Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Hansard source

I've been called upon to respond, and I'm only too happy to respond. After all, it is only every second day that the Labor Party gets accused of being made up of liars! And Bill Shorten is accused by the Greens of seeking to mislead the Australian people. Of course, this is the party that has voted with the Liberal Party to undermine the entire environmental structures of this country. We could have had some decent environmental politics in this country; we could have had that—nearly 10 years now—if we had a party here that actually had some real principles and some real understanding of the way power is exercised in this country. But no: we're talking about the Australian Greens. We know just how irresponsible they are when it comes to jobs. We know just how extremely opportunistic they are when it comes to the welfare of the Australian working people, because that's the history of the Australian Greens. As we well know, the Australian Greens are centred on the most wealthy people in this country now. They've got the best social conscience that money can buy. What would you expect from people who live the life? They're only too happy to tell everyone else, with great moral authority, that they know more about how to live the good life than anyone else does.

When it comes to the question of the ISDS provisions, Labor does not support the inclusions. We've made that very clear. We have made it absolutely clear that this government has made a fundamental mistake in including these provisions in this agreement. We've made it very clear that this is a customs bill, that the treaty has been signed. And under the current procedures of this parliament, which we want to change—which we actually want to do something about, by getting a Labor government elected—we want to be able to transform the way in which treaties are undertaken in this country. But we have to acknowledge this fact: that under the current legal framework the treaty has been signed by the government, and what we have before us is a tariff bill that talks about the provisions with which we can change the tariff arrangements themselves.

We've also said that in the future we will prohibit—make legislative changes to stop—the inclusion of ISDS clauses in trade agreements. We will follow the example of the New Zealand Labour government and negotiate side letters to have these clauses removed and reinstate labour market testing should we be fortunate enough to get elected. And we make no assumptions about that. I've heard the Greens talk here as if the election's been already held and already resolved. We don't make any assumptions about those questions. What we do say is that we will be highly competitive at the next election, whenever that is, and we say it should be held very, very soon, because this country simply can't afford to have this government continue in office. But what we will not do is act in an irresponsible manner that is contrary to the national interest.

When the Liberals have made this terrible mistake with regard to this treaty arrangement, our manufacturers, our universities, our winemakers and our farmers shouldn't be made to pay for that mistake. Senator Hanson-Young's proposition would punish them for that mistake if we were to accept these propositions. We have a simple matter here, and I've made this point, but I guess there are some folks for whom you need to repeat things, because it takes a little while for it to sink in. In South Australia there are iron and steel workers at Whyalla who understand the importance of not being undermined by their political representatives. Their position in relation to Canada would be undermined by the proposition that you have put forward. There are, of course, workers in the wool industry. There are meatworkers across South Australia. There are people who work in the pork industry who, of course, would be faced with the advantage that would be given to Mexico under your arrangements, which would give Mexico a 20 per cent advantage in pork. There are people in the cotton industry, not to mention the South Australian wine industry, who would be seriously disadvantaged. I could go on. There's the seafood industry, which is particularly important in South Australia; horticulture; and, of course, cereals and grains. In all of these, advantages would be provided to the Canadians if we were to accept these amendments.