Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021 and a related bill. Labor will be supporting the regional comprehensive economic partnership agreement implementation bills.

The partnership, RCEP as it is known, was signed on 15 November 2020 by 15 countries. It is a partnership that includes the members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam; as well as five non-ASEAN nations: Australia, China, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea. These countries make up 29 per cent of world GDP and 30 per cent of the world's population. RCEP is, quite simply, the biggest trade agreement in history. Negotiations for it started in 2012 at the 21st ASEAN Summit in Cambodia, and the negotiations were commenced by Labor, by Prime Minister Julia Gillard and trade minister Craig Emerson on behalf of Australia. From the beginning, Labor has supported Australia being actively involved in the negotiation of this partnership. Importantly, the process has been led by ASEAN.

RCEP includes nine of Australia's top 15 trading partners and economies, which account for more than half of Australia's total two-way trade and more than two-thirds of our exports. Ratifying RCEP will mean Australia is part of the biggest trade agreement in the world. As Dr Jeffrey Wilson of the Perth USAsia Centre has argued:

RCEP will be the world's second-most important trade agreement on arrival, ranking behind only the WTO itself.

In essence, RCEP creates new regional architecture for economic integration and strengthens the rules of many of Australia's existing free trade agreements. Importantly, RCEP includes core investment protections—rules requiring payment of compensation where an investment is expropriated; minimum standards of treatment of investors under international law; and compensation for losses due to conflict and civil strife. The agreement provides avenues for reducing non-tariff barriers, including in areas such as quarantine and technical standards, by promoting compliance with World Trade Organization rules and further improving cooperation and transparency. And, finally, it supports economic capacity building and, in particular, provides a dedicated chapter addressing the capability of small and medium enterprises in the region to benefit from the agreement.

These protections and transparency provisions will provide greater certainty and confidence for Australian businesses looking to invest in the region, and they will be helped by the partnership's single set of rules for exporters to use, rather than having to rely on the multiplicity of different rules and procedures under the existing free trade agreements. This cuts or simplifies a great deal of red tape for Australian SMEs and opens up opportunities for Australian firms looking to utilise regional supply chains.

There are aspects of the RCEP that we think could be better, and valid concerns have been raised, and I propose to go through some of these. RCEP, as it stands, does not have an environment chapter or labour chapter. When Labor was last in government, Craig Emerson, as trade minister, sought to include these provisions. Regrettably, other RCEP members were not amenable to this, but opting out and retreating to the sidelines was not an option, and to do so would have set back our relationship with ASEAN significantly.

A number of other concerns have been addressed, including ensuring that the partnership does not expand waivers of labour market testing for foreign workers. Further, the government has provided assurances that RCEP does not restrict domestic procurement arrangements in Australia at any level of government; it does not require privatisation of any Australian public services; it does not undermine the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, it does not undermine state or Commonwealth workplace laws or occupational licensing arrangements; it does not undermine Australia's antidumping regime; it does not include provisions that limit the right of the Commonwealth to regulate in the interests of public welfare or in relation to safe products; and RCEP does not include investor-state dispute settlement provisions.

Labor commends the work of civil society and the trade union movement in steering the government away from implementing ISDS as a basis for dispute settlement in all trade negotiations. The fact that we are seeing ISDS less and less in our international treaties is a testament to the campaigning of the ACTU, AFTINET and other organisations. Recent media reports that Clive Palmer is exploring the use of ISDS mechanisms to sue the Australian government reaffirm our opposition to them as a general provision in international trade deals. Having already forked out a million dollars in legal fees because the Prime Minister supported Mr Palmer's attempt to sue Western Australia, Australian taxpayers certainly don't want to be stung again by another vexatious suit.

Unions and other civil society stakeholders have also expressed concern regarding the potential for public regulation to be constrained under RCEP. DFAT and Minister Tehan have clarified this is incorrect and that there are reservations in RCEP, like in any FTA, that allow Australia to regulate in the public interest, which includes for aged care or climate change action. Labor doesn't support agreements which would inhibit the government's ability to implement in full the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety.

While aged care and other concerns have been responded to by the government and resolved, the Morrison-Joyce government still needs to respond to community concerns in relation to Myanmar. Myanmar, as an ASEAN nation, is a signatory to RCEP, but the actions of the Tatmadaw to undermine Myanmar's democracy, to detain thousands of political prisoners and to crack down against peaceful protests and opposition are unacceptable. They are completely unacceptable. Labor condemns the military coup of 1 February and the subsequent violence engaged in by the Tatmadaw. On 2 February, we called for the Australian government to review its military cooperation with the Tatmadaw, and over a month later this cooperation was suspended. Labor has also called for targeted sanctions against those responsible for the coup. In April, Labor called on the government to provide visa pathways for at-risk Myanmar nationals to remain in Australia. Once again, a month later, the government said those on temporary visas could apply to extend their stay.

But the Morrison-Joyce government has still not implemented any additional targeted sanctions against those responsible for the coup and for human rights abuses in Myanmar. This is despite many of our like-minded partners taking strong action, and it is despite the government chaired Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade recommending sanctions against the Tatmadaw in June, and, in August, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties embarrassingly having to remind the Morrison-Joyce government again of the need to act. Labor members of the JSCOT worked hard to amend the final report to reflect stakeholder concerns on Myanmar. I thank all of the Labor members, and I especially thank Senator Ayres and the Deputy Chair, Mr Khalil, for their tireless efforts in this committee.

In the committee's report, the government was urged to make a declaration as to Australia's response to the situation in Myanmar at the time of RCEP ratification. All the minister has indicated is that he will consider it. Well, we say the time for consideration has well passed, given ratification is assured with the passage of the bill today. We urge the government to make a declaration, as the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties urged. More broadly, the Morrison government's refusal to implement any sanctions since the coup sends precisely the wrong message. It sends a message that we don't care and that we are mere bystanders to the democratic backsliding in our region, in a nation where many Australians over many years have worked so hard to support Myanmar's democratic transition. So it is time for Mr Morrison and Minister Payne to act.

The Morrison-Joyce government's failings on Myanmar reflect their broader failings to understand the region and to sufficiently deploy our diplomacy to shape the region we want: a region that is stable, prosperous and respectful of sovereignty. Labor recognises that Australia's security and prosperity relies on our continued economic engagement with the world and engagement and integration with our region, including through trade and investment. International trade creates jobs. These are facts that sometimes some in this chamber and some in the community fail to recognise. One in five Australian workers are employed in a trade related activity. That is more than 2 million Australian jobs. As an open trading nation, Australia has not just been a beneficiary of the multilateral rules based system that has operated for decades; we have helped shape it and we have worked to shape it for our interests. We have to understand that our recovery and the region's recovery from the pandemic requires open trade based on agreed rules of the road.

Of course, our ongoing success as an exporting nation also demands that we better diversify what we export and where we export. Despite all of his tough talk, Prime Minister Morrison has overseen Australia becoming more dependent than ever on one market—that is, China—for our exports and for Australian jobs, such that we depend on the Chinese market more than any other country in the world. Under Mr Morrison's prime ministership, trade with India and Indonesia has gone down. When trade diversification should be the highest priority for this nation, Mr Morrison has put at risk our trade agreement with the European Union. We all know, in the context of his flashy announcement on nuclear powered submarines, that Mr Morrison neglected to do any of the diplomatic legwork around ending Australia's contract for the Attack class submarines with the French. It really highlights how perilous it is for Australia, for our economy and for the national interest to have a man in the office of Prime Minister who really only cares about the photo-op and the politics.

Trade diversification and more open trade are in our national interest. Our economic welfare, our strategic opportunities, our national security and our cultural dynamism will all depend on how deeply and well we integrate with the fast-growing economies of Asia not only in traditional goods trade but also in investment, tourism, services, supply chains and people-to-people links.

What is so often lost in the trade discussion in this country is a recognition of the benefits that open trade has for working people. Trade benefits working people by contributing to economic growth. Trade benefits working people by improving national productivity. Trade benefits working people because it creates better-paid, more-rewarding and more-secure jobs. It benefits working people by offering lower prices and greater choice for working people as consumers. You see, we don't pursue trade opportunities out of blind adherence to abstract theories; we in the Labor Party pursue it because it delivers real benefits for the people we represent. Trade raises living standards, so because I am a progressive I support trade and I support free trade.

But I also recognise trade places uneven pressures on our society. That is why we have to have proper social democratic institutions and progressive economic policies, and it means existing on high-quality trade agreements that maximise local employment. It means ensuring that trade agreements do not undermine public policy—for example, in the areas of health care, environment or labour rights. It means trade agreements must be supported by policies that have at their heart the expansion of opportunity and investments in health, education, innovation and infrastructure to ensure the Australian people continue to prosper in a more open economy. This combination of open trade supported by the government investing in its people is central to how we ensure Australia and working Australians can be the beneficiaries of a changing region and a changing world.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make some comments from the perspective of my participation in the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties deliberations on the RCEP agreement. I want to thank those Labor senators and members who participated in that committee, who've done careful work in the labour interest, in the labour movement's interest and in the national interest to continually improve Australia's participation and the quality of these agreements.

I want to deal with a few facts. The debate about trade is too often a fact-free debate. The key issues that we prioritised in the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties were, firstly, the legitimate issues raised by people in aged care wanting to ensure that the impact of the RCEP wasn't to limit the Australian government's capacity to regulate in aged care. It is crystal clear that there is no impact from the RCEP on the capacity of the Australian government to regulate aged care if this government or a future Albanese government chooses to implement the full recommendations of the aged-care royal commission—no impact on labour mobility and the capacity to regulate temporary work, no investor-state dispute settlement procedures, and despite what we heard a few minutes ago, a commitment in writing from this government that is binding that Australia will not pursue investor-state dispute settlement procedures at the two-year review.

The issues around Myanmar are a top priority for the Labor members of the committee, and in no way is Australia's participation in the RCEP a legitimisation of the Tatmadaw regime in Myanmar. It is an assertion of ASEAN centrality. And, if you're concerned about issues like the brutal takeover in Myanmar and you want a pathway to resolve those issues, ASEAN centrality is critical; collective action in the region is critical.

We do have some criticisms of the government's approach to Myanmar. We on the Labor side do believe that a stronger statement at this point would be of value. We would support Magnitsky-style sanction regimes; they would allow more targeted, agile and effective sanctions of Tatmadaw figures. But in no way should Labor's support for the RCEP be taken as a tacit endorsement or legitimisation of that regime. Environment, labour and human rights are all provisions supported by Labor when we commenced negotiations for this agreement, and we will continue to seek improvements in those areas.

Now, our region is not composed of entirely democratic countries. That may be a newsflash for some people in this place. From some of the language about alliances with like-minded nations, it may be a newsflash for people in the government and in the Greens, but, you know what, the region's a bit more complicated than that. Diplomacy and seeking peace, freedom, relationships and security in our region involve deepening relationships with countries that are very different to ours and have very different styles of governance to us. And we should be focused on that. If you're interested in security and peace, that is the strongest argument, in fact. There is not a very strong economic argument for RCEP. Not even its principal opponents would argue that there are any significant advances in RCEP in economic terms or market access terms. The strongest argument for RCEP is continuing to build our relationships in the region. That is the strongest argument. If you're interested in peace and security in our region, you cannot be against our participation in the largest piece of regional architecture that has been developed in recent times.

It does lead me to make a couple of observations about the government's approach to trade agreements more broadly. It is the case that the government has, at the very least, overstated the economic case for each of the agreements that it has participated in and led. I think the closest the government's going to get to achieving net zero this week is RCEP, where there is net zero economic benefit—no real benefits, no real costs. They won't get much closer to net zero in any other terms this week. There is no independent economic analysis, and it is a problem for building confidence in the Australian community that the government's secret deals approach to trade agreements is actually in the national interest when the government cannot demonstrate one extra job from its trade agreements—in fact, the reverse. There have been too many cows-for-cars agreements. There have been too many agreements that privilege the export of raw commodities and don't actually act in the interests of jobs.

Australia has been forced further down the global value chain over the life of this government and become less and less economically diverse. You have jokers like Mr Christensen chairing this Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, worried about our economic diversity—the diversity of our trading relationships. If you were remotely interested in Australia's economic sustainability and diversity, you would be focussed on lifting us up the global value chain and making our economic exports more complex, not less. What have we seen? We've seen the car industry close down. We've seen incomes decline. We have seen no wage growth. This is because of the free market ideology that's attached to the government's approach.

The second element of the government's approach that is a problem here is a focus on ribbon-cutting and announcements and not delivery. That's why you see people performing and putting a big amount of emphasis on agreements like the Uruguay agreement. Our trade volume with Uruguay is $24 million, at its highest, a year, but we devoted resources to pursuing an agreement with Uruguay. The IA-CEPA is the most recent significant bilateral agreement. It was supported through this place by the Labor Party. There was a big announcement and all the razzle-dazzle, all the press conferences, all the claims made about the economic benefit, but where is the follow-through from this government? Where is the increase in commitment to resources from trade offices to support Australian businesses to participate in economic activity in Indonesia? The short story is: nothing; zip. The government's focus is on the instrument itself and not the object.

We've seen, I think, a government that's approach to trade agreements has let Australia down, a government that's approach to trade agreements is stuck in the 1990s and the 2000s. We've slid much further. We are repeating the certainties and sureties of the 1980s and 1990s, and things have been allowed to slip, decline and deteriorate since then. What we see in the Australian community on issues like temporary migration, for example, is that there is an association in people's minds with the amount of temporary migration and the trade agreements. Well, the truth is trade agreements are now irrelevant in temporary migration terms; it's this government's approach to temporary migration that is the problem. There is no effective local training and no regulation of temporary migration. Former Treasurer Peter Costello said in the early 2000s that Australia would never become a guest worker nation. I don't think you could travel in the streets of Sydney or Melbourne, or in our agriculture sector, and say that that is still the case. There is a deep complacency that has infected the government's approach. It's still stuck in the early 2000s when we had, essentially, a benign economic environment and a benign geopolitical environment. With that complacency and that sense of confidence, the coalition government has not caught up with the big shifts in the region.

What would be different about the Labor approach in government? Well, the first thing is that we would be results based—not measuring our effectiveness on the number of trade agreements or the number of press conferences, but having a focus on actually deepening trade and market access, particularly for Australian firms higher up in the value chain. We would be supporting businesses, rather than just signing the agreements and saying, 'Job done.' That has been the approach of this government.

The second thing we would do to rebuild confidence in these issues is clean up temporary labour. We would be focused on permanent jobs and permanent migration and eliminate the abuses, the rorts and the rip-offs that have been perpetrated by this government in temporary labour. We should be prioritising permanent migration. We don't want a guest worker economy; we want to be supporting permanent migration. And for temporary workers who come here, their experience of life in Australia should be a good one. They should be able to come here and work in confidence and then be able to return to their countries and tell a good story of their lives in Australia, not a story of desperation and hunger and lining up in food queues, which has been the experience of temporary migrants over the last couple of years.

Fix agriculture, train apprentices, look after temporary workers and make sure we actually recognise the soft diplomacy asset that there is in our region and look after Pacific workers properly when they come here, instead of the current approach of all care and no responsibility. What do you think people say when they return about their experience if there have been 14 people stuck in a flat in Inverell paying exorbitant rents and working in a meatworks? What do you think they say about the Australian government's commitment to the Pacific when that happens? We have to improve that.

There will be no ISDSs under a Labor government's trade approach. They are not in RCEP. They are a declining feature of the global trading environment, in any case. We will not permit them. There will be no agreements that undermine our sovereign capacity to provide and protect public services or to regulate in the interests of Australians.

An Albanese government will build local. We will use the power of our government procurement capability at the Commonwealth level and encourage the states to build locally. Just like President Biden, in the COVID recovery we will build back better and build Australian industry. That means more trains in Queensland, with no more Campbell Newman approaches to outsourcing or Mr Baird or Ms Berejiklian approaches, where all the trains, buses and ferries were built offshore. There'll be billions of dollars spent and local jobs in places like Maryborough and Newcastle. There'll be defence procurement, supporting our small to medium enterprises.

We will rebuild Australian manufacturing under an Albanese Labor government. Under the government opposite, good jobs in manufacturing have declined. The car industry has gone offshore. Manufacturing now sits at 5.7 per cent of GDP. You can't wander around this place wittering on about national security and pretend that it's sustainable for Australia to be strong and secure in the region when our economy is diverse and hollowed out and manufacturing hovers just above five per cent. It's completely inconsistent, it's completely reckless and it will leave Australia a weaker and impoverished place if we allow it to continue.

An Albanese Labor government will support good-quality trade agreements, but we will not allow free trade ideology to capture our approach to industry policy or to regulating and protecting the Australian national interest.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I say that One Nation supports fair trade agreements. Is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement the spawn of the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Is it free trade or fair trade? It's certainly not free trade. Each of the signatories have carved out substantial areas of their economies from the agreement. This information is tucked away, hidden away in annexes where it would seem not enough have looked. Tariffs are being defended. Schemes that protect the power base of local politicians are being defended, at Australia's cost. There are hundreds of pages of carve-outs in this agreement. Many of them are ours. That's probably a good thing. But the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement is not a free trade agreement. It is at best slightly freer trade.

In the Productivity Commission submission dated July 2022 to the inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties into certain aspects of the treaty-making process in Australia, the Productivity Commission comes out and basically supports what I'm about to say. The government prepared a national interest analysis on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement and found it did provide a net benefit to Australia. This was relied upon by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and subsequently endorsed by the Morrison-Joyce government and the alternative Albanese-Bandt government. This consensus of the establishment parties is disconcerting. Despite their name, free trade agreements are never free. These agreements always come at a cost to someone, and that's usually everyday Australians, workers and business owners. Underdeveloped countries do not sign free trade agreements with industrialised nations in order to give away what they have. It's the industrialised nations that give away their wealth, our wealth, through lower tariffs, greater market access of cheaper goods and greater incursion of foreign workers into our Australian economy. They're facts.

Free trade in this situation is a race to the bottom. The nation with the worst environmental protections, the lowest wages, the worst working conditions, the crudest and most unsafe working conditions will win every time, in effect dragging our conditions down at the same time as dragging theirs up. Our environment loses. Our wages lose. Everyday Australians lose.

I saw nothing in the National Interest Analysis that constituted a genuine attempt to identify who the winners and losers will really be. That's probably a design feature to allow the establishment parties to take all the electoral gain and protect themselves later from any electoral loss in this election cycle, because all too often in this country, in this parliament, it seems to be about looking good, not doing good.

Once signed into existence, these agreements are not subject to sufficient scrutiny. The last Productivity Commission inquiry into a free trade agreement was in 2010. The last review into Australia's most important free trade agreement, the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, was in 2018. Before Australia enters into future trade agreements, this parliament must address the lack of transparency in the trade negotiation process and the signing of an agreement before this parliament ratifies it.

My next concern is to the new regulatory environment that this agreement will create. In his submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, Bryan Clark from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry highlighted: 'There are five separate trade agreements with Malaysia. Businesses are getting very confused trying to work out how to use these agreements, and the best outcome for Australian business would actually come from sorting out all this red tape and creating clear rules for Australian businesses.' I agree completely.

Here's a specific example of this, thanks to the Australian Fair trade and Investment Network. The United Nations Central Product Classification system used by the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement— with the UN it's always a mouthful, isn't it; they twist and turn and hide and bury and camouflage in acronyms and long titles that confuse people, so I'll start again. The United Nations Central Product Classification system used by the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement has a separate classification for aged care, which implies that without a specific reservation by Australia any increase in the regulation of aged care would be a breach of this agreement. So if we find something we need to improve and regulate it, it could be a breach of this agreement. The NSW Nurses and Midwives' Association agreed that: 'At worst, aged care is exposed to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement. At best, there is sufficient ambiguity to allow overseas companies to exploit the framework for their own benefit.' The globalists, the elites, moving our industries—whole industries, whole sectors, workers, farmers—as pawns in their game of 'central', of control and money, and parliaments in this country, without accountability, are their tool. They work through us—this parliament.

The government has responded that there is provision for a review of unexpected consequences so we should not worry aged-care standards will drop under the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement. There is, though, no framework in place to ensure this action actually occurs. In the years ahead, we will read stories that the parliaments' mates, be they union bosses or crony capitalists and globalists, are exploiting loopholes in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement for their own benefit. That's how they get through unaccountable parliaments. Resolving that will be at the discretion of the minister. This is a terrible system. The benefit of a free-trade agreement must be tested annually. I call on the government to introduce a system of annual review of the economic gains and losses for each of the agreements. Australia will not restore its position as a leading world economy by exposing Australian businesses to unfair competition and multiple layers of red, green and blue tape. Red tape is the bureaucracy. Green tape is pseudo-environmental regulations, impositions, under the guise of environment but really with the intent to control. And blue tape is UN policy on behalf of the UN's masters, the globalists, who move industries and people around the globe at will.

Australia will not emerge from our self-inflicted COVID-19 recession by destroying business and increasing reliance on government welfare. To restore the wealth of everyday Australians, we must get the government out of the way and let personal free enterprise create wealth again. Ideas, effort, energy, heart—that's what brings life to an economy when it is a free economy with fair trade. Fair trade has an important role to play in that process—fair trade.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make a few comments about trade policy and where RCEP fits in. For over 75 years the Liberal Party has largely been a champion of free trade. This goes back to the Menzies government opening up trade with Japan with the commerce agreement that was delivered in the 1950s. That led to, predominantly, iron ore being shipped to Japan. So the pivot to Asia—trade in an economic sense—started under the Menzies government.

Over the current period of coalition government, you'd have to give great credit to prime ministers Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison for pursuing an agenda on free trade which has seen us deliver the TPP, the RCEP and also bilateral agreements with a number of key Asian partners. The point of free trade is that it is about opening up markets for Australia. This is a wealthy country with a relatively small domestic market. Therefore, we depend on our ability to trade offshore to pay for our lifestyle. I've said many times that Australia has relied upon foreign people, foreign capital and access to foreign markets for the past 240 years. That is a fact. So the job of government is to ensure that the Australian people can trade into these markets., which we can now do at much greater rate thanks to these new trade deals.

The RCEP is setting Australia up for another generation of prosperity. It builds on the bilateral trade deal agenda. As we are trying to set up the country for a decarbonised economy, trade is a key economic lever. It's always easy to run an agenda against free trade through a protectionist lens but the reality is that we will not be a wealthy nation by selling stuff to ourselves—and that is the same for goods and services. What I like about the RCEP is that it goes beyond just cutting tariffs on goods; it also opens up the prospect of Australian services exports going into, mainly, the Asian region. It is important that we, as a diverse economy that is predominantly a services economy, can look to export financial services; that we can look to export accounting services, professional services; that we can look to export architecture and engineering through mutual recognition, through the creation of schemes that allow qualifications and regulatory systems to be recognised in other jurisdictions. We have a lot to gain from services exports as well as goods exports.

In closing, I will just make two points. The thing with these trade deals is that it really is the end of the beginning. Yes, it's true that the signing ceremonies and the media coverage are important. Getting the legislation through means that there will be, eventually, lower tariffs and more access for goods and services. But it is a real grind to get the gains of these trade deals, and that relies upon the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade engaging closely with industry and making sure that the real gains are being achieved, that we are getting access into these markets and that, when the cameras and the caravans and so on move on, the real work continues, because that is the key of a free trade deal.

Finally, without risking being accused of being too partisan, I don't believe the Labor Party would have delivered these trade deals. They are too frightened of ISDS and union bogeyman. Unfortunately, Labor weren't able to deliver big trade deals with Japan and with China when they were in government. They weren't allowed to. Their union bosses said no. I hope in the future, if there is ever a Labor government, that they use their own brains and assess the relative merits of trade deals rather than being told what to think by people who aren't elected. But, in our case, we always act in the national interest. These are good developments, and I commend this legislation to the Senate.

Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will begin by taking up a couple of issues raised by the previous speaker, Senator Bragg, before I start on the substance of my speech. I always find it intriguing when Menzies gets mentioned, particularly when it comes to trade matters. I recall being taught at school that his nickname was 'Pig Iron Bob' because he fuelled, at that time, the non-democratic Japanese army's imperialistic intentions for the rest of Asia. So if you're trying to recite that one as an example of the successive capacity of the conservatives, it's certainly wanting. When it comes to the other comments that Senator Bragg made, I will deal with them in a moment. As the Senate would recall, it was Gough Whitlam, who was the Prime Minister at the time, who actually began the very important process of engaging with China.

I rise to speak 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. The RCEP countries include nine of Australia's top 15 trading partners, accounting for 58 per cent of our two-way trade and 67 per cent of our exports. It includes our near neighbours, the ASEAN countries; New Zealand; and major trade partners China, Japan and South Korea. The RCEP will provide a single set of basic rules for Australian exporters, including small businesses, to these countries. Labor support the measures that encourage small businesses to boost exports and create more Australian jobs as a result. Already, one in five Australian workers, more than two million people, are employed in a trade-related activity.

Australian exports will be an important feature of any economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, and currently small and medium businesses only account for 14 per cent of Australia's exports, whereas the G7 average is 25 per cent and the European Union average is 35 per cent. Clearly there is more to be done to support small businesses in this country. Lifting small and medium business exports to 25 per cent of our exports would increase Australia's GDP by $36 billion. So there are potential economic benefits to the RCEP, which is why Labor cautiously supports the ratification of this treaty. But that support is not unqualified and it's not without our serious concerns. I'd like to thank the shadow minister for trade, Madeleine King, who has raised some of those concerns directly with the minister for trade.

The first of these concerns is that the potential economic benefits I've just outlined are exactly that: potential. The Morrison government has refused to commission independent economic modelling for the RCEP, despite being pressed by Labor to do it. It is unclear why Mr Morrison is so opposed to knowing the economic impact of his own treaty. It raises concerns that we do not truly know the economic and social impact that this will have, particularly on Australian workers.

Another issue raised by Labor is the use of investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS mechanisms. ISDS mechanisms give private companies the power to sue the Australian government when it exercises its democratic mandate to enact legislation. Famously, this was used by the tobacco giant Philip Morris to attempt to sue the Gillard government over the introduction of tobacco plain packaging laws. The Gillard government vowed to end the use of ISDS mechanisms and remove them from existing agreements in 2012. Since then, agreements signed by both the Abbott and Turnbull governments have reintroduced ISDS. I would love to hear how those on the other side would argue that it's in the best interest of the Australian people to give multinational companies like Philip Morris the power to sue the Australian government.

The RCEP, as currently drafted, does not have an ISDS provision. However, it could be added at a later stage. I understand that the Morrison government has said it does not intend to add an ISDS clause to the agreement at the two-year review. If Australia is unfortunate enough for this government to still be in charge at that point, I am certain that Labor will hold Mr Morrison to that promise.

Another concern that Labor has consistently raised surrounds the actual treaty-making process. The RCEP, as with other agreements made by this government, was negotiated behind closed doors. The final treaty text was not publicly released until after Mr Morrison had signed up. That is fundamentally contrary to some of our major trading partners—for example, Europe—that have an ongoing process of engagement. Unlike Senator Bragg, we think talking to employers and unions that represent millions of workers in this country, and the aspirations of many more, is not a weakness in any process of making a trade agreement. In fact, it's a strength to make sure that an appropriate and proper trade agreement is put in place.

Of course, the public eye on those processes is critical to a final treaty that the public support. As we know, treaties have become discredited in some of the more populist public areas primarily because of the lack of transparency, and also some of the critical issues I've already raised.

This is just the latest long-running saga of Mr Morrison running away from transparency. Whether it's JobKeeper, the national cabinet, the widespread rorts or our trade agreements, this is a Prime Minister who prefers to operate outside of any public or parliamentary oversight. Like mould, like rot, he thrives in darkness.

On the other hand, Labor believes that greater transparency in the development of trade agreements is a good thing. We see transparency and openness as vital to developing a real public license to enter into these sorts of agreements. That public license is in danger.

While there have been economic benefits to trade liberalisation, there have also been victims. Workers in our manufacturing industry in particular have lost out as successive governments have made it easier and cheaper for production to be sent offshore. Workers across all sectors of the economy have lost out as big business, with the support of the Liberal Party, have used underpaid, temporary migrant labour to drive down wages for Australian workers.

There are very valid concerns about the impact of the RCEP on Australian jobs, wages and conditions. Thankfully, the RCEP does not include commitments in relation to waiving labour market testing. It is absolutely essential that we do not go any further down that path. It is absolutely essential that we do not make it easier for big businesses to import and exploit cheap, temporary, migrant labour, because, when that happens, the impact is twofold. Firstly, it results of the sort of horrible exploitation we've seen time and time again—

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sheldon, I will have to interrupt you there. You will be in continuation.