Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, I present the committee's interim report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Inquiry into the Australian government's approach to negotiating trade and investment agreements.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—This inquiry into the Australian government's approach to negotiating trade and investment agreements was referred by the minister. We've received 54 written submissions from businesses, industry groups, unions, industry associations, government agencies, community groups and different academics. We've conducted six public hearings so far, which have been held across Canberra and Melbourne.

Australia is a trading nation with a strong record of participation in the global rules-based trading system and an extensive architecture of bilateral and regional trade and investment agreements. Australia's agreements reduce barriers to international trade and investments, creating well-paid and secure jobs, improving Australia's economic resilience and contributing to the economic growth and increased living standards for Australians.

Australia's approach to negotiating trade and investment agreements, led by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, has served this nation quite well over many decades. This current inquiry is examining how Australia can strengthen its approach to build on our success and ensure the greatest benefits for all Australians. Throughout the inquiry to date the committee has heard about the immense benefits of Australia's participation in international trade, the need to consider how the benefits are shared across the community and the potential effects of agreements on a wide range of stakeholders.

While Australia's approach to negotiating trade agreements has served us well thus far, as agreements become more complex it's important to ensure the level of transparency, accountability and oversight in the process is commensurate to the potential impact of agreements on stakeholders, the public, policy and law making. The committee has been particularly drawn to evidence outlining how more transparent consultation and engagement processes can be done better to better understand the impact of agreements on stakeholders and to utilise their insight and expertise, which can assist to avoid unintended consequences and improve the negotiating outcomes.

The five recommendations made in this interim report focus on strengthening Australia's approach to negotiating trade and investment agreements by improving transparency, accountability and oversight. These measures, we heard, will contribute to better trade negotiation outcomes for Australia and ensure that agreements are of the greatest benefit to the community. These recommendations included establishing a tripartite trade advisory committee across business, industry groups, trade unions and civil society to achieve a better balance between transparency and confidentiality in negotiations and to enable in-depth and informed feedback to government. No. 2 recommends codifying the practice of publishing information outlining negotiation aims and objectives for all future trade and investment agreement negotiations. No. 3 is to consider adopting a practice in the negotiation of agreements to provide transparency and information to stakeholders and the public equivalent to the information provided by the other party. The report recommends ensuring relevant committees have oversight of the development of trade and investment agreements through regular briefings on the status of progress of agreements, and undertaking independent periodic reviews of particular agreements to ensure that they are operating as intended and achieving the expected benefits.

In closing, I thank all the industry groups, businesses, unions, government agencies, community groups and the many academics who provided written submissions and appeared at the public hearings for this inquiry. I also thank the committee secretariat for the very hard work that they have done, and my fellow committee members and the deputy chair—the member for Wright—for their participation and valuable contributions during this inquiry. The committee will continue to explore the extensive evidence received during the inquiry to date and we will provide the final report in due course. I commend the interim report to the House.

Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I am pleased to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, and to have been engaged in the hearings and deliberations thus far for the inquiry into the Australian government's approach to negotiating trade and investment agreements. This interim report includes a number of useful recommendations, which I will touch on briefly.

As we know, we are a trading nation and committed to fair rules of international trade. We have agreements with many countries, and these are generally the outcomes of efforts on the parts of successive governments. The legislation and procedures we put in place to govern the construction of trade agreements need to recognise the fact, and be designed to last across the—sometimes many—terms and different governments that these negotiations often require. The recommendations include: a tripartite trade advisory council that includes representations from unions, business and relevant community organisations; codification of the way in which we publish the aims and objectives of trade negotiations; increased transparency; and regular briefings to relevant parliamentary committees. It is important to note that these recommendations really do no more than borrow what we have seen work in other countries.

I note that many of the union submissions to the inquiry, such as those from the AWU and the ETU, highlight government procurement and the importance of ensuring that free trade is pursued not for the purposes of simply allowing greater profits for business but as a larger and broader goal of serving the national interest across many facets of our cultural, economic and social lives. I commend the unions for their approach and for advocating not just for a greater, more codified engagement of unions in trade negotiation processes prior to the completion of agreements but also for being inclusive of other organisations being involved in the same way, naming both business and community interests. I take seriously the caution expressed by some organisations in their submissions that the US model has allowed the predominance of business interest. We seek balance for all relevant voices to be heard.

The recommendation for regular reviews of trade agreements is important in the context of the points I have covered here. We need to be able to hear from those working at the coalface—business, union and community groups—as to the effects, both good and bad, that have followed on from a trade agreement taken as a whole and also in relation to particular provisions.

I agree with the submission by the CPSU that industrial and safety standards, human rights and environmental standards are an important aspect of future trade agreements, and they should also be included in reviewing past trade agreements. As my colleague the member for Fenner has said in relation to policy evaluation, 'We need to bring enough modesty to the task to acknowledge that answers which sound right may not always work in the real world.'

Policy review is a healthy process, and this applies to the agreements we strike with other countries, especially as conditions change and standards develop and improve. Recommendation 5 of this interim report seeks to establish independent and regular reviews of existing agreements, and it is odd that such a requirement does not already exist. Even prospective trade agreements must serve our national interests, and every trade agreement that is already in place must continue to serve our national interest. If upon review we find that an agreement isn't performing in the way we intended then that agreement will need to be revisited.

I thank my fellow committee members, particularly the chair, the member for Adelaide, for his work and leadership. As usual, the secretariat supported the committee in their efficient fashion, and I thank the inquiry secretary, Mr Adrian Daniel, and his team.