James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of this motion. I actually agree with the previous speaker's critique of elements of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. One might proffer that a robust investor-state dispute mechanism would be helpful to address some of those criticisms that were made around the way in which our producers and our companies have been appallingly treated through non-tariff activities at the border.

In my electorate and indeed in yours, Deputy Speaker Sharkie, many industries have been impacted seriously by that. That's why I embrace, and we in the coalition embrace, the most comprehensive rules-based system to assist us to engage with the rest of the world, particularly in economics and in trade. The concept of investor-state dispute mechanisms within these agreements enhances that. It gives an opportunity for Australian businesses, through an agreed mediation process in those agreements, to deal with instances where they feel unfairly treated by a particular government in a way that is outside the spirit of a free trade agreement that we might have. If the position of the now government is that they want to weaken the standing of Australian exporters in their dealings with foreign governments in their export markets, then we will absolutely stand up against that.

I've had a lot of experience, not just in China but in many countries, in dealing with governments at a border level and with circumstances where a business has very diminished influence or power against, say, a customs agency or against measures that a government might put in place. We have to be honest: everyone loves free trade agreements in principle, but all nations work to limit the benefit for the other nation within that free trade agreement against their own domestic producers.

The World Trade Organization dispute resolution process is littered with examples of measures that many, if not most, nations within the WTO framework take to try and disadvantage someone exporting into that country versus a domestic producer, despite the fact that they want the access for their own export industries into other markets. That's why the dispute resolution process is in place under the WTO framework—because it is almost always a situation of a country putting measures in place that disadvantage businesses, including investors.

At the moment it's usually at the nation-to-nation level. Australia, on behalf of our businesses and our industries, very regularly takes actions through the WTO, and, in the examples related to China, we did that with barley, wine and other things. There are many examples where our businesses that are investing in other markets appreciate the added protection of having an avenue to litigate a dispute that they might have with another government.

Let's not forget that the sort of investment we're really talking about is supply chain investment. Our exporters investing in supply chains in other countries want protection over those investments, and it's actually enhancing and expanding the export capability and potential for producers in our nation. The government's attitude is, 'We want to make it harder for people to export, and we want to reduce the confidence that our businesses have to undertake investments and have a proper resolution process in place.' If the rules and the goalposts are moved on them by the government in situ that they're investing with, that is only going to disadvantage production and export from our own country.

I won't relitigate points that have been made about why the unions want this, and I don't dispute that, obviously, like any judicial process, there are examples you can cherry-pick where most of us would agree there has been a disappointing outcome through that system. That's like saying, if someone we think is guilty of murder is acquitted, we should junk the whole judicial system because it didn't achieve the outcome we wanted in that one particular case. That's obviously completely ridiculous. The coalition are going to stand up for exporters and growing our economy through export at every opportunity.

See this speech in context