Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement to the Senate.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is leave granted?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I just want to clarify with you whether, if I grant leave, I will have the capacity without seeking leave pursuant to the order to—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that, even though she has not yet told me in detail, Senator Payne is going to make a statement to the Senate. You will be able to take note of that statement without leave. Senator Payne, you do not need leave.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a short statement in relation to the order of the Senate concerning the status of negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.

Concluding an ambitious Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is one of the Australian government's top trade priorities. As a region-wide free trade agreement, the TPP is an opportunity to achieve new, commercially-meaningful market access for Australian goods and services exports, to strengthen investment and to further integrate the Australian economy into the fast-growing Asia-Pacific region.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement will be unprecedented in its scale and level of ambition. There are 12 countries that are negotiating the TPP: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam. They represent almost 40 per cent of the global economy, or around US$28 trillion. The TPP countries accounted for a third of Australia's total trade in 2012-13.

The negotiations on the TPP are now at an advanced stage. TPP leaders met on 10 November 2014 on the margins of APEC. They welcomed the significant progress made in recent months and instructed ministers and negotiators to make concluding the TPP a top priority. TPP negotiators again met in New York from 25 January to 1 February 2015 and made important progress on a range of issues, including the rules on trade in goods, intellectual property and state-owned enterprises. The TPP parties are working towards the goal of finalising the negotiations in the first quarter of 2015. This is an achievable goal if the parties can finalise market access negotiations and make the necessary decisions to resolve difficult outstanding issues on the trade rules. The next meeting of ministers and officials from TPP countries is scheduled to take place in mid-March 2015.

Australia is working hard to conclude negotiations, but will not sacrifice a comprehensive, ambitious TPP outcome in order just to obtain a quick deal. Australia's negotiating positions in the TPP have been, and continue to be, guided by consultations with stakeholders, including peak bodies, businesses and interested individuals. The Australian government commenced public domestic consultations in late 2008 and will continue to take every available opportunity to consult with stakeholders.

In accordance with the government's treaty-making process, once the TPP text is agreed by the negotiating parties it will be tabled in parliament for 20 joint sitting days to facilitate public consultations and scrutiny by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. This will be an opportunity for public and parliamentary discussion of the TPP agreement prior to binding treaty action being taken.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the minister's statement.

The first point I would make is that this minister and this government have only come in here to make what was, frankly, an extremely short and extremely uninformative statement to this chamber because they were ordered to do so by the Senate chamber. It reminds us yet again how this government simply refuses to bring the parliament into its confidence when it comes to the priorities it has for the TPP and the conduct of those negotiations, but also, most importantly, of the government's position on key issues which will affect and which could affect Australia for better—or not.

I do welcome the statement from the minister. What I would say, again, is that we have been urging for this for some time and regrettably have had to take the step of obtaining an order of the Senate for the minister to make a statement. We believe that this government has failed to keep the parliament and the public informed of the nature and progress of its trade negotiations, and this includes in relation to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. In fact, we have urged Minister Robb to make a full ministerial statement about these matters, which he has declined to do. It is very interesting: the government is very happy to trumpet the benefits of agreements on the basis of press releases but much less happy to tell Australians what its approach is or how it is going to treat some very difficult issues—some of which I will turn to in a moment.

The minister, in her statement, talked about some of the issues which I think Australians are entitled to more information on, because the government's approach to them could vary substantially affect our domestic regulatory arrangements: intellectual property, for example. If the government is suggesting that there might be wholesale changes—for example, to copyright law—I think it is incumbent upon the government to have a dialogue with the Australian community and this parliament about that. Is the government guaranteeing, for example, that our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme will not be affected? I think the government should be up-front with Australians about the detail of that. My view is—and I say this as someone who is pro-trade—that the government should engage with the community, explaining and defending its position on these difficult issues before signing an agreement on behalf of the Australian people: it should.

I would make this point: my party, the Australian Labor Party, has had a recognition of the benefits of trade liberalisation for over 40 years. We have recognised that it can boost growth, create jobs, forge more competitive industries and give consumers greater choice and lower prices. Let's recall some of the reforms that Labor in government has made—reforms which were about opening up the Australian economy and our society to the world: bringing down the postwar tariff barriers, floating the dollar, deregulating the financial sector, pursuing multilateral trade liberalisation, initiating the APEC forum, working to bring together the G20, identifying and embracing the opportunities for Australia in the region by placing the Australia in the Asian century white paper at the centre of national debate and opposing protectionist responses to the global financial crisis both at home and abroad. We understand that global trade has contributed to significant real price reductions for Australian families. Let's recall that trade liberalisation and many other policies under the Hawke, Keating, Rudd and Gillard governments have contributed to over two decades of continued economic growth, a feat no other country has achieved.

Reflexive opposition to trade agreements is not the Labor way. We will always assess proposed agreements on their merits to ensure that they are in the national interest. I do agree with those who make the very good policy point that the greatest potential benefits from trade can be delivered through the WTO and multilateral trade reform. Bilateral and regional trade agreements can be beneficial but often deliver second- or third-best outcomes. I have consistently stated that such agreements must serve as a stepping stone to stronger multilateral progress. But in the absence of substantial progress at the WTO we do take the view that the pursuit of agreements with trading partners is a legitimate task for government.

Let's turn to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. As the minister referenced, 12 countries, which account for some 40 per cent of global GDP, are taking part in the TPP talks, and a high-quality, comprehensive TPP could deliver access for goods and services in countries with which we do not have existing bilateral trade agreements and it could add billions of dollars a year to the global economy. I make the point that our support for trade is not because of some ideological, neoliberal position, as some have suggested in this place. It is because we understand that access to export markets and trade are central to ensuring jobs and better wages and conditions for Australians.

A very good example of that is domestic final demand, which is essentially a measure of economic growth—GDP barring exports. If you look at what has happened to domestic final demand over the last decade, you will see that in the period post June 2012, in these last few years, we have seen quite subdued domestic demand. What that tells us is that we cannot rely only on our domestic economy to generate the economic growth needed to create jobs. I say this in the context of a government which is currently presiding over not only subdued domestic demand but also an unemployment rate at 6.4 per cent. So I say to those who have indicated a position that is anti trade, the reason the Labor Party has supported trade and continues to support trade agreements is because we want more jobs and better economic growth for Australians.

But—and this is the reason why Labor joined the TPP negotiations under the former government, and it is a very important point—notwithstanding any potential benefits, the Trans-Pacific Partnership must not do a number of things. It must not affect our ability to deliver public services. It must not undermine labour and environmental standards. It must not reduce the capacity of Australians to access affordable medicine through the PBS. It should not radically alter the existing legal balance between creators and consumers of intellectual property. That is the Labor Party's view, and in relation to investor-state dispute settlement, I again say what I have previously said: this government should not sign a Trans-Pacific Partnership which would provide for corporations with legal rights that are superior to the rights of domestic businesses. That is our view.

I note that the minister raised a couple of those controversial issues, which are not esoteric but potentially have implications for domestic regulatory arrangements, in her speech. But do you know what she did not do? She did not tell us what their position was. She did not tell us what the red lines are that the government is taking. She did not tell us what approach the government is going to take when it comes to issues such as intellectual property. She did not tell us whether wholesale changes to our intellectual property regime are contemplated. I think Australians have a right to know that.

Rather than arrogantly dismissing some of the concerns which have been legitimately expressed in the community about the TPP, as this government and the Minister for Trade do, by suggesting this is all about people who hate trade, perhaps the Minister for Trade could actually take people into his confidence and talk to them about what he is trying to achieve, how he is going to protect things like our PBS, how he is going to approach the issue of investor-state clauses and why an agreement would be beneficial. But they do not do that. They simply dismiss the concerns raised by anybody as being illegitimate. As somebody who is on record over many years advocating the benefits of Australia's closer engagement with the growing economies of Asia, I find it very disappointing that this government chooses not to engage, because I think it ensures that people's concern and fear is intensified. Rather than dismissing the calls for transparency—and the minister representing did it again today when she said, 'We don't want to put text forward.'—perhaps the government should go to the heart of the matter and be much more up-front with this parliament and the community about its intentions around the TPP and how it will handle some of the difficult issues and what some of the bottom lines are so there is not the sort of reaction which one can expect from some quarters. But I suspect the government will not do that.

It really does stand in stark contrast to the way the US Trade Representative engages with Congress. I saw a press release from Mike Froman, who is the US Trade Representative, about the number of meetings he has had with Congress in relation to the TPP. I cannot recall—and I will come back if I am incorrect—but I think it was over 1,000. He has had hundreds of meetings with legislators about the approach of the Obama administration to the TPP. Now the government would say that it is a different system, and it is true that it has a different constitutional set of arrangements when it comes to external treaty making. But the principle of engagement, I think, is one that could be transposed to Australia, and it would benefit the government if it did that. Instead, they are dragged kicking and screaming to provide information. The minister today, again, has given a statement less than two minutes long, with almost no information other than the talking points. Today, she answered a question on the China free trade agreement. We still have not seen anything other than the glossies and a press release in relation to that. These are important agreements, and I think Australians are entitled to more engagement by the government on these issues.

On this point of transparency, in addition to requiring a statement by the minister, the Senate order made yesterday draws to her attention an order made on 11 December 2013 requiring bilateral and plurilateral trade agreements to be tabled at least 14 days before signing. Labor's position—let's be very clear—is that parliament should see the final text of trade agreements before they are signed. We do not side with all those who call for every draft negotiated text to be placed in the public domain. As a party of government, we understand that sometimes that may not be helpful to achieving the best outcome for Australia. I have to say, as someone who has been involved in negotiations, I think only people who have never conducted negotiations between government would think it was a reasonable demand to have every draft text in the public arena. But let's not correlate the release of every draft text with greater transparency. There are other ways in which a government can ensure greater transparency in relation to their trade negotiations than being required to release every draft text that is on the table for consideration. And, in fact, if those who seek greater transparency could advocate and join with us in requiring the government to make more detailed information available, the government may not have the refuge of the obvious defence that executive governments ought not have to release every draft text of every negotiation, whether it be trade or anything else.

The fundamental core issue here is that the government is not updating this parliament and the community about progress on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And it is certainly not being clear with this parliament and the community about its attitude when it comes to those difficult issues on which Australians have very strong views—whether it be investor-state clauses, intellectual property arrangements or many other matters. The government should be up-front about its objectives, it should be up-front about the broad parameters it takes into trade negotiations and it should deal with some of the concerns which the community has raised. That is a common-sense proposition.

I think the government's approach to these matters of trade really demonstrates some of the deeper political problems the government is having and the attitude the government takes. I do not understand why this government thinks everything has to be a fight. I do not understand why this government thinks that it cannot actually engage with others. There is growing concern about the government's approach on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. What I would say to the government is this: your unwillingness to engage with the community is giving free rein to uninformed speculation and giving rise to greater concern, and that is not helpful. It is time this government fulfilled its responsibility to the nation by explaining its position on key issues and by listening and responding to community concerns.

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

I see the challenge and the disconnect with this trade agreement slightly differently to Senator Wong. I think the Australian people and other countries around the world who are also conducting large plurilateral trade agreements, such as the European Union, have seen these agreements as simply being about business deregulation. We know from leaked documents through WikiLeaks that there are 29 chapters in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. We know from these leaked documents that what is being negotiated, in secret, behind closed doors, are actually the laws of our country. Only a small component of this trade deal is actually traditional trades in goods and services in the way we understand them—in terms of looking at issues around tariffs, changes to quotas, classic trade liberalisation.

This is business deregulation in areas of significant public interest. Senator Wong has already covered some of those very sensitive issues, like IP and access to cheap and affordable medicines. We know they are on the table. The three very important words Senator Payne mentioned in both of her summaries, including today in question time, were 'difficult outstanding issues' that need to be resolved. There is a very good reason why they are difficult outstanding issues: they are very sensitive and they present significant risks to us and our economy.

As we have opened up our economy over the years, as we have liberalised our economy, we do not have much left to trade. There are the so-called sacred cows, like our IP laws, digital rights, environmental standards. In that I could include a broad range of things, such as labelling, local procurement, local content in media and the operation of state-owned enterprises. Actually, it is the first time that laws that will impact, potentially, government-owned enterprises that compete in commercial spaces have been included in a trade deal. If we do not have carve-outs in areas like broadcasting, who knows what the future of the ABC and SBS will be under a deal like this? We are dealing with a very, very broad set of negotiations that impact just about every aspect of Australian life.

When I came to the Senate it was my understanding that we, as parliamentarians—both at a federal level and at a state level, and even at a local government level—make the laws in this country. We are elected by the people to make laws in this country—not negotiators behind closed doors or the trade minister, and not corporations or governments abroad. We make the laws in this country. So how is it that we have got ourselves in a situation where we have secret trade deals?

Senator Payne, I went to a couple of these TPP briefings. They were confidential. The media was not allowed. We got no information whatsoever on anything. We got very similar summaries to what you just gave. They were hardly exploratory or explanatory around the issues that were worrying people in the room. Whereas we know, factually, especially in the US, that special interests, especially business interests, have had significant ongoing access to these negotiations for a long period of time. To suggest that somehow it has been an open and transparent process is patently false. It has been a secret process.

As Senator Wong was saying, no doubt there are sensitivities to releasing this information. But this is where I think the disconnect is. If this was not just about business deregulation, if this was also about how the exchange of goods and services could be a force for good in our society, I do not think there would be opposition to trade deals. That is the difference between those who advocate for fair trade and those who advocate for free trade. This is an absolutely critical point to my party, the Greens, and our philosophy around trade deals.

If you are negotiating business access and deregulation and negotiating exporting and importing investment across borders, given that just about every environmental problem and social problem that we have in Australia, in this region and internationally is the result of a business decision, what better time to deal with environmental issues, labour standards and other key areas of public importance than during those trade deals?

This is not a fantasy. I have had a couple of productive meetings with the US consulate on the TPPA over the last few years. They said to me, 'Senator, you are going to support this deal because it is going to be good for the environment. It is going to be good for improving labour standards in the region.' There have been discussions and papers published in the US about binding agreements amongst the countries in the TPP on sustainable fishing practices, species and biodiversity loss, deforestation and emissions schemes in the region. But we have seen in the leaked chapter on the environment that there is nothing of the sort. There is not only no binding or enforceable agreements; there is weak language that we know our government has helped rewrite so that there is no action at all on environmental issues. Economic problems are environmental problems and vice versa. These are, contrary to what Senator Cormann said in estimates, the right opportunities to fix this and get this right.

I had dinner last night at ANU with some very interesting academics and this is a topic that we discussed. One international expert who studies international law said, 'These kind of agreements could also be very useful when we are dealing with businesses behind closed doors to get agreements on information sharing around tax avoidance and profit shifting.' That is an issue that we have discussed in this chamber very recently, and the Senate is going to be looking into it. Why is it that it is only about business deregulation, companies making more profits and us removing barriers to the free exchange of goods and services?

This is why I think the Australian public is deeply suspicious of deals like this and why they rightly raise concerns over the lack of transparency and the influence of large, powerful corporations over governments, not only our government. They are writing our laws behind closed doors. We in this building have a right to know. We supported Senator Wong's order for the production of documents to have the TPP released 14 days before it is signed by cabinet. We would have preferred for that to be released much earlier but at least this is much better than having it signed by cabinet and sent to JSCOT. We can look at it and we can make as much commentary in the world as we want but it will make no difference at the end of the day when it gets put up for a vote. You either stand in front of a speeding train or you get out of the way. There may very well be some good things in this deal. But at the moment we know nothing about it except what we have seen from leaked chapters, and what we know is of significant concern. I would say to Senator Payne that, if you want the Australian public to back your trade deals and you have nothing to hide, release the details.

Australians are also suspicious because trade deals are always overpromised and they always underdeliver, especially our bilateral trade deals. We have recently seen a very good report released by ANU about essentially what a load of rubbish our free trade deal with the US has been. What has it achieved for this economy? The Productivity Commission has talked about this. Even the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry raised valid questions about the benefits of bilateral trade deals. We have so many of them, you have to wonder whether this is a political exercise to get headlines and to act as a distraction from domestic issues.

Something was made very clear during Prime Minister Tony Abbott's address in reply to the Governor-General's speech. I think it was in the second paragraph of that speech when he said, 'This government will be remembered for its free trade deals.' As Senator Payne said, this was a trifecta of trade deals. Well, I do not think the Australian people are going to be kind, because with potential benefits also come potential costs.

It is time to end the secrecy. It is time for the Australian parliament to do its job in making laws and look at this now, before it is too late, before it is signed and before this entire region is locked into an agreement that allows union officials and organisers in Vietnam to be locked up and that allows human rights abuses in countries, like Brunei, that we are going to be trading with, not to mention enormous environmental degradation problems across the South-East Asian region—when all it will seem that we care about are profits and businesses. Trade theory says that that brings benefits to our countries and that those who lose—and, invariably, there are losers, like the car industry, which got sold down the river—are somehow compensated by the winners. That is what a textbook will tell you. But what happens when those winners actually do not live in Australia but are multinational companies operating out of here? In the real world, the losers are not compensated. There are always costs to these deals, but the government never highlights those. It always oversells and always under-delivers.

It is time to be honest. Release the TPP text or at least consider Labor's order for the production of documents to release it 14 days before it is signed, as a sign of good faith to the Australian people that you will allow scrutiny of this document before it is signed and before the media spin machine gets in action. If I as a senator or I as a citizen of this country raise a valid concern about changes to patent lengths on pharmaceuticals, suddenly I am anti-jobs or I am anti-economics—I am down at the bottom of the garden with the fairies. I am raising very real, serious issues here that are live and being raised all around the world. So, Senator Payne, through you, Chair, I ask once again that you at least consider releasing this text or, if you do not, give the Australian public a good reason why not.

Question agreed to.