Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate notes the importance of protecting Australian jobs, skills, industries and sovereignty when negotiating, and agreeing to, free trade agreements.

The discovery of hypocrisy in politics is rarely a revelation, especially in this place. But today's policy shift by the Labor Party concerning so-called free trade agreements, specifically the TPP-11, is particularly noteworthy. It's certainly a good illustration of what happens when a political party gets a whiff of government and starts trimming their sails in anticipation of power and all of its entitlements.

Before I go to the details of how the Labor Party has folded and signed off on a policy that is against its own national platform, I think it is important to give credit where credit is due. In the face of constant claims from the government that the Labor Party is beholden to their union mates, the shadow minister for trade, the member for Blaxland, Jason Clare, has managed to get the Labor caucus to sign off to consenting to the TPP even when it's against their own party policy. Perhaps the government will need to update its talking points when it comes to just how much influence the unions have over the decisions made by the Labor Party.

As I noted in the chamber yesterday, Labor has announced new proposals relating to labour protections, national sovereignty, future trade deals and proposed measures relating to the transparency of future negotiations involving parliament, industry and unions. All is well and good.

Labor also moved a second reading amendment to the TPP enabling legislation in the House of Representatives today. It is quite remarkable. Paragraph 1 of that amendment notes the following:

… the Coalition Government has waived labour market testing for contractual service suppliers for six new countries in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership as well as including investor state dispute settlement mechanisms which Labor does not support;

But Labor isn't going to stand in the way of the enabling legislation; they are going to wave it through. If you don't support the waiver of labour market testing, and if you don't support the inclusion of ISDS clauses, then why are you supporting the very legislation that gives effect to them?

It's all well and good to say that a future Labor government would address these deficiencies, but what use is that when the TPP-11 is one of the largest trade agreements after the North American Free Trade Agreement?

In order to address these deficiencies, a future Labor government would need to negotiate side agreements, with each government agreeing not to apply the labour market testing or ISDS provisions.

It's apparent that the TPP-11 contains many harmful provisions which will act to the detriment of the Australian economy, including ISDS and labour market testing exemptions. This is not just my view; it's a view shared by the Electrical Trades Union and many other unions. It's no wonder many in the Labor Party and the trade union movement are concerned. The Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Sally McManus, said the ACTU and the union movement are 'disappointed by the ALP's decision to vote for the TPP enabling legislation'. Just how disappointed has been made clear by other union leaders. The ETU National Secretary, Allen Hicks, is reported in The Sydney Morning Herald today as saying:

Labor has announced a policy to improve how current trade deals are negotiated, in particular the fact that agreements like the TPP are negotiated in secret without community input, yet they are failing to put that commitment into action by demanding improvements to this trade deal.

He went on to say:

The Opposition not only has an unprecedented ability to demand a better deal, failing to do so will see them forced to accept responsibility for the significant failings of this agreement.

So, in my view, we've got this Westminster system of government where the opposition keeps an eye on the government, but now a new element's been added, and that is where the crossbench has to keep an eye on the opposition.

The AMWU's National Secretary, Paul Bastian, was reported in The Australianyesterday as saying:

It beggars belief that the Labor caucus would sign off on ratifying the TTP given it's against the party's own policy.

The TPP-11 is a disaster for Australian workers.

The labour mobility provisions would give open access to six signatory countries without labour market testing. This has the potential to see huge pressures on our labour market, further downward pressure on wages and conditions, and foreign workers exploited.

He went on to say that provisions giving multinational corporations the ability to sue a government were a grave risk to sovereignty. He said:

It is clear that Labor knows these are issues—they admit as such, and note that any future trade deals would require labour market testing and a rejection of investor state dispute settlement provisions.

If these issues are crucial for any future trade deals—why not for the TPP? The TPP must be amended before it is ratified by Parliament.

These are salient points but they appear to have fallen on deaf ears.

I want to make it very, very clear: the numbers in the Senate, with Senator Hanson's One Nation and Centre Alliance voting against the TPP enabling legislation—and those policies, of voting against it, have been announced—allow the Labor Party to stop this going through.

Our policy is clear: while we support open and fair trade, we don't support the TPP enabling legislation. The deal that has been negotiated by the government is, on balance, bad for Australia. Recently released modelling commissioned by Australian industry heavyweights shows that the deal would amount to, at best, a 0.5 per cent increase in GDP by 2030. This figure is tempered by the fact that the Productivity Commission has found that predictions for growth and jobs from free trade agreements have rarely been delivered, because the economic models employed exaggerate the benefits, ignore many of the costs and assume away unemployment benefits. The modelling shows Australia's grain exports would not change at all under the deal and all other agriculture could decline. It shows that durable manufacturing, a key sector of interest to Centre Alliance, would actually shrink under the TPP-11. Labor's going to let that happen! The very questionable gains discussed in the modelling report in no way balance the negative aspects of the abolition of labour market testing for temporary workers and the inclusion of ISDS provisions that are an affront to our national sovereignty. I would point out that when you have a former High Court justice, Justice French, calling ISDS a Trojan Horse, you should take note.

In this regard I'll add that it was only down to the work of Centre Alliance, especially former Senator Nick Xenophon, that the cost of one of Australia's existing ISDS mechanisms was exposed with the Philip Morris tobacco case, with the ISDS costs costing the taxpayer an eye-watering $39 million. To be very clear, Centre Alliance supported the government in responding to the action initiated by Philip Morris. But the point is that, when this parliament passed legislation to enable plain tobacco packaging, it was challenged and went all the way to our High Court. The High Court affirmed our parliament's right to make the changes. So Philip Morris then set up a tribunal in Hong Kong, made up not of esteemed judicial officers but of lawyers, that could then usurp the ruling of our High Court. That's treasonous, in my view. In opposing the enabling legislation, Centre Alliance is presenting Labor with an opportunity to give effect to their own national policy position. One would think that Labor would join us in sending a very strong message that we do not enter into trade deals unless there is a clear benefit and strong labour market testing and all ISDS provisions have been removed.

Centre Alliance isn't trying to kill this deal in its entirety, like the union movement. We just want to cut the cancer out. But Labor's support will mean that the enabling legislation will sail through the Senate and become law. Labor says they will fix things when they get into government. They are certainly feeling confident, but it's still a pretty big assumption. In any case, I'm prepared to make the observation that, if they are elected to government, Labor won't be changing course on trade policy. Sure, there'll be a lot of talk about greater openness and transparency in the negotiations. There will be policy reviews. Numerous experts will be called in to look at things. But I doubt it will amount to much. I doubt very much that there's much stomach on the part of Labor's frontbench to challenge the trade orthodoxies within the Foreign Affairs and Trade bureaucracy. If today's policy backflip is anything to go by, there will be much talk about the difficulties of revisiting existing agreements and about the challenges of trade policy in the context of the US presidency of Donald Trump. They will eventually say that it's all too hard and will seek to move the policy conversation elsewhere.

Perhaps the most interesting question today, however, is just why the parliamentary Labor Party turned its back on Australian workers. The truth is that they don't have the courage of their own conviction, their own policy. Again I stress: with Centre Alliance's numbers and Pauline Hanson's One Nation not backing the enabling legislation—I make it very clear—this enabling legislation will not get through this parliament unless Labor supports it. For years they've been criticising the coalition's approach to trade policy, but in the lead-up to an election campaign they don't want to have an argument about trade. They don't want to have a fight—not only with the government, perhaps, but, more importantly, with some parts of the business community and the Murdoch press. Instead, they want to trim their sails and quietly glide into office, free from any commitments to substantial policy change, bereft of any real ambition. Instead, they are content to be in a trade policy cartel with the coalition. This is the politics of expediency, the politics of hypocrisy. But I guess that's what we expect from this so-called opposition.

There is good news, however. I foreshadow that I will be moving amendments to the three pieces of legislation that must pass through this chamber to give force to this agreement. These amendments will seek to adjust the commencement date of the legislation until after the ISDS provisions have been removed and after labour market testing has been restored. That'll give us an opportunity to see which of the Labor senators have the courage of their own convictions and will join us. This is bad legislation that grounds a poorly negotiated TPP. I'm very interested to see what happens from here.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on notice of motion No. 1052 relating to free trade agreements. In doing so, I'll start by pointing out that I feel I should probably just move for an extension of time for Senator Patrick while he whacks Labor around the ears a bit more. Even though I was enjoying that aspect of Senator Patrick's presentation, I think there is a very important point to make here in that there is a move internationally to a more populist view of trade. I think that is something that needs to be countered. It is something that needs to be argued against very strongly because I think one of the things that has been very clear over the last 400 years of economic history is that trade is of undoubted benefit. Trade is of undoubted benefit to nations, to individuals and to the globe in enabling nations to speak more freely to one another and to avoid conflict.

Trade is a universal good. Trade is what makes us who we are as humanity. It drives our economy in a very fundamental way as Australians who are at the end of the line. We are a very remote country. We are a long way from major markets. Trade is absolutely our lifeblood, and the move towards a more protectionist, more antitrade world will only do one thing and that is hurt Australia. It will hurt the Australian economy, hurt individual Australians, destroy jobs and potentially destroy whole industries that are fundamental to our economy. The move to protectionism internationally is reflected in some elements in Australia and it is something that we do have to challenge and fight against.

I just want to address a few of the things that Senator Patrick raised about the TPP-11, in particular this idea that the FTA in some way opens up opportunity for unskilled foreign workers to take the jobs of skilled Australians. The foreign worker fear campaign has been used in the past. We've all seen it before and it's something that hasn't eventuated. Agreements such as the TPP-11 do not remove the skills and experience requirements that need to be met by foreign workers applying for temporary skilled visas to work in Australia. This means that workers from TPP-11 signatory countries remain subject to and must satisfy any skills assessment required for the visa process. Workers from TPP-11 signatory countries also remain subject to and must satisfy licensing and registration processes as required by state and territory governments.

One of the other issues I'd like to deal with is labour market testing. We've got a long history of free trade agreements. In fact, the previous Labor government did actually manage to sign a few, and, of course, this government has concluded a large number of free trade agreements: with Korea, Japan and China, obviously; more recently, with Peru; an agreement with Indonesia; the PACER agreement, which was talked about a fair bit today; of course, the TPP-11; and, before that, the US free trade agreement and a few other things. We have a fair bit of experience in this area, so we've got some history. We can actually look at what happened on the ground, and this issue of labour market testing is purely a furphy. It's an unjustified concern. There hasn't been an influx of workers from the countries we've concluded trade agreements with. We haven't seen an influx of workers into Australia following entry into force of free trade agreements with the major North Asian economies—economies, particularly those of China, Korea and Japan, which you would have thought would have been potential sources of workers.

It is also important to remember that we made temporary commitments in order to get better access for our service suppliers in return. There is a quid pro quo involved. It was part of the deal which would result in $15 billion in additional annual income by 2030. That was actually verified information provided by the Minerals Council. Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Island signatories to PACER Plus have signed a separate non-binding arrangement on labour mobility. So this is not about taking Australian jobs. In fact, I would contend that, when you look at the benefits of trade, this is actually about creating Australian jobs.

The latest jobs figures were released today by Minister O'Dwyer: 44,000 jobs were created last month. Under this government, 1,144,500 jobs were created, and the vast majority of those jobs were created by a vibrant private sector, by companies employing people, selling services, selling things overseas. We are a trading economy. Those jobs are in very significant part based around industries that rely for their future on their ability to sell goods and services into foreign markets, into overseas markets.

Our entire economy, our entire capitalist system, is predicated on the fact that individuals and businesses can engage in mutually beneficial trade. This system has generated vast wealth—something that seems to be forgotten when we talk about trade in this context. We are very lucky to live in a country and an economy that is based on our ability to trade into the international markets in a relatively free fashion. I wish it were freer, but we can trade into international markets in a relatively free fashion. Free trade carries with it many benefits. Notably, it allows countries and individuals to exploit their comparative advantages while making the most—and this is the quid pro quo of trade—of cheaper imports where other countries can produce those goods and services more cost-effectively. That is clearly the case.

For Australia, our export economy is geared towards the primary industries: agriculture—we do it very, very well; advanced manufacturing—we do it very, very well. What we don't do well these days is produce low-value goods. We simply don't have that as one of our skill sets and, personally, I don't see that as being a negative. We just understand that the economy evolves in such a way as to take us towards those things which we are best able to do—obviously, minerals. We have an abundance of natural resources, which we have been able to exploit. Free trade is particularly important to my home state of Western Australia. We are an export based economy. We want access to those world markets. We want trade barriers to be as low as possible so that our iron ore, so that our other mineral resources and so that our oil, our gas, our agricultural produce can get into as many markets as possible, because we know that our Western Australian businesses produce those resources, those assets, in the most cost-effective way they can and are highly competitive with the rest of the world. That is our competitive advantage.

Not only does international trade generate wealth for those directly involved in the production of exported goods but strong export industries, like the mining industry and like the agricultural industry in Western Australia, stimulate domestic economic activity. Every welder at Austal ships in Henderson, every grain grower in Three Springs in WA, every miner in Paraburdoo and every sheep farmer in Wagin who is exporting their wool relies on those export markets to make a quid, to feed their family, to employ services from the businesses down the road, to buy their stockfeed, to buy the steel and the aluminium they need to make those ships and to buy the mining equipment they need to dig the dirt. These people go on to spend their hard-earned cash on goods and services right here in Australia. They employ people. They create those one million-plus jobs that we have seen over the past five years that, again, allow families to support themselves.

We can't expect to have free access to foreign markets without reciprocating. If we believe in trade then we have to believe in two-way trade. It has to be an exchange. It can't ever be a one-way street. We can't delude ourselves into thinking—as some in the world seem to be thinking; this view seems to becoming more prominent, sadly—that if we put up trade barriers, if we try to restrict our markets and if we try to act in any way to stop trade then that won't trigger a response from our trading partners. The last thing Australia wants is a return to a more protectionist world. That is something that is a risk. It is something that I certainly fear very much.

I just want to talk briefly about the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. This will see more than 99 per cent of Australian goods exported by value to Indonesia to enter duty free or under significantly improved or preferential arrangements by 2020. This will have direct benefits to producers and businesses in my home state of Western Australia. For example, with live cattle from the north of WA, we get duty-free access for almost 600,000 cattle in the first year, growing to 700,000 head of cattle by year 6. This is a significant improvement on the current situation for cattle producers, who suffered a very big shock not that many years ago. I won't remind the chamber what that shock was or who originated it, as I am sure we all know. The cattle industry, particularly in the north of WA, is very happy about that part of the arrangement.

With frozen beef and sheepmeat, there is a tariff cut of 2.5 per cent immediately and that will be zero per cent in five years time. Again, people in this chamber, particularly those opposite, have talked a lot about the need to improve the sale of chilled and frozen product into overseas markets. Well, here we go. There are tariff cuts of 2.5 per cent immediately and that will be zero per cent in five years. That is going to improve that trade and improve the opportunities for local processors. That is great news. We don't have to ban any other parts of the industry to achieve it.

On feed grains, there is duty-free access for 500,000 tonnes in year 1, with volumes growing at five per cent per annum. Again, that is another great opportunity for Western Australian grain growers. We already have a very strong presence in that market, but it is an opportunity for that market to grow. For the returns of that lower duty, they are to be passed on either to growers or, through the supply chain, to consumers. There are potential benefits all around. Sugar is not so much an issue for Western Australia, I do admit. But, again, it is locked in as an early outcome to reduce the tariff to five per cent. In dairy, there is immediate and progressive elimination of the remaining tariffs on dairy product lines.

In citrus, there is the progressive tariff elimination on mandarins and duty-free access for oranges and lemons. For vegetables, there is the progressive elimination of tariffs on carrots and reduced tariffs on potatoes, which the growers in my hometown and surrounding areas—like Pemberton and Manjimup in the south-west of WA—will be very happy to hear about as they seek to take their very high-quality produce into more foreign markets. For hot and cold rolled steel coil, there is the elimination of tariffs for 250,000 tonnes in year 1, with volume growing at five per cent per annum. Again, this is an industry where Australia has had it ups and downs. But we see, with the elimination of those tariffs, more opportunities to continue with production in Australia and continue building export markets overseas.

These are major wins for Australia, there is no doubt about that. And it's a fantastic outcome for Australian exporters. But it's not only Australia that stands to benefit from this agreement. The Indonesian people themselves will be big winners from the removal of barriers under this agreement. They will have cheaper access to high-quality Australian produce. The reduction of tariff barriers is a win.

Obviously, it's not only true for those who import Australian goods that when Australia imposes tariffs on imported goods it does not protect Australians. In fact, it punishes them. This is the perverse reality of protectionist trade policies. They take choice away from consumers and force them either to pay higher prices or to make do with lower-quality goods. Who does that protect in reality? Certainly not Australians—certainly not average Australians.

This government does have a very strong track record on bilateral free trade agreements. In fact, I think it's fair to say that this government has delivered the most ambitious trade agenda in Australia's history. We've negotiated a number of free trade agreements to support Australian exports and Australian jobs, and that is why we've seen those outstanding job figures. That's why we've created those million-plus jobs over the last five years, because we've given businesses opportunities. There is the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement: 98½ per cent of all our goods are eligible to enter our largest trading partner duty free or at preferential rates. As a result, imports to China were 34 per cent higher in 2017 than in 2015. That creates jobs.

Then there is the Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement: Peru will eliminate tariffs on 93½ per cent of Australian goods on entry into force of the agreement, and on 99.4 per cent of Australian goods within five years. That's going to be of particular benefit to our agricultural industries, and will give unprecedented access to Australian sugar and beef. Obviously, Queensland will be a big winner there, but, hopefully, the beef producers in the north of WA will also get a win out of that.

I've already touched on Indonesia, so I won't go back there. Under the Japanese-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement, Japan remains Australia's second-largest trading and export partner, with two-way trade valued at just under $72 billion, and Australian exports were valued at $47 billion in 2017. Now, 97 per cent of Australian goods exported to Japan enter duty free or under preferential rates. And there is the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Korea is Australia's fourth-largest trading partner and third-largest export market. Korea provides duty-free access on 83 per cent of Australian exports by value, and this will increase to 99.7 per cent on full implementation of the agreement from 2033. Of course, we wish that were sooner; we wish that were 2020 or 2025, but these are negotiations. These are agreements that have to be struck with another nation, based on their desires. But the move towards a generally freer market benefits us all.

We remain committed to future free trade agreements and, obviously, there are still ongoing discussions with Europe and the United Kingdom, post Brexit. This does offer us a unique opportunity to re-establish strong bilateral relations with our oldest international trading partner. I certainly hope that we can see that deal concluded. And I've already run over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to some degree. It's a very important agreement to the future of Australian businesses and to the future of the Australian economy.

These are all agreements worth supporting, and I certainly do think that we need to be very careful about moving down a more protectionist route at any time in the near future. I certainly hope that we don't see Australia ever following some other parts of the world in starting to move back to an era where tariffs and trade barriers are things that are seen as a legitimate tool of the political classes. They are only destructive: they are destructive to jobs, they are destructive to the economy, they are destructive to wages and they will lead to a poorer world which is less able to provide the goods and services that all Australians want. Thank you.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to indicate my support for this motion on free trade agreements. When it comes to trade and jobs, it's only the Labor Party that can be trusted to harness the benefits of global trade for the good of Australian workers. We will not be lectured by the Centre Alliance in relation to ethical standards. We have a very principled approach when it comes to the benefits of global trade, yes, but we also have to ensure that the interests of workers are taken into account.

When it comes to this government, one thing is for certain: they don't have the interests of workers at heart, so we can't trust them to frame a system of trade that benefits workers. The Liberal-Nationals have already proven that they don't have the interests of Australian jobs at heart when it comes to trade. There are a number of areas where they have fallen down. They have allowed companies to bring in foreign workers without first checking whether there's an Australian who can do the job, by waiving labour market testing requirements. They've also included clauses that allow foreign companies to sue the Australian government through the ISDS provisions. So it's no wonder that Australians have lost some degree of trust when it comes to these trade agreements. It's quite clear that we need to fundamentally change the way Australia negotiates these agreements, and Labor has a way forward in that regard if we have the honour of being entrusted with government at the next election.

Let's not forget that this is a government that was responsible for the trade union royal commission, which was an ideological assault on organisations that seek to improve the lives of workers. We're talking about the interests of Australian workers. This is a government that has not the slightest interest in the interests of workers. How quickly did the former Abbott government rush to institute a royal commission into the trade union movement? They were elected on 7 September. Barely six months later we had the Letters Patent signed for the royal commission. But, at the same time, we have a government that turned its back on the rorts and rip-offs in the banking and financial services sector, voting against the banking royal commission again and again—26 times, I think—until the banks told them, 'Let's get it started.' I think it was current Prime Minister, during the course of that, who at one point made the comment that these calls for a royal commission were merely a populist whinge.

This is a government that's also tried to undermine industry superannuation funds, a world-class system with which we've entrusted the retirement savings of Australian workers. It's important that that system looks after the interests of Australian workers, and the industry super system does that. But this government has sought to undermine the industry superannuation fund sector through attacking the governance arrangements by seeking to impose the one-third independent director requirement on industry funds when it's been quite clear that industry funds, with their employer and employee equal representation model of governance, have delivered high returns for workers and outperformed the funds operated by the major banks.

When it comes to the interests of workers, again, I just want to highlight the fact that this is a government that's refused to restore penalty rates to those 700,000 or so Australians who rely on them and who have had those penalty rates cut. These Australians rely on penalty rates to make ends meet. This is a government that espouses the headline economic growth numbers but fails to address stagnant wage growth and declining national savings rates. I recall that it was Prime Minister Morrison, when Treasurer, who indicated that stagnant wage growth was the single greatest threat to our economy. And this is a government who, up until they knifed the Prime Minister—again—wanted to give billions of dollars in tax breaks to big business and the banks, relying on trickle-down economics to create hypothetical jobs. I could go on and on about the dismal track record of this government when it comes to Australian workers and their jobs, but let's be clear: this government has form, so we are entitled to be worried that those opposite will be looking out for the big end of town when it comes to trade, paying little regard to the interests of ordinary workers in the process.

Labor, on the other hand, has a strong track record when it comes to trade. We remember the legacies of the Whitlam, Hawke and Keating governments when it came to opening up Australia's engagement with the world. Time after time Australia has proved that we are more than up to the challenge of competing on the global stage, particularly when it comes to ensuring the creation and preservation of Australian jobs through trade policy. The tariff reforms of the Hawke and Keating era, difficult as they were at the time, helped deliver Australia a record 27 years of uninterrupted economic growth. An analysis by the Centre for International Economics last year suggests that the average Australian household's real income is now $8,448 higher because of these historic reforms. And Labor's strong commitment to trade will continue under a Shorten government if we are fortunate enough to be elected at the next election.

I want to outline now, for the benefit of the Senate, some of the features of federal Labor's trade policy, features which will boost the transparency and analysis of trade agreements. I note that Senator Patrick touched on some of these things, but I do think it's important to reiterate the fact that if we want more people to support free trade and open markets we've got to be more open and honest with people. At the moment, trade deals are negotiated in secret with not enough input from parliament, industry, unions, civil society groups or the community. Labor will change that.

A Shorten Labor government would, if elected, build on measures that we've already announced to boost the transparency and analysis of trade agreements by strengthening the role of the parliament and by briefing the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties at the end of each round of negotiations and providing it with the government's statement of objectives for negotiation for consideration and feedback. We'd also improve the system by legislating to establish a system of accredited trade advisers from industry, unions and civil society groups who would provide real-time feedback on draft trade agreement texts during negotiations. We'd also improve the system by providing public updates on each round of negotiations and releasing draft text during negotiations where this is feasible and by legislating to require an independent national interest assessment to be conducted on every new trade agreement before it is signed to examine the economic, strategic and social impact of any new trade agreement.

We do have opportunities right on our doorstep. As the Asian region continues to grow and develop, Australia is poised to capitalise on providing the goods and services that the emerging Asian middle class desire. Such trade improves the lives of those in our region and makes Australian workers wealthier at the same time. It's one thing to negotiate a free trade agreement, sign a piece of paper and, as this government all too often does, have a party—pat themselves on the back—but it's quite another thing to deliver for Australian producers the access that is promised by the agreement. And I want to mention the fact that, when visiting a number of farms last year, I was impressed by the degree of frustration that exists out there, particularly amongst blueberry growers, about the fact that we have somewhat stalled access to the China markets. A lot has been promised. A lot was in the portfolio of Mr Joyce at the time to address that, but unfortunately Mr Joyce was sitting on his hands and not getting the access for farmers in Australia. I point out here that Labor is on the ground listening to what our producers want and need.

A future Shorten Labor government would, if elected, continue to open up trade opportunities while also opening up transparency. This sunlight will help to ensure that any future deals do not undermine our labour market or compromise our sovereignty and that the economic impacts and benefits are well understood. We will commit to economic modelling of all free trade agreements before they're signed and 10 years after ratification so that the full impacts of a trade agreement can be assessed. This is very sensible, in contrast to those opposite. It will help reassure the Australian public about the benefits of trade but also help them be realistic as to the transitions that might occur because of these agreements. At the moment there is a stark contrast between what Labor is offering and what those opposite are currently failing to deliver. You have a coalition that's divided, chaotic, unstable and prepared to politicise key economic institutions for their own advantage, and you have a future Shorten Labor government prepared to improve transparency and model the impacts of future trade agreements.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been quite interesting to listen to the debate about these free trade agreements. Let me make it quite clear. One Nation is not against trade by any means. Trade has been going on for many years across the world and has helped countries to get produce, appliances—whatever it may be—from other countries. But Australia was once a thriving country of industry and manufacturing. We produced so much here, yet much of this has closed down due to free trade agreements. Let me name some. There were the cars. We don't have a car industry here anymore. That has closed down. Even the canneries we used to have are gone. Where are we making refrigerators, washing machines or other whitegoods now? Electrical appliances, footwear, clothing and machinery are no more. They have basically closed up as well. When those industries and manufacturing go, jobs go with them.

Let me turn your mind back to the free trade agreement with the USA in 2004 under the coalition. It was supported by the Labor Party and came into force in January 2005. Under that free trade agreement Australia got rid of all our tariffs from day one—great negotiation skills!—but America kept their tariffs for between 11 to 18 years for wool, horticulture, steel, wine and beef. They protected their country's industries and put in place quota systems so that, even though we were exporting over to that country and those imports were still having an impact, they could say, 'No, we can stop this.' What did we do? Labor supported it from day one, with no tariffs.

Now we go to the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Senator Patrick from the Centre Alliance was saying that his concern is about jobs. We seem to be the only ones that are concerned about the Australian workers and jobs. I'm sick of the same old rhetoric and hypocrisy in this place. I'm especially sick of hearing that the Labor Party are the ones out there fighting for the workers in this country when even the unions don't like the fact that you are going to now support the TPP and all these other free trade agreements. According to DFAT:

ChAFTA supports increased trade and investment between Australia and China by reducing barriers to labour mobility and improving temporary entry access within the context of each country's existing immigration—

but makes it easier to come into our country. It goes on to say:

Alongside ChAFTA, Australia and China have also implemented a Work and Holiday Arrangement (WHA)—

we don't need a holiday arrangement, because we want tourists to come to the country; they're not taking jobs, so let's just throw the word 'holiday' in there to offset it—

under which Australia will grant visas for up to 5,000 Chinese work and holiday makers annually.

Then we go to the latest Indonesian agreement. Indonesia will also receive an increase in the number of Australian work and holiday visas—I love this again, 'holiday visas', which is just thrown in there to confuse everyone—from 1,000 today to 4,100 in year one, growing to 5,000 over six years. I had the maritime engineers union come to me and say: 'Pauline, we are training engineers on the boats and they've got no jobs. It's all foreign workers.' No-one is listening to them. Where is the Labor Party? What are you doing about this? Are you standing up for the workers and the unions? They rely on you to make the right decisions for them, but you're not doing anything.

I was listening to Senator Brockman before. He said that we need this in order to expand our country—that we need free trade in order to create better living conditions for everyone. But that's not the case. It's not true, because under the Lima declaration of the 1970s we were told to forgo our industries and manufacturing in favour of Third World countries. The whole idea sounded wonderful: we forgo our industries and manufacturing and sell our raw materials to the Third World countries to help them. Yes, it's given them a hand up, but we've actually pulled ourselves down. I am sick and tired of seeing people in this country thrown on the scrap heap, with no jobs to go to. Industries and manufacturing—you cannot keep pushing people onto higher education to get degrees when they don't wish to do so. People need to have the tasks and the work in this country, but too often now we are seeing this work going to foreign nationals—jobs that belong to Australians. I think that what you're doing is disgusting.

Listen to the Labor Party bleat on, especially just before about the royal commission, which is quite interesting. You throw the blame onto the coalition, because they didn't do anything about it. There have been, what, 18 Senate inquiries into it, or maybe even more—it was before my time. The fact is that you have been in government yourself. What did you do about it? Absolutely nothing. You never went on to do these things at all.

Getting back to free trade—I can't speak for Senator Patrick on this—our main concern is jobs for Australians. We want to see manufacturing industry back here to give Australian workers the opportunity to have jobs. We've got it all here. We have the resources, we have the materials and we have the skills, yet you do everything you possibly can to allow in cheap products from overseas. Your free trade agreements have taken the tariffs off, which means that you have allowed these cheap products to come in here—the throwaways—which will cost Australians more in the long run, and at the detriment of lost jobs. And you say it's better for the economy! That is why our welfare system now costs approximately 42 per cent of our revenue. That's how much we pay out through Centrelink—42 per cent of our revenue. It absolutely disgusts me that it's as high as that.

Like Senator Patrick from the Centre Alliance, One Nation will not support the TPP-11 if it has the proviso in it—the coalition government, especially, has waived labour market testing. I've had a lot of complaints from people who are very concerned about it. The labour market testing exemption is another thing Labor has agreed to. Labor can actually put a stop to this if they want to, because they have the numbers now, with One Nation and the Centre Alliance, to stop this deal and fight for the workers of this country. You know that your union mates don't want you to pass this.

You're supposed to stand up for the blue-collar workers. You haven't done it and you never will do it. You're in this place and you don't give a damn about those people because you actually have your jobs and you're not worrying about the people out there you're supposed to be representing. I'm sick of hearing the rhetoric and the hypocritical comments that I hear in this place. Stand up for the workers in this country because, if you don't, you're going to get more crossbenchers in here that will fight for the Australian people.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a few brief remarks in the five minutes or just under that I have remaining. Australia is a trading nation. Our economy relies on us being able to trade. We simply don't have the population size only in our domestic market to create sustainable and viable industries for all the sectors that add value to our economy. So, if we're going to trade, by definition, trade is a two-way exchange of goods and services. If we want people to provide access for our goods and services into their markets, we need to enter into agreements with them to allow their goods and services to come to Australia, and the Australian people then get to make up their own minds about which goods and services they choose to purchase. We have seen that work in various sectors, sometimes to the detriment of a particular line in Australia, but often to our advantage.

Trade has been of net benefit for Australia—and certainly for my home state of South Australia. The South Australian economy is still heavily reliant on our primary industries in the agricultural sector. What a lot of people don't realise is that it's not just the raw products, in terms of crops and things, that are exported. Processed foods account for around 47 per cent of the food exports from South Australia. That means that there are many jobs created. In fact, according to PIRSA in South Australia, one in five people who work in South Australia work in the food and wine industry. So the ability to gain preferential access to international markets is employing one in five South Australian workers.

We have various mechanisms within the parliament to examine things like free trade agreements and TPP-11, and in past years I have been a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties when we have looked at these in detail. One of the frequent criticisms people make is that there's modelling done to various extents—some people say it's not enough; some people say it's overly optimistic. So, as we look at people who are supportive of things like TPP-11 through the JSCOT process, we get an indication of what might come. But I think one of the things that is really useful to do is to then look back and ask: 'Okay, we've now got a free trade agreement with China, a free trade agreement with Japan, a free trade agreement with South Korea. What has happened?'

Coming back to my own state of South Australia, I think it's really important to look at things like wine exports. Wine exports to Korea increased by nearly 25 per cent from July 2017 to June 2018, indicating that there is a growing demand there for our premium product. That premium product is making entry because, without the tariffs, its price point is more affordable to a market that is growing in terms of its discerning and quality palate. There are a whole range of food products that are exported from Australia into markets such as Korea. In fact, they've very recently had a trade expo there highlighting the fact that things like beef, sheep, poultry, milk, wheat and horticulture—a whole range of areas—are going into those markets from South Australia. Lamb is another area that has been exported significantly.

TPP-11 provides us access into a multilateral deal, rather than just the bilaterals that I've been speaking about to date, and it gives us access to a wide range of markets.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It being 6 pm, we now need to move on to government documents. Senator Fawcett, you will be in continuation.