Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I present the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement together with documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a broad-ranging regional trade deal between the governments of Australia, Brunei, Dar es Salaam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam. The committee's inquiry found that the TPP would have included significant trade and investment outcomes which would potentially have assisted Australian injury industry, business and consumers. However, a number of very troubling aspects were raised by the submitters including: the lack of independent economic modelling which indicated Australia would actually benefit from the agreement; the high risks associated with the investor-state dispute settlement provisions, which would allow foreign corporations to sue the Australian government in some circumstances; provisions undermining labour market testing requirements in Australia; again, the lack of enforceable commitments to labour and environmental standards; further, ambiguity regarding data protection for biologic medical products; and provisions which would lock in Australia's intellectual property regime.

A significant level of community concern regarding the TPP was apparent during the committee's inquiry. Thousands of emails were received from individuals urging that the TPP be rejected. In particular, people emphasised their concerns regarding the potential of that ISDS provisions contained in the TPP to undermine the Australian government's capacity to act in the national interest.

However, the committee's inquiry has been taken over overtaken by events. In January, President Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the United States from the TPP. Due to the structure of entry into force provisions in the TPP, it is now unlikely the agreement will enter into force in its current form. So due to these circumstances, the committee has made the decision not to hold public hearings and to complete the inquiry on the papers. A revived trade deal may be arranged by the remaining participating countries in the future and, should this occur, a new inquiry will be required.

Recently the Australian government has indicated that it may still attempt to ratify the TPP through introducing implementing legislation into the parliament. However, the trade minister has also stated he is liaising with his counterparts to lock in benefits from the TPP without the United States if need be. If the Australian government is actively seeking alternative trade arrangements with the remaining countries who participated in the TPP, it is not clear to the committee why ratification should be a legislative priority. Achieving access to the substantial markets of the United States was a key objective and justification for the TPP agreement. A new regional trade agreement would contain significantly different arrangements and commitments. So, accordingly, the committee has recommended the Australian government should defer undertaking binding treaty action until the future of the TPP is clarified through further negotiation with Australia's major trading partners.

A significant aspect of the TPP consideration by the Australian parliament was two recommendations for reform to the treaty-making process made by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and these were that the Australian government should consider: firstly, changing its approach to free trade agreement negotiations to permit security cleared representatives from business and civil society to see the Australian government's positions being put as part of the negotiations; and secondly, implementing a process through which independent modelling and analysis of proposed trade agreement is undertaken by the Productivity Commission or equivalent organisation and provided to the joint committee alongside the national interest assessment to improve the assessment of agreements. They are two very succinct, comprehensive, common-sense objectives: do not have a secret deal—open it up to civil society and business; and cost the benefits of the trade deal independently—assess it.

The committee supports these recommendations. They reflect the growing consensus regarding the need for reform of the treaty-making process, which was also evident in submissions received by the committee's inquiry. The TPP was perceived by many to be emblematic of the problems in this area. A broad range of submitters highlighted issues with the transparency of treaty negotiations, the one-sided nature of consultations with stakeholders, the lack of adequate and independent assessment of trade agreements, and the challenges the current treaty-making process presents to Australia's democratic values. The joint committee's recommendations also align with the committee's recommendations for reform made in 2015 in Blind agreement: reforming Australia's treaty-making process. At that time the committee's recommendations were not accepted by the Australian government. The committee considers these proposals for reform should be reassessed.

The joint committee's report into the TPP outlined a concern that Australia's long-term commitment to free trade, from which Australia benefits immensely, is currently at risk from a resurgence of nationalism and isolationism internationally. However, this is not evident in the submissions to the committee's inquiry into the TPP. Instead, there is a wide acceptance of Australia's approach to trade as a vehicle for economic growth, job creation and rising living standards. Broad support was expressed for the development of fair trading relationships with all countries and the need to regulate trade through the agreement of international rules. Both in Australia and overseas, a key aspect of community opposition to recent trade agreements has evolved from a lack of transparency and consultation in the treaty-making process, the extension of trade agreements into broader policy areas beyond tariffs and customer arrangements, and a perceived democratic deficit in the treaty-making process.

The committee has recommended that the Australian government should prioritise action to respond to the growing bipartisan and community support for reform of the treaty-making process. A reformed treaty-making process will be an important measure to ensure continued public support for Australia's future trade agreements. I commend the report to the Senate.