Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the TPP report. Unfortunately, this report is groundhog day. Every time we see a trade agreement come through the parliament, we see discussions about economic benefit, we see discussions about ISDS, we see discussions about labour market testing and we see recommendations for change. But nothing seems to change in these agreements. I look at the TPP-12 report and I see that the economic benefit over the period of now to 2030 is something like 0.7 per cent of GDP. Under TPP-11, it's down to 0.5 per cent. We must temper those figures with the knowledge that the Productivity Commission has done analysis and has stated that these modelling results are often overstated. They're often exaggerated, so there is questionable benefit in respect of economic growth as a result of the TPP-11.

One would normally say, 'That's okay, we can still proceed, because we're optimists and we do want to see us trading internationally,' but the problem is the downsides. Senator Gallacher mentioned a number of them. I'll just mention a few. The first is the lack of transparency. Time and time again we see reports come through that talk about the lack of transparency in trade negotiations and recommendations that suggest we need to open that up. Then time and time again we see the bureaucrats just continuing to do what they do. I'll read a statement from a book by Professor Clinton Fernandes which describes these negotiations very aptly and succinctly: 'A small number of DFAT officials and their counterparts overseas, along with a few hundred corporate lawyers and lobbyists, negotiate free trade agreements in secret. Once the insiders have agreed to the terms, they're presented to the parliament in a "take it or leave it" deal. Take it or leave it will remain the strategy of the bureaucracy until such time as this parliament stands up and says no.'

It is the same with ISDS. ISDS is highly problematic in my view for three reasons. ISDS allows corporations to take legal action against the Australian government, seeking compensation, if the Australian government changes its public policy and it affects the business. That's what we saw happen—or it was an attempted—with plain tobacco packaging. Philip Morris took the government to the High Court. The High Court ruled unequivocally that the parliament had got a right—they had made laws that were constitutional—only to find that Philip Morris then invoked ISDS clauses in a Hong Kong agreement so that the matter could then be heard by three lawyers. That is, not seven judicial officers of the greatest judicial minds in this country but three legal officers who could, in fact, have overturned our High Court. It gives away our legal sovereignty.

In actual fact, what we see happening in these provisions is it allows sovereign risk to be transferred from the corporate entity to the taxpayer. By changing our laws of public benefit, the sovereign risk transfers to taxpayer. The second point about ISDS is that the Australian corporations that are operating here in Australia don't get the same opportunity when there is a change of the law. In some sense, it's discriminatory against Australian companies. Of course, the third reason, which I've already touched on, is that it erodes our legal sovereignty.

Another point that Senator Gallacher mentioned was labour market testing. Under this agreement, we've waived labour market testing for contract orders or service suppliers for six signatory countries, which means that workers from Canada, Peru, Brunei, Mexico, Malaysia and Vietnam will be able to fill jobs in Australia without these jobs being offered to Australians first. It means that we might get an electrician who comes in from another country to participate in a program that had no labour market testing. That electrician probably doesn't understand Australian wiring laws, so not only is it unfair to Australian workers but it may actually be dangerous as well.

My difficulty here is that, time and time again, we see these recommendations made; time and time again, they are ignored. We just continue in the same manner that we have always continued. The reality here is that the Australian Greens, Pauline Hanson's One Nation and Centre Alliance have stated publicly that they will vote down the enabling legislation. They will draw a line in the sand. Being very clear to the Labor Party, whose policy platforms reject some of these things we're talking about, like ISDS provisions and the waiving of labour market testing: they can be stopped. All that has to happen is Labor has to stand by the courage of its own convictions and assist us in voting down this legislation. That will send a very, very strong message to the bureaucrats.

I know the Labor Party has said that, when they get to government—and there's a presumption there; you may not get there—they will seek to change the agreements. Firstly, it's disingenuous to allow an agreement to go ahead that you will then seek to overturn in government, but I suspect you won't overturn it in government because there'll be some rhetoric, there'll be some discussions, the bureaucrats will advise accordingly—

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

and, as Senator Hanson-Young is pointing out there, it will actually become a very, very difficult task.

Senator Gallacher interjecting—

You're absolutely correct: you can withdraw. But it's not necessary. You simply don't have to support the enabling legislation, and then the agreement can't come into force. This report covers all the ground very, very thoroughly off the back of TPP-12, off the back of JSCOT, in parallel with JSCOT. The report is quite a good report; it's just that the recommendations are Groundhog Day. They're weak, and the Senate needs to draw a line in the sand.