantage of the many benefits it delivers.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The value of this motion is that we're seeking to once again share with the House and acknowledge the importance of open trade and investment policies in a growing Australian economy. Importantly, this is about the opportunity to create local jobs. This private member's motion seeks to commend the government for leading efforts to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership 11-nation agreement, TPP 11. It welcomes the recent conclusion of this landmark deal, which will eliminate more than 98 per cent of tariffs in a trade zone with a combined GDP of A$13.7 trillion. It notes the significant opportunities offered by the new trade agreements with Canada and Mexico, and the greater market access to Japan, Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei. It recognises the importance of the agreement for Australia's farmers, manufacturers and exporters, and also, importantly, our service providers, who we're seeing being increasingly competitive overseas.

It was my pleasure to speak in the House last week about the anniversary of the Australia-Japan trade agreement, which was 60 years old last year. It was about the positive impact that these trade agreements have had on the local economy and, in particular, on businesses in my electorate of Forde. I have no doubt that in the near future we'll be sharing a similar story of how this TPP has delivered on its commitment to create significant opportunities for Australian farmers, manufacturers and service industries. The comprehensive and progressive agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement will create significant export opportunities for Australian businesses.

I'd like to commend my colleague, the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Steven Ciobo, on his tremendous efforts in the negotiations to deliver the TPP. I also note the former assistant trade minister, the member for Hinkler, Keith Pitt, who is here and who, no doubt, had plenty to do with this as well. The existing free trade agreements have already created new jobs and opportunities for businesses in my electorate of Forde, particularly in the areas of manufacturing and export, in particular, for one of the large businesses in my electorate, Teys, and their export of chilled and frozen meat products to Japan. The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, as I noted earlier, will eliminate more than 98 per cent of tariffs.

What we see is that these opportunities are already providing work for people in my electorate of Ford on a daily basis. As I shared last week, Frosty Boy, whose powdered milk products go into frozen ice-creams around the world, employ over 150 people. I was there recently and they were testing new products for new markets. They have a laboratory there that ensures that the products that they bring to market in various places around the world meet the tastes of those particular markets. So, not only is it driving export opportunities and job opportunities, but it's also leading to innovation in the products that are being offered as well.

Now, sadly, when we look at those across the chamber, we see that those across the chamber have no plans to support Australian business. They declared the trade agreement dead and wanted to walk away from the opportunity that would see so many of our farmers and industries flourish. If those opposite got their way, and the Leader of the Opposition was the Prime Minister, they'd see Australia excluded from this historic agreement and deny our farmers, manufacturers and other businesses terrific opportunities. In 2016-17, nearly a quarter of Australia's total exports, worth around $88 billion, went to countries that now are part of the TPP. And now, thanks to the significant increase in market access the TPP provides, Australian exporters and Australian people can expect to see this figure grow significantly. And this is the important bit: it is about creating opportunity for Australian businesses to provide local jobs for Australians that create wealth and opportunity for the current generation and the generations to come. I commend the TPP to the House.

Susan Lamb (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whether in government or opposition, the Australian Labor Party believes in transparency. We believe in transparency; we believe in accountability. However, the Prime Minister and his government's arrogant handling of the new Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for the Trans-Pacific Partnership shows that they do not hold these values. Rather than an open, consultative process, this government has been working on this deal in the shadows—avoiding scrutiny and refusing to share any independent economic modelling with the parliament. What they're doing is marking their own homework, and it's just not good enough. What we need is someone to actually pull out the red pen.

Independent analysis has been called for by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. It's been called for by the Productivity Commission, and even the Treasurer's own Harper review. Independent modelling and analysis was even called on by Liberal MPs who examined the original TPP. But it's funny how things change. The Turnbull government's 'trust me, I know better than you' attitude is out of touch. Labor will judge any deal on its own merits, of course. If this new CPTPP is good for Australia, if it's good for Australian jobs, then, of course, we'll support it—if it's good. However, there are some parts of the original agreement which we, on this side, have urged the government to renegotiate in the new CPTPP—like the inclusion of the ISDS mechanism, or the removal of labour market testing for six countries. We simply don't know the details of this agreement, and we won't until the Turnbull government shows some transparency and holds themselves to account to the Australian parliament. All we know is that without the involvement of the US, this deal will be radically different to the original TPP.

Australia is a trading nation. About one in five Australians work in a job that's linked to trade, so we need to consider these agreements carefully. We need to see the detail. Rightfully so, Australians are sceptical about the benefits of trade, and we need to be able to provide them with evidence. They need to know what the details are. Will it create jobs in Australia? Australians need to be assured that local workers get first priority—first priority for Australian jobs. They shouldn't be waivered away through free trade agreements like the conservative governments have done with ChAFTA, or Korea and Japan, and the original TPP agreement. This isn't protectionism. This is just common sense. It's common sense when there are people all over the country struggling to get by, struggling to find work, especially in regions like mine in Longman or further up north in places like Townsville. We've got people who have been let down by this government. They've been let down time and time again, so they have every single right to be sceptical about a deal until we actually see what's contained in this agreement.

People in Australia don't want to see Australian jobs sent overseas. We've seen this already happen, with the government outsourcing countless Centrelink call centre jobs to Serco. We know that people in Australia don't want to see foreign workers flying in and doing the work that could have been done by Aussies, by hardworking people in regions, in places all over the country. They don't want to see a foreign worker flying in and taking a job that they can do. So, until this government steps out of the shadows and holds a proper conversation about this trade deal, well, we just don't know.

Labor is completely committed to Australian trade. We're also committed to Australian jobs. So we're very, very willing to join in on any agreement that does right by this country. We're willing to join in on any agreement that does right by the workers of this country and by people who are still looking for work in this country. We just need to see the facts and the figures. When we do that, then we can make the decision. We can't do that until the independent modelling has been done and everybody is able to see the details of this agreement.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate Minister Ciobo for signing off on the TPP after many years of negotiation. And they said it couldn't be done. But here we are; we're moving forward. It will be assessed by the JSCOT and hopefully ratified by the parliament later in the year. We've got form. We had already signed deals with Japan, South Korea and China, and I think it is appropriate to reflect on just how successful those deals have been and just how successful the TPP will be once it is signed and in place. If we look at those agreements, we can see that, in recent years, agriculture in this country has expanded enormously. They are going pretty damn well, to be honest. They're having a great time of it. They are a shining star of our economy. In fact, they produced over $60 billion worth of farmgate production, and $48 billion of that was exported. Can we imagine what will happen to regional Australia if we do not continue to open up new trade routes and new opportunities, new areas that our growth products can move into, with the capacity to increase manufacturing, particularly in regional areas, to value-add, to fix the logistics chain?

All these things do one thing and one thing only—that is, build the Australian economy. If we build the Australian economy, we will continue to build jobs, particularly in regional areas, and it's pretty straightforward. As the member for Longman said, one in five people in this nation are employed because of trade. More trade for Australia means more jobs, and, the faster we can provide better opportunities to Australian producers, the better off we will be, particularly in regional areas. There is only one interest in this agreement, and that is the national interest. There is no other consideration. We as the parliament must act in the national interest, and we should do that as quickly as possible. This deal has taken some time to put together. Everyone is aware of some of the challenges, particularly around countries which decided they didn't want to be a part of the TPP, but we have managed to put together a deal which is in this nation's interest, and we should act on it.

All of us here are always interested in what happens in our electorates; I'm sure you are, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, as the member for Wright, being an agricultural producer yourself. My region in Hinkler between Bundaberg and Hervey Bay is now the biggest producer of macadamia nuts in this country. As someone who was born there and has lived there most of my life and been involved in agriculture for a long time I have to say that, when it kicked off, I was very surprised by the work that was undertaken. It was expensive; there were long-term returns. But it has been an absolute boon for our region, and nearly all of that product is exported.

We are a nation of just 24 million people. We cannot consume everything that we produce. In fact, I know that any number of our organisations locally are exporting macadamia nuts, particularly to China and South Korea. Right now, they're going pretty well—they're going very, very well. South Korea is a great opportunity, and the further that we can expand our trade routes and opportunities, the less risk there is to this country. From when I grew up. as a tradesperson, it's what's called belt-and-braces policies. It means that you ensure that you have more than one opportunity, more than one location to send your product to, more than one place you can be shut out of and of course that can shut your business. So the TPP is a great opportunity. It is a boon. It will deliver 18 new free trade agreements between the TPP 11 parties. For Australia, that means new trade agreements with Canada, Mexico and greater market access for Japan, Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei.

In my region, that includes sugar. Sugar has been an absolute basket case in world trade for many years, as we all recognise. But we now have further opportunities for the sugar industry in South Korea and Japan, and this will increase those opportunities in Japan, and also, particularly, if we can get it into Mexico. It is an absolute boon for our sugar growers. As someone who actually grew up in the sugar industry, who spent their entire life in it—through harvesting contracts, milling operations and right through to management—I know these are opportunities for our regional people right up the North Queensland coast. I certainly look forward to those opportunities coming to fruition, because nearly one-quarter of all of Australia's total exports, worth nearly $88 billion, goes to the TPP 11 countries.

We need to ensure that we continue to trade with those nations and we need to ensure that our producers have the best forward-facing price that we can possibly provide for them. That is why we do trade negotiations. That is why we have trade agreements. That is why we have so many people from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade out in these countries, ensuring they act in this country's interest.

So we should ensure that the TPP 11 is ratified and that the JSCOT sign off on it. It is a strong deal, it is in the national interest and I absolutely support it. I thank the member for Forde for putting forward this motion for consideration.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I read the motion and I listened to the mover's speech. No wonder he ran away—he made his speech and then ran out the door: this is completely absurd. We're debating a motion and the proposed benefits of a trade agreement that no-one has seen. We need to get that fact clear at the outset. No-one has seen this agreement.

We've got speculation and we've got random facts in the motion. I don't know what the assumptions are. We don't know who the winners and losers are. There are always winners and there are always losers in a trade deal. So table it. If the government were serious about wanting us to understand and evaluate the benefits of this trade deal, they'd come in here and put it on table. But it's a complete load of nonsense to have a self-congratulatory motion on a secret deal. Now, it may be the world's best deal; it may be the world's best deal and it will blow you out of the water. It may be the world's worst deal, but no-one would know. But, 'Trust us; we're the government,' says the government member. 'We'll just put a few little facts in the motion and then run out of the room.' He's probably gone to edit or check his Wikipedia page and check that this motion never appears in it!

Labor support an open economy; we do. Trade is good for Australia, and one-fifth of Australia's workers are in jobs that are linked to trade. Trade creates jobs and prosperity for us; that's the structure of our economy. But we hear this complete nonsense over and over again that Labor opposes trade deals: 'Labor, you oppose trade deals.' Then we hear we've betrayed the Hawke and Keating legacy. They are getting very jealous of the Hawke and Keating legacy because they can't point to much that John Howard did in 11 years, except replace a bunch of sales taxes with the GST and sit back for 10 years. The truth is that Labor in opposition have never opposed a trade deal. So despite all the rubbish we hear—'You're blocking the trade deal; you're all terrible'—we've never opposed or blocked a trade deal once we'd seen the detail and gone through it.

We hear about CHAFTA. Apparently we stopped the China free trade agreement, which is complete nonsense. We asked a bunch of questions and we forced some improvements to that deal before it was signed. That is our job as an opposition and, indeed, it's the job of every member in this place who takes their responsibilities seriously—to actually look at the detail. So what we're being asked to do here is: 'Let's go by the vibe of the deal. It's a really cool deal, man. Toke on this deal; it's going to be really awesome!'

Let me bombard you with a few random facts. What is the government scared of and what are they hiding? There will be, as I said, winners and losers. There were through the Hawke and Keating era. Overall, undoubtedly, Australia's economy grew, and our prosperity and national wealth grew as a result of the economic reforms. But there were losers. There were people who lost their jobs and there were businesses that closed and were forced out of business because they couldn't compete. And so we've said that a proper, principled position is to expose trade deals to independent scrutiny and independent economic modelling, for two key reasons.

The first is that this is good practice. At the moment, we have a situation where the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade bureaucrats who run around and negotiate these deals are then marking their own homework. They go and negotiate the deal and say: 'This is the best we can get. Now we'll run some figures and say, "Look what a good deal it is."' That's not good public policy and not good practice. You expose the assumptions underpinning the deal to independent scrutiny so you can form a view.

The second reason, of course, is to build community confidence. There's enormous scepticism and concern about trade deals, particularly as the nature of the media and human psychology is to focus on loss. So we focus on the losers without giving a balanced perspective too often. Independent economic modelling and scrutiny would, I believe, help build community confidence and help the government understand where it needs to help out and assist people to transition. Of course, it's not just Labor that's saying this but the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Interestingly, the Treasurer's own Harper review said:

Trade negotiations should be informed by an independent and transparent analysis of the costs and benefits …

Indeed, repeatedly, Liberal MPs who examined the original TPP recommended:

… the Australian Government consider implementing a process through which independent modelling and analysis of a proposed trade agreement is undertaken by the Productivity Commission …

That's Labor's policy. The member for Warringah, when Prime Minister, commissioned independent modelling of Australia's agreement with Korea, and that was supported and people felt confident. So I do not understand what the government has to hide, and it's a complete nonsense to bring this motion in prematurely.

The ideal trade agreement is with the Asia-Pacific, and it would include India, China, the US and others. We'd see increased growth and interdependence, and that, of course, would contribute to regional peace and stability. But in the meantime we should get some independent economic modelling and be honest and up-front about it, and when this deal is released and we go through it, then we'll back it. Our record does support that. We have backed, ultimately, the trade deals put forward, but only when we've seen the detail. No-one would accept the complete nonsense that's thrown at us that, somehow, we should sign up to something we haven't seen. That would not be doing our job well by the Australian people.

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor member who just spoke loved to make the comment that Labor always backs FTAs. The only thing Labor has ever had the capacity to do with free trade agreements is back them, and here is why: not once in our history as a country has the Labor Party ever instigated, done end to end and closed a free trade agreement. Not once in its history has it done that. Yet it has the gall to stand in this place and try to lecture the coalition government on FTAs. Today we've heard from the Labor speakers that the great crime, apparently, is that they haven't seen the final text of the FTA document. If they'd ever gone through the process, they would know that the text is never made fully available until it is translated into its various languages. If they'd ever had that experience, they might know what they were talking about. Did they ever release any economic modelling for the three FTAs that they were involved in signing in government? No. They reek with hypocrisy.

I am very proud to be standing here today in support of this motion put by the member for Forde. From the first decades of the New South Wales colony and John Macarthur to the TPP 11—which will be signed in Chile, we hope, on 8 March this year—Australia's reliance on trade has been unquestionable. We produce amazing goods and services, and this government has been supporting our businesses to ensure we are competitive within the global economy. When it comes to ensuring that we knock off any tariff or non-tariff barriers, the apex of any such achievement, and the best and most sustainable outcome is an international trade agreement—a free trade agreement. Under the Turnbull government and, indeed, under the Abbott government, we have achieved historic FTAs, with Japan, Korea, China and Peru. The last, coincidentally being signed today, will remove 99 per cent of tariffs on Australian imports into the rapidly expanding Peruvian economy. How can that be anything but good for the Australian worker and for Australian businesses? Now we have the TPP 11, the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership which brings together 11 Pacific rim nations in a network of 18 new free trade agreements. Both the size and the promise of this deal are breathtaking.

As the member for Forde's motion notes, the TPP 11 is set to eliminate more than 98 per cent of tariffs across a truly immense trading zone, with a combined GDP of some A$13.7 trillion. The direct benefit to the Australian farmers, producers, manufacturers and service providers in improved market access and a sustained boost to exports is significant, with modelling finding that the TPP 11 would lift Australia's national income by 0.5 per cent or more than $15 billion while boosting exports by four per cent, which equates to more than $30 billion in additional exports. It was the leadership and determination of the Turnbull government, led by our trade minister, together with the government of Japan in particular, which worked so hard to keep negotiations alive following the decision of President Trump to withdraw, and finally got this deal over the line with all 11 nations still on board. The TPP 11 is clearly an outstanding win for Australian businesses and jobs, and the Turnbull government deserves to be congratulated.

But tellingly, this is a win that would have been missed completely if Labor had won the last election or if the government had been so desperate for guidance that we actually took the advice of the Leader of the Opposition, who, you'll recall, publicly declared on several occasions that the Trans-Pacific Partnership was 'dead'—dead. Really? That would mean $30 billion in additional exports just tossed away by the Labor Party. That would be an appalling judgement. Thank God for the coalition.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have seldom, in this entire parliament, heard so much complete and utter drivel. You come in here and you present facts. What are the facts about our free-trade deals? The last one was with the United States. They wanted pharmaceuticals and they wanted phytosanitary quarantine removed. That was what they wanted. According to The Australian Financial Review, the Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian newspapers, we wanted dairy, beef and sugar. Did they get what they wanted? Yes. They got an open-door policy virtually for pharmaceuticals and for phytosanitary requirements quarantined. We have a board now which consists of half United States and half Australia. So they have 50 per cent control over our quarantine protection; not that there was any quarantine protection to start with, so I don't suppose we gave anything away. We pleaded with them not to allow the prawns in. If you allow prawns in, you will get white spot. Well, we got white spot. We got citrus canker. We got Panama disease. We got black sigatoka. We got papaya fruit fly. Our phytosanitary requirements are an absolute joke.

What did the free-trade deal do for us? It gave away the entire coal seam gas reserves of this nation; $23 billion a year was given away. We gave it away for six cents a gigajoule and we bought it back for $16 a gigajoule. In fact, it is cheaper to buy Australian gas in Tokyo and bring it back to Australia than to actually buy it in Australia. That was a magnificent free-trade deal. We freed up the wool industry–oh, what a magical achievement; it is now costing the nation $16 billion a year. Ethanol: 'Oh, we must have a level playing field; we must have a free market.' So, whilst Brazil produces ethanol and provides a $4 billion cross subsidy to its sugar industry, we're 'free trading', so we import $23 billion worth of petrol every year instead of producing one litre of petrol of our own, which, of course, we could do tomorrow with ethanol. Oh, and we wiped out the entire manufacturing industry of Australia. The car industry alone was $25 billion a year. Just in coal seam gas, wool, ethanol and motor vehicles, we have lost $40, $50, $60, $70 billion in just five items. In the last free trade deal that we did, what did we get for dairy? We got the equivalent of an ice cream a week. That was the benefit for the Australian dairymen. That's what we got. For beef it was, 'In 10 years time, we might open it up and have a free industry.' That's four administrations you'll go through before you get a freeing-up of the industry. For sugar, we were wiped like a dirty rag. So that was our success story on this wonderful free trade agreement. America's success story was marvellous.

We see crawling, drivelling, sycophants. They belong to the colonial era. All they want to do is race out there and say, 'Oh, teacher, I'm the good boy in the class. I'm the one doing the right thing. I free up trade!' We all signed an agreement to reduce our protection and support levels by 30 per cent when we signed the agricultural free trade agreements. Every country on earth kept them just about where they were, except for two countries: Australia and New Zealand. They abolished all of their protection completely. It's very simple: you're sending your gladiator into the arena without a helmet and without a shield. He's still got his sword but he's got no helmet or shield. He says, 'Hold on a minute, mate. My adversary's got a helmet and a shield.' 'Oh, yeah, but if you fight without a helmet and shield, it'll make you tough'. No, it won't. It'll make you dead. That's where we lie at the present moment: with no manufacturing base, without any petrol and without any possibility of competing on a level playing field now or in the future. What drivel we have heard. (Time expired)

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.