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 Sinodinos. Senator, when you were chief of staff to the Prime Minister back in 2004, John Howard famously held out against US pressure and refused to include investor state dispute settlement clauses in the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement. This was a smart move. Unfortunately for Canada, since signing up to the North American Free Trade Agreement, which included an ISDS, the Canadian people have been sued by US firms at least 35 times. Why have you and your government now rolled over to US pressure to give special rights to corporations through the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement to sue our government and undermine our parliament and sovereignty?

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable senator for his question and his ongoing interest in trade matters. He is one of the most literate members of this chamber. So I respect the spirit in which he has asked this particular question. It is true to say that there were circumstances under which, in the past—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just because you have a new partnership with the Greens. This is a new Greens partnership.

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is wrong with complimenting a member of the Greens when they are asking an intelligent question?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, what do you have to say about that?

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What do you have to say about it?

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

On my left! Pause the clock. Order!

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Seven of your backbenchers just fainted!

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

On my left! Senator Cameron! It was a lot quieter earlier this week. Cabinet Secretary, you have the call.

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is true that, in the past under some circumstances, the Howard government did set its face against what are called ISDS clauses. But, in more recent times, in the context of negotiating very broad-ranging free trade deals, the view has been taken that the ISDS provisions can also provide protection for Australian investors abroad. This is an important consideration when you consider the broad range of countries which are now becoming involved in some of these free trade arrangements. I understand where Senator Whish-Wilson is going with this question, because there have been some actions taken in recent times. He refers, no doubt, to tobacco. There is an explicit recognition in the TPP that Australia's tobacco control measures cannot be challenged. That is for a start. There is also recognition of an inherent right to regulate, as a country, to protect public welfare, including in the areas of health and the environment. Specific Australian policy areas are carved out from certain ISDS claims, including social services established or maintained for a public purpose, such as social welfare, public education, health and public utilities, measures with respect to the creative arts, Indigenous traditional cultural expressions— (Time expired)

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

I think it is the first time I have got an answer to a question, Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. As the minister has highlighted, Minister Robb has also indicated that the TPP ISDS chapter includes carve-outs for tobacco and supposed protections for public health and the environment. Can the minister please list for the Senate, or give examples of, the range of circumstances where a corporation will be able to sue our government under ISDS provisions in the TPP?

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that particular question on notice. In the context of the TPP, for example, there would be circumstances where an overseas investor would claim in Australia that they have not received most favoured nation treatment, for example, because of a pre-existing trade agreement. But I will not answer that off the top of my head. I will get a proper answer.

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. The TPP has been labelled a 'dud' by Hillary Clinton—one of its original architects—and the supposed benefits of the deal have been queried by a number of respected economists and commentators. As recommended by the Harper review and by the Senate inquiry into our flawed treaty process, will you refer the TPP to the Productivity Commission for independent review, and when will you finally release the text of this most secret agreement?

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the second question, I believe it will be released shortly but it is being—to use the vernacular—legally scrubbed. The document is being checked—the i's dotted, the t's crossed, and all of the rest of it. On the first part of the question regarding the Productivity Commission, the issue here is: what is the counterfactual? Is the counterfactual that for 20 years we have not been able to get a multilateral trade deal? The question is, do you take what is on the table and the access that goes with it, and do you build on that, as we are doing with Japan, Korea, China, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and, potentially, with a fusion of the TPP with some of the arrangements that China wants to see in the region? But there is no counterfactual because there has not been a multilateral trade deal since the Uruguay Round. The Doha Round collapsed. So there is no perfect model that you can put up as the benchmark against which to judge this model. For us, it cements our access into all of these major markets and gives us most favoured nation status. (Time expired)