Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Hansard source

I would just like to comment on the minister's 20-minute address, which fundamentally failed to explain why the government was not complying with the Senate's order for the production of documents, order of continuing effect 20, which requires that the full text of the proposed bilateral and multilateral agreements be laid on the table by the minister at least 14 days before the signing of those documents.

The minister made some feeble effort to argue that the trade processes we have at the moment are, somehow or other, transparent. Let the reality be clear: the process we have at the moment is nothing but opaque, and the minister himself says, 'We don't have to provide the documents and we won't provide the documents, because to provide the documents would weaken our negotiating position.' In fact, what occurs is that documents are provided only after those documents have been signed by the Commonwealth of Australia. The consequence of that is that then the only opportunity we have of dealing with that legislation is to change the enabling legislation; there is not a proposition put to the parliament on acceptance or rejection of that trade agreement.

Of course, this continuing order is based on the United States. Senator Wong in the Senate noted that the United States' trade representatives undertake to publish the full text of the free trade agreements negotiated on behalf of the United States well before the signing. That allows the US Congress and the US people to assess the provisions. Actually telling the people of the United States what the government of the United States is proposing to do when it engages in these foreign treaties doesn't seem to undermine its negotiating position. It doesn't seem to affect many other countries around the world that have a similar provision. That's why the Labor Party has proposed a fundamental reform of these treaty-making provisions under the A Fair Go for Australians in Trade Bill 2018, which has now received a second reading in this chamber, and we're waiting for it to come back to this chamber.

The fundamental problem we have here is that the agreements that are entered into by Australia are talked up, as we've seen here today, in a manner which does not reflect the reality of the operations of those agreements. This is not just about people who are, as the minister disparagingly said, antitrade. I can tell you now that I don't regard myself as antitrade. In introducing the A Fair Go for Australians in Trade Bill 2018 in the Senate, I made a point about the importance of trade and that Australia is a trade dependent economy. I regard myself as an internationalist. That has long been the case for those interested in social democracy. What I am interested in is the question of Australian sovereignty and the effect of these trade agreements, which, in their operation, don't bear fruit in terms of the claims and assertions made about them by the modellers and proponents of these agreements. It is not just people on the left who make this point, as the minister seemed to suggest. The Productivity Commission—that well-known left-wing organisation!—made the point again in its recent trade review:

Overall, the Commission concluded in 2010 that the economic benefits of bilateral trade agreements have generally been oversold and the risks have been understated. The Commission recommended that agreements should be reached only when they provide outcomes that are in Australia's interest and they are the most cost-effective way of achieving those outcomes. The Commission further recommended that there should be more transparent and rigorous assessments of such agreements. This should encompass two elements. To ensure agreements are in the Australia's interest, before negotiations commence, modelling should include realistic scenarios and be overseen by an independent body. After negotiations have concluded and prior to signing of the agreement, a full and public assessment should be undertaken covering all of the actual negotiated provisions. As with all areas of policy, trade agreements need to be considered on a case-by-case basis, and the balance of benefits and costs for future agreements may be different, for example because they cover a smaller share of Australian trade.

The minister makes great play about the significance of trade in terms of the changes that have occurred in Australian society over the last generation, and he places particular emphasis in saying a quarter of the growth that has occurred is due to trade. One-third of our trade is now with the People's Republic of China—our biggest single trading partner. Is there any better example of how clumsy, inept and incompetent this government has been than the treatment of our single largest trading partner, to the point that this minister, the trade minister before him and senior ministers couldn't even get an appointment!

I deal a great deal with universities. Vice-chancellors tell me about the importance of our international education system, and they constantly say to me, 'I hope they know what they're doing,' because it is not apparent to anyone else that the government know what they're doing. They're a government riven by chaos, riven by confusion. This is the proposition that we find across the Australian corporate sector. We see it not just in the corporate sector, though. Organisations representing workers, trade unions; NGOs; and the wider public are very, very concerned about the way this minister and the ministers before him have kept the public in the dark. This is a perfect example of it. They have refused to engage properly in a discussion about the future directions of this country because they have no idea what the future directions of this country are. Look at what they've done with Indonesia. They said they'd have a trade agreement signed before Christmas, except they went on this little frolic in the richest part of Sydney and said, 'Maybe we'll move our embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.' But what did they do? 'Oh, we forgot about the implications,' of that little frolic for short-term political advantage—they thought. They don't even understand what's happening within the Jewish community in this country, let alone what's happening in the largest Muslim country in the world, to our north.

This is a government that is riven by crisis and short-termism. It's a government that does not know what to do other than to desperately hang on to office, one day at a time. One day at a time—that's how this government operates. This is a government of nightwatchmen, with the blinds pulled down, hoping to Christ that nobody knocks on the door and wakes them up. The members of the government are desperate because they're so busy fighting amongst themselves that they've got no idea what the direction of this country is, no idea where to take this country, no idea what to do, no idea how to actually take this country forward. They're exhausted. They're exhausted by their own internal battles. Now they say, 'We're not going to tell you what we're up to'—frankly, because they don't know themselves. That's the real reason: they don't know themselves. They're going to assert that these great benefits have come from their actions. Well, the reality is very different when you look at it close up. It's not to weaken our negotiating position that the government want to keep the parliament in the dark. It's because the government don't know where they're going, don't know where this country is going and have no idea about how we should advance the interests of the Australian people. They are just so preoccupied now with surviving from one day to the next.

It's a simple proposition we have before us today—that we should get to see these trade agreements before they're signed, not be left in the lurch as we have been with the TPP. We should be left in a position where we can properly discuss them. This is not an outrageous proposition. This is a Senate that has many provisions whereby we provide advice on quite serious matters, and we have done so for a very long time, whether it's on shipping lists, grants to shipping companies, health funds or matters with regard to government advertising. It is not an outrageous suggestion that the government actually tell people what they're up to before they sign agreements that have such far-reaching consequences and that may well have massive implications for particular sectors and particular regions of our society. (Time expired)