Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I present the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on the proposed comprehensive and progressive agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership together with a Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

As chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, I'd like to speak to the committee's inquiry and firstly put on the record the good work that the very efficient secretariat of the committee has done in compiling and progressing through consideration and presentation of all of the evidence. Over the course of completing this inquiry, we received 63 submissions and held two public hearings, the first in Melbourne on 30 July 2018, the second in Canberra on 20 August 2018. At the hearings, the committee had the opportunity to speak to a number of organisations and took evidence from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

While the committee heard evidence identifying particular benefits of the TPP-11, the inquiry also highlighted a number of areas of concern. Many of these issues were familiar to the committee from previous inquiries. In order to address these concerns, the committee has made a number of recommendations which I intend to briefly refer to—reform to the treaty-making process. Similar to previous inquiries conducted by this committee, evidence to this inquiry highlighted concerns about the treaty-making process, with much of the evidence focused on the need for reform to increase transparency and, in particular, with reference to the consultation process.

Evidence to the committee emphasised that organisations and the general public are seeking more information to be made publicly available during the treaty negotiation process. While recognising the need for confidentiality, the committee recognises the need for information to be made available more regularly and has recommended that the government provide public updates on each round of trade negotiations and release draft text during negotiations where feasible with the appropriate safeguards. The committee also heard that stakeholders are interested in becoming more active participants in the treaty-making process. With this in mind, the committee has recommended the creation by legislation of an accredited trade advisers program where industry, union, civil society would provide real-time feedback on draft trade agreements during negotiations.

The committee also recommended that DFAT review its own consultation mechanisms as well as other models used internationally. The parliamentary scrutiny of treaties undertaken by JSCOT is a crucial part of the treaty-making process and it is important this committee is appropriately briefed. To assist the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in its analysis of treaties, the committee has recommended the Australian government provide the government's statement of objectives for negotiation to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties for consideration and feedback, and to provide the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties with a briefing at the end of each round of negotiations.

Similar to previous inquiries, the committee received evidence expressing concern about the economic modelling undertaken to assess the impact of TPP-11. Several witnesses and submissions questioned the objectivity of the national interest analysis. This committee, as well as the JSCOT, has previously made recommendations that, to increase transparency of the benefits and the costs, there should be independent analysis of free trade agreements before the agreements are signed, to provide an accurate picture on the impact on jobs and the economy. It continues to be the view of the committee that the Productivity Commission is best placed to undertake such an assessment. The committee has also recommended that the Australian government make a reference to the Productivity Commission to conduct a review of Australia's bilateral and regional trade agreements.

On the investor-state dispute settlement, as with the committee's inquiry into the TPP-12, the committee received much evidence expressing concerns about ISDS provisions. Many contributors to the inquiry shared the view that ISDS provisions grant legal rights to global corporations that are unavailable to domestic investors. These provisions may affect the Australian government's ability to legislate in a range of areas, because of the threat of legal action. Evidence from DFAT emphasised the safeguards included in the agreement which seek to protect the Australian government from ISDS cases. However, several witnesses and submissions were not reassured by current safeguards. The committee notes the ongoing concern about ISDS and has recommended that the Australian government remove ISDS provisions from existing free trade agreements and legislate so that a future Australian government cannot sign an agreement with such provisions.

The issue of labour market testing was another area of concern raised with the committee. Under the TPP-11, Australia will extend the commitment to waive labour market testing in the contractual service supplier category to six TPP-11 countries—Brunei, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru and Vietnam. DFAT emphasised that Australia has obtained equivalent reciprocal commitments from each of the six countries and that, although Australia has made commitments to waive labour market testing, there will be sufficient flexibility in the operationalising of this commitment due to the fact that the skilled occupations list administered by the Department of Jobs and Small Business is not bound by the TPP-11.

Despite these reassurances from DFAT, evidence to the inquiry indicated that concerns remain about the negative impact that the commitment to waive labour market testing may have on Australian workers. There is a sense that, under the agreement, Australian workers would be disproportionately affected. Concern was also raised about the high number of professions that could currently be covered by the term 'contractual service provider'. In order to address these concerns, the committee has recommended that the government reinstate labour market testing for contractual service suppliers, where it has been waived, and legislate so that a future government cannot waive labour market testing for contractual service suppliers in new agreements.

As the implementation of the TPP-11 is expected to benefit Australian businesses, it is important that the business community is informed and supported to ensure that it can take advantage of available opportunities. The committee supports the implementation of DFAT's outreach strategy, which includes hosting, alongside Austrade, information sessions throughout Australia. It is the committee's view that these sessions need to be promoted widely, held in a variety of locations and formats, such as webinars, and targeted to a range of affected sectors.

Finally, the committee's inquiry was conducted at the same time as the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' inquiry into TPP-11. Concurrent inquiries were also conducted when the committees inquired into the original Trans-Pacific Partnership. In this context, the committee is concerned that, in conducting this inquiry, it has largely replicated the work of JSCOT, which is established to look into such agreements. Two different committees looking into the same agreement was also confusing for submitters and for witnesses. As this does not appear to be the best use of limited committee resources, the committee has recommended that the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties consider a resolution to enable participating membership for inquiries. I commend the report to the Senate.