Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee report Blind agreement: reforming Australia’s treaty-making process. I rise to take note of this report because earlier in the session the government's response was tabled and I want to take a modest amount of time to go through that response and perhaps keep the debate alive.

The first recommendation I want to refer to arising out of the committee's evidence and deliberations was that the committee recommended that the government, prior to commencing negotiations for trade agreements, tables in parliament a detailed explanatory statement setting out the priorities, objectives and reasons for entering into negotiations. The statement should consider economic, regional, social, cultural, regulatory and environmental impacts which are expected to arise. The response was that the government does not accept this recommendation. Under Australia's existing treaty-making system, extensive information is already made publicly available both in the lead-up and during the course of trade agreement negotiations. This includes detailed feasibility studies where appropriate.

That was not the evidence before the committee. Really, the government's response more or less says that what we are asking for is available, so it would be a very small step, if it is available so readily, to put it in a concise form and put it into the parliament. Then everybody, including the electors of Australia, could access that. At the moment, they would have to go to different or disparate sources to gather that information. So I found that response less than satisfactory. It may be the subject of more debate during the course of the year as we look at the conclusion of the quadrella, so to speak: the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement, the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement, the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement and the forthcoming Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.

The next item I wanted to put on the public record was the committee recommendation that a cost-benefit analysis of trade agreements be undertaken by an independent body such as the Australian Productivity Commission and also be tabled in parliament prior to the commencement of negotiations or as soon as practicable afterwards. The cost-benefit analysis should inform the government's approach to negotiations. The committee further recommended that treaties negotiated over for many years be the subject of supplementary cost-benefit analysis towards the end of negotiations and that statements of priorities, objectives and cost-benefit analysis stand to automatically refer to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties for inquiry and report. During the course of our deliberations and evidence-taking, when we asked where the detailed analysis of the 1,800 treaties that we have made has been, the answer that came back is that we do not do that. We make treaties—quite appropriately—but, when we make economic bilateral agreements, we never measure them. So in the history of the Australian parliament we have not measured the agreements we have made. It might be a waste of time in some respects—because the level of trade is so low or so high that you do not need to—but it beggars belief that we are in a situation now where we have a trade minister who appears to be doing an excellent job, and that is probably supported by all of the commentators in the media—

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is doing an excellent job!

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He appears to be doing an excellent job. But we have media commentary which says the trade deal currently being negotiated barely benefits Australia. That is not coming from our side of politics. That is not coming from the opposition parties in this chamber. That is coming from an analysis by the World Bank. The World Bank is saying that the TPP will barely benefit Australia—and that it will barely benefit the United States. That is coming from The Age, Tuesday, 12 January 2016.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can't believe The Age!

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, go to The Australian Financial Review of 12 January 2016: 'Australia an also-ran in TPP gains: World Bank'. The World Bank is saying: 'Don't believe what's been said about this glorious attempt at a new economic partnership, the Trans-Pacific Partnership.' Let us go to what Mr Robb says:

He said modelling by the World Bank and others suggesting minimal gains should be taken with a grain of salt as modelling could not capture the actual gains that would flow.

"No model can accurately capture the positive impact of getting rid of non-tariff barriers, of innovation, enhanced productivity, closer people-to-people links, defining trading rules for state owned enterprises and establishing trading rules for new, 21st century pursuits, such as e-commerce," Mr Robb said.

I probably agree with him. That is why we want it measured. That is why we want someone like the Productivity Commission to measure this stuff. That is why we want this new 21st century trading opportunity quantified, put in parliament and measured. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that.

In the last couple of minutes I have, the next thing was:

The committee recommends that stakeholders with relevant expertise be given access to draft treaty text under conditions of confidentiality during negotiations. The committee recommends that the government develop access arrangements for stakeholders representing a range of views from industry, civil society, unions, consumer groups, academia and non-government organisations.

The response is: 'The government does not accept this recommendation.' We are led to believe that it is all working very successfully, but the reality is: we are unable to measure gains made in previous treaties over the last century; we are unable to see an analysis of prospective gains to be made during the course of the agreement; and stakeholders tell us that they are not consulted. The government says there is plenty of opportunity for consultation. I think the reality is that all Westminster systems give the executive the power to make treaties. All this report was trying to say was: 'We can make better treaties; we can make more inclusive treaties; we can do better evaluations of treaties, prospectively and retrospectively. Bring everybody into the tent and let's all go forward together.' It would appear that this title, Blind agreement, is absolutely accurate. There is no shortage of NGOs and industry groups who say they would like to have more visibility, more input. They will sign whatever confidentiality agreements they need to to have more input.

The only ones who are happy are the department. They are the only ones who are happy. And I think the other side are very happy, because history has allowed them to conclude years, and in some cases a decade, of hard work by various governments on the Japanese economic partnership agreement, the Korean free trade agreement, the China free trade agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The stars have aligned, if you like, for Minister Robb, and he is bringing those agreements to fruition. But I think it is time we actually went back to basics, used some common sense and accepted some of the recommendations that are in this report. I think they are fundamentally fair. They are just logic. They are common sense. There is no downside. We are not seeking to take away the executive prerogative under the Westminster system. We are just seeking to take the parliament and the people of Australia along for the ride so they can understand what is actually being negotiated.

Finally, you can look at what happened in Auckland—or Wellington or wherever it was—in New Zealand today about the Treaty of Waitangi. A number of groups were protesting. At what should have been a celebration of a great agreement, we had a protest. (Time expired)

Debate interrupted.