Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

This is a classic case of those opposite just trying to rewrite history on what has happened in relation to ISDS clauses. They're just trying to have a kick at the Labor Party and the union movement at the same time. For some time, Labor has held a position against having ISDS clauses in future trade and investment agreements. The reason we should not be opposed to this change comes out of exactly what those opposite are saying. The previous Labor government, under Julia Gillard, adopted this policy, and it's been our policy ever since. It came out of the fact that, for the first time in a very long time, a company—which those in this debate have cited, Philip Morris Australia, a tobacco giant—decided to sue Australia, over plain packaging for tobacco. The previous Labor government had made huge strides in terms of plain packaging for tobacco. That court case alone cost the Australian government $40 million—to defend our right to make decisions around plain packaging in the health interests of Australians. The Australian government received back only $12 million in costs. It was after that point that our party took a very different position on and approach to ISDS clauses.

It is our position currently that we do not support the inclusion of ISDS clauses in future trade agreements or investment agreements. Where they already exist and have evolved over time, we are saying that we will ensure that the government is able to preserve the right to regulate in the public interest of the Australian people, including for the environment and public health. The case with Philip Morris proved to us that we needed a change in policy. It wasn't just the unions calling for it. It was our own rank and file and a number of peak not-for-profit organisations and health organisations, all of whom believed that the Australian government should be governing in the interests of Australians and not be subjected to court cases from a foreign country like we saw with Philip Morris.

We in Australia have to do something about the previous government's free trade agreements. It isn't just in the area of ISDS clauses that they have failed the Australian people. There was their overpromising on the China free trade agreement. You have to say, in retrospect, that what we're seeing through that agreement is failure in a number of areas that they were saying were a success. For example, they said that we should support this agreement because of the support it would give our wine industry. That alone was a clear example of deliberate overpromising. They promised that it would be more attractive for the industry to invest in the China market. They said that, five years after the agreement came into action, there would be zero tariffs for Australian wine exporters. This is true, but, right on the eve of those zero tariffs kicking in, China shut the door to Australian wine. The trade was stuck on pause. Small producers in my electorate lost hundreds of thousands of dollars, with wine stuck in ports. The previous government failed to address those classic non-tariff barriers that free trade agreements don't deal with.

The wine industry was not the only one to be burnt by the China free trade agreement failing to deliver what it promised. Beef, coal and other major exports to China suffered the same. What did we get in return? The loss of more jobs. Economic modelling proved that the gains under the China free trade agreement were grossly overestimated by the previous government. It's not just the China free trade agreement; other free trade agreements have failed to deliver the jobs that they promised. Yes, we need to do better when it comes to free trade agreements, but we also need to do better when it comes to the non-tariff barriers. We need to do better when we're talking about engaging with countries and how they treat our imported products.

Increasingly, under the previous government, free trade agreements also included a number of side agreements around visas and labour mobility—again bringing in workers only for them to be exploited here in this country because of the unscrupulous nature of the treatment of migrant workers. These are all failures of the previous government. I am proud to be part of a team that is trying to address one area in which the previous government failed and trying to improve the existing ISDS clauses that we have. We stand strong in saying future trade agreements will not have these clauses. We need to modernise and have modern agreements that do not involve these clauses.

See this speech in context