Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you. I might just move on to the broader question of ISDSs and the concern around them, as has been outlined in a number of the submissions to the relevant inquiries into these legislative pieces. I'll read briefly from the submission made by AFTINET to the JSCOT inquiry:

ISDS has no independent judiciary. Tribunals are organised by one of two institutions, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and the World Bank International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Tribunals for each case are chosen by investors and governments from a pool of investment lawyers who can continue to practice as advocates, sitting on a tribunal one month and practising as an advocate the next. In Australia, and most national legal systems, judges cannot continue to be practising lawyers because of obvious conflicts of interest. ISDS has no system of precedents or appeals, so the decisions of arbitrators are final and can be inconsistent. In Australia, and most national legal systems, there is a system of precedents which judges must consider, and appeal mechanisms to ensure consistency of decisions.

This gives you a broader picture of the profound departure that ISDS represents from anything consistent with the Australian judicial norm. Given that the system of appointing arbitrators provides no additional protection and demonstrates a substantial conflict of interest, why is it that the government has decided ultimately to include these clauses within the relevant trade deals?