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

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Investment, Senator Payne. One of the biggest and most controversial issues in US politics at the moment is providing authority to President Obama to fast track the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement through Congress. Right now the US Congress is having a robust, democratic debate about the importance of parliamentary oversight in such agreements. Under Australia's treaty process, this same deal is automatically set up for fast track through our parliament after signing by cabinet.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Wait for it, Senator Macdonald; here it comes. When will the minister comply with this Senate's previous order for production of documents and release the final text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement so parliament and the Australian people can scrutinise this secret deregulation agenda prior to signing by cabinet?

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Whish-Wilson very much for his question. As to the circumstances in the United States, the Minister for Trade and Investment, Minister Robb, has spoken at some length about this and indicated that it is a circumstance of—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order: I understand that this is a robust chamber, and interjections, although disorderly, are not unknown. But there is a difference between interjections and Labor frontbenchers, including the leader, yelling at members of the government while they are trying to answer questions, and I would ask you to enforce the standing orders.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask all senators to come to order.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do thank Senator Brandis for that intervention. But the day I need protection from Senator Carr will be the day I am scared by a limp lettuce leaf! As I was saying in relation to the developments in the United States, which Senator Whish-Wilson referred to in his question, these are always a matter of great cut and thrust in both domestic and international politics. The circumstances in the United States are no exception from that exercise, the highly political exercise, of cut and thrust that is associated with these matters.

The trade and investment minister here in Australia, Mr Robb, has gone to great lengths to engage with members of the parliament, including extending an offer to Senator Whish-Wilson—an offer which was taken up by other senators and other members of the parliament in this chamber—to view the material that is available in relation to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Others in the parliament have taken that up. I understand Senator Whish-Wilson chose not to. That is, of course, his choice and a matter for him and a matter for the Greens. It is not a matter for the government. The government made the offer. It was not taken up by Senator Whish-Wilson. There are other members who did avail themselves of the opportunity. We of course remain hopeful that the relevant legislation will ultimately pass, which will provide the momentum we need to conclude the negotiations. The trade minister has made that quite clear—and I reiterate his remarks.

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I have children and I know not to reward bad behaviour! When John Howard excluded investor state dispute settlement clauses from the US free trade agreement, Mark Vaile said

We do not believe that [ISDS] is necessary in an agreement between two highly developed economies with very transparent legal systems …

The coalition government has recently agreed to ISDS provisions with Korea, China and the US via the TPP. Have you included ISDS because you now believe the legal systems of China, Korea and the US are not of sufficient standards to allow Australian companies to invest there? (Time expired)

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The engagement in relation to ISDS by this government and, in fact, by previous governments is nothing new. We do not intend to sign up to any rules that are against the national interest and that are not fair and equitable to all Australians. ISDS itself is not new. We currently have ISDS arrangements with 29 economies. Four of those are FTAs; 21 are investment treaties. We have always said that we will consider ISDS on a case-by-case basis, which we are now doing. As I understand it, in August 2014 the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee agreed with the case-by-case approach for the inclusion of ISDS in free trade agreements—a case-by-case approach.

The views of a number of commentators on this matter are curious; some would describe them as rankly hypocritical—but I will leave that to commentators elsewhere. We have had the ISDS opposed even by the Labor Party, notwithstanding the fact that, when they signed the Australia-Chile FTA— (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Debate in the United States is also currently focused on the trade adjustment assistance package to support workers who lose out from trade agreements. The model you released yesterday said your three partnership agreements will cause manufacturing output in Australia to decline by around $4 billion. This would include declines in Australian manufacturing of metal products, transport equipment, electronic equipment and machinery. When you pass ChAFTA with the help of Labor, will you institute a structural adjustment package to support thousands of Labor's manufacturing workers who will lose their jobs as a result of this agreement? (Time expired)

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I thank Senator Whish-Wilson for that question, which I think means we have moved on to ChAFTA from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, so it is not exactly a supplementary. As I indicated yesterday, the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement is an extraordinary opportunity for this country—an extraordinary opportunity to develop the growth of our goods and services and their distribution internationally that would never have been possible without the work of this government and the trade and investment minister, Andrew Robb. It would never have been possible, because those opposite did nothing in this area—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pause the clock.

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. My question was clear. I wanted to know if the government is considering a trade adjustment assistance package, like in the US, to compensate workers who will lose their jobs from these trade deals.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Two comments: firstly, your question was borderline as to being a supplementary to the primary question. Secondly, the minister has only been on her feet for half the time; she has half the time left to answer the question.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to jobs issues that the senator has referred to, I have a small amount of information here. But I think it is probably an idea for me to take the rest of that question on notice, and I will come back to the Senate.