Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Human Services (Senator Payne) to a question without notice asked by Senator Whish-Wilson today relating to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.

Senator Payne was right that there is cut and thrust on this issue in the US. There certainly has been now for many months. In fact, this is the single biggest political issue in the US Congress at the moment and has been for the last six weeks at least. My question is: where is the cut and thrust here in Australia? Where is the cut and thrust on this debate? Why is it not in the mainstream media? Why is parliament here in Australia not debating concerns around the lack of democratic input by parliament and the Australian people into these secret partnership agreements? They are not trade agreements. They are called 'partnership agreements' for a reason. And what they do is to attempt to synchronise laws and regulations between countries. For all intents and purposes, they are deregulation agendas.

You would at least expect that matters of significant public interest and negotiations that impact those agreements would be looked at by our parliament. But, as we have mentioned here several times before, this deal will be signed by cabinet, it will be immediately politicised and then it will be put through the JSCOT process, and we will have a month to look at it. But we cannot change it, we can vote for it or against it, and that is only the enabling legislation. We cannot change anything. That is simply unacceptable.

In the US, the debate right now is whether they will give President Obama the right and the power that he needs to fast-track it through the US Congress and sign it without parliamentary scrutiny. But at least they are having that debate. That is democracy at work. It is robust. There is no reason why this government should not comply with the Senate's orders to release the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. Labor support this, the crossbenches support this. One can claim national interest immunity, one can claim that somehow releasing the text of a secret deal that was negotiated behind closed doors with no parliamentary scrutiny and driven by big corporations and foreign governments but that is going to impact on every aspect of Australian life is not in our national interest. But I cannot think of anything right now that affects our national interest more than a deal like the TPP. Every single aspect of our life will be impacted. There are 29 chapters.

Senator Payne, when I was invited by Andrew Robb to view the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, I read that in the paper. No-one invited me to view the text. Suddenly, that I had been shown the text was in national newspapers. I did think about that offer. As I said today, I have got children and I know you should not reward bad behaviour. Why would I cement the secrecy around this deal and be part of that by signing a four-year confidentiality agreement so that I, as a parliamentarian elected by the Australian people, cannot do my job? I would have a look at these secret texts and then I would get gagged. That is not what I signed up for. My call has always consistently been to release the text, and as a compromise, through the order for the production of documents, it is the final draft text that needs to be shown to parliament and the Australian people before it is signed.

Our treaty process is under review, and I really hope that the Defence, Foreign Affairs and Trade Committee will recommend that we need to radically overhaul our treaty process in this country. It has not kept pace with developments in trade deals in the last 30 years. It is over 100 years old. Trade is not what it used to be, if you believe these are trade deals. They are not. They are deregulation agendas, and we are about to enter an even bigger one: the Trade in Services Agreement. As far as these ISDS clauses that give corporations the right to sue us as parliamentarians if we make a law in the public interest and it impacts on their profits, why are we going down this road? It is a shame I could not ask that question to Senator Brandis because the Chief Justice of the High Court, Justice French, said the legal fraternity needs to immediately debate this in this country.

This is not the road we want to go down. They only add risk. They add nothing to investment flows between countries. They are redundant. Thirty years ago, when they were brought in, they had a purpose around misappropriation of assets. They no longer have that purpose. We need to get rid of them. We need to ban them from trade deals. We need to release this text so we can do our job as parliamentarians and act in the public interest, not in the interests of big corporations. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.