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

I want to make some remarks in relation to some of the debate last night on my amendment. First of all, I want to correct the record where Senator Hanson-Young made some remarks in respect of the second reading vote. She said, 'We saw the Labor opposition cross the floor and cuddle up to the Morrison government.' I want to make sure it's on the record that not all of the Labor Party crossed the floor. You weren't quite correct there, Senator Hanson-Young. There were some Labor members missing: Senator Brown, Senator Cameron, Senator Carr, Senator Chisolm, Senator Marshall, Senator McCarthy, Senator Sterle and Senator Urquhart. I know a number of those are simply not in favour of this bill. We shouldn't assume that the entire Labor Party are supportive of this. The reality is that there is substantial division. I suspect that when my amendment is voted on we won't see some of those people in the chamber as well.

I'd also like to address some remarks made by Senator Farrell yesterday in response to my amendment. He talked about whether or not Centre Alliance were protecting workers. He said that we were fairweather friends of workers. There are many people in this place who can proudly stand up and say they are the friends of workers, but I'm not sure that Senator Farrell is one of those. So we're not going to be lectured by Senator Farrell, who was the secretary of the SDA from 1993 to 2008, on the issue of who has interests in the workers of Australia. Senator Cameron and Senator Marshall are senators who at least have some credibility when it comes to defending workers. It's no coincidence that they were not in the chamber last night and are not here now.

Senator Farrell—through you, Chair—how can you stand there and lecture Centre Alliance on protecting workers when your union, the SDA, sold out around a quarter of a million workers in the retail and fast-food industry? An Age and Sydney Morning Herald investigation across 2015 and 2016 revealed the SDA deal across the fast-food and retail sector left more than 250,000 workers paid less than the award and saved businesses at least an estimated $300 million a year. How's that looking after workers?

In June last year, the supermarket giant Coles admitted underpaying much of the workforce in cosy deals it struck with the SDA. It was admitted by Coles that much of their workforce, up to 60 per cent, would be better off if they were paid the minimum award rate rather than what they were paid from deals struck up with the SDA. The majority of Coles workers would have been better off without the SDA's arrangements. How's that looking after workers, Senator Farrell? Senator Farrell claimed yesterday, although this was not picked up in Hansard, that we have some of the highest paid retail workers in the world.

Senator Farrell interjecting—

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

Senator Patrick, please resume your seat. Senator Smith, on a point of order?

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

I can't hear Senator Patrick's very informed attack on Senator Farrell, because Senator Farrell keeps interjecting.

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

I do hope there's no informed attack, because, as you know Senator Smith, we direct all comments to the chair not to individual senators. Please continue, Senator Patrick. Senators have the right to be heard in silence.

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

Thank you, madam chair, and I did ask that it be directed through you. Senator Farrell claimed yesterday, although it wasn't picked up in the Hansard, that we have some of the highest paid retail workers in the world. That may be the case now given that the substandard wages deal between the SDA and Coles has now been replaced.

An article by Ben Schneiders and Royce Millar, who did some fantastic work exposing the truth behind the deal, in The Sydney Morning Herald on 12 August 2018 said that, 'Coles workers have now received a huge pay rise after the cosy deal between the SDA and Coles was scrapped.' The article highlighted that:

Both Coles and the Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees Association (SDA) had fought for years to keep the previous deal which paid tens of thousands of workers less than the minimum rates of the award, the basic wages safety net.

The old deal slashed - or did not pay at all - penalty rates and other entitlements in exchange for modest increases in hourly pay.

In 2016, the full bench of the Fair Work Commission found that deal failed the "better off overall test", the legal test that workers have to be paid more than the award.

More than half the workforce was underpaid, evidence from Coles' own expert showed.

It took nearly another two years of legal wrangling after that Fair Work ruling for a new agreement to take effect. That deal now largely reflects the minimum rates of the award.

Nelio Da Silva, who has worked for more than five years at Coles, now gets paid an extra $140 a week under the new deal.

He recently joined the new union, the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union, whose secretary Josh Cullinan exposed the Coles deal in 2015.

That's what The Sydney Morning Herald had to say.

The Retail and Fast Food Workers Union has also done some great work in exposing the dodgy deals that the SDA has done over the decades with big business. Their analysis shows that common across many retail employees were these: evening penalty rates of 25 per cent removed; application of shift penalty rates reduced or removed; Saturday penalty rates of 25 per cent removed, and that's 35 per cent for casual staff; Sunday penalty rates of 100 per cent removed or reduced; casual loadings reduced from 25 to 20 per cent; junior rates for 17-year-old staff reduced from 60 to 55 per cent; junior rates for—

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

Senator Patrick, I do appreciate this is a wide-ranging debate. I'm just waiting for you to come back to your amendment.

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

I will come back to it. It relates directly. It is a rebuttal to comments made last night.

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

I am listening carefully. I am just reminding you that it does need to relate to the amendment.

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

Thank you, chair. Junior rates for 18-year-old staff reduced from 70 to 67 per cent and removal of paid rest breaks for four-hour shifts. How is that looking after workers?

The SDA has alleged these losses are offset by an increase in the base rate of pay and other benefits, such as Defence reserve leave and blood donor leave. We now know that's not the case. Clearly a six per cent increase in the base wage does not offset a 25 per cent, 50 per cent or higher loss penalty rate. We know that even 11 per cent or higher does not offset lost penalty shift, casual, overtime and junior rates.

The Retail and Fast Food Workers Union have claimed that a huge number of workers, hundreds of thousands of workers, have earned less than they would have earned had there been no SDA agreement in place. This affects almost every major retailer and fast food company in Australia. It has cost retail and fast food workers billions of dollars. How is this looking after the workforce?

Turning back to the TPP, I'd like to quote the ETU National Secretary, Allen Hicks, who said:

The TPP is all about looking after the big end of town, maximising profits for multinational corporations at the expense of what is best for the Australian public.

These big businesses will be able to bring temporary workers into the country without even advertising those jobs locally, taking away training and employment opportunities for young Australians.

How is this looking after Australian workers?

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

The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 8520 as moved by Senator Patrick be agreed to.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be moving the amendment on sheet 8542, which seeks to uphold one of the Australian Conservatives' key policy platforms: to review all agreements and treaties after a period of 10 years so that we can ensure that they're acting in Australia's national interest, that the intention when they were implemented is being fulfilled and that the benefits are being felt for all Australians. There are two parts to this amendment, effectively. It is asking the minister to initiate a review at the six-year mark, which is when most of the agreements in place and the steps in the TPP will have been implemented and introduced, and then that report should be made available to the parliament; and then, at the end of 10 years, they can decide whether to extend it or not. I don't intend to delay the Senate much further, because I know there are a number of amendments to deal with. I move the amendment standing in my name:

(1) Page 2 (after line 12), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of this Act

(1) The Minister must cause a review to be conducted of the operation of this Act.

(2) The review must be conducted as soon as practicable after the end of 6 years after Schedule 1 to this Act commences.

(3) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.

(4) The Minister must cause copies of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

5 Sunset provision

This Act and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Act 2018 cease to have effect at the end of 10 years after Schedule 1 to this Act commences.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Bernardi. I think we all appreciate your brevity in raising this issue. But I would like to reconfirm the government's position—that we will not be supporting this amendment, because we don't believe the sunset clause is a positive step. In fact, it's quite retrograde and will completely undermine the TPP-11 agreement.

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

I just want to point out the irony of our being senators and doing our job here in this chamber tonight, looking at making amendments to legislation, which is what we're elected to do. Because of the treaty process and the way it's set up, we can't actually amend any of this enabling legislation. Even one change in one paragraph would kill and torpedo the entire 13 years of negotiations. How outrageous!

What a farce it is that we come in here pretending to do our job, coming up with good ideas on how we can actually improve the TPP. Even Senator Bernardi's got a good idea on improving the treaty process; reviewing treaties after 10 years is a very sensible and logical thing to do. May I refer Senator Bernardi and others to the Senate report on the treaty-making process, which went into some detail on how we need to improve this so we don't have this farcical situation that we're in tonight where we come in to do our job and we're not able to do our job. I know there are people in the Labor Party who would desperately like to see elements of this TPP changed, as do the Greens, Centre Alliance and a number of other senators in the chamber. But we can't change a thing. One change and it's all off, all deals are off.

This agreement has been negotiated behind closed doors by our trade representatives in DFAT. Occasionally a minister or a ministerial appointment will check up on negotiations. And guess who's behind closed doors? It's big business, business representatives and associations representing industry. When we think about trade deals, most people think of the Australian government doing deals with America, Canada, Chile and Japan. Actually, the Australian government are there to facilitate it, but we're not doing the deals. We didn't initiate the TPP. No government did. It was initiated by big corporations. That's what trade deals are. If you boil it down to its basics, it's stakeholders trying to get an advantage. We call it the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. It should be the 'Trans-Pacific Profit agreement'—because that's actually what it is.

There are so many misnomers and furphies around trade and I've heard it ad nauseam in this place. This deal has very little to do with traditional trade. We've reduced most of our tariffs down to next to nothing. We've killed our existing industries in recent years after the Japanese free trade deal and the Korean free trade deal. Most of the countries in the TPP we've already got bilateral trade deals with. Yes, there's some increased market access, but it is minuscule, it is puny, compared to the advantages in trade, investment and services. This is an investment agreement driven especially by digital companies, financial services companies, healthcare companies and big pharmaceutical companies. There are 29 chapters in the TPP and counting. That covers every facet and every aspect of life here in Australia and in every country that signs this deal.

But we can't change a thing—not a thing. We can't do our job. As much as I feel sorry for Senator Reynolds having to answer our questions—or trying to answer our questions—what's the point? If we change this deal, the whole thing's off. We can't send it back to the House and say, 'We'd like you to amend it to remove this clause or improve this aspect or put in something that reviews this deal,' et cetera. Once it's changed—one small thing—the TPP's finished. That's because this treaty process is so corrupted. It is so desperately in need of reform. It is so anti-democratic and so dangerous. It has removed the role of parliament. I'm talking about synchronising rules and regulations across 11 countries—rules and regulations that will impact everyday citizens in those countries. And it is negotiated outside of parliament completely—by a de facto level of government. This is the power of the executive on steroids in this country. Governments and ministers are dictating outcomes in industries—and we can't change a thing. Minister, I'd like to ask some questions but I might actually allow that vote to be put and then I'll ask some other questions.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whish-Wilson has expressed the position quite clearly but, as I've said on other occasions, the nature of these bills is that they're not subject to amendment. We'd actually made these points in a second reading amendment which the Greens voted against, as I understand it, last night.

Let's be clear: this is a customs bill. In terms of the factual situation with regard to the agreement which the government has already signed and has agreed to, the agreement, which is itself not the subject of these bills, explicitly states at article 27.2 that there will be reviews after three years and then every five years. A review was built into the agreement before the review that is being proposed in this amendment. So, whatever complaint you have on many other things, the review process in the current stated agreement is actually superior to the proposed amendment. We will not be supporting it.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to address a couple of the issues raised by Senator Whish-Wilson. I again find myself in thunderous agreement with Senator Carr on this issue.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Big surprise!

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It might not happen very often but it has happened several times in the chamber today. This is one of the most comprehensively reviewed treaties ever—five parliamentary committees and 1,000 briefings across Australia, with 485 stakeholders. It has been comprehensively reviewed by this place. As Senator Carr quite rightly said: these are customs amendment bills. The debate—

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

A rubber stamp after it's been signed!

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, you don't have to feel sorry for me, Senator Whish-Wilson. I appreciate the sentiment, but, please, I am very comfortable with the government's approach and explaining what the government is doing with the support of the Labor Party here in this chamber.

What have been the questions? We can stay here till we finish tonight or all tomorrow, answering the same questions over and over again. What I would point out is that the issues and the questions which you are asking have been asked and answered many times already. As you said, if you have more questions, I will—and I'm sure Senator Birmingham will also—happily answer those questions, but they are re-prosecutions of a fact that the treaty has occurred. You are re-prosecuting arguments that have been debated in five parliamentary inquiries and subject to extensive public consultation throughout this process. So, again, I'm very happy to keep answering the same questions, but this is a customs amendment bill. I'll just reaffirm that the government does not support any of the amendments that are currently before this chamber.

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

I would like confirmation on Senator Whish-Wilson's comments that no changes whatsoever—no paragraph or anything at all—can be changed in this. So, no amendments can be added to it. Also, I want confirmation on what the Labor Party are saying. They are saying that, if they win government next year, they intend to change the ISDS and they intend to address the workers coming into Australia. Can they do that in light of what Senator Carr said on the floor here? The review is in three or five years time. So, in light of that information, Labor cannot make any changes to this, with regard to workers coming into Australia or the ISDS, even if they are inclined to make changes to it?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian parliament is sovereign and can amend any piece of legislation that comes before it. However, if the legislation is amended in terms that are not compatible with the agreement negotiated, then of course Australia would not be in a position to ratify the agreement. Now, to come to other points—

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

Give a straight answer.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a straight answer, Senator Hanson. It's very clear. The Australian parliament can legislate whatever if it wants. If the Australian parliament, however, does not legislate in terms that are consistent with the agreement, then the agreement will not come into force with Australia as a party to it. That is a straight answer. That is a simple fact there. Yes, the agreement is negotiated between different countries. If those countries can't live up to the terms of that agreement then they aren't a party to the agreement. That's the nature of the beast.

Of course, countries can seek through a mutual agreement with other nations to make variations to agreements over a period of time.

We don't believe that the agreement requires variation, and we certainly don't believe that the nation needs or deserves a Labor government. However, if the opposition were to win the next election and were to seek to negotiate with other parties in terms of reaching agreement by means of side letters or otherwise then that would be a matter for a new government and for those other nations.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to go back to my amendment, which is really about examining the efficacy and wisdom of this agreement once the cold light of day's come along. I note that Senator Carr made the point about three-year and five-year reviews and also that there are substantial issues with the implementation—that is won't be fully implemented until after the six years, and you want to give more time for that to take effect. But I don't see anything in what the minister has told us that would preclude this amendment from being successful, because it wouldn't actually impact on the trade agreement unless the review conducted by the government and the report to this parliament is deemed to be unsatisfactory, in which case the parliament could seek to withdraw from the TPP if it was no longer working in our interests. Minister, is that accurate?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that Senator Bernardi's amendment isn't just to review but also that there is a sunset clause built into that review mechanism. That would be inconsistent. Let me also stress that a problem with that—and I'd have thought Senator Bernardi would appreciate this problem—is that if you have a sunset provision, which means that tariff rates and so forth return to their previous levels, you're in essence back to the point of renegotiating those terms, and you may not get such good terms the next time around as you did the first time around. What is far better in terms of the types of review mechanisms that are built into agreements of this nature is that the terms that are agreed continue as agreed but, ideally, provide those review mechanisms for an opportunity to try to get even better terms from thereon in.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I won't labour the point, but I would respectfully suggest that, while I do understand about not jeopardising favourable trade agreements, for a parliament to review and ask that it be re-endorsed prior to its expiry is not an onerous thing; in fact, it's prudent. I don't know one single commercial operator that grants a lifetime contract—actually, I do. I'll tell you who did a lifetime contract. There's a chap who got the rights to Stolichnaya vodka from the communist party in Russia and got a lifetime exclusive distribution agreement to sell Stolichnaya vodka in the United States. He made billions of dollars out of that. The Russians didn't make quite so much money. Those are the perils of a lifetime contract. He ended up being the second-largest shareholder, I think, in PepsiCo, because he sold it to Pepsi. Lifetime contracts are not a normal feature of commercial transactions. To expect an agreement that is reached in this place to continue in perpetuity is, I think, quite nonsensical and not in our long-term interest. Yet what you've suggested to me is that seeking the ratification of the parliament to continue the agreement, even if it's as structured, is somehow resetting the clock. I don't buy that, Minister.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi, your amendment would reset the clock because the sunset provision would see this legislation cease to have effect after 10 years, and the parliament of the day would then have to relegislate these matters at that point in time. It could do it beforehand. Of course, it could at any other point, beforehand or afterwards, revisit any of these terms as well. Any nation can withdraw from an agreement that it enters into. Any government could choose to do that down the track. A Labor government could potentially do it if the terms they've specified are not met, and then the parliament could jack tariffs back up again if it chose to do so. We need to remember, in terms of the nature of the amendments that we are actually debating here—the customs amendments—that is essentially the tariff rates and those tariff lines that exist.

So, yes, a future parliament could do that. There are built-in review mechanisms as part of the TPP. But, again, nothing prevents a future government or a future parliament from saying, 'There will be a comprehensive review of the CPTPP.' That's perfectly viable and feasible for down the track.

What is the problem, in particular, with your amendment, is not that it layers another review on top of the built-in review mechanisms that form part of the agreement already but that it has that drop-dead sunset provision which does then create the circumstance where Australia would be noncompliant with the terms of the treaty as it's negotiated, because we would be saying that there is, built into our implementing legislation, something that puts the tariffs back up unless the parliament were to relegislate it at a later point in time. So that's the problem of the noncompliance. That then leads to the risk of renegotiation at that point in time, and renegotiation is where I believe—and I would have thought that you would believe—it is far better to start those negotiations at a point where each nation's tariff barriers are at the lowest possible point to get even better agreements than to be negotiating at a point where everybody goes back up to where they were before.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If it makes the minister any happier, I'm happy to separate the amendment into two parts so he can support the review at six years under the ministerial guidelines that we've implemented, and we can put the sunset clause separately. I suspect it's not going to be as attractive as you've just made it out to be.

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

I have two questions. Firstly, Senator Reynolds, you said there have been five parliamentary reviews of the TPP. I can think of two for this piece of legislation, being the JSCOT inquiry and the FADT inquiry.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There have been two separate Senate inquiries.

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

Okay. Can you tell us what the other three were? Let's assume you're right and there've been five inquiries. Can you confirm for the Senate that those inquiries occurred after this deal was signed? And had the text of the agreement been released so we could see it before the deal was signed? There are three very simple questions for you there.

Senator Birmingham, I have a couple of questions for you, too. You mentioned that, over time, countries have renegotiated elements of trade deals that they've been associated with.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They can.

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

They can. I was going to ask for you some examples, especially for multilateral deals like the TPP. My understanding was that this is the biggest trade deal in history. It's probably the first multilateral deal of its time. How many times have countries gone to 10 other member countries of a multilateral trade deal and renegotiated the terms of those deals? Can you give us some examples? It's really important for us to try and understand how easy or how hard it's going to be for a future Labor government to renegotiate the TPP.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the question, Senator Whish-Wilson. I have already provided that information on the five parliamentary inquiries to the Senate, but I'm happy to repeat those. There were the 2016 and 2018 JSCOT inquiries, multiple Senate estimates hearings since the discussion started in 2008, and two inquiries by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee.

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

ILSON () (): That's different to Senate inquiries, but I'm sure I don't need to tell you that. Could you answer the next part of the question: did those inquiries occur after the deal had been signed, and had senators or any other members of parliament seen the text of those deals before they were signed?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to be very clear, I did say parliamentary inquiries. Again, we've had two JSCOT inquiries, two Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee inquiries, and also one Senate legislation committee inquiry, which I understand reported recently—and, yes, after the negotiations started.

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

So the first one was on the TPP in the way it was originally brought to the parliament, which included the US, not on the TPP that we're dealing with today?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you would like, we can provide you with a time line of the inquiries and the process—if that would be of assistance.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just one moment. Senator Whish-Wilson did have the call as we were doing the transition in the chair. I'll let you conclude, and then we'll go to you, Minister.

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

Just to be clear, Minister, parliament was given thousands of pages of information after the deal had been signed, and none of us had seen any details of those thousands of pages until you'd actually signed them.

So your government, your executive, has signed these deals with your negotiators. And all the stakeholders, the hundreds of corporations and others that you deal with—

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're voting against it. That's really, really fine—

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

This is really, really important, because that is what this is about. This is why there's no transparency at all in our treaty-making process. This is why parliament is cut out of these deals. This is extremely important. This is 13 years of negotiation on, supposedly, the biggest trade and investment deal in the world that our country's ever been in, and you are treating us with contempt when we're asking you some simple questions. Shock-horror that we would actually ask you for some detail before this parliament votes and ratifies this deal!

I want to make it very clear to senators how the process works. Negotiations occur between member countries and between hundreds, if not thousands, of stakeholders over a long period of time. Some drafts of texts are released. Some are released on WikiLeaks, which is where we got all our information from. I was at most of those Senate estimates, Senator Reynolds, since 2012, asking DFAT for information on this, and I can tell you I got most of my information from WikiLeaks, because someone was leaking drafts of the text—but they change; they evolve. We didn't get to see anything before your government signed the agreement. You signed it on our behalf, and, when you signed it, you signed us up to every bit of detail in that trade deal. As Senator Birmingham has just said to the chamber, of course we can amend it, but, if we do, the deal's off. It's lock, stock and barrel; we can't change a thing. We can't do our jobs. What you have said here tonight, Senator Birmingham, is we can't do our job to improve this legislation. Senator Bernardi has a perfectly reasonable amendment. We can't put up any amendments to improve this bill. It is not possible, thanks to our treaty-making process—our dangerous, undemocratic, treaty-making process.

It's a treaty-making process, senators, that's been in place since this parliament was set up under the Westminster system. It was built not only for a different generation; it was built for a different century—and not the last century but the one before, when treaties were essentially about peace and war. They were totally different to the TPP, with its over 30 chapters and thousands of pages of complex information relating to just about every aspect of our economy and our life in this country. Yet we have the same process we've had for hundreds of years, where parliament has no say—no say. It is ratified by the Prime Minister and the executive of the day, and it's given to parliament. Those are the extraordinary powers that the executive has in relation to trade, and they are absolutely fundamental to what we need to change.

So I want to make it really clear here tonight that we are dealing with a totally flawed process—and you must answer our questions with detail, Minister. This is our only chance. I've got a lot more questions to come, especially on those suspended clauses that Senator Hanson-Young has already asked about and how they relate to new countries applying to get into the TPP. I understand that the UK's interested in joining the TPP, and no doubt you'll be trying to talk to Indonesia about it—if they're still talking to us after our foreign affairs faux pas today about moving our embassy in Israel. These things are extremely important. We could be de facto voting for a provision, for a TPP, that brings the US back to the table with all their toxic clauses around monopoly pricing on medicine and all the things that we fought so hard to try and knock out.

There is a reason, as I said yesterday in my speech in the second reading debate, that this deal took 13 years. It took 13 years because it's controversial and it's highly complex—and it's dangerous and completely undemocratic. It's completely undemocratic.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 8542, standing in the name of Senator Bernardi, be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Progress reported.