Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to stand in this place and talk about trade and the opportunities for businesses right around Australia, particularly those in rural and regional Australia. As we know, the TPP-11 is one of the most comprehensive trade deals ever concluded and will eliminate more than 98 per cent of tariffs for the 11 members. The TPP-11 countries are not only Australia but Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam. When you look at all of these countries, there are opportunities for a range of Australian businesses and service providers.

I notice that there's new modelling undertaken by economists from Brandeis International Business School and John Hopkins University showing that Australia is forecast to see $15.6 billion in net annual benefits to our national income by 2030 and increases in exports of $29.9 billion as a result of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This is great news for the Australian economy, building on the work that this government has done previously in securing a number of free trade agreements. It means so much to businesses in rural and regional Australia, and I've spoken about this previously in this House—better access for exporters, especially for those who are primary producers. I am very proud to be an Australian farmer. I think I'm the only dairy farmer in this place. What I'm hoping to see is more of our great dairy products, and I will be parochial and talk about some fantastic products out of my electorate that I hope to see going into these TPP-11 countries. We have not only great dairy products but beef and lamb as well and a whole range of very good quality products from my part of the world.

One of the things we've heard a lot about is the $1 milk issue. I'm hoping that more of our milk processors and dairy processors will take advantage of the TPP-11 and use those agreements to export even more of our great product, one of the most respected dairy products in the world due to the quality of our fresh milk. However it is manufactured, I hope more of our dairy processors and manufacturers use this opportunity to get the milk out of the hands of the Coles and Woolworths of this world and put some genuine competition into that market. That is exactly what is needed, and that's the opportunity that free trade agreements give in a direct as well as indirect sense.

I'm also hoping that a number of our amazing education providers, the service providers in education, take advantage of this TPP-11 to establish even more sound and direct relationships in each of these TPP-11 countries. The education that people receive from our universities and training providers is also of great value and is valued by business as well as the individual around the world. I can see many more very direct relationships being established, both in country and in Australia, as a result of this TPP-11 agreement. It will provide so many additional market-access opportunities, whether it's farming, mining or manufacturing. It is really important that we ratify the TPP-11 as soon as possible. We really need to lock in the forecasted benefits as quickly as we can. The businesses on the ground want to get on with doing business, which is why this needs to be ratified as quickly as possible.

A number of businesses in the south-west of Western Australia, in my electorate, have so much to offer, and reducing tariffs would present many opportunities for them. Once this agreement is ratified I'd encourage each of them to look very closely at the opportunities that it provides for small businesses as well as for some of our major manufacturers and also for the service sector. In this particular agreement, I think there's a great opportunity for our service sector. In particular, as I've already mentioned, I can see a great opportunity for our education providers. I would encourage everyone in this sector to have a very close look at the opportunities that present themselves with TPP-11.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor has a strong tradition of supporting sensible, broad based trade liberalisation. It was the Whitlam government that instituted a 25 per cent tariff cut in 1973 and the Hawke and Keating governments that reduced tariffs in 1988 and 1991. The net impact of that was to make the Australian economy more competitive and to put thousands of dollars back into the pockets of regular Australian households. Indeed, if you go to a department store now to buy a pair of kid's shoes, you'll see sticker prices that are similar to where they were 30 years ago. If you go to buy a bottom-of-the-range new car, you'll find sticker prices not that different from 30 years ago. Trade liberalisation has benefited households and has the potential to create jobs. But trade liberalisation has to be done right. Labor's commitment to trade liberalisation is a strong, multilateral one. As they say in trade, 'bigger is better', not only with respect to the number of countries engaged in agreement but also with respect to the breadth of the trade agreement. High-quality agreements generate greater benefits.

The Peterson Institute, in a paper by Peter Petri, Michael Plummer, Shujiro Urata and Fan Zhal, suggested that TPP-12 would deliver benefits of US$492 billion. Their modelling now suggests that TPP-11 would produce global benefits of US$147 billion. Alongside Australia, the TPP-11 includes Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. It should be noted that it does not include the United States or China, the world's two largest economies. The Peterson Institute estimates that significantly larger gains would come if Indonesia, Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines and Thailand were to join the agreement—were it to be a 'bigger and better' agreement. When the institute turns to the individual countries, they note that no country benefits from going from TPP-12 to TPP-11. The Peterson Institute's modelling suggests an income benefit for Australia in 2030 of 0.5 per cent—a smaller impact than is found, for example, in Peru, in Brunei, in Malaysia, in Singapore or in Vietnam. These gains are smaller than they would have been under the original TPP and reflect the fact that this is an agreement that covers only a relatively small share of trade compared to the previous agreement.

Labor is committed to engaging with Asia. Our FutureAsia policy ensures that we establish an Australia week in China on an annual basis and that we establish a joint team made up of officers from DFAT, Austrade, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Industry to tackle non-tariff barriers. We are also committed to ensuring that there is better Asia literacy among Australian corporate boards. As my colleagues, the shadow trade minister, the shadow Treasurer and the shadow assistant minister to the shadow Treasurer have noted, it is vital that we improve Asia literacy.

In terms of tackling trade agreements, we believe that the Productivity Commission should independently review trade agreements a decade after they're signed to see what the impact of them has been, and whether the results live up to the boasting. We need to increase the role of business in trade negotiations, and, importantly, we need to ask the Productivity Commission to conduct an independent economic analysis of every new trade agreement before it's signed. That approach of independent economic analysis has been supported by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Productivity Commission, the Harper review and, indeed, by Liberal MPs who examined the original Trans-Pacific Partnership. It was supported by the member for Warringah, who commissioned independent economic modelling on Australia's agreement with Korea.

We have reservations about the inclusion of ISDS clauses. We note that the New Zealand government, under Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, has recently negotiated side letters with four countries, removing the application of ISDS clauses in the TPP-11.

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

It's my great pleasure to rise to speak on this PMB. As I know you know, Mr Speaker, there were people in this place who said that this couldn't be done; that the TPP-11 was dead, couldn't be recovered and couldn't be delivered. Well, here it is. The coalition government is again delivering on trade. We have already signed agreements with China, Japan, South Korea and Peru. We are in negotiations for the RCEP, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, with Indonesia, and we have signed the TPP-11 when those on the opposite side of the chamber said that it could not be done; that we should walk away from something which has a $13.8 trillion GDP. There are arrangements by which people in Queensland and New South Wales have sales into those regions and countries. In Queensland, there is $6.3 billion for coal; $1½ billion for the meat of bovine animals, fresh, chilled and frozen; and unwrought aluminium. In New South Wales, coal, once again, is at $8.4 billion. It is no surprise to me that resources and agriculture are two of the biggest exports from those two big states on the east coast, which will get a great benefit from the TPP-11.

For the people in my electorate, it is very straightforward. One in five jobs in this country rely on trade. For Australia, trade means jobs. More trade means more jobs, and that is what we are about as a coalition government. We have delivered over a million jobs in the last five years, as we said we would. The focus for me as a local member is to ensure that those jobs are in my electorate, where, unfortunately, we find ourselves in a very difficult position, with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. For my people, my businesses and my exporters, this agreement means more jobs for us.

What will the opposition say? Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, wanted to take the approach of Monty Python—I'm sure you would be aware of that, Mr Speaker; you are probably of the right ilk for Monty Python!—but not the approach of the Black Knight, where he will fight to a standstill for the Australian people, Australian trade and Australian jobs, but the other approach, which is to run away, retreat, say it's too hard and not deliver. I say to those on the opposite side: this is a good deal, which should be ratified by the Australian parliament. The Leader of the Opposition should go back and apologise for what he said to the Australian people about this arrangement. Quite simply, this is about trade and jobs, and jobs for our regions.

As I've said, in my local area, this is about a stronger regional economy. This is about more local jobs. We are continuing to build our local regional economy by multistreaming it, with support from the coalition government. Under the Regional Jobs and Investment Packages, we put $9.65 million into five projects in the Hinkler electorate, which resulted in over $31 million worth of construction. Why is that important, and what is the arrangement in terms of the TPP-11? Well, it's quite straightforward. Macadamias Australia received $4.68 million to extend its operations. This is an organisation that exports 100 per cent of their product locally, which is macadamias. The member for Cowper and the member for Page may disagree, but the Australian macadamia association does not: the biggest producer of macadamias in Australia is now in my electorate, around the town of Bundaberg. That means more jobs through processing and more jobs in the local region, at its factory on Goodwood Road.

We have the local business of Austchilli, which received $1½ million to extend their packaging operations. This is an organisation which exports right around the world chilli products, herbs and a lot of other processed bits and pieces. They're pretty well known. They've shown up on MasterChef and other things around Australian domestic television. I think it's really important that we continue to support them because they employ local people. They are not shifting their jobs offshore; they are not shifting their jobs away; they're doing it here and we need to support them through better trade arrangements. Every time we reduce a tariff on an Australian product in an overseas country they become more competitive because the forward-facing price is cheaper. That is what we are about: we are about delivering more trade for more jobs for our regions.

Costa Avocados received $495,000. One of our largest exports around the world is avocados because they are a first-class product. Once again, in their processing facility near Childers, a small town in my electorate, they employ local people. This is what it's about. The more we can deliver in terms of trade, the better the opportunities for the Australian nation and the more chances for our businesses to employ more people because they have more confidence and a stronger bottom line. So the coalition government will continue to deliver on trade agreements, we will continue to deliver on jobs and we will continue to deliver on stronger regional economies and local jobs for our people.

Ross Hart (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With the greatest respect to my friend the member for Hinkler, he's mischaracterised this side of politics' commitment to free trade. I'd like to reassure the House that Labor in government and from where we sit at present support the broad principles of free trade because we've seen, over generations, the effect of free trade in growing the economy. But there's one very, very important differentiation between this side of politics and the other side: we recognise that it's vitally important to ensure that we properly consult, that we have comprehensive economic modelling and that we take every step to ensure that those who are adversely affected by free trade agreements are appropriately compensated. There you have the difference between our side of politics and the government.

This government is prepared to enter into free trade agreements on the basis that, whatever deal is struck, the economic benefits of that arrangement will be simply assumed. I had the pleasure to serve on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties when it examined this particular treaty action and I was, in part, the author of the additional comments which were published as part of the report of that committee. There is no underestimating the Labor Party's commitment to the beneficial effects of free trade. We have every confidence in the fact that free trade will create additional employment, but we need to enter into free trade agreements with clear eyes and we need to enter into these free trade agreements on the basis that the effects of the agreements are properly modelled and that there is suitable transparency during the course of the negotiation of the free trade agreements.

There are aspects of this particular treaty which give rise to concern—in particular, the inclusion of so-called ISDS provisions within the TPP-11 treaty. The inclusion of ISDS within this particular treaty goes against the general flow of opinion internationally with respect to the inclusion of ISDS within treaties. Indeed, the United States has recently indicated that it will not accept ISDS within treaties that it seeks to negotiate. That's not to say that you should adopt the protectionist view that the present President of the United States adopts with respect to free trade. What we want on this side of politics is fair trade and, in particular, we want to ensure that the effect of negotiation and implementation of a treaty which affects trade should not produce costs within the economy, including the loss of jobs.

There are significant concerns about the abolition of labour market testing within this treaty in so far as it affects the migration or temporary migration of workers across boundaries. It's vitally important in my view—and it's the view of my colleagues on the Labor side of politics—that we need to ensure that two things occur with respect to our labour market. Firstly, there needs to be adequate labour market testing to ensure that we're not removing Australian workers from the equation when we look at jobs that are created by free trade agreements. Secondly, we need to pay particular attention towards skills testing. There are particular areas, for example in the area of construction such as electrical contracting, which require the maintenance of standards at the highest level.

The Australian consumer must expect that, for the people who are performing complex tasks particularly with respect to electrical contracting and similar trades, we are not introducing people to the Australian market who do not have adequate skills. I can say from experience, particularly with respect to the maritime industry, that there are people within the Australian market that have their jobs exported by the importation of unskilled or lowly skilled people to the Australian market. This is something that should be taken into account when we adopt treaties.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to stand and support this motion, which:

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

The TPP-11 agreement includes the nations of Canada, Mexico, Japan, Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei.

What will this agreement achieve for the nation? Just last week the Minerals Council of Australia released modelling conducted for the Australian Information Industry Association that found:

Australian workers, jobs and business will benefit significantly from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP-11) trade agreement, with increased national income, exports, investment and wages …

The modelling was undertaken by the economists from the Brandeis International Business School and the Johns Hopkins University. It reinforces the real benefits of the TPP-11 to Australian businesses and jobs and our economy overall. It shows that Australia is forecast to see $15.6 billion in net annual benefits to national income by 2030, with an increase in exports by close to $30 billion. The analysis also forecasts a significant boost to investment by 2030 with investment into Australia projected to increase by $7.8 billion and additional overseas investment by Australian businesses increasing by $26 billion.

Further modelling was done by the respected Peterson Institute for International Economics. It found that the TPP-11 would boost Australia's national income by 0.5 per cent and boost exports by four per cent. The economic analysis by Grant Thornton concluded Australia's:

Inclusion in the TPP-11 will give Australia a competitive advantage in the Asia Pacific region.

That's what the coalition has done.

Let's contrast this to the opposition's policies involving the TPP-11. When the US decided that they would pull out of the original TPP agreement, the Labor Party said the deal was dead. They gave up on it. They ridiculed the government. The opposition leader said: 'It's dead. It's not going anywhere and everyone knows it, so why is the coalition not getting on with sorting out and protecting Australian jobs?' This is not the first time we've heard this rhetoric from the opposition. We heard it against the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. In fact, it's still up on Labor's website under the heading 'Bill's Opinion Pieces'. It says, 'free trade agreement with China threatens local job opportunities'.

What have we seen in local job opportunities under this coalition? Over one million new jobs have been created since the Abbott government was first elected. I can remember sitting in this chamber and hearing members on the other side when we said that over two terms of government there would be a million new jobs created in this economy. What did they do? They scoffed. They scoffed and they laughed. They said: 'A million new jobs? It's impossible.' But we have actually done that. A million new jobs have been delivered. The reason why those jobs have been delivered is that we on this side of the House understand that it is not government that creates jobs. It is the entrepreneurs in this society that get out there and take risks. That's why these free trade agreements are so important, because they create opportunity. They create market access. They support Australians who create great products and services to take their expertise and skills onto the international playing field and to give them the opportunity to compete.

That's why we have seen that million new jobs. Nothing shows more the great contrast between this side of the House and that side of the House. We believe in opportunities and free trade. The opposition doesn't. We see it in the results, in the employment numbers that come out on a monthly basis—a million new jobs, and there are many more to come.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a bit rich, isn't it, really? You've had the member for Hinkler and the member for Hughes—the leaders of friends of instability—coming into this chamber and lecturing the Labor Party about how great the record of trade and investment is under this government. They are so proud of their record that they can't get people to even speak on their own motion! There are vacancies because no-one wants to get up and defend your record. I can understand it's The Hunger Games out in the corridor today, situation normal for the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison-potential-Dutton government. But honestly, having lectures from those opposite when they can't even get members of their own government to get up and defend their record is appalling.

I want to start by saying that today's motion is just another case of this government grandstanding and boasting about an on-again-off-again trade agreement with, let's face it, a revolving door of trade ministers not to mention a revolving door of prime ministers. When it comes to advancing Australia on the world stage, the first place the government should be looking is in the mirror at themselves, because of the shambles and embarrassment they have put the Australian people through, not only in the past few weeks, but the past five years. The level of hypocrisy that we have just heard from the member for Hughes, coming in here and trumpeting their success, pales by comparison with the muppet show that we've seen in the last few weeks. That's the government's own words—it's not an offensive comment; it's what the Prime Minister actually describes his own government as. We know that if you can't govern yourselves you can't be expected to govern the country, let alone deliver effective and thoughtful trade and investment policies.

But despite their own shortcomings, I want to be clear from the outset, as we have heard from the member for Bass and the member for Fenner in today's debate, that the Labor Party and the Labor movement have a proud record of reform that has boosted trade and investment, created new jobs and increased the incomes of Australians. When we were last in government, as the parliament knows, we signed off on free trade agreements with Chile, ASEAN and New Zealand, giving a significant boost to Australian trade and jobs. We have done this work because, as a trading nation, Australia's future economic success is underpinned by our ability to sell our goods and services overseas. Key to this is making sure we make the most of the rise of Asia. Two in every three dollars that we make from trade comes from Asia, and this is likely to increase in the years ahead.

In particular, Labor looks forward to examining the details of the free trade agreement recently concluded with Indonesia and urges those opposite to conduct independent modelling of the agreement. The previous Labor government launched negotiations with Indonesia in 2012 because we recognised that our trading relationship with Indonesia is massively underdone. Indonesia is the world's fourth-largest country by population and by 2050 it is projected to be the world's fourth-largest economy. Yet it is currently our 13th-largest trading partner. In fact, two-way trade between Indonesia and Australia has gone backwards over the past five years. As a comparison, despite more than 18,000 Australian companies exporting to New Zealand at the moment, only about 2,000 export to Indonesia. If this is a good trade agreement, it could not only increase trade but also potentially bring our two countries closer together.

I am pleased that a future Shorten Labor government will build on this agreement by formalising annual meetings between our treasurers and trade ministers. However, when it comes to the CPTPP that we are debating here today, we know that it is much smaller and many of the contentious sections of the original TPP have been suspended since the US pulled out of negotiations. Labor believes that all trade agreements should be subject to independent economic modelling, as we have heard in today's debate. The coalition has refused to do this. However, the Victorian Labor government has commissioned independent economic modelling of the CPTPP. The independent economic analysis concludes that, while the agreement does not benefit all sectors equally, no sector or business would be worse off as a result. There are potential strategic benefits to this agreement. Simplifying trade rules and building stronger trade ties between the countries in our region will help make us more secure.

As we have heard, the New Zealand government under Prime Minister Ardern has shown this can be done. They have recently negotiated side letters with four countries, removing the application of ISDS clauses in the CPTPP that had been agreed by the previous conservative New Zealand government.

Labor is committed to improving the way that trade agreements are negotiated, by, in addition, conducting independent economic modelling. We are also committed to publically releasing the government's goals at the commencement of negotiations.

Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member of Oxley for his words and also note the enthusiasm with which the Liberal government is speaking today on this private members' motion on trade—as enthusiastic as they are they for free trade, they can't find enough people to fill the list! So we shall do it, and we are more than happy to.

As the elected representative of the people of Rockingham and Kwinana, I am acutely aware of the challenges and benefits of open and free trade. More importantly, I am a Western Australian and, therefore, I am from the No. 1 export state in the country. With our iron ore and grain exports, we see and experience the value of those export and free trade agreements every single day. We also see the failures. Live sheep exports are in chaos as this government ignored warnings from the industry itself to take action. We see the new opportunities in exports: potential exports of lithium and rare metals, shipbuilding technology as well as agricultural products and education. And that is just to name a few.

Today we are discussing the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free trade agreement between Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam. The agreement was signed by the 11 countries on 8 March 2018 in Santiago, Chile. The CPTPP will eliminate more than 98 per cent of tariffs in a trade zone spanning the Indo-Pacific region with a combined GDP worth $13.7 trillion. Australian manufacturers, industry, farmers and service exporters will benefit from the new market access opportunities that will come from 500 million consumers across these countries.

As members know, the Labor Party and the Labor movement have a proud record of reform that has boosted trade and investment, created new jobs and increased the incomes of Australians. This goes back to the days of Whitlam, Hawke and Keating. Labor has done this work because, as a trading nation, Australia's future economic success is underpinned by our ability to sell our goods and services overseas.

Turning to one of our great exports, thanks to science and collaboration, Australia has a tremendously important high-yield and disease resistant grain industry for export. This year, another record wheat crop is predicted in Western Australia, and the lion's share of that grain will be exported to our near neighbours in Asia. These exports begin in Kwinana, in my electorate, where the iconic blue wheat silos of CBH overlook Cockburn Sound. CBH holds the largest grain export facility in the Southern Hemisphere, and is a constant reminder of the importance of agriculture to WA. Just last week CBH was recognised as the fourth largest private company in Australia, employing over 1,000 people with $3.7 billion in revenue—all as a cooperative grain storage and export company.

More than 60 per cent of the world's population live in what is, arguably, the most dynamic region on earth, which is directly to our north. This is where the world's largest economic growth will occur, and Australia is in a great position geographically and economically to take advantage of this.

All South-East Asian nations must work together in policy development so that we together can meet the challenges of the region, such as nutrition, infrastructure, education, security, energy security, pollution, climate change and, of course, trade. Our common concerns and our common goals bring us together. We must ensure that we make the most of the rise of Asia. Two in every three dollars we make from trade come from Asia, and this is likely to increase in the years ahead.

When we were last in government, Labor entered Australia into the negotiations on the original TPP. As we know, the current US President withdrew the United States from that agreement. This agreement—what's known as the TPP-11—is much smaller, and many of the more contentious sections of the original TPP have been suspended.

I'd like to recognise the efforts and leadership of the government of Japan and its trade negotiators, who progressed the CPTPP in the absence of the US. The novel approach of suspending many provisions that had been required by the US has led us to this point. I commend the work of all trade negotiators, and particularly the leadership of Japan, in helping to build an open trade framework, to uphold international rule making and multilateralism and to realise a free and open Indo-Pacific that will lead to greater prosperity for many more people across that region.

Labor believes that all trade agreements should be subject to independent economic modelling. The coalition government refused to do this, but the Victorian Labor government has done so. Independent modelling indicates small benefits in the immediate future, but there will be much larger benefits as the agreement continues to progress through world trade systems.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this motion moved by the member for Forde about trade, and I do so as the third Labor speaker in a row during this debate—unusually, because one would have expected that, when governments move a motion supporting what they say is their own policy, they would actually have some members of the House of Representatives who'd be prepared to defend that policy. But so chaotic and shambolic are the rabble opposite that they can't even provide speakers for motions that they move and they list for debate in this parliament.

Following this debate, there's a motion to be moved by the member for Sydney on the gender pay gap, for which four Labor speakers have been listed, and there is not a single member of the government parties, the Liberal and National parties, who is prepared to engage in a debate about the gender pay gap. Now, given the issues of bullying that occurred in the last fortnight from those opposite, particularly targeting women members of the coalition—as outlined by the member for Chisholm, who said it was so bad that she will withdraw from politics at the next election, backed up by the former Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and foreign minister, by Senator Gichuhi and by the Minister for Women, the member for Higgins—it is extraordinary that those opposite have felt like they should not participate in a debate about the gender pay gap.

Here, if they participated in this debate on trade, they could explain why they believe that free trade agreements should include investor-state dispute settlement provisions, which undermine Australia's national sovereignty and the right of this parliament to determine the way that health policy and other policies operate here in this nation. This is a big distinction between Labor's approach and the approach of those opposite. We understand how important trade has been to global growth and how important trade has been in lifting up the living standards of people in both First World nations, such as Australia, and, importantly, the underdeveloped world, particularly in the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean regions. We understand that trade is a driver of economic growth but we also understand that, without appropriate provisions that ensure that the national interest is served through that global process, we can have outcomes that do undermine Australia's national economic sovereignty to make decisions about issues such as health care and to make decisions about pharmaceuticals, for example. That's why we're quite happy to debate these issues.

We also believe that there should be independent economic modelling of the TPP-11 and of other trade agreements which are proposed, including the Australia-Indonesia free trade agreement which is proposed. What we say is that we are all for free trade, but we are all for it with appropriate provisions to ensure that there's transparency and to ensure that the national sovereignty and the right of this parliament to make determinations in the national interest continues. It's a pity that those opposite are such a shambolic rabble that they are incapable of defending their government's own policy, which is why they should just call an election.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the motion put forward by the member for Forde, and I also wish you a very happy birthday Deputy Speaker Mitchell. As I understand it, it was yesterday. The Labor Party and the Labor movement have a very proud record, as we know, of reform. Much of that reform has boosted trade and investment, created new jobs, and increased the incomes of Australians. When we were last in government, Labor entered Australia in the negotiations for the original Trans-Pacific Partnership—the TPP.

This work of opening up to the world, where Australia engages with its regional partners and globally, is a tradition that Labor hold. Who can forget the efforts of Gough Whitlam, even in opposition—going over to China, starting that relationship and building it from there—and the work of the Hawke and Keating governments. Labor's done this work because, as a trading nation, and we are a trading nation, our current and future economic success is underpinned by a consistent rules based system that actually enhances our ability to trade and our ability to sell our goods and services overseas.

One in five Australian jobs are currently linked to trade. The more we export, the more jobs we create, and they are better paying jobs as well. Furthermore, two in every three dollars we make from trade comes from Asia, and this is likely to increase in the years ahead. One of the keys to the success of Australia's international trade then is to make sure that we make the most of this rise of the Asian century—the rise of the Asian countries in our region, which we are very much a part of. This is the Asian century, and Australia is actually perfectly positioned geographically to take full advantage of it. We are no longer constrained by that dreaded tyranny of distance. However, as we know, President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the TPP, effectively killing the original agreement. This new agreement, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, is much smaller, and many of the more contentious sections of the original TPP have been suspended.

Labor believe, of course, that all trade agreements should be subject to independent economic modelling, as the member for Grayndler has pointed out. That is why we have announced a policy for scrutiny of free trade agreements and will ask the Productivity Commission and government to conduct an independent economic analysis of each new FTA before they're signed and also conduct 10-year reviews post signing. The coalition has refused to do this; however, it's good to see that the Victorian Labor government has commissioned independent economic modelling of the CPTPP.

This independent modelling indicates that the agreement will deliver modest economic benefits in the short-term, and there is the potential for more significant economic gains in the longer term if more countries sign up to the agreement. The independent economic analysis concludes that, while the agreement does not benefit all sectors equally, no sector or business would be worse off as a result. There are also other potential strategic benefits to this agreement. Simplifying trade rules and building stronger trade ties between the countries in our region will help make us more stable, more prosperous and more secure. And it is important in this age where middle powers such as Australia have a greater responsibility in ensuring a rules based order continues so that we can continue to benefit from such a rules based trade order.

There are a number of concerns, however, that Labor has raised with respect to this agreement—in particular, the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement provisions and the waiver of labour market testing for contractual service suppliers. The same clauses have been included in other trade agreements signed by this government. Labor have made it very clear that, if we win the next election, we will not sign trade agreements that include ISDS clauses and we will not waive labour market testing for contractual service suppliers. In addition to that, Labor will remove these provisions from existing trade agreements, including this one, by negotiation. We have seen this happen. The New Zealand Labour government under Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has shown how this can be done. They have recently negotiated side letters or bilateral agreements with four countries, removing the application of ISDS clauses in the CPTPP that had been agreed by the previous conservative New Zealand government. The same approach can be used to reverse the waiver of labour market testing.

We also need to make sure of this because, before a carpenter, electrician or plumber is brought in from overseas, employers should be required to first check and see if an Australian can do the job. In addition, Labor have announced that we will establish an Australian skills authority, an independent labour market testing body to determine genuine skills needs and restrict temporary work visas so that they are only made available when a genuine skills gap cannot be met with local workers. The authority will work in consultation with industry, unions, higher education and the TAFE sectors as well as state and local governments to protect Australia from future skills shortages and train Australian workers for those jobs. This is very important because this is a benefit for Australian workers and for the Australian economy.

Debate adjourned.