Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share 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.