Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a ministerial statement by the former Minister for Trade and Investment and related documents on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.

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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

It has been six years since negotiations started on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement—six years of secret meetings behind closed doors, between negotiators and special interests; six years that the public have been kept in the dark about an agreement that is going to impact just about every aspect of our life, our society and our economy. We see in the documents tabled by the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources the actual text of the agreement—the thousands of pages of text that JSCOT will now have a look at in detail. We also see the national interest analysis—a total farce, having been written by the same people who negotiated the deal on behalf of the government. It was not independently assessed. Independent assessment has been a minimum requirement of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in its recommendations for future trade negotiations and trade deals.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is a document that cannot be changed, cannot be altered. There are 31 chapters of this document—from labour standards through to environmental conditions, through to local procurement, through to monopoly rights and intellectual property, through the investment chapter—we cannot change a single thing in this agreement. It is signed and sealed. The process we go through now is a total joke, a farce. This goes to JSCOT, which is a government-dominated committee. They will go around the country and roll out all their stakeholders, the usual suspects—the National Farmers Federation and other groups will tell us how great this trade deal is going to be for their constituents. No matter what we discover and want changed—it is not possible.

In parliament in a democracy, when legislation comes to parliament, especially the Senate—a house of review—we get to debate that legislation. We get to amend it and put up amendments knowing that if we get support from other members of the chamber, we can change that legislation and the law. We can improve it, which is what a democracy is all about, bringing in all stakeholders in this country, not just big business, who helped negotiate this deal, but all stakeholders. But under the treaty process that we have now, we cannot change a thing. It is locked in, signed and sealed. Those of us who may very well look at this document and find things that we agree with, things that could be good for the economy, have to weigh it the entirety of its 31 chapters in deciding whether we do or don't vote for this enabling legislation.

There are so many things in this deal that could have been improved if we had had a transparent democratic process through the trade negotiations. This is something that Foreign Affairs and Defence committee have spent time on. They have come up with a process that allows for democratic input throughout the negotiation process, while still giving flexibility to the negotiators to get work done. They have allowed for their independent assessment before it is signed by ministers at their press conference, getting their headlines in the newspapers, so that we can actually see that it is in the national interest. There are some things that can be omitted, such as deregulation of labour markets and dangerous clauses which give special rights to corporations to sue us if they do not like what legislation or policy may do or the impact it might have on their future profits. They are just some examples.

So what we have here is a document for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, an agreement that in reality is a trojan horse for circumventing the democratic parliamentary process in this country, because the special interests that originated this deal, manufactured it and has driven it relentlessly for six years do not want this to come to the Australian people. They do not want it to be voted on by the parliament. This is a document whose 31 chapters cover every aspect of our life here in Australia and our economy. It is a line in the sand with the Trade in Services Agreement, an even bigger agreement under negotiation now; with the RCEP agreement, the Regional Corporation Economic Partnership agreement, which potentially involves China and dozens of other countries, and is also under agreement now behind closed doors, in secret; potentially a massive deal with the EU and India. When do we get a say in this? The executive in this country has the power to negotiate these treaties and it does not have to come to parliament. It can deliver them and sign them, and then they go for a rubber stamp process. What is ludicrous about the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is that it is unlikely the US congress itself will vote on the deal that it has primarily originated and pushed. This is a US hegemony contract that is pushing US interest in our region. There is no doubt that sometimes that it is in our interests, but even they will not be voting on this deal, so why are we rushing this process here in Australia? Why do we have to have this signed and sealed by June-July, when it is unlikely the US is going to see it till at least the end of the year. If the US does not sign this deal, if they do not agree to it—there is a lot of evidence out there at the moment through the US primaries that this is a politically toxic issue in the US for exactly the same reasons that it is here in Australia. Workers do not believe these deals have delivered for them in the past. Even some of the industries that trade do not believe these deals have delivered for them in the past. Dangerous new laws for corporations allowing them to sue governments have set up parallel legal processes in shady international arbitration tribunals that do not function as democratic courts. This is the world that we are facing. This is the road we are going down. We have a chance to stop that in the Senate, but I despair that that is going to be very unlikely. All we have asked for is some transparency and some democratic input into this deal since I have been in this role, for the last four years, because we know that there will be things that will involve political decisions that have been made by the executive because someone has been in their rear.

Let me tell you about the Korean free trade deal. The beef producers in this country gave evidence to the Senate committee I was on that they lobbied Minister Robb to include investor state dispute settlement clauses in the Korean deal to get it done, because Labor to their credit, had not signed this deal while they were in government because the Koreans were insisting on ISDS clauses. That is one interest. We all know that Mr Andrew Robb used to be involved in the National Farmers Federation. People he knows well got in his ear and said, 'For God's sake, get on with it! Just include these wretched clauses in there,' and since then we have set a precedent. Now they are in all our deals. Now we face 12 countries in the TPP, including US corporations, who are the most litigious corporations on the face of this planet, along with European counterparts.

Statistics recently came out about ISDS. There has been massive proliferation of court cases against sovereign governments by corporations in the last 12 months. Looking back over the last five years, hundreds of new cases are coming forward, where sovereign governments, parliaments and the people are being second-guessed by corporations. Senator Wong at estimates, brought up a situation that we might be facing in Queensland around coal seam gas. We already have a robust legal system—Justice French has talked about this. We do not need to be giving these special rights to corporations that give them an advantage over domestic companies and the ability to erode our sovereignty and democracy. It is not something we as decision makers should be doing lightly.

This agreement that we have in front of us today that the minister tabled in his ministerial statement includes a national interest analysis, but you will not find a single negative word in there, even though there are of course always costs as well as benefits in trade deals. DFAT and Mr Andrew Robb have marked their own homework and give themselves top marks, although the World Bank and other independent economic forecasters have said there will be virtually no benefit to Australia and very little benefit to the US. Yet this is trumpeted as the best thing since sliced bread—rivers of gold for our country. What it actually does is enclose risks that we as parliamentarians are going to have to face and, if we do not fix it, that our children's generation, when they come to parliament, are going to have to face.

Question agreed to.