Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Like occurs in this place occasionally on technical matters, we find ourselves immersed in rather dramatic, overblown, hyperbolic discussion with dark conspiracy theories. What we're talking about here is quite a sensible step forward in the way in which we're going to undertake free trade agreements.

Can I just say from the outset that my first job after finishing university was in the international trade law section of the Attorney-General's Department. I taught, after that, international trade law and the benefits of international trade in the Monash University economics department. So I'm someone who's been committed to the benefits of trade for a long time. It is something that has benefited the Australian economy and the Australian people for many decades—indeed, for longer than that.

On this side, we are committed to free, fair and inclusive trade. It's not free as in a free-for-all; it has to be done in a way that is balanced and that takes into account the overall benefits for the economy. Minister Farrell, in a speech in November, talked about the four overarching principles which are going to guide our approach: first, that deepening and diversifying our trading relationships is critical to ensure we have a more resilient nation; second, that we need to defend and reform the rules based multilateral trading system; third, that we need to invest in ourselves—and that has been an absolute priority of this government since it came to office; and, fourth, that the enormous benefits of open trade should accrue ultimately to the Australian economy. That is why, based on those four principles, we are not going to allow ISDS clauses in future trade agreements. They are not transparent, they threaten to impinge sovereignty and they hamper legitimate public policy in a number of instances which can be pointed to around the world.

We need to preserve this government's ability to govern in the national interest. Minister Farrell has already incorporated this new approach in negotiations in a number of free trade agreements, including the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and, as the previous speaker on this side indicated, the European Union free trade agreement. That is going to be a significant agreement that will benefit our economy and our community more broadly, but it is with a party that has itself said it will not accept ISDS provisions in the future.

It's absolutely critical at this point to point out that the international community is moving away from ISDS clauses to more sustainable, sensible and holistic ways in which to protect the national interest in relation to international investment agreements. One example is to look back to the 2015 European Commission establishment of a multilateral investment court as a permanent body to decide investment disputes, which was one of its first steps in moving away from ISDS clauses. In November 2016 the European Commission signed the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, between the EU and Canada. This agreement included an investment court system. It was a very important step for both those economies in moving away from bilateral ad hoc arrangements in which, as the previous speaker on this side indicated, companies can take governments to court in ways that hamper their ability to deal with important public policy initiatives. The European Commissioner for Trade at the time noted that establishing CETA is a clear break from the ad hoc system of private arbitration known as ISDS which exists in many investment bilateral treaties. This is a move towards a system that I believe and that the Labor government believes will set up a much more comprehensive, sensible and appropriate way in which to govern disputes moving forward.

We've even seen this shift taking place in the United States. In May 2020, then presidential candidate Joe Biden committed that his administration would end the inclusion of ISDS clauses in future deals. We see the same with South Africa. We see the same with Brazil. What we see is a whole range of countries moving towards a desire to see investor disputes dealt with in a more rules based, multilateral system, rather than allowing individual corporations to take governments to court where they're trying to govern for the interests of their people. We remain committed to free, open, inclusive growth, but it has to be done in a way that is in the interests of the Australian people.

See this speech in context