Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

that Australian producers have to the international market. I cannot say strongly enough that our export markets are so important that if we do not protect Australian investors and make sure we have those provisions in place—

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

we are way more exposed than other countries that are not so reliant on the export market. I think we need to look at the bigger picture and be absolutely and totally focused on what is in Australia's national interest, not in the interest of scaremongering and carrying on.

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

I would like the senator opposite who continues to interject to stand up and tell me about the myriad cases that have been brought against Australia in the last 25 years. As I mentioned a minute ago, there is but one, and as yet it has not been found against Australia. Really, to be carrying on like this, scaremongering and putting at risk through this legislation all of Australia's really important exporters is, I think, not just frivolous but extremely dangerous. The Greens should be asked to account for this.

The most important thing is to make sure that we protect Australia. Looking at the myriad free trade agreements currently being negotiated, particularly the two that have been brought to conclusion in the last few months—thanks to the extraordinary work of Minister Robb and his counterparts—and the benefit that those arrangements will bring to Australian producers, whilst you can measure it simply in terms of the reduction of the tariffs and trade barriers that Australian exporters now receive, you can also see that the opportunity for Australia is absolutely huge.

Just look at the KAFTA, the free trade agreement with Korea. In the area of beef, that will eliminate the 40 per cent tariff on beef and the 18 per cent tariff on by-products over the next 15 years. There is the abolition of the three per cent tariff on raw sugar. In the case of wheat, the 1.8 per cent tariff on wheat and the eight per cent tariff on wheat gluten will be eliminated. That may not seem a lot but, when you consider the volatility of the world wheat market and the massive impact that minor fluctuations in price can have on the world wheat market, it is really important that Australian farmers particularly get the opportunity to operate on a level playing field.

The dairy industry has historically faced very high tariffs, particularly on things like cheese and butter. They will be eliminated. Then there is wine. I come from a wine area in South Australia and I am sure my South Australian colleagues will have to concede that it is just so important with the current situation in the Australian wine industry that we create new export markets for our wine to put the Australian wine industry back where it used to be, at the forefront of international wine sales. At the moment, the industry is having a pretty tough time. Our grape growers and our winemakers are suffering from notoriously low prices, notwithstanding the fact that the Australian dollar has not helped them terribly much. We must give any little extra incentive possible to our wine exporters so that they can enter markets competitively, against some pretty stiff competition from countries like Chile. Chile has already been granted a tariff-free status that Australia has not been able to negotiate, so it is extraordinarily important that, in all of these agreements we are putting in place, we do the absolute very best that we can for our Australian farmers so that they are able to continue to grow their industry. The nature of the Australian economy means that we will never, ever be able to survive just by selling to ourselves. We must export, so these agreements are tremendously important.

The Japanese free trade agreement is equally important to Australian businesses, particularly Australian producers. We hear a lot about Australia having the opportunity to be the food bowl of Asia and the aspirations of many of our near neighbours to consume Australian produce, but, at the end of the day, there will always be a point at which the price has a bearing. Our ability to take advantage of the opportunities that are offered to Australia to become a significant supplier of food to our Asian neighbours comes about through our ability to negotiate agreements with these countries so that Australian exporters are in a position to export. Equally, Australian investors need to have the opportunity for protection when they are investing in operations overseas.

I look at this bill and think that we really need to be very, very clear as to what the net outcome is. The Greens have stood in here today and made an argument for some of the potential downsides of ISDS. I do not think anybody would disagree that a mechanism by which somebody can instigate action against another country is not necessarily favourable. However, what about companies in Australia who seek to invest overseas, particularly in countries whose legal regimes and legislative environments are not as robust as ours in Australia? What about them? Weigh up the risk borne by Australia against the risk that is borne by our investors who seek to go overseas and balance them out.

There is no possibility whatsoever for claims to be frivolous—and I think that is the bottom line. You cannot make a frivolous claim against another country under these provisions. If you cannot take frivolous claims and Australia has a very strong legislative and regulatory environment, the risk to Australia is so small compared to the massive risk that our investors would otherwise face in some of the markets they may seek to invest in. You balance it out and you end up with a net situation where Australia is by far the greater beneficiary of these provisions. I think that is where you need to start.

We cannot take all risk out of everything. In my opinion, we have gone too far in this country in trying to mitigate all risk. The problem with mitigating all risk is the fact that it costs a lot of money. This is not only in relation to ISDS arrangements; across the board, the fact that we have attempted to take all risk out of everything that we do is burdening this country with an unnecessary regulatory burden and bill. Half the reason that we are standing here with this budget crisis that we have at the moment is that the previous government legislated a whole heap of regulations to try and protect people from themselves. The cold hard facts of the matter are that as long as you continue to put more and more regulatory burden into the marketplace the more it is going to cost, and our businesses in Australia have to bear that burden.

To be sitting here today and suggesting that we are going to be able to take all risk out of the marketplace, for Australian sovereignty, is terribly short-sighted in the sense that we are trying to protect our Australian businesses largely from activities that could occur in foreign jurisdictions. There is very little risk here of foreign jurisdictions having any capacity to cause too much grief in Australia. I suggest that the piece of legislation that we have before us, whilst it may well have the best of intentions, is extraordinarily misguided.