Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

Former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull called the half a million Australians who voted for One Nation in the last federal election 'dumb'. This assessment of voters is one of the reasons the government ignored the requirement to consult with the Senate in advance of signing the comprehensive and progressive agreement for the Trans Pacific Partnership or TPP-11 on 8 March 2018. The facts are not in dispute. The government did not table the TPP-11 in advance of signing it. The government holds the Senate in contempt by not complying with Senate rules, which require these types of documents to be tabled at least 14 days before signing.

The failure by the Attorney-General to release the full legal advice on Brexit triggered a vote in the British parliament yesterday which found ministers in contempt of the parliament and ordered the immediate publication of the advice. The British government, after the vote, said they would publish the advice. The parallels between the failure of this government to table the TPP-11 and the failure of the British government to table the Brexit advice are obvious. The difference between the two governments is that our government think contempt is a badge of honour while the British government think it's a badge of shame.

The government have told us they will not bend to the will of the Senate and table free trade agreements in advance of signing them. They say they will continue to ignore the will of the Senate and the people of Australia and make the agreements public after they have been signed, leaving no option for those affected but to accept it. Deals done in secret always raise concerns about corruption. Instead of persuading the Senate to change the procedural order of continuing effect 20, the government prefer to treat the Senate as a rubber stamp. Although the government signed up to the TPP-11 in March, it took until October for the government to present the enabling legislation to the Senate. I did not support the TPP-11 enabling legislation in the hope that the government would be unable to complete all the applicable legal procedures necessary for entry into force of the agreement.

I am worried about the TPP-11 free trade agreement because jobs will go overseas and because landmine provisions known as investor-state dispute settlement provisions, or ISDS provisions, remain. The damage these ISDS provisions have on us is illustrated by the Philip Morris case. Philip Morris decided to sue the Australian government after the passage of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act in 2011. The company could have sued the Australian government in an Australian court, but they thought their chances were better in an international tribunal using international law. Philip Morris looked for a suitable free trade agreement with Australia and then restructured their business to create an overseas parent company in Hong Kong. The government says it won the Philip Morris case, but in fact the case was not heard because the tribunal decided it was an abuse for them to restructure just to sue the Australian government. Challenges to Australia's tobacco packaging policy continue within the World Trade Organization. We should never have allowed the decision of a three-person tribunal operating under international laws to override the High Court of Australia.

One Nation rejects the view of globalists like Malcolm Turnbull who want us to surrender our hard-won freedom to make laws that apply to Australians and those who trade with us. The decision to sign the TPP-11 agreement without complying with Senate order of continuing effect 20 is, in my view, a serious matter. My fellow senators agree with me, because notice of motion 1295, standing in my name, was supported by the Senate yesterday. That motion brought Minister Birmingham here today to explain the government's position. I call on the government to test its public interest immunity argument, and its failure to comply with Senate procedure, before the High Court. It is just wrong that these free trade agreements are not reviewed in the Senate. Some might say it is a waste of money to go to the High Court, but we reportedly spent $50 million on the Philip Morris case, so, frankly, a few thousand dollars is money well spent if we can rid ourselves of the ISDS provisions.

The government has told the Senate the ISDS provisions represent a theoretical risk, but I know of two cases that have been brought against Australia in recent years, including the most recent case involving APR Energy. In 2016, APR Energy advised the government of a dispute under the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement. The company is suing the Australian government because the assets it leased to an Australian company were repossessed by the ANZ Bank. An international tribunal will be asked to decide if the Australian government is liable for the company's losses pursuant to the provisions of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009. Does this mean that every overseas company that loses money can be compensated by the Australian taxpayer? I warned the parliament in 1998 about multilateral agreements on investment provisions which included the right to sue governments if legislation threatened their interest. No-one took any notice of me, and here we are with ISDS provisions in most free trade agreements acting like landmines just waiting to blow up.

These ISDS provisions expose taxpayers to staggering losses incurred by non-resident foreign-owned companies. Australia is particularly exposed to ISDS losses because of the number of multinational companies operating here. These multinationals can pick and choose from an array of free trade agreements when they want to sue the Australian government. These companies have revenues greater than most countries in the world and deep pockets to fund actions against governments. The provisions that allow foreign-owned multinational companies to sue the Australian government are not in the national interest. Their existence in many agreements, including the TPP-11, may be a factor in the government's unwillingness to reform weak laws that give us payment for our vast reserves of gas in Commonwealth waters. Are the benefits of free-trade agreements which include investor-state dispute settlement provisions worth the risk of being sued in an international tribunal? The answer to that question depends on whether you are a winner or a loser in TPP-11. In my view, the risks in the TPP-11 outweigh the benefits.

New Zealand has side letters voiding the ISDS provisions. So why don't we have the same?

The government has oversold the benefits of the TPP-11. Take for example the claim that our dairy industry will benefit by being given access to the Canadian dairy market. The claim sounds good—until you find out that the 11 Pacific rim countries will collectively be given access to just 3.5 per cent of the Canadian dairy market and that New Zealand, a lower-cost dairy country, is making heavy inroads into the Australian market.

If the government had its way, it would continue to sign free trade agreements without ever consulting the Senate. The opposition voted with the government to pass the enabling TPP-11 legislation, but now, after the horse has bolted, say they will negotiate changes when they form government next year. Labor cannot get the TPP-11 changed. It's pie-in-the-sky fantasy. The ISDS provisions will remain. Jobs will go overseas, and 5,000-plus jobs in Australia will be taken by foreign workers. Their comments are to appease the unions.

The kind of accountability small parties bring to government is a thorn in the side of the two major parties. Increasingly, Australians are voting for small parties in the Senate. This is evidenced by the fact that nearly one in four primary votes were cast for a small party in the 2016 federal election. In my view, the two-party system, where government is formed by one of the two major parties, no longer serves the national interest.

I can assure the people of Australia: I'm here because of no fear or favour. I'm here to work for the Australian people and to call for accountability from this government and from anyone who is in government.

I can see a time when government is formed by a coalition of smaller parties. It works well in Germany, where it has provided stability and prosperity for the largest economy in Europe.

I must go to some of the minister's comments. He said that unemployment is down, and he said this has happened since the 1980s. Well, I would like to refer the minister to the fact that unemployment in the 1960s was 2.6 per cent. He said that people are out there with more jobs in Australia. But more people are working because, in families, both the husband and the wife have to work to pay for the ever-increasing cost of living in this country. At one time, women were able to stay home and raise their children; now they can't have that option because they must pay the bills. So it's all pie in the sky. He's talking through his hat as far as I'm concerned.

Talking about free trade agreements, from the day that they signed the free trade agreement with America, from day one, we got rid of all of our tariffs, and America kept their tariffs on, from 11 to 18 years, on wool, wine, horticultural products, cotton and beef. So it has not been in the best interests of Australia.

I am not opposed to free trade agreements. But make sure they are in the best interests of our country. Don't hold the Senate in contempt—which you have done. Abide by the rule of order 20: lay the documents on the table 14 days beforehand.