Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a trade agreement between 12 countries around the Asia-Pacific rim. It accounts for approximately 40 per cent of global GDP. In addition to Australia, the TPP covers Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, New Zealand, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam.

On our side, we are pleased to have joined the TPP negotiations, which we did in March 2010. The negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership concluded last October, with the agreement formally being signed by ministerial signatories in New Zealand at that point. It is fair to say we recognise the benefits, or at least the potential benefits, that will flow to Australia from a trade agreement such as the TPP, including increased market access for our goods and services. I believe the TPP will improve access to our markets, firstly, by eliminating 90 per cent of all tariffs applied to Australian exported goods to TPP member countries and, secondly, to liberalise access to Australian services and industries in the TPP market itself.

Increased market share for Australian goods and services is a good thing, particularly around those areas covered by the Asian rim. We think it will be an opportunity to boost business opportunity and export earnings. There are a couple of issues I would like to come to, but I think the Trans-Pacific Partnership can be seen as a stepping stone for closer economic ties as well as general engagement amongst the Asia-Pacific neighbours. Some of the concerns that we have had have been subject to assurances given by the minister responsible for the final negotiation in the concluding of the agreement, such as assurances that the agreement will not impact adversely on Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. No matter what the TPP achieves, it should not impact on the price and availability of medicines made available in this country.

Labor has always led the way in the argument against investor-state dispute settlement provisions. I know something has already been mentioned about that, but in relation to this it should be said that we oppose the ISDS in respect of Korea and also the China free trade agreement. The truth is the China free trade agreement would have been concluded long before should we have been in a position to agree to the investor-state dispute settlement provisions. We are putting a lot of stock in that, in the tribunals that exist or will exist in those countries that we are dealing with. We have all confidence in our courts, which we are now conceding and giving jurisdiction to foreign bodies to be able to use to act in determining trade issues involving TPP countries. That is an issue for us.

One area that has not been covered so far, but that I think is pretty significant, is that the Trans-Pacific Partnership has a number of things involved in trade and is also designed to enhance pro-labour principles in eliminating the discriminative practices in respect to employment, amongst other things. It is right that we use trade agreements such as the TPP to leverage against those agreements to achieve proper and positive outcomes, particularly in the human rights space. For instance, Australia supports Vietnam's inclusion in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and as a consequence of enhancing their trade position, I think it is appropriate that we do take a greater interest in matters affecting human rights in Vietnam. While Vietnam is being welcomed and treated as a valued trading partner under the terms of the TPP, regrettably it continues to imprison human rights and labour rights activists at an alarming rate. Vietnam is party to a number of human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment—just to name a few. However, despite Vietnam's human rights obligations under domestic and international law, many people are still being detained and imprisoned for exercising their civil and political rights and defending the rights of others. They continue to face this harassment, intimidation, persecution and imprisonment. We concede, in a regime like that, our dispute-settlement procedures. That should flag some concern for all.

Concerning the issue of labour rights, the TPP signatories have agreed to advance the pro-labour principles and specific legal reforms. According to the agreement, the TPP parties will agree to protect the rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining, the elimination of all forms of force and compulsory labour, the effective abolition of child labour and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. Moreover, the TPP parties will have to pass laws or regulations about minimum wages, work hours, and occupational health and safety. Further, the TPP signatories are supposed to ensure access to impartial and independent tribunals that will guarantee the labour laws.

These labour changes are probably designed in respect of countries trying to address the abysmal labour-rights records of Vietnam and Malaysia. I have an extract from The New York Times of 5 November 2015 that says:

Vietnam is still run by a repressive, one-party communist regime, and the "unions" that currently exist there are heavily managed by or affiliated with the government. So its agreement to allow independent unions—and to enact many more specific reforms laid out in a side deal with the US—

This is referring to the TPP side agreement with the US—

certainly looks very significant.

Many of us who care about human rights are looking to the regulations underpinning the TPP as being a once-in-a-generation opportunity, particularly for the people of Vietnam.

We on our side will continue to scrutinise the Trans-Pacific Partnership to ensure it delivers economic benefits without undermining Australian public policies in areas of affordability, medicines, environment protections and balanced intellectual property laws. We will also maintain our position on the investor-state settlement provisions and ask that they be closely monitored.

See this speech in context