Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Trade (Australian Standards) Bill 2013. What struck my interest with this was to go back and look at where this journey on trade started for me. It started some years ago now, though sometimes it feels like yesterday, with the work of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, where significant debates occurred about free trade agreements and trade liberalisation, and there was a particular focus on the World Trade Organization. Not everyone will recall this but there were significant debates then about trade, culminating in a range of protests and the like that centred around 2001. I do not want to go to that specifically; I want to take the Senate to the Treaties Committee report entitled Who's afraid of the WTO? In essence, it set out the framework that we have continued on with. Looking across the table, I recognise some senators who may have been in that committee at that time.

That reports says that Australia is a medium-sized economy and our dependence on exports has meant that successive Australian governments have embraced trade liberalisation as a means of securing export trade. In the inquiry, the committee considered how effectively Australia is using the multilateral trading system and asked if we could do better. The report examined the multilateral trading system managed by the WTO and brought out some differing views—differing views on the impact of globalisation and the benefits and costs of trade reform. An understanding of these issues is vital to encouraging and informing debate amongst all Australians about trade policy. The report also examined specific issues, including Australia's interaction with the WTO, challenges for the future operation of the WTO and a range of other matters.

It is not my intention to restate that report, but it does highlight that over that whole period from 2001 we have continued to have a focus on why we trade, why we progress multilateral trade and why we advocate Australia as an open market economy. I went on to look for more committee reports in this area to see how we are progressing as parliamentarians in making that case. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of committee reports in this area. I think it is an area where the Treaties Committee or another committee—and far be it for me to suggest more work—could examine some of these issues. Senator Madigan has referred his bill to a committee, but the broader aspects of why we continue to have an open-market economy, why we continue to progress global trade and why we continue to press for particular areas could be referred.

The most recent work is in two parts. The first part culminated in then Minister Emerson presenting the government's trade policy statement. That statement, in shorthand, ultimately came in part from the Productivity Commission's report on bilateral and regional trade agreements in November 2010. I encourage those with an interest to go back to that Productivity Commission report and the Labor government's trade policy statement for the basis of where trade policy stands. It was and continues to be a defining moment in how to advocate in this area.

The new trade strategy progressed by then Minister Emerson embraced five principles. First, ongoing trade related economic reform should be pursued without waiting for other countries to reform their trade policies. Second, there should be no discrimination in trade negotiations. Third, foreign policy considerations should not override trade policy. Fourth, there should be transparency in free trade negotiations. Fifth, trade policy and wider economic reform should be seamlessly executed. Countries applying these principles champion ongoing multilateral trade liberalisation as a preferred vehicle for non-discriminatory trade between nations.

If we fast-forward a fraction to look at Senator Madigan's Fair Trade (Australian Standards) Bill 2013, it has the essence of many issues we have grappled with since 2001. It does not encompass all of them, but in his opening remarks Senator Madigan mentioned four types of fair trade bills he was progressing to deal with Australian standards, workers' rights and the International Labour Organization conventions on employment. They all touch on multilateral trade and trade liberalisation in an global economy. The bill's key objective, as outlined in the explanatory memorandum, is higher standards for imported goods by restricting the terms under which the Commonwealth can enter into trade agreements relating to compliance with domestic and foreign product standards. The bill seeks ultimately to impose certain obligations on foreign corporations with respect to the importation of goods. It also seeks to impose certain obligations on domestic corporations with respect to the export of goods.

Senator Madigan, in my view—and I do not seek to put words in Senator Madigan's mouth—seems to be seeking to address concerns about the quality of imported goods that have been introduced into the Australian market. While I share Senator Madigan's concerns about the reliability and safety of goods, I am not convinced that trade policy is the mechanism to enforce appropriate standards. That is why I took some time to go back to some fundamental documents that have progressed and continue to underpin trade from parliament's perspective: the Productivity Commission's report, the World Trade Organization, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, all of which have spoken about trade.

Debate on the bill presents a timely opportunity to outline Labor's approach to trade, including with respect to upcoming trade negotiations. Labor recognises that reducing barriers to trade can boost our economic growth, create more competitive industries and give consumers access to a wider range of goods and services at lower prices. The pursuit of these objectives drives Labor's support for a more open global trading system. Labor's achievements in office included the establishment of the Cairns Group, as a vehicle to promote our interests in multilateral trade negotiations, and the Asia-Pacific cooperation forum, to strengthen our economic and political ties within the region. The former Labor government placed the Asian century at the centre of the national debate. We included the national food plan, which focussed on our immediate neighbours. We opposed protectionist responses to the global financial crisis, both at home and abroad. Labor had an ambitious agenda for trade and will maintain this position in opposition.

Our assessment of the government's trade performance will be informed by clear-sighted assessment of our national interest. As I understand, next week trade ministers will meet in Singapore to continue negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, the TPP. Twelve countries accounting for 40 per cent of the global GDP are party to the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks. Potential benefits for Australia include market access for our goods and services to countries with which we do not have an existing free trade agreement. Real regulatory reform and lower behind border trade barriers will be key issues. The TPP could also be an important stepping stone to closer economic engagement across the Asia-Pacific region.

The test for the government in the TPP, and in all other trade negotiations, is in ensuring Australia's national interest is not traded away. It would not be in the national interest for Australia to sign up to the TPP if it undermined the integrity of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme or affected the ability of Australians to access affordable medicine, nor would it be the national interest for the government to sign up to the TPP if it mandated a radical shift in the legal balance between creators and users of protected works. Because the outcomes of trade negotiations can have both far-reaching and long-lasting consequences, the government should not readily sign up to a TPP deal that constrains the ability of future governments to make laws on social, environmental and economic matters where those laws treat domestic and foreign businesses equally. The risk that the Productivity Commission, as I mentioned earlier, identified previously in 2010 from investor-state dispute settlement clauses cannot be ignored either in the pursuit of an announcable from next week's ministerial meeting.

There is a national interest in the government providing the transparency that enables Australia to understand what trade agreements mean, what benefits they bring and what compromises we are being asked to make, and the TPP is no exception. Labor believes the full text of any TPP should be released well before it is signed. This is the commitment that the United States trade representatives have given to Congress, and the Australian parliament and people are entitled to no less. That is what the Senate demanded earlier this week when it ordered the production of the final text well before signing.

The outcome of the TPP talks will be an early demonstration of whether the government can achieve trade reform without trading off our national interest. With the approaching self-imposed deadline for concluding FTA negotiations with China, it will not be the only test in this government's first year in office. It is worth looking again at the issues that have been difficult to include in bilateral trade agreements such as some of the issues that Senator Madigan touches upon.

We do have a strong desire to progress agricultural trade. If you look around the Asia-Pacific region and the world, the ability of our agricultural products to meet markets is being constrained by high tariff barriers in other countries. We have one of the best agricultural products. It is both clean and green, is of exceptional quality and would meet all of Senator Madigan's criteria. What we have not been able to do from the overseas perspective is to get them to include those products in their negotiations on bilateral free trade agreements, more specifically FTAs, and progress them to the benefit of our agricultural sector. It is a task that this new government, I suspect, will have to take up the challenge to try to achieve. All of that will not be easy given the many disparate economies not only in our close region but further too.

If you look at what we have done, Australian governments have entered into a range of bilateral and regional agreements and have done that typically seeking to reduce trade barriers. Of course, trying to include the broad issues that Senator Madigan raises is no mean feat in those negotiations. I do understand that we do have within the Department of Agriculture a strong biosecurity focus. It is one area where many hours are spent ensuring that our borders are secure from foreign incursions of disease, pests and weeds. To date, from recollection, its record has been exemplary. In trying to achieve outcomes across industry as well, we do have domestic standards that we require and we do have strong compliance frameworks in place in our regulatory framework. All of that is, in my mind, where the focus should be.

If we want to talk about how we progress trade agreements, I think there is ultimately great opportunity for this parliament to revisit how we can continue to have outcomes. I note that in July 2011 there was an inquiry into Australia's trade and investment relations with Asia, the Pacific and Latin America. Again, it did not focus on the issues more specifically that Senator Madigan raised but it did—as you see if you have an opportunity of going to that specific document—outline quite easily not only some of the challenges that are before us but ultimately the benefits. It is about where Australia is keen for APEC to intensify work on regulatory form, competition policy and regional economic integration through structural reforms at the border—for example, in Customs, procedures, standards, conformance and business mobility across the border by improving supply chain connectivity; and behind the border by reducing regulatory burden and squeezing the transaction costs. These are the rub areas where more work needs to be done to ensure that the outcomes that Senator Madigan seeks are achieved rather than perhaps the way you are seeking to achieve it.

As the report says, Australia is working with Singapore, Hong Kong, China and other APEC members on a framework on supply chain connectivity to identify choke points that impede trade logistics in the Asia-Pacific region and to assess measures currently in place to ameliorate some of those issues. (Time expired)