Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Investment, Senator Brandis. Yesterday's announced Chinese-Australian deal to have a trade deal did not deliver a final negotiated outcome on lowering Foreign Investment Review Board approval barriers for Chinese state owned enterprises. It has been reported that this is part of a second stage of the trade negotiation process. Why wasn't this potential risk to our national interest resolved; and when will you finally be able to rule out that you will not trade away important existing foreign ownership protections?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whish-Wilson, I am disappointed but I am bound to say I am not surprised that you take such a negative dog-in-the-manger view of what has been almost universally received as one of the great achievements in Australian trade policy: the China-Australia free trade agreement.

I will come directly to your question in a moment, Senator Whish-Wilson but, by way of prologue, might I remind you that, as a result of the free trade agreement with China, more than 85 per cent of Australian goods exported to China will be tariff-free immediately—immediately upon the entry into force of the free trade agreement.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You won't like it.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are right, Senator Ryan: of course the Greens hate the concept of trade, because they hate the concept of commerce and they hate the notion of prosperity. Senator Whish-Wilson, within four years of the agreement coming into force, 93 per cent of Australian goods exported to China will be tariff-free and, ultimately, 95 per cent—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order going to relevance: you did hear me ask a very direct question to Senator Brandis: why weren't the Foreign Investment Review Board barriers that the Chinese have been so sensitive about in these negotiations resolved at this stage of the trade agreement?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson, I noted your questions and I particularly noted the Attorney-General indicated that he would come to the subject matter. I invite the Attorney-General to do so.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me finish that last point: ultimately, 95 per cent of Australian exports to China will be tariff-free. Senator Whish-Wilson, you and your Greens colleagues may not regard that as an achievement but, universally, it has been regarded as an achievement and the praise that has rightly been lavished upon my colleague Andrew Robb in the last 24 hours is richly deserved.

Senator Whish-Wilson, in relation to the particular matter, the FIRB thresholds, you have pointed out that the text of the free trade agreement has not been released. It will be released in due course, and I am not going to comment on what may or may not be in the text of a yet-to-be-released treaty.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer the senator to government statements yesterday. It was all over the front page of national newspapers that the Chinese trade deal will boost exports by $18 billion over the next decade. Why is the government quoting figures from a 10-year-old, 2005, study that included the now-false assumptions that wheat, rice and sugar would be part of the deal? Surely you have done some modelling since 2005 on the potential risks and benefits of this trade deal.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, Senator Whish-Wilson, but you do betray a certain ignorance of the modelling. Might I remind you, in relation to rice, that rice has never been admitted to the Chinese market. There has never been an FTA agreed to by China which has included rice. In relation to sugar, Australia already has very, very good access to the Chinese market for sugar. We export 100,000 tonnes of sugar into the Chinese market already on the most favourable terms that are allowed to any sugar exporter under WTO rules. In relation to wheat, the tariff on Australian wheat going into China is only one per cent. (Time expired)

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I note the Abbott government has also signed on to dangerous and undemocratic ISDS clauses and has therefore given Chinese investors special rights to sue future Australian governments for changes to policy or legislation that impact their interests, such as investments in agricultural enterprises. Can the minister guarantee that the Chinese government will not use its state owned enterprises to sue future Australian governments over decisions made in this very chamber that may impact on their investments and therefore override our national interest? (Time expired)

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whish-Wilson, I should not have to point out to you, but obviously I do, that dispute resolution mechanisms are a commonplace and indeed a necessary element of any trade treaty. As Senator Abetz pointed out in his answer to Senator Wong's question earlier in question time ISDS provisions have been a commonplace feature of Australia's trade agreements—

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whish-Wilson, you have asked your question.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

for some 25 years. The ISDS provisions, which, when the text of the treaty is released, no doubt you will be at liberty to consider, are a commonplace feature of any sound trade agreement and a commonplace feature of all of the trade agreements into which Australia has entered.