Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, entitled Report 196: Regional comprehensive economic partnership agreement.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—Today, in the absence of the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I make a statement on the committee's report 196. This report details the committee's findings on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, the RCEP Agreement. RCEP is a plurilateral trade agreement between Australia and China, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea and the 10 members of ASEAN: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. It is ASEAN-led and reflects the interests and position of ASEAN. Although RCEP does not deliver much in the way of additional market access, it's significance lies in the broad composition of its membership, which accounts for almost one-third of the world's population and GDP.

RCEP reinforces ASEAN's regional leadership role and simplifies and harmonises rules of origin and other trading standards, which should facilitate growing supply chain integration. In particular, RCEP contains a single set of rules and procedures for Australian goods exporters to utilise RCEP's preferential tariff outcomes across the region and increases opportunities for Australian businesses to access regional value chains. Similar benefits apply to trade and services, investment, intellectual property and electronic commerce.

A number of issues were raised during the inquiry and are dealt with in this report. I will talk to two of these issues. Some inquiry participants were concerned that RCEP may impact the government's ability to implement recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. These, of course, are the chair's notes, as I am doing this on his behalf. I am going to be less polite than he is. They were fanciful allegations, trying to come up with a concocted argument to justify opposition and simply expose the people who made the arguments to absurdity. But, in returning to the chair's remarks: after reviewing the evidence, the committee reached the viewed that RCEP preserves Australia's right to regulate the supply of services in order to meet policy objectives, including in aged care.

Some inquiry participants also raised the recent coup and subsequent repression in Myanmar as a potential reason to delay ratification of RCEP. The evidence heard, though, suggested that no other country would be likely to follow Australia's lead in this regard and it was unlikely to have any significant impact on the behaviour of Myanmar's military rulers. Again, departing from the chair's remarks and inserting my own: it was largely about signalling by members of the opposition on this issue. No-one disputes the human rights abuses related to the military junta and the very serious concerns that arise out of Myanmar, but the suggestion they were somehow going to bow because of a report of a committee is, frankly, again, fanciful.

Returning to the chair's remarks: the committee notes the recent report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade into Australia's response to the Myanmar coup, which recommended the government further consider imposing targeted sanctions upon those responsible for the coup and subsequent repression in Myanmar. The committee supports this recommendation and recommends the government continue to pursue the restoration of civilian democratic rule in Myanmar as a foreign policy priority—and I agree—and consider making a declaration to this effect at the appropriate time of ratification. The committee is of the view that, on balance, it would be in Australia's interests to ratify RCEP and recommends accordingly. On behalf of the committee, I recommend the report to the House.

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

[by video link] by leave—I make this statement regarding the JSCOT report into the Regional Comprehensive Partnership Agreement—RCEP for short—as deputy chair of JSCOT. As has been noted by the previous speaker, it's an agreement between Australia, China, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea and the 10 members of the Association of South-East Asian Nations—ASEAN members.

We in Labor support trade policies consistent with Australian values of justice and equality, community views, workers rights and the interests of developing countries. We support trade policies that are consistent with Australia's social and economic values, that are based on widespread consultation, that provide for appropriate minimum and enforceable labour and environmental standards, that take account of social and economic impacts, and that allow sovereign governments to make decisions and to implement policies in the interests of their citizens.

During the public hearings for this inquiry there were many concerns raised with respect to human rights, labour rights and environmental protection standards. We also heard particularly about the deteriorating human rights situation in Myanmar, one of the parties to the RCEP. There were also concerns about the impact of the RCEP on the ability of the Commonwealth to regulate our aged-care system in line with the recommendations of the royal commission.

In each instance, Labor members of the committee worked as best we could to strengthen the report before the parliament and the recommendations in that report to the government, all on those areas of concern. On labour, human rights and environmental standards: we noted in the report's additional comments that Labor members of the committee sought a new recommendation that would recommend the government continues to pursue the inclusion of labour and human rights, and environmental protection standards and provisions within the RCEP at the time of its first review. It's noteworthy that this particular trade agreement has an absence of those types of provisions, somewhat dissimilar to previous trade agreements. It's important that the government continues to pursue those particular protections at the time of the first review of the agreement.

I note that the previous member, the member for Goldstein, had one job: to faithfully deliver the statement by the chair of JSCOT, the member for Wentworth. He was unable to resist the temptation to be somewhat bullish and litigious in his comments. Frankly, I have to say that those belie the collegiate and coordinated effort that was made by all members, regardless of where we sat politically, to come up with the best possible report. In fact, many of the hearings, and also the work done between the chair and me, were coloured more by cooperation and coordination, and a very respectful and civil attitude—somewhat belied by the member for Goldstein's additions to the statement by the member for Wentworth.

On Myanmar: it's a very serious and significant human rights catastrophe that we're witnessing—a military junta and a coup d'etat that occurred after the signing of the treaty by Myanmar. As such, Labor members were very keen to seek an amendment to the recommendations that were in the report, to reflect the fact that the government should continue to pursue in all possible ways every effort to restore civilian democratic rule in Myanmar as a foreign policy priority, and also to include a declaration to be given at the time of ratification to that effect. That's an amendment that we sought to push, for the reasons that I've outlined—the importance of which I hope we all adhere to, even, I'm sure, the member for Goldstein—the importance of actually restoring democracy in Myanmar.

Members of the committee also worked through a number of concerns raised during the evidence with respect to the aged-care sector. What we sought to do, again, in a cooperative fashion, was to seek clarification that nothing in the RCEP would prevent the federal government from regulating the aged-care sector, or from implementing recommendations of the royal commission into aged care or from regulating staffing ratios in the sector. I think that's an entirely reasonable effort on the part of opposition members in their work on the committee—to ensure that's the case. This is an important principle, and we have been calling on the government to confirm this in writing in our additional comments to the JSCOT because of the concerns raised and to ensure the public confidence in the system. Again, I think that was an entirely reasonable effort on the part of members of the committee.

Other issues that the Labor members raised included: recognition of qualifications; concerns about the potential for an ISD mechanism to be introduced into the RCEP in the two-year review phase, although there is no mechanism currently in place; and the importance of independent economic modelling in trade agreements, which has been in the evidence given to multiple inquiries that we have heard at the JSCOT about the importance of independent economic assessments of trade agreements to look at the benefits to Australia and Australians. These are further detailed in the report.

I wish, in conclusion, to once again thank all of the members of the JSCOT for their tireless work on this very important report. I particularly thank the chair, the member for Wentworth, Dave Sharma, and the JSCOT secretariat who also worked under some very tight deadlines and time lines to produce excellent work. We thank them for their work and their assistance.