Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement on this report.

Leave granted.

Unfortunately for this report, on 26 November, US President-elect Trump in his first announcement about what will happen when he takes over, again attacked the TPP and said that will be the first thing that his administration undoes. He described it as a potential disaster.

Last night at drinks for the Emperor of Japan, I was discussing at the Japanese embassy the important statement of the Japanese cabinet secretary that without the United States this treaty is in effect inoperative, and it seems therefore a shame that the Prime Minister and foreign minister are the only people who do not seem to understand that the TPP is unfortunately, or fortunately, not going to happen.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement requires ratification of the United States to be enacted. Of the 12 signatories, they are the most important, biggest economy. As I said, President-elect Trump has said he will withdraw the United States. Most significantly, and sadly for the member for Fadden, the Obama administration has announced it will not push the current Congress to consider it in the lame-duck session. Indeed, the Minister for Trade has conceded that the ratification is unlikely to happen.

If the other 11 TPP countries move to omit the United States from the agreement so that it can be enacted, this will be a new agreement that will have to come back to the committee for consideration. Labor would need to see new economic data on the benefits of the agreement with the omission of the United States. As the Minister for Trade said on 13 November when asked if the deal could go ahead without the US:

In theory, yes, … But really with the United States not being part of it, first of all, one officially the TPP would not get up but, secondly, if we looked at; ‘Is there enough merit to look at a trade deal among the 11 of us?’

Nevertheless, the government seems determined to go ahead with the ratification process.

As the agreement currently stands, there were some modest economic and strategic benefits the TPP would have for Australia but there are a number of areas where members of the opposition on the committee—including the member for Fremantle, who is here—made clear. They were the removal of labour market and skills testing, the potential rise in the cost of biologic medicine, the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement provisions, intellectual property clauses, and the lack of independent assessment of the agreement.

I would like to take this opportunity to focus on two of these concerns; first of all, labour market testing and, second, investor-state dispute settlement provisions. The removal of labour market testing fundamentally undermines the 457 visa program and is at odds with community expectations. Australians expect that if there is a local who is able and willing to fill a job vacancy, they should have priority. This is not new and it is not protectionist. It is just common sense. The TPP may have had a poor effect on this by allowing six countries exempt from labour market test provisions, and there is widespread public concern that the skills testing would be taking place in those countries rather than to the standards we expect in Australia.

With all the denigration of unions and the ETU et cetera, Australians do like to have highly qualified electricians accredited in Australia, or at least the equivalent, putting in the electrics in their houses.

As the Leader of the Opposition has said, the 457 visa system needs to be tightened, not relaxed. It is there to complement the Australian workforce, not replace it. It is there to fill gaps in our experienced workforce so skill shortages do not slow down our economic growth. Labor would like to see the government take the opportunity, if the Trump administration does reopen negotiations on the TPP, to look at these provisions. No other country was as generous as Australia in this area, and Labor members are unable to understand why, when unemployment is rising in some parts of the country and we could and should have more apprentices who are capable of filling these positions.

The inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement provisions, commonly known as ISDS, was also concerning for Labor members of the committee. Throughout the hearing process, opposition members thought there was insufficient evidence that the ISDS would benefit Australia, in the face of evidence presented to the committee showing that it would in fact put our nation's sovereignty and reasonable policymaking at risk.

The member for Fadden and the committee entered the examination of this treaty with an honest purpose and have done a very good job, from all of the documents that I have read, although I came into this process late. It is very disappointing to see the United States withdrawing from international economic and strategic areas. I hope some of the people who constantly attack the United States think that this is going to be a benefit to the international system. It is not. We see that China is moving into the space that the United States is vacating. Politics abhors a vacuum. You will have a Chinese-led rival to this, perhaps not even as good, which will eventually take its place if the United States continues to vacate the field. Let us hope that this does not take place in the area of strategic concerns to Australia, because of course that would have a very bad effect on our ability to defend this great island nation.

See this speech in context