Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Hansard source

At this point I re-emphasise—and it's a point Senator Reynolds has made and it was a point made in the debate yesterday—that the purpose of ISDS provisions is to provide certainty for investors. Those are provisions that, yes, do flow in both directions. However, when the Philip Morris case is raised it should always be made clear that ultimately that case was not successful, that case did not proceed and that Australia's arguments for ensuring that case did not proceed were successful. However, these provisions provide protections for Australian entities and investors operating in other overseas jurisdictions in countries that sometimes have less well established judicial and legal frameworks, less predictable policy settings and possibly less regard for retrospective legislation or actions not being pursued than Australia has.

Senator Patrick asks about another matter. In relation to that other matter I'm happy to talk in a less public forum with Senator Patrick about some of the arguments that Australia may make in that regard. We continue to believe that on balance—and these matters are always a matter of balance—the benefits to Australians operating in other markets far outweigh the risks to Australia in the maintenance of these provisions, particularly when you then consider the carve-outs and exclusions    that are clearly made in them that enable the Australian government to continue to make policies in relation to health care, the environment, education standards or the like, which are clearly within the Australian national interest.