Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

Of course we have a good relationship with workers around the world, Senator Macdonald—that is a good thing. Some of their experts had a look at the NAFTA agreement in the US. Their economists had analysed all the arguments that had been put forward for NAFTA to see the benefits that would apply in Canada. They concluded that it was just a con job; it was not going to happen. They told us that the Canadian manufacturing industry—which was on the doorstep of the United States—could not access the US procurement program. At the national secretary of the union, when I raised this with departmental officers in Australia and with the minister, I was told: 'You're wrong. It's all going to happen. It's going to be so good. It's going to be great agreement. It's going to lift everything in terms of economic activity in Australia.' Nine years down the track, we know that that is a crock. We know it has never ever happened.

The CIE analysis went on to say that there would be large gains in New South Wales and Victoria. The report stated:

The only significant limitation on the benefits of the Agreement flowing from the rules of origin—

I will not go into rules of origin here, because it is so complex that you would need 20 minutes to even touch the base—

is that it may preclude over 90 per cent of textile and wearing apparel products from Australia receiving preferential tariff treatment on entry into the US.

What we are trying to protect now is the textile and clothing industry. Back at the time of this 2004 agreement, even the government's analysis said that the textile and clothing area would not get any preferential treatment through this agreement with the US.

The CIE also went on to talk about the dollar and what the dollar would do. They were arguing that there would be benefits for Australia because of our relative lack of strength against the US dollar. It would help us export. But what happened in reality? Our dollar went through the roof. Every analysis that was made by CIE has been clearly proved to be wrong. It is not only me and other people saying that. Back in 2004, the New York Timesstated:

The deal with Australia is a huge setback in the process of liberalising global agricultural trade. …

The agreement since a chilling message to the rest of the world.

Even then New York Times thought it was a crock at the time.

A study undertaken by the IMF:

… found that a free-trade agreement with the United States would shrink the Australian economy by 0.03 per cent per year and increase the bilateral trade deficit.

So when I hear people like Senator Ruston come in here with all her good intent, it is quite clear that the arguments that are being put up a false; the arguments are wrong. I have argued this for many years. We have got a very comprehensive trade policy in the Labor Party. We take the view that there should be checks and balances, that you should not simply run in and do these deals that do not deliver for the Australian public, that do not deliver for agriculture, that do not deliver for manufacturing and that cost jobs. That is ideology, not the reality.