Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021. These two bills implement Australia's obligation under the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement, RCEP for short. The agreement was signed between Australia and 14 other states: China, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea and the 10 members of ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

The Greens won't be supporting these bills, as we oppose binding treaty action being taken. As is consistent with our approach to free trade agreements, we continue to hold serious concerns around the transparency, consultation and human rights regarding trade agreements processes, as I will articulate further. There are no additional market access benefits for Australian exports that come out of the RCEP. Australia already has free trade agreements with the RCEP members. India's withdrawal from negotiations means that agreements offer no additional export markets for Australian businesses. Even the government acknowledges the minimum value of RCEP. The regulation impact statement prepared for this bill clearly states, 'Given the relative quality of Australia's existing free trade agreements with its RCEP partner parties, including the CPTTP, we do not expect that RCEP goods market access commitments to provide Australia with additional market access with our current free trade partners.' The government also acknowledges that under our existing free trade agreements, Australia will already have illuminated tariffs on imports from RCEP parties by 1 April 2021. So if there is neither additional market access nor any benefits in the form of a reduced tariffs, why is Australia entering into this agreement in the first place? The government has not commissioned an independent study of the economic or social costs and benefits that will come from this agreement, so we have no way of independently verifying the government's claims.

As is usual practice, RCEP trade negotiations were conducted in secret. Neither parliament nor the wider community have had any input into the development of this agreement. The final text of the agreement was not made public until after the government made a decision to sign it. While the community and civil society are kept in the dark, business groups get the advantage of having a seat at the table. The EU has developed a more open process when it comes to negotiating free trade agreements and that includes the public release of documents and proposed text used during those negotiations before they are signed.

Australia can and should strive to have a more open process when it comes to our free trade negotiations. This includes not only the publication of our negotiating text but also the independent evaluation of the economic health, gender and environmental impact agreements before we make a decision to sign these agreements. The community and civil society should have a role in providing feedback through an open and transparent process. The RCEP contains no minimum requirements for a signatory government to uphold human rights, labour rights or environmental protections. This is entirely unacceptable when it comes to the context of the climate crisis, the significant human rights violations occurring in states who are signatories to the agreement and the inconsistent approach taken by signatory states to the implementation of labour basic rights as defined by the International Labour Organization.

Unfortunately, global trade models encourage competition to provide the lowest labour and environmental costs for exports. This model suits global corporations and big business but does come at the expense of labour rights, especially in low-income countries. We should be using trade agreements to improve the rights and conditions of workers, not eroding them. The absence of commitment to human rights and labour rights means there is no obligation on signatories to take action to end human rights abuses.

The greens echo the deep concern of AFTINET, the ACTU and others about entering an agreement with Myanmar. As noted by AFTINET, the RCEP would legitimise a brutal military regime in Myanmar at a time when the US and other allies are implementing serious sanctions and withdrawing from economic agreements with Myanmar. The RCEP also ignores violations of human rights and labour rights China, the Philippines and other RCEP countries. Australia should not be entering into preferential trade deals with Myanmar; we should be imposing targeted sanctions and showing our support for the return of the democratically elected government. The Greens strongly support the inclusion of our international labour standards and human rights standards as part of our free trade agreements.

This agreement also represents another missed opportunity to include commitments by governments to implement international environmental standards. This is not a new suggestion. The Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement includes the environmental chapter in which parties made commitments not to reduce environmental standards. The RCEP does not include an environmental chapter. This is a serious shortcoming in this agreement. We cannot afford to entrench bad climate policies and sell out workers rights through our trade models any longer. Now is the time to include enforceable commitments to climate action in our trade agreements.

Many concerns that have been raised with the RCEP, including rules on trades and services, as they will apply to aged care. The current rules freeze regulations at current levels for most services unless they are listed as exempt. Unlike other publicly funded essential services, aged care has not been specifically exempted from those rules. The Greens are deeply troubled that these rules will lock in current levels of regulation and restrict further changes. This places significant and unnecessary limitations on any government to be able to regulate in the public interest and could restrict the implementation of the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. Our trade agreement should not restrict the provision of essential services like aged care.

I want to move now to the issues around investor-state dispute settlements. While the RCEP does not include investor-state dispute settlement provisions upon ratification, this will be considered two years after the agreement comes into force. These provisions allow foreign investors and corporations to bypass national courts and sue governments directly for compensation if a change in law harms their investment. They do not serve the interest of the community but instead protect the interests of multinational corporations. If investor-state dispute settlement clauses are agreed in the RCEP in the future, Australia could face both state-to-state disputes and ISDS disputes from international aged-care companies if it increases regulation, particularly in the aged-care sector.

The RCEP provides no clear economic benefit to Australia. It fails the human rights test, the environmental standards test and the transparency test. For too long, free trade agreements have come at the expense of human rights, labour rights and environmental rights. I know that we can do better. We can implement free trade agreements grounded in democratic transparency and accountability to serve the interests of our communities, not greedy multinational corporations. I urge those in this chamber to stand with the greens in opposing the ratification of the RCEP.