Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (11:15): On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I introduced my bill removing Commonwealth restrictions on cannabis. The Liberal Democrats have called for the legalisation of cannabis for both medicinal and recreational use since the party's formation in 2001. We are a party of consistency and principle, not a party that blows with the political breeze. In fact, for years the Liberal Democrats was the only political party in the Australian parliament to support the legalisation of cannabis. Until recently, the policy of the Greens has been to keep cannabis illegal except for medicinal use. This reflected the core Greens' traits of elitism, wowserism and authoritarianism. The Liberal Democrats have gone it alone to legislate to legalise cannabis. I prepared the bill and introduced the bill before us today. I had a Senate committee thoroughly review the bill, and now I devote what little time I have in control of the Senate agenda to debating this important bill.

I don't pretend that we will legalise cannabis today, but the bill encapsulates the steps that need to be taken to get to the outcome we need. It's the work of a serious political party, not a party concerned only with appearances. I will first describe what the bill does, and after that I will indicate why it's important that it pass.

The bill is called the Criminal Code and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Commonwealth Restrictions on Cannabis) Bill 2018. It is about the removal of Commonwealth restrictions on cannabis. It doesn't purport to legalise cannabis across the nation, because we live in a federation. Questions of criminal law should ultimately be matters for the states. The bill does not start until 12 months after royal assent to give the states an opportunity to react to the removal of Commonwealth restrictions. I would hope that at least some states would react by legalising cannabis in their jurisdiction, but ultimately that is a matter for each state.

The bill is predominantly about the Commonwealth criminal law. It ensures that cannabis is no longer listed as a controlled drug or a border controlled drug or a serious drug. This ensures that dealings in cannabis no longer carry the risk of a life sentence and fines in excess of $1 million. Penalties like that should be reserved for murderers. For simply dealing in cannabis such penalties are a huge injustice. The bill's removal of cannabis from the Commonwealth criminal law includes the removal of prohibitions on cannabis imports and exports. Consistent with this, I have arranged for an amendment to my bill to remove references to cannabis in regulations that list prohibited imports and prohibited exports.

The bill's removal of cannabis from the Commonwealth criminal law also makes redundant those concessions for cannabis in the drug offences of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982. My bill removes those redundant concessions and leaves in place the offences which will only apply to drugs other than cannabis. These remaining drug offences in the Defence Force Discipline Act reverse the onus of proof. This is not something I support, but that is the law as it stands, and the bill before us today is only concerned with removing restrictions on cannabis. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee concluded that my bill was inserting a reversal of the onus of proof into the law, but this was a misreading of my bill and the law as it stands. The reversal of the onus of proof is an existing element of the Defence Force Discipline Act.

To avoid prohibition through the back door, my bill prevents the Department of Health from listing cannabis on its poisons standard, a regulation that restricts the availability of various substances. In a concession to the Department of Health and its role of signalling effective therapies to the community, I have also had prepared an amendment to my bill that would provide an exception. My amendment would allow the Department of Health to list on its poisons standard certain cannabis preparations if a proponent seeks such a listing and the department agrees that the preparation has therapeutic use.

Finally, my bill removes cannabis from the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967, which is an act in the Health portfolio. This act currently contains offences, punishable by up to 10 years of imprisonment, for dealings in drugs that are not licensed under the act. With the removal of cannabis from the Commonwealth criminal law, it is appropriate to also ensure that dealings in cannabis do not give rise to criminal penalties under the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967. The Department of Health could still issue licences for dealings in cannabis that it approves of, such as for the preparation of medicinal cannabis, but there would be no criminal consequences for dealings in cannabis without such licences.

For the passage of this bill through the federal parliament, I expect we would need more Liberal Democrats elected to the Senate. Having the courage to make the right decisions is not very common in this place. If passed, the act would not legalise cannabis. To fully legalise cannabis, we would probably need more Liberal Democrats elected at the state level as well. Only then would Australians whose drug of choice is cannabis, rather than alcohol or tobacco, be freed from unwarranted harassment.

Let me now turn to some reasons why it ought to pass and why the states and territories should respond with their own legislation to make cannabis legal. This bill has been subject to an inquiry which highlighted some of the objections to cannabis legalisation. The inquiry was told that our opiate exports would be in jeopardy if we legalised cannabis. This is hysterical nonsense. Cannabis is not prohibited in countries that compete with us in the cultivation of opiates for medicinal use. It is effectively legal in Spain, deregulated in Portugal, freely available in Turkey and India, and available on prescription in the Czech Republic. Each of these countries produces opiates.

We heard that making it legal will lead to more people using cannabis. This is more nonsense. In 2000, Portugal decriminalised the use of all illicit drugs. This means most possession and supply is of comparable seriousness to illegal parking. Analysis by the UK's Home Office found that the health of drug users in Portugal showed a considerable improvement since possession became a health issue, not a criminal one. There was essentially no change in the number of drug users.

After three-quarters of a century of prohibition, it is pretty clear there aren't many people who have been deterred by the law from using cannabis. Cannabis is the most widely used drug in Australia. The National drug strategy household survey 2016 indicated that 35 per cent of Australians surveyed had used cannabis products at some point in their lives: 10.4 per cent over the age of 14 years old had used it within the last 12 months and 4.1 per cent of all Australians had used cannabis within the past week prior to the survey. The largest group of users was concentrated in the 20- to 29-year-old age group. It's not dying out with the baby boomers either. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission says cannabis accounts for the greatest proportion of illicit drug offences in Australia. In 2016-17, there were 77,549 cannabis arrests. That's the second-highest on record, a truly shocking figure.

A growing number of countries have legalised or decriminalised the possession and use of cannabis. In some cases they changed their laws, including in Uruguay, Canada, the Netherlands, Jamaica and parts of the United States. There are a lot more countries that have simply stopped enforcing the law. In fact, notwithstanding the number of arrests, this is occurring in Australia too. The production, sale, possession or use of any form of the cannabis plant for recreational purposes remains prohibited in all Australian states, and yet different penalties apply depending on the state or territory in which the offence took place. In South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, minor cannabis offences have been decriminalised and attract only civil penalties. Most states and territories offer diversion programs or drug and alcohol treatment programs before criminal sanctions are applied.

Notwithstanding this, no state or territory has yet fully decriminalised cannabis possession and use for recreational purposes. They should, because the policy of prohibition, notwithstanding its patchy enforcement, is an abject failure. This was confirmed by Mr Mick Palmer, former Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, who gave evidence to the committee inquiring into this bill. He said:

… the reality is that, contrary to frequent assertions, drug law enforcement has had little impact on the Australian drug market or for that matter, on the drug markets of most, if not all, countries in the world.

Australian police are better resourced, better trained, and more effective than ever and yet their impact on the drug trade, on any objective assessment, has been minimal.

In fact, a compelling argument in favour of legalisation is that it would deprive organised crime of a major source of income and relieve police of the costs of finding and destroying illicit crops. Of the $1.5 billion spent annually on drug law enforcement, 70 per cent is attributable to cannabis. That's an expense we do not need.

The financial argument doesn't end there either. There's the opportunity for increased tax revenue—something of interest to the big spenders on both sides of this chamber. If its consumption is legal, it will be subject to GST. The Parliamentary Budget Office has estimated this would raise around $300 million a year. Unlike alcohol, cannabis does not make some people violent or encourage them to believe they can sing and dance. A working father who uses cannabis to relax at the end of a work week instead of having a beer is probably better off. But in any case, if the individual's actions affect no-one but themselves, it should not be a matter for the state to legislate upon. Quite simply, governments are not competent and do not have the moral authority to ban something based either on disapproval or on a desire to protect people from their own choices. When the population engages in lawbreaking on the scale found with cannabis, it is clear that the law is wrong, not the population.

The Liberal Democrats are a libertarian party. That means we don't think the government has to declare everything to be either compulsory or prohibited. There should be room for personal decisions and personal responsibility, and that includes making your own mistakes. God knows the government makes its own fair share of mistakes.

I personally would not recommend recreational cannabis use. The inquiry into the bill confirmed that, at least for some people, it would be prudent to avoid cannabis. For similar reasons, I do not recommend alcohol or tobacco consumption, which despite being legal are more harmful than cannabis use. But I'm not a dictator, I'm not your parent and neither is the government, and adults can make up their own minds. Subject to protecting third parties, including children, the Liberal Democrats support legalising all uses of marijuana: medical, recreational and the hemp industry. It is high time we stopped interfering in adult choices. Government opinions are only relevant to those who are incapable of deciding things for themselves. I commend my bill to the Senate.

Senator HUME (Victoria—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (11:29): I rise to speak on the Criminal Code and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Commonwealth Restrictions on Cannabis) Bill 2018, this bill introduced by our colleague Senator Leyonhjelm, who said at the time that it was informed by the principle that 'adults should be free to make their own choices as long as they do not harm others'—as long as they do not harm others. That's a phrase I will come back to. Accordingly, this bill removes offences and civil penalty provisions in Commonwealth law for dealing with cannabis. The explanatory memorandum outlines that the bill would 'allow any state or territory government to legalise and regulate cannabis', and that it would address several issues, including the casting of cannabis users who might otherwise be law-abiding citizens as criminals, and the subsequent pressure on the criminal justice system. It is estimated that legalising cannabis would reduce the annual Commonwealth law enforcement expenditure by $100 million per year and increase GST revenue by $300 million a year. The explanatory memorandum states:

Cannabis use is less harmful than alcohol use and tobacco use. Legalising cannabis would improve access to cannabis for recreational, medicinal, industrial and other purposes. Access for medicinal purposes is currently hamstrung through excessive regulation.

The effect of the bill would be to amend a number of Commonwealth laws that prohibit and control cannabis, and they include the Criminal Code of 1995, the Criminal Code Regulations 2002, the Crimes (Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) Act 1990, the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 and the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989.

The bill was introduced in the Senate in May 2018 and was immediately referred to a committee. The Senate Selection of Bills Committee said:

As the first legislation to propose the removal of Commonwealth restrictions on cannabis, there is a case to examine: the merits of legalisation, law enforcement issues, extradition issues, constitutionality, treaty issues, trade rule issues, Commonwealth-state issues, and budget issues.

The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, reported to the Senate on 17 August with one recommendation, and one recommendation only, and that was that the Senate not pass this bill. The bill's proposed amendments to the Narcotic Drugs Act would dismantle the very carefully constructed regulations on the cultivation, production and manufacture of medicinal cannabis introduced to the Narcotic Drugs Act in late 2016.

First, the effects would be to leave the matter of cannabis regulation and control almost entirely to the states and territories. Enactment would not in itself legalise cannabis for recreational use but might lead to the states and territories considering such a move separately, of their own accord. Individual jurisdictions might also take different approaches to authorising cannabis and cannabis-derived products for medical and scientific use.

Second, the potential effects of the proposed amendments would be that Australia's cultivation and production of cannabis for both medicinal and scientific purposes would not be compliant with its international treaty obligations as provided for by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Without Commonwealth regulation consistent with Australia's international obligations, states and territories providing for cultivation of cannabis for medicinal purposes would affect Australia's ability to present itself as compliant with the single convention. In turn, this could have adverse reputational implications for Australia's licit poppy industry, with medium-term risks to Australia's approved status as a major supplier of poppy straw in a timely, controlled manner. In addition, this bill is not supported by the AMA, the RACGP, Painaustralia, the Alcohol and Drug Foundation or Western Australia Police Force.

I want to talk very briefly—before going into a little bit more detail on that issue—about the progress and expansion of medical cannabis, and its use and production under the Liberal-National government. The Liberal-National government has taken action to assist doctors who believe that their patients may benefit from using medicinal cannabis, including terminally ill patients. Under this government, we have set up a cannabis licensing scheme to allow the cultivation and manufacture of medicinal cannabis products that are safe for use by patients under appropriate medical supervision. In fact, in February last year, the Minister for Health announced that the government would facilitate faster access by qualified doctors to medicinal cannabis products for patients with the necessary approvals. Until domestic production meets local needs, the government will authorise controlled importation by approved providers from approved international sources to enable an interim inventory in Australia. As at 20 July this year, 42 domestic licences have been granted: 19 for the cultivation of cannabis for medicinal use, 10 for cultivation for research and 13 for the manufacture of medicinal cannabis products. Patients are also accessing medicinal cannabis products in a very timely manner via the patient pathways that this government has put into place. So far, 1,375 patients have been approved to use prescribed medical cannabis since 1 July 2016. So, as you can see, Acting Deputy President, the cultivation and regulation of the medical cannabis industry has expanded and developed significantly under this government in a supervised, quality-controlled approach to pain relief and other medical applications.

There are numerous reasons why this bill cannot be supported, and they are not only, as I said, numerous but also varied. The first is increased harm to users. That's something that was well examined in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee report into this legislation. The Department of Health in particular pointed out that there would potentially be increased harm for users with the passage of this bill. They said that, while many Australians may view cannabis as harmless, almost a quarter of Australia's drug and alcohol treatment services are being provided to people identifying cannabis as their principal drug of concern. That's roughly the same as the number of treatment episodes for amphetamine use. Cannabis use has been demonstrated to have significant health outcomes, including problems with memory and learning; addiction; decreased motivation and concentration; anxiety; increased risk of respiratory diseases; paranoia; and, in some cases, psychosis—again, an issue I would like to come back to.

The Royal Australian College of GPs submitted that, while there were benefits to some patients using medicinal cannabis, its recreational consumption had very poor outcomes in several ways, including the risk of mental health problems and cannabis use disorder. Legalising the recreational use of cannabis can also have significant negative impacts on public safety issues, especially driver impairment and work health and safety problems, which have to be carefully considered against the potential benefits that regulating the sale of cannabis might bring. The Royal Australian College of GPs cautioned against the legalisation of recreational cannabis, as it would likely encourage the use of a drug that would result in increased demands on the Australian healthcare system. But it's not just increased harm for users; there is also concern that it would exacerbate the health and safety risk for the families and the children of users, and communities more generally. The notion that illicit drug use is a victimless crime and that everyone should be free to do exactly what they want with their bodies disregards the web of social interactions that constitute human existence. Affected by an individual's illicit drug use are children, parents, grandparents, friends, colleagues, workplaces, victims of drugged drivers, crime victims, elder abuse victims, sexual victims and patients made sicker by medical marijuana. Illicit drug use is no less victimless than is alcoholism.

Adolescents, too, are a particularly vulnerable group. During that important period of neurodevelopment where educational achievement is essential and long-term life outcomes are affected, smoking cannabis has been shown to negatively affect attention, memory and learning, and reduced intellectual function can last for days or even weeks after the acute effects of the drugs have worn off.

There were also some submissions to that inquiry regarding the effects of cannabis use—even moderate cannabis use—on unborn children. Data emerged from an analysis in Colorado, where cannabis use has been legalised, that suggested that, of all the fastest growing anomalies, the overall rate of congenital heart defects and total defects have almost doubled since cannabis was legalised in that US state. The Western Australia Police Force provided some very interesting evidence to the committee that indicated that, following cannabis legislation in Colorado, youth use of cannabis has increased around 20 per cent, cannabis related traffic deaths have increased by 48 per cent and cannabis related emergency department rates have increased by 49 per cent. These are significant statistics that cannot be overlooked when we're talking about the civil liberties aspect of cannabis use.

The third argument is that it would seriously compromise Australia's medical cannabis industry, including removing the Commonwealth oversight of quality, availability and market regulation, which would affect medical cannabis users. In its submission to the committee, the department set out a number of ways that the bill would not only negatively affect Australia's domestic cannabis regime but also compromise our international treaty commitments and our medicinal opiate industry. The department said the bill would drastically alter the Commonwealth's oversight of our medicinal cannabis production, manufacture and distribution and that the effect would be to leave the matter of cannabis regulation and control almost entirely to the states and territories. Enactment would in fact not legalise cannabis for recreational use but may lead to the states and territories considering how to do so separately. Individual jurisdictions would also take different approaches to authorising cannabis and cannabis-derived products for medical and scientific use.

While the Australian community expects there to be a licit source of cannabis for medical use, the bill could theoretically mean that there are no levels of control on the availability of cannabis. For example, medicines at the moment have advertising, labelling, packaging and control requirements designed to improve customer safety and manage medical doses. In removing cannabis from the Poisons Standard, cannabis could potentially become unscheduled. While this is untested in law, it could potentially become a listed complementary medicine. However, listed complementary medicines can only contain certain low-risk ingredients—and some therapeutically active substances in cannabis would not fall into that particular category—and can only make claims such as health maintenance and health enhancement for non-serious, self-limiting conditions. As a result, medicines containing cannabis would not be able to be marketed for things such as palliative care, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, chronic pain, multiple sclerosis or epilepsy, where they can potentially do so much good. They would also potentially contravene Australia's international treaty obligations, compromising our capacity to export medicinal cannabis and undermining the local industry producing and processing poppies to make medicinal opiates for global markets. Producing medical opiates is a growing industry which is dependent on Australia's adherence to the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which could potentially be compromised.

I want to touch on this issue of civil liberties because I believe this argument is a flawed one. The argument that illicit drug use is an inalienable human right rests on a faulty assumption of individual freedom that fails to balance freedom with a responsibility to others in the community. This is something that I would like to come back to in what time I have left.

I'm concerned the savings to the cost of law enforcement are greatly exaggerated also. There was some evidence from the Western Australia Police Force that suggested counterparts in the US Drug Enforcement Administration have advised that, in places where cannabis has been legalised, it has in fact enabled organised crime networks to legitimise their previously illegal cannabis businesses and continue to sell or traffic cannabis on the unregulated black market, where it remains cheaper and avoids being subject to tax.

There are also potential jurisdictional issues. This is particularly important. What you could find is that cannabis is legal in one state but not in another. The disconnect between Commonwealth, state and territory laws would lead to a greater financial impost on state and territory law enforcement.

However, I think the most compelling evidence given during the committee phase was that the bill is premature. For instance, the AMA suggested that, while a wider debate on cannabis legislation reform is timely, the bill is premature and fails to recognise that efforts to decriminalise cannabis may be detrimental to some groups within the population. More nuanced deliberations must occur in relation to the benefits of ending criminal penalties associated with personal cannabis use as well as the need to better protect the groups of people who are most vulnerable to the deleterious effects of cannabis. The AMA also has significant concerns about the lack of capacity within the drug and alcohol treatment sector in Australia and that many individuals at this stage have difficulty accessing the treatments and support they require at the right time.

The Australian Alcohol and Drug Foundation agreed with this analysis that the bill is premature and that a decision to consider changing the legal status of cannabis deserves to be undertaken in the context of a critical and comprehensive review of all relevant matters and careful consideration of all options. Questions of drug policy are very complex and involve scientific evidence, medical expertise, fears, and volatile emotions and should not be decided in haste. The Australian Alcohol and Drug Foundation believed that a period of extensive community discussion is required that would allow the public and experts from various relevant disciplines to voice their views and debate the issues prior to a decision being made by policymakers. In this place our primary responsibility is to the next generation, and we must never underestimate the trust placed in us, by those who are younger than ourselves, to set an example and do what is right by them. I would ask the chamber to consider what example it is that we are setting today.

A Canadian report from September 2018 stated that the legalisation of cannabis gave youths a 'false sense of security'. It stated that it could put youths under a misconception that legalisation means safety. And it's amazing: I look around the chamber today and there is a bunch of very young people looking down on us from the gallery as we have this debate—I want you to know that when we discuss this stuff it's because of you; we're trying to do right by you, the next generation. The report continues on to outline that there is an increased risk of psychosis among youths smoking cannabis, particularly those with a family history of serious mental illness, like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Is this really the message we want to send to our youth—that we support legislation that allows for this? Do we want to say that we support mental illness? The government clearly does not. In fact, we support measures to combat it at every stage, like our announcement yesterday for increased funding for headspace.

And the facts don't stop there. An article in The Australian not that long ago, in April this year, showed that there are consistent links between cannabis use and psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia. The article was about a study reported by University of New South Wales psychiatrist Matthew Large, who found that cannabis use is associated with an earlier-age onset of psychotic disorders. The ABC News team found that teen cannabis users are more likely to quit school or to attempt suicide. It's unfathomable that anybody in this place could support a bill that increases the likelihood of teen suicide and youths dropping out of school. The study, from Australia and New Zealand, combined data on 3,765 participants who used cannabis frequently before the ages of 17. The study examined whether the teenagers completed high school, obtained a university degree, were dependent on cannabis, used other illicit drugs, attempted suicide, suffered depression or were on welfare. It was an extensive report. The study found that teenagers who were daily users of cannabis before the age of 17 were more than 60 per cent less likely to complete high school or obtain a degree and seven times more likely to commit suicide.

If we in this place are to fulfil our duty to the next generation, then we cannot pass this bill. Senator Leyonhjelm spoke of the courage to pass the right laws and said that it is rare in this place. Well, the government has the courage to oppose this bill for the sake of generations to come.

Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (11:50): Mr Acting Deputy President Brockman, congratulations on your first day in the chair. This private senator's bill from Senator Leyonhjelm, the Criminal Code and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Commonwealth Restrictions on Cannabis) Bill 2018, would remove restrictions on cannabis use, importation and manufacture under several pieces of federal legislation, including removing the listing of cannabis as a controlled or prohibited drug under the Commonwealth Criminal Code. The stated intention of the bill is to allow state and territory governments to legalise or regulate the use of cannabis, with the expectation that cannabis would be regulated in a similar way to alcohol or tobacco by state or territory governments. In doing so, this bill goes well beyond legalising cannabis for medicinal or therapeutic purposes and would also pave the way for the legalisation of cannabis for recreational, industrial or other uses. The effects of this bill, if it were passed, would include the following: cannabis could be legally imported to Australia; growing, preparing and selling cannabis would be legal under federal law, although it would be subject to any restrictions imposed by states or territories; and the Therapeutic Goods Administration would be prevented from listing cannabis as a poison under the Poisons Standard. The bill would repeal the application of the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 for the manufacture of medicinal cannabis. This would mean that currently licensed manufacturers would not be required to obtain a license for the production and sale of medicinal cannabis.

Labor does not support this bill, primarily because Labor does not support the legalisation of cannabis for recreational use. While cannabis does not have the same addictive properties as alcohol and tobacco, research has shown that some 10 per cent of regular cannabis users become dependent on the drug and that this rate is higher for those who start using it in their teenage years. Some users combine cannabis with tobacco, which can lead to an addiction to tobacco—with all the well-documented negative health impacts of that addiction. One of the greatest health concerns about cannabis is its potential to impact on the mental health of users. There is ample research available that demonstrates that regular cannabis use can increase the risk of psychotic mental illness, including schizophrenia. Again, this risk is increased for those who start using cannabis at a young age.

Addressing mental health issues is an enormous challenge in Australia, particularly the mental health of young Australians, and we are concerned that legalising cannabis for recreational use could well make this problem worse. Labor notes that the Greens party were criticised by the Australian Medical Association in April this year for announcing their support for the legalisation of cannabis for recreational use. The medical community is far from convinced that there will not be irreversible damage done, particularly to the mental health of young people, by making cannabis products more easily accessible. Cannabis use may also increase the risk of car accidents for those who drive while affected, which increases the risk for innocent road users as well.

With respect to medicinal use of cannabis, Labor policy is to work with the state and territory governments to ensure nationally consistent laws which allow lawful access to medicinal cannabis for those who are terminally ill or have other clinically identified medical conditions and where medical cannabis may benefit. If Labor wins government, we have committed that the Commonwealth government will become the national regulator of medicinal cannabis supplied to eligible patients and for research purposes. Labor has also committed to work with state and territory and federal regulators to improve controlled access to medicinal-grade cannabis for legitimate scientific and mental research work. Consistent with this role, under Labor the Commonwealth would establish rules—for licensing one or more producers of cannabis, for supply to medical patients and for research—subject to the best manufacturing practice and best agricultural practice to ensure safety, quality and security in the production and distribution process. In contrast, this bill would remove all requirements for the Commonwealth to license cannabis production by local producers.

While Labor accepts that there are many challenges to reducing the harm caused by illicit drugs, including cannabis, Labor agrees with the Australian Medical Association that this bill, if passed, could do more harm than good. Accordingly, we will not support the bill.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (11:54): I rise to speak on the Criminal Code and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Commonwealth Restrictions on Cannabis) Bill 2018. The Greens will support this bill to remove restrictions on cannabis. However, we need to go much further than simply removing those restrictions; we need to have a very detailed plan for how we would legalise cannabis in this country, so that it is more than simply a thought bubble. The reason the Greens support removing criminal restrictions on the use of cannabis is that the war on drugs is a war on people. The current approach to the prohibition of cannabis causes a great deal more harm than it prevents. The approach to illicit drug use in this country has been an unmitigated disaster, and it is about time our political leaders had some courage and recognised that we need to start treating the issue of drug use as a health issue, not as a law-and-order issue. We need to reform our laws and introduce the right regulatory framework to make that vision a reality.

The good news is that governments right around the world are realising that cannabis laws cause much more harm than they're intended to prevent. We've seen huge changes right across the globe, whether it be in the US, Canada or some South American states. New Zealand are about to embark on a referendum on this very issue. The winds of change are sweeping right across the world, and Australia is being left behind. Instead, in this country the government continues to arrest its citizens at an alarming rate for using cannabis. Nearly seven million Australians, well over a third of Australians, have used cannabis at some point in their life. It's something that's being used widely. The greatest proportion of illicit drug arrests across Australia occur because of something that many Australians are doing, some on a daily basis, some occasionally. Illicit drug arrests across Australia have risen from six per cent in 2014, 75,000 people arrested, to nearly 80,000 people arrested the following year.

The stats demonstrate that, despite those arrests, more people are continuing to use it. Despite the current illegality of cannabis, Australians have decided that those laws do not relate to them. Those laws force many decent, law-abiding Australians to buy potentially contaminated cannabis of unknown quality and strength, from drug dealers whose only interest is in people continuing to use that product and, potentially, being redirected into using more harmful illicit substances. We had some debate on the harms associated with cannabis. There is no question: cannabis has potential harms associated with its use. It's a drug like many other drugs, be they legal or illegal, and therefore has a range of effects on human physiology. There is no question about it. We know that the young developing brain should not be exposed to cannabis, in the same way as it shouldn't be exposed to alcohol.

One of the greatest harms associated with cannabis is the way it is consumed. Smoking cannabis is bad for you. Smoking cigarettes—indeed, smoking anything—is bad for people's respiratory physiology. Some people become dependent on cannabis, no question; there is a dependence syndrome associated with cannabis. Cannabis is not a harmless drug; neither is paracetamol. The more interesting question is how harmful it is relative to other substances. There is no doubt in my mind, and in the view of many health professionals, that cannabis is a much safer drug than alcohol, a drug that is currently legal; indeed, many would say our society is awash with alcohol. You can't overdose when it comes to cannabis. You can overdose when it comes to other drugs. Indeed, you can become very unwell and die from alcohol toxicity. People who consume vast quantities of alcohol can aspirate it, and aspiration is a common cause of death amongst young people. That simply doesn't happen when it comes to cannabis. We know that alcohol has a whole range of other effects on people's livers; it can be a cause of liver failure and liver cancer. We know that that's simply not the case when it comes to cannabis. Alcohol has a whole range of effects on the gastrointestinal system—things that aren't seen with cannabis consumption. The reality is, if we're using the standard of cannabis being a harmful drug, then, by that same standard, we should make alcohol illegal. We don't, because we accept that the use of alcohol also comes with a range of benefits to the community. People continue to use it; they do it because they enjoy it, and they'll continue to do it regardless of what policymakers suggest.

But, beyond the relative harm of cannabis compared to alcohol, the more important question is: what are the harms happening right now under our current system? We know those harms are significant. We know that many people are exposed to drugs—as I said earlier—of unknown quality and purity. They are being driven to purchase their drugs through a network of criminal dealers. And what we see is a current system that props up criminality and that redirects resources away from where they're needed, to prosecute these laws which are having no effect deterring people from using the drug. They divert a huge amount of taxpayer money into areas that aren't working, when we could be investing in a whole range of areas that we know do work.

Again, let's be very clear about what we need to do when it comes to cannabis. We need to ensure that our laws reduce harm and reflect the fact that cannabis is actually less harmful than some currently available drugs. Our plan will redefine cannabis as a legal substance in a regulated market. It will ensure that we redirect resources into drug treatment, into drug education and, of course, into the broader health budget. In place of prohibition—in place of the laws that currently make cannabis illegal—we'll create a regulated, adult-use market for legal cannabis. At the heart of our plan is an understanding that people are using it. They will continue to use it. And our job is to reduce the harms associated with that use.

Creating a regulated legal market would bust the business model of criminal drug dealers. It would ensure greater protections for vulnerable cannabis users. It would ensure that people have accurate, up-to-date information about the potential harms associated with those substances. And it would allow for the significant revenue that's currently lining the pockets of criminal syndicates to be invested in our health system. Our plan would establish an Australian cannabis agency, which would draw together state and territory governments, medical experts and regulators. The agency would issue licences for the production of cannabis and for the sale of cannabis, and it would carry out a program of monitoring. It would monitor growers to make sure that people are getting what they believe they're buying based on what's on the label. It would also ensure that the outlets where cannabis products are being sold behave in a way that's consistent with the scheme. The agency would act as a single wholesaler for cannabis: you'd see people producing cannabis—they'd grow it—and government would act as a single wholesaler for that cannabis. Those products would then be sold in plain packaging to retail stores to ensure quality and consistency.

In short, we would have a series of cannabis retail shops which, in the same way as when people are buying alcohol, require ID for entry. The sale of cannabis to anyone under 18 would be prohibited. The cannabis available for sale would be in plain packaging. There would be clear information about the grower, the strain—including the proportions of THC and other cannabinoids—and the colloquial name of the product, and health warnings. Rather than being purchased through a criminal dealer, who has no interest in the welfare of the user, cannabis would be sold by staff who are required to undertake a responsible-sale-of-cannabis course, much like what we do when it comes to alcohol. They would have mental health first aid training. They would ensure that anybody they identified as having a problem with their use is redirected into treatment. That treatment would be well funded with the revenue generated through this scheme. In our plan there would be no advertising or sponsorship for cannabis. We don't want to make the same mistakes that were made in the alcohol industry. We'd be promoting small-scale production and be ensuring that people are getting access to regulated product.

Our plan would support Australians to grow cannabis at home for personal use. Some states already allow this to happen, but we would try to harmonise how this is done so that people can grow a small number of plants in their backyard, providing it's for their own personal use. Those people wouldn't be able to sell what they have grown, because we want to ensure we have a regulated market in the same way as we have for other markets, but those people would be free to grow and produce their own product. Our plan would impose strict penalties on the sale of unlicensed or black market cannabis. If people are going to access regulated product of known quality and purity from a known grower, we have to ensure the market has clear regulations associated with it.

There would continue to be strict penalties for people driving under the influence of cannabis, but they must be driving under the influence of cannabis. Unfortunately, the current situation means we are detecting cannabis in individuals who may have consumed that drug days before they get behind the wheel of a vehicle. The consequence is that we're not making our roads safer; we're simply enforcing prohibition through the back door. As with alcohol, we need to ensure we have standardised testing of people's ability to drive a motor vehicle, but it can't be testing that captures people who may have used the drug previously, maybe days before. That has no bearing whatsoever on their ability to drive a vehicle. We need to test for impairment, not simply for past use.

In our plan, cannabis would be subject to GST as well as a level of federal excise to ensure that the price is broadly similar to the price of cannabis at the moment. As I said earlier, a proportion of that revenue would be redirected into drug treatment. If we did this, we could ensure that not one person in Australia has to wait for a treatment bed and that every single facility is available for people when they need it. Whether somebody's using opiates like heroin, or methamphetamine or other substances, there's no excuse for the fact that people can't get access to treatment when they need it. Legalising cannabis will create a commercial market for its production and sale. The production and cultivation of cannabis will create jobs in regional communities. That is a good thing.

The final aspect of the plan involves the establishment of an advisory committee of experts from across harm reduction, clinical mental health, user advocates, law enforcement and other relevant sectors. We'd commission an independent review of the regulations after two years, with public reporting of all the findings and recommendations. This is a way to ensure that we have a plan that's relevant to all the key constituents, making sure that it's up to date and relevant. So, by the end of this sitting year we're going to be introducing a private member's bill that doesn't simply remove some of the criminal penalties associated with the use of cannabis but also outlines a detailed plan for what a regulated cannabis market would look like here in Australia. The bill will establish the cannabis agency and support all the other aspects of our plan.

We support this legislation, but we need to do much more. We need to drag Australia into the 21st century. We need to look at the lead of those states within the US, to look at Canada, to look at places like Uruguay, to look at Spain, to look at our neighbours across the ditch, in New Zealand. They're all moving in this direction, because they know that our current drug laws don't work; that they turn innocent, law-abiding people into criminals; and that they don't prevent people from using these substances but force them to make choices that are riskier and more harmful. Instead, we're proposing a regulated market that reduces harms, that ensures that people who get into trouble with drug use, whether it be alcohol, cannabis or other illicit substances, get access to treatment when they need it and that we have evidence based policies that put Australia in the direction of a more compassionate, decent, sensible community working to look after its citizens and recognising when the laws that we have simply don't work.

Senator O'SULLIVAN (Queensland) (12:11): Just when I thought I couldn't be surprised by a contribution in this place: well, I honestly thought I was on Candid Camera there for a minute, waiting for someone to pop up from the Clerk's desk with some sort of a party whistle! That contribution to this debate on the Criminal Code and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Commonwealth Restrictions on Cannabis) Bill 2018, coming from a medical practitioner, was nothing short of extraordinary.

I'll just take for a moment the things the good doctor didn't say—these impacts that he talks about, which in his case he believes are fair and reasonable for a society to accept. It's well-known in this chamber that I'm a retired police detective. I suspect I have had more to do with cannabis users, people who've used drugs and the abuse of drugs than anyone else in this place. I can assure the leader of the Greens that to dismiss the impacts of the abuse of cannabis and its cannabinoid tetrahydrocannabinol, being the agent within the 96 cannabinoids within marijuana or cannabis sativa, is irresponsible. There is an enormous body of evidence all over the world about the impacts of long-term use of cannabis, particularly on young people. Conditions such as anxiety, paranoia, cognitive impairment and psychotic symptoms are very commonly associated with cannabis users, particularly long-term cannabis users.

I think there's a fair argument that a high percentage of young people, particularly in the seventies and eighties and maybe a bit before then, dabbled in drugs of all sorts, cannabis probably being the most common, because at that time it featured predominantly in the marketplace. For many, it was a passage in their life. They might fiddle lightly or moderately with cannabis over a period of time, and then of course they move on in life and go on to marry and have a family, and their views and attitudes to the consumption of cannabis clearly change. But for those, and there are a lot, who become addicted to this particular drug—and make no mistake about it, it is a drug of addiction—you can pick them out of the crowd. You can pick them out of the shopping centre. You can see those who have had very long-term—decades—consumption of cannabis and the impacts it has on them.

There's clear peer reviewed, unequivocal evidence that shows that after the long-term use of cannabis adults lose up to eight IQ points, so it affects their cognitive ability to function. What if we were to take everything in our society as suggested by the good doctor that's a challenge and legalise it, so it no longer becomes a challenge—or, offensively, with his remarks, to increase the revenue of the state on the plight of people who would adopt a further legal addiction? I hear him on the effects of alcohol on some, and certainly the effects of harder drugs on some have a greater impact than that of cannabis sativa use. I'm happy to trade them off if the leader of the Greens can give us a solution where we can get ice out of the marketplace, for example. So you hand in your ice permit and we'll replace it with a marijuana permit. I might give some thought to this. Probably not for very long, but I may give some consideration to it; but that's not what's happening. We've got a litany of drugs in our community that are impacting on people and their health. To suggest that somehow by legalising it is an acceptable condition, because they're going to do it anyway, is a complete nonsense. That is a complete and absolute nonsense.

I simply couldn't believe the contribution made by Senator Di Natale, particularly as a medical physician. As is the case with most of the contributions from the Greens, you have to have a very keen ear to listen to what they don't tell you. They'll make arguments that are positive to their intent and their objectives but what they fail to do is touch on issues. We have seen it here time and time again. We hear them prattle on about climate change and the need to get rid of coal. But they do not mention one word about the 180,000 direct and indirect jobs in my home state, and the literally hundreds of communities whose local economies rely directly on coal. So no solution; just an idea.

We hear it with the illegal immigrants time and time again. I've listened for five years. I've turned my ear to that corner of the chamber to hear them once accept any responsibility for the 1,200 deaths on the high sea that occurred with immigrants coming to this country. I urge people who listen to the contribution from the leader of the Greens to listen very carefully, go over the text of the Hansard and find where there was any reasonable effort on the part of Dr Di Natale to talk about the impacts on individual lives.

As a detective I didn't just deal with people who were involved in and addicted to cannabis sativa. The spectrum with respect to cannabis sativa is enormous. Some of it has mild impacts and some of it has quite significant impacts on people's behaviour. It has been associated with violence in the home. It has been associated with all of the other peripheral crimes that go with people who have taken mind-altering drugs—for example, driving vehicles and operating machinery. We have come a long way in this country to be able to curb some of those things.

In fact, the impacts of cannabis intake last a lot longer on the individual than the intake of alcohol. I don't know when, under Dr Di Natale's plan, they're going to have their puff. They won't be able to drive a car within the next 24 hours. They won't be able to go to work and operate heavy equipment. They'll be impaired around dangerous equipment and processes in their workplace and will harm themselves and, indeed, harm others. There's a massive body of evidence that supports that proposition, because we now have drug testing. Of course, we've heard the Greens argue before that they don't want drug testing. I remember the extraordinary motion that they endeavoured to pass through this place with respect to that. His contribution should be ignored and this bill should be knocked out.

Debate interrupted.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (12:23): The most important thing to understand about the Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 and the related bill is that they are customs and tariff measures. They are not a ratification of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, known as TPP-11, which the government signed in March this year. Australia's parliament is not given the opportunity to ratify trade treaties of this sort, which is why Labor is proposing that substantial reform of the treaty-making process is necessary. Our view of what must change is set out in a second reading amendment which I shall move later and in a private senator's bill which I shall introduce. TPP-11 replaces the former Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP-12, which included the United States. The other signatories to TPP-11 are Canada, Peru, Chile, Mexico, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei and New Zealand.

Labor have always been absolutely clear that we have serious concerns about aspects of TPP-11, as we did about TPP-12. Supporting these customs and tariff bills does not amount to the full endorsement of the agreement in its present form. The agreement includes investor-state dispute settlement—or ISDS—provisions, which Labor opposes. ISDS provisions allow foreign companies to sue national governments. These provisions compromise Australia's sovereignty by limiting the ability of Australian governments to act in the national interest. In government, Labor will not agree to include such provisions in trade agreements and will seek to remove them from existing agreements. We note that the Ardern government has successfully negotiated the removal of TPP-11's ISDS provisions as far as New Zealand is concerned. So there is a precedent for the removal of these provisions. It's not a matter of being locked into them forever.

The agreement also waives labour market testing for contractual service suppliers for six countries—Canada, Peru, Mexico, Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam. Labor believes that trade agreements must not be used to undermine Australia's immigration system, and the waiving of labour market testing contradicts the commitment of the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, that testing will take place before applications for temporary skills shortage visas are granted. As Labor members of the JSCOT inquiry into the bill noted, more than 450 professions could currently be covered by the term 'contractual service supplier'. They include electricians, plumbers, carpenters and nurses. No other country has provided Australia with such generous reciprocal visa rights, and it is unclear why such concessions were offered by the government. Labor acknowledges that foreign workers play a role in the success of our economy, but it is a fundamental principle of fairness that Australians should be offered work first and that foreign workers be brought into Australia only for a demonstrated need. The temporary migration system is intended to supplement the skills of Australians. It is not meant to remove the ability of Australians to get jobs. In government, Labor will seek to reinstate labour market testing for contractual service suppliers and will not allow such concessions in future agreements.

There's also a concern that the ISDS provisions in the agreement will leave Australia vulnerable to protracted legal disputes with foreign owned corporations. Senators will recall that the global tobacco corporation Philip Morris used the ISDS provisions in early agreements to try to overturn the Australian plain-packaging legislation for cigarettes. They sued the Australian government in the Singapore register of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Philip Morris was not successful, but it's idle to say, as some do, that the outcome of that court action shows that there is nothing to fear from ISDS clauses in trade agreements. It is outrageous that the case ever got to court in the first place, and there is no guarantee that future cases initiated under ISDS provisions would end successfully for Australia. That's why the former Labor government excluded ISDS provisions in early negotiations on the TPP. Remember that the Howard government also had such concerns and excluded ISDS provisions from Australia's free trade agreement with the United States. The present Liberal government evidently does not have the concern for Australia's national interest that John Howard did.

Warnings about the dangers of ISDS provisions in trade agreements have been issued by the Productivity Commission, an agency that could hardly be called a den of die-hard protectionists. In 2010, the Productivity Commission reported on bilateral and regional trade agreements and commented that the Australian government should:

… seek to avoid accepting provisions in trade agreements that confer additional substantive or procedural rights on foreign investors over and above those already provided by the Australian legal system.

The commission report also stated:

There does not appear to be an underlying economic problem that necessitates the inclusion of ISDS provisions within agreements. Available evidence does not suggest that ISDS provisions have a significant impact on investment flows.

Experience in other countries demonstrates that there are considerable policy and financial risks arising from ISDS provisions.

The Productivity Commission trade and assistance review of 2013-14 included the following observation:

The inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions in Australia's preferential trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties has become contentious.

—The provisions depart from national treatment principles by affording substantive appeal rights to foreigners not available to domestic firms, risk impeding domestic regulatory reform …, include safeguards and carve-outs of uncertain effect, lack transparency and have inadequate parliamentary scrutiny.

The substantial scepticism about ISDS provisions from an agency that I think many in this chamber regard as an advocate for the free market should have been a wake-up call for this government. So Labor in government will eliminate the dangers posed by agreements with ISDS provisions and labour market waivers. We will follow the example of the New Zealand government and negotiate side letters to release Australia from those aspects of any agreement.

A Shorten Labor government will not stop there. As the member for Blaxland announced in his speech on these bills in the other place, Labor will introduce legislation prohibiting the inclusion of ISDS provisions or waivers of labour market testing in future free trade agreements. Labor will establish a system of accredited trade advisers from industry, unions and civil society groups to consult on the draft text of agreements during negotiations. Labor will legislate to require that an independent national interest assessment be conducted on every new trade agreement before it is signed. Labor will strengthen the role of parliament in trade negotiations by increasing the participation of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, JSCOT. JSCOT will also be provided with a statement of objectives for the negotiations for consideration and feedback, and will be briefed at the end of each round of negotiations.

Labor have already announced that in government we will introduce a science, medicine, academic, research and technology visa, or SMART visa, to remove the obstacles created by this government's clumsy draft temporary work visas. Although Labor supports labour market testing to ensure that Australians are not disadvantaged when employers seek to hire from overseas, we also understand that, for Australia to remain a world leader in innovation, science and medical research and in high-tech industries, we need to access the very best minds from around the world. The SMART visa will provide a path to permanent residency for educators, innovators and researchers of global standing. A Shorten Labor government will establish an Australian Skills Authority and will seek advice from this authority and from industry to determine the skills and the areas of specialty available for SMART visas. Also, the minimum level income for the visa will be set in consultation with industry.

So Labor's changes will remove the secrecy that surrounds the negotiation of trade agreements—for example, this government's refusal to commission independent economic modelling of the TPP-11, the agreement which is of course the subject of this bill, which I find incredible. In The Australian this morning, Senator Birmingham was reported as saying that failure to adhere to TPP-11 would cost Australia some $15.6 billion in export income. Now, he didn't acknowledge the source of this figure. In fact, he didn't say what projections he was relying on. They were in fact from a report that was commissioned by the Minerals Council and other groups, including the Business Council, the Australian Industry Group and the Food and Grocery Council. The government itself did not commission independent modelling that you would expect to be publicly available during the negotiation process—and that's one of the problems with the present treaty-making process, which Labor will seek to rectify.

The Victorian Labor government did commission independent modelling by the financial consulting firm Grant Thornton. That report concluded that participation in the TTP-11 would result in a modest initial gain for Australia primarily from agricultural goods. The analysis concluded that, although the TPP-11 would not benefit all sectors of the economy equally, no sector would be worse off. But that judgement should be qualified by other data in the Minerals Council report—data that Minister Birmingham did not cite in his media interview this morning. The report, prepared by Peter Petri from Brandeis University and Michael Plummer from John Hopkins University in the United States, states that adherence to the agreement would slightly reduce Australia's output of durable manufactured goods. That is because other countries participating in the agreement have comparative advantages. Petri and Plummer, like Grant Thornton in their analysis for the Victorian government, describe the benefit for Australia under TPP-11 as 'relatively modest'. They estimate it to be below one per cent of real income. And by 2030, Australia's adherence to the agreement would result in a two per cent fall in durable manufacturing. Petri and Plummer say:

… trade agreements that deepen economic relationships with Asia lead … to higher net imports of manufactured products.

We should also note the independent economic analysis of the original Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, the TPP-12, the forerunner of the agreement that is the subject of these bills. This agreement is sufficiently close to the TPP-12 for it to retain the provisions that would be activated should the US choose to join. So the independent modelling that was done for the early agreement continues to be relevant for the present one. And, under modelling for the World Bank, the projected economic benefits for Australia under the TPP-12 were very modest indeed. The World Bank projected a 0.7 per cent increase in GDP to 2030. That amounts to a 0.07 per cent increase in GDP per annum. An increase on that scale is nothing more than a minor blip.

With the new agreement, the TPP-11, nothing much seems to have changed. And I have noted that the evidence of the independent analysis prepared by Grant Thornton for the Victorian government also projects very modest economic benefit for Australia. So what is it that the Australian government has given up in exchange for this modest benefit? It's given away labour market testing that protects Australian workers' rights. It has agreed to provisions under which a future Australian government could be sued by foreign companies. It has made decisions which it presumes are in the strategic interest of the country. And, therefore, we'd argue that, on balance, Labor supports this agreement.

The absence of the US in this agreement means that some of the odious aspects of the TPP-12 have been suspended. This agreement suspends contentious provisions in the original agreement related to biomedical products, copyright and some aspects of ISDS. Australian farmers, manufacturers and exporters of services will gain increased market share and tariff reductions in economies with nearly 500 million consumers. In 2016-17, nearly a quarter of Australia's exports, worth $88 billion, went to countries participating in this agreement. The agreement will remove 98 per cent of tariffs in a trade zone spanning the Asia-Pacific region with a combined GDP of $13.7 trillion. The agreement creates Australia's first agreements with Canada and Mexico. For the first time, Australian exports will gain preferential access to two of the world's top 20 economies. For these reasons, and acknowledging the modest economic benefits estimated by the modelling commissioned by the Victorian government, Labor supports these bills. But it would have been better if there had been Australian government modelling to demonstrate independently the benefits of these arrangements.

We stress, however, that these trade agreements can't be changed through this process. It will require a change of government to change that process. There must be an end to the secrecy. Before an agreement is signed, a net benefit must be demonstrated for Australian participation in the agreement. Provisions in the existing trade agreements that undermine Australia's sovereignty or conflict with the principles of our migration system must be removed. To rely on assurances of economic benefit that have not been demonstrated, whilst surrendering the basic rights of Australians, is an affront to democracy. The democratic principles that should guide any future trade agreements between Australia and other nations are set out in the amendment standing in my name, and I urge all senators to support that vision. Accordingly, I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(1) acknowledges that this preferential trade agreement cannot be amended by these bills, only accepted or rejected;

(2) is of the opinion that:

(a) the way Australia negotiates trade agreements of this type needs to change,

(b) the role of Parliament in trade negotiations should be strengthened by increased oversight of trade negotiations by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, including providing the committee with:

(i) the government's statement of objectives for negotiation for consideration and feedback, and

(ii) regular briefings at the conclusions of each round of negotiations; and

(3) calls on the Australian government to:

(a) seek to remove Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms and reinstate labour-market testing for contractual service suppliers in existing trade agreements,

(b) ensure that future governments are prevented, by legislation, from including ISDS mechanisms or waiving labour-market testing in future trade agreements,

(c) establish an accredited trade advisers program to allow industry, unions and civil society groups to provide real-time feedback on draft trade agreements during negotiations,

(d) subject all new trade agreements to an independent national interest assessment to examine economic, strategic and social impacts before they are signed,

(e) enforce mandatory skills testing in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and all future trade agreements, and

(f) fix the problems in the existing skills testing regime by ensuring that the skills of foreign workers are tested by qualified professionals and required to meet current Australian standards and not by immigration officials."

(Time expired)

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (12:43): I rise today to contribute to this debate on the Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018, and to clearly outline the Greens' strong opposition to the TPP. We have stood in this place for a number of years now, very concerned at Australia's signing up to a shocker of a trade deal when it comes to sovereignty of our nation, the rights of Australian workers and protecting our environment.

We've just heard a number of opposition issues and concerns outlined by Senator Carr of the Labor Party in relation to this TPP agreement. There are big problems with the TPP, and it is so tragic that, rather than standing up for these principles and fighting to ensure Australia doesn't get locked into this dodgy deal, the Labor opposition are prepared to roll over and vote with the Morrison government on this deal today. We know that a number of Labor opposition members in this place and in the House are very concerned about Labor's position on this—and rightly so. Kudos to those members who stood up in their own party room and tried to fight and to hold back the tide. I'm sorry you didn't win—because Australia needed you to, democracy needed you to and the Australian environment needed you to. And Australian workers need you more than ever. Yet what we have got is the opposition rolling over to vote with the Morrison government to tick this dodgy deal through.

The irony, of course, is that we can list as many as possible of the terrible things that this deal does, but, because of the way trade negotiations are undertaken, we can't fix any of this in this piece of legislation. So we have to take it or leave it, and this is such a bad deal that we should be leaving it. There is no point in playing around and saying, after the fact, that we might fix it—which is what the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, is doing. Well, you can't fix it afterwards, mate—that's the point. It's a dodgy deal and it has been done. We've got to kill it once and for all. That is what has to happen. That is the mettle that needs to be relied on in this place today. Don't tick this through with some false hope being given to Australian unions and Australian workers that, somehow, down the track, if Bill Shorten were ever to become Prime Minister, you could fix it—because we know that is just not the case. It cannot be done.

The truth is that Australia would have to withdraw from the TPP altogether before anything could be amended. So why sign up to it in the first place? This is a bad deal designed in the back room to benefit the boardroom and corporations. This deal is for corporations, not for the community. This deal is for big multinational corporations, at the expense of people. We know that the economic benefits are exaggerated and the costs are downplayed. Big industries' own modelling shows that grain exports will not change and other agricultural exports may decline—as well as the potential of a two per cent decrease in durable manufacturing. This is a pretty cruddy deal. At the time this deal was negotiated by the former Minister for Trade, Mr Ciobo, he was so desperate to come home with something that he signed Australia up—despite the fact that there really aren't the economic benefits that those on the other side are trying so desperately to crow about.

To make matters worse, the agreement represents an affront to democracy and sovereignty because of the insidious ISDS causes. It should be absolutely rejected, up-front, in the strongest possible terms. These investor-state dispute settlement provisions mean big corporations will have more power than ever before to sue Australian governments and the Australian people, regardless of whether our governments are doing things that we have asked them to do or not. This means that these measures advance the interests of these corporations over the interests of governments and the citizens whom they are accountable to. ISDS provisions expand the legal rights of multinational corporations based on legal concepts not even recognised in our domestic legal systems and offer advantages to multinational companies that are not even available to domestic investors. So they are simply unfair, even from a business perspective. They are unfair, they are unrepresentative and they are unnecessary.

The fact that they are unnecessary has been recently upheld in the European Court of Justice. The decision made in 2017, and again in 2018, by the European Court of Justice found that ISDS provisions are fundamentally incompatible with national sovereignty. We should be listening to the experience of others before we sign up for something that includes these provisions. As a result of this finding, the EU is now proposing that ISDS clauses are not to be acceptable in any of their trade negotiations or trade deals, including in the EU's trade negotiations with Australia. So in our negotiations with the EU, which have only recently commenced, the EU has said, 'We're not going to talk to you if you want ISDS provisions.' That is the same approach that we should be taking in relation to the TPP or any other trade negotiations that are on foot.

The New Zealand government has made it clear throughout negotiations that it does not support the inclusion of ISDS provisions as part of the TPP, and it spent time negotiating before signing on the dotted line to ensure that ISDS provisions were removed through four supplementary, legally binding letters with Brunei, Malaysia, Peru and Vietnam. They obviously saw that there was a desire amongst the New Zealand community to have their government stand up for sovereignty, democracy and the right of New Zealanders to have laws in their interests, not in the interests of big corporations.

Australia has not negotiated any such agreement. We are now left with a TPP that signs Australia up to these terrible provisions, undermines our democracy and sovereignty, and, of course, cannot be renegotiated after the fact. We've heard from the Labor opposition that they promise to renegotiate them if they form government. This is an absolute farce and needs to be called out for the furphy that it is. They cannot have it both ways. Why would any country enter into renegotiations with Australia just because there's a change of government when the opposition at the time had the opportunity to fix it once and for all? The sad reality is that this legislation, when it passes this place today, will be subject to ISDS provisions. Labor will not be able to wind them back without withdrawing fully from the TPP. They will be committing Australian taxpayers and citizens to an agreement which they themselves say is against their own party's platform. No wonder Australian unions and workers are furious at the Labor position today.

ISDS powers are routinely used by corporations to attack governments and communities for doing what governments are supposed to do—namely, regulate in the interests of their citizens. In 2016, Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis filed an ISDS dispute against the Colombian government over the government's plans to reduce prices on patented treatment for leukaemia. The Colombian government wanted to reduce the cost of medication for leukaemia so that its citizens could access it, and the big pharmaceutical company came in and said, 'Oh, no, we'll sue you for that.' It is just appalling that this type of power is being handed to these big multinational corporations at the expense of the rights of the Australian people to have our government legislate and regulate in our best interests.

Over and over in this place we talk about the power and influence of big corporations on politics. Well, there is no better example than this TPP legislation before us today. This deal has been put together for the interests of big corporations at the expense of the community and of the rights of the people. We know that in Canada, in 2017, the Canadian Bear Creek Mining Corporation was awarded $26 million from the government of Peru because the government cancelled a mining licence after the Canadian company failed to obtain informed consent from indigenous landowners. In that case, we had a big multinational mining corporation going into Peru and not getting the right consent from the indigenous owners and, when the Colombian government wanted to do something about it, the big multinational company said, 'We're going to sue you,' because the government was standing up for its own people. Just imagine if we signed this piece of legislation into law today and the world's biggest coalmine in Queensland, run by Adani, started thinking that it can sue its way into operation. Giving these corporations this massive amount of power to undermine the interests of the Australian people is on the line today. We are opening ourselves up to the risks of ISDS, and it is simply unjustifiable. The government will argue, and we've heard it time and time again, that these provisions are needed because they give certainty to investors. Well, how about certainty to the Australian people, to know that when they demand action from the government the government will do it and it will stand; that it won't be overridden because of the desire of a multinational corporation?

Of course, these provisions are even more inexcusable given the United Nations IPCC report which was tabled last week, which served as yet another reminder of our gross inaction on climate change. While successive governments have frittered away the last decade squabbling over climate and energy policy, we have moved closer and closer to thresholds that our scientists warn will dramatically and drastically change life on the planet. While the environmental provisions in the TPP are wholly inadequate, the real risk is that these ISDS provisions will stop real action on climate change, because these big multinational companies don't give a damn about the impact of their operations on the people and communities, and they certainly don't consider the impact on the environment or future generations.

Stopping governments from taking necessary action in the best interests of their citizens and our environment is unthinkable. That is what our governments should be doing: looking after our community and acting in the best interests of their citizens—which is why I'm foreshadowing that I'll be moving a second reading amendment that will stop this TPP legislation in its tracks. We should not be considering this legislation anymore until these provisions are removed and until the issues are resolved specifically in relation to the right of Australian workers to know that there is proper labour force market testing in place.

This TPP legislation commits Australia to accepting an unlimited number of temporary workers from Canada, Mexico, Chile, Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam. These workers will be spread across a wide range of professional and technical skilled trades and occupations. The agreement does not require that there be any labour market testing to establish whether there are local workers who could do these jobs first—not even an initial check is required. These workers would then be brought to Australia to work in jobs and on projects regardless of whether there are Australians—particularly young Australians—who are ready and able to do the job on the same project. This weakens our domestic labour market and exploits these temporary workers all at the same time.

Migrant temporary workers remain tied to one employer for the course of their time in Australia, and they face deportation if they lose their job for any reason. This means the exploitation of these workers will remain high and their positions will be very risky. Australia has benefitted greatly from the contributions of migrant temporary workers, and they perform a vital role, but they must be protected by genuine rules and regulations that ensure they are not exploited. This TPP deal not only opens them up to exploitation but also, as a result, pushes down the rights of workers here in Australia domestically. We already know that the Fair Work Ombudsman says that one in 10 complaints to the agency in 2015 came from the exploitation of migrant workers. It is happening already, and this deal will make it even worse. When we sign up to trade agreements we should be signing up to ensure that they maximise job opportunities for Australian workers and give proper protection to both domestic and migrant workers as a gold-clad guarantee, not allow people to be further exploited and undermined. These agreements are written for corporations so that they can continue to exploit Australian and foreign workers twofold. Meanwhile, those corporations get to bank their profits, and nobody looks in either direction.

Even if all these reasons weren't enough, we're sceptical, as the Productivity Commission has been, of the economic modelling promised by the government in relation to this deal. We've had no independent modelling from the Australian government in relation to this. They promise that things will get better, but, in fact, all the modelling that has been done proves otherwise. The government makes generous assumptions of full employment and costless adjustment to claim that there will be only winners, not losers. But anyone who's watched trade negotiations unfold knows that there are always winners and losers. It's a question of whether the government of the day is willing to be up-front about that; that's what counts. We've seen over and over again that this government is wanting to brush all the issues under the carpet.

The government assumes perfect labour mobility and assumes away any income-distribution effects or trade-balance effects. The government can't promise anything except that this is a dodgy deal. What is surprising is that, once you've factored in all those rosy assumptions that are coming from the government side, the economic benefits remain stubbornly minuscule. The Peterson Institute for International Economics in the US has produced a study estimating a very small increase in Australia's GDP after 15 years—0.6 per cent. For Australia, this represents a growth of between zero and 0.1 per cent per year. This is somewhere between nothing and a rounding error.

Today we have before us a deal that signs away the rights of citizens to have the government implement policies and laws in their best interests; a deal that undercuts the ability for Australian workers to get a look-in, first and foremost, if they're able to do a job; and a deal that allows for multinational corporations to exert even more power over the government of the day to create a chilling effect on regulation. And for what? A rounding error, perhaps, of economic benefit. It's a dodgy deal, and it should be thrown out.

Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia) (13:03): Before I move on to speak about the Trans-Pacific Partnership and, in particular, these associated bills, I will just point out that one of my favourite words in the English language is 'furphy'; I think it's a great word. And what we've just heard is a very large number of furphies about this legislation, in particular about the ISDS provisions. I ask those listening and those in the gallery: for all the criticism of the ISDS provisions that we've heard—provisions supported by governments of all persuasions over 30 years—how many times has the Australian government actually been taken to a tribunal on the basis of ISDS provisions? The answer is once—once in 30 years. So this is not, as it is painted to be by the Greens and, sadly, by some in the Labor Party, a huge thing to fear.

The ISDS provisions are there for a very good reason: to protect Australian companies investing abroad. ISDS promotes investor confidence and can protect our sovereign and political risk. If a country does not uphold its investment obligations, an investor can have their claim determined by an independent tribunal, usually consisting of three arbitrators. As I said, ISDS provisions have been around for a very long time—30 years, in fact. There are ISDS provisions in six FTAs, including the China-Australia, the Korea-Australia, the Chile-Australia, the Singapore-Australia, the Thailand-Australia and the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand free trade agreements. Obviously, there are also ISDS provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This is a fairly standard part of international trade agreements.

Sadly, though, we are in a world where the benefits of trade are being forgotten and where the benefits of trade are being undermined by populists from all sides of politics, unfortunately. In this debate, we've heard it from the left of Australian politics but we've seen it in the US from the right side of their politics. They are uncertain about the benefits of trade and the importance of trade, but we on this side of the chamber know the benefits of trade and know the benefits of increasing our trade with the rest of the world. Australia is at the end of the line when it comes to trade. We are a trading nation; we have to trade. We have to trade for our wealth, we have to trade for our security and we have to trade in order to grow our economy and in order to give future opportunities to the next generations of Australia. That's why this government has been so committed, right throughout its period of office, to delivering free trade agreements that grow the economy, that grow jobs, that grow wages and that actually give this country the opportunity for the next generation to succeed and thrive, doing what we do best. I will move on to talk about something that's very close to my own heart—the agricultural sector—in a little while.

Just in general, the TPP-11 is one of the most comprehensive trade agreements ever concluded, including Japan, Chile, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore, Peru, Brunei, Vietnam, Canada and Mexico. Those last two, which I'll speak a little bit more about later, obviously open up markets and open up preferential access to two of the top 20 economies in the world. The TPP-11 eliminates more than 98 per cent of tariffs for these 11 countries. Those 11 countries have a combined GDP over A$13 trillion and 500 million consumers. Those consumers want our high-quality produce, our minerals and our high-tech exports that Australia does so well.

The TPP-11 will eliminate all remaining tariffs on Australian exports of non-agricultural products to the TPP-11 countries. Australian farmers, Australian manufacturers, Australian service providers and Australian small businesses—in fact, all exporters—will be big winners from this free trade agreement. That is because it will be easier to sell their goods and supply their services into a free trade area that spans the Americas and Asia. In 2017, nearly one-quarter of Australia's total exports, worth nearly $92 billion, went to the TPP-11 countries. This will continue to grow as those tariffs start to go down. This sort of boost will drive the future of growth. It will drive future jobs, it will drive higher wages and it will drive investment to allow the next generation to have the sort of opportunities that we all had.

It also provides improved access to markets where we already have FTAs, such as Japan. In the process, there is an acceleration of the reduction in Japan's tariffs on beef and the elimination of a number of tariffs on cheese. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, as I mentioned earlier, also creates the first opportunity to have a free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico, giving Australian exporters preferential access to two of the top 20 economies in the world for the first time. That's why it is so important that the TPP is put in place as soon as possible—to lock in those benefits and allow those small and medium-sized businesses who are doing the hard work of growing the economy and creating jobs to secure those new market opportunities around the world but particularly in the Trans-Pacific Partnership countries.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership will enter into force 60 days after the first six TPP-11 members complete all necessary ratification procedures. Our government, the Morrison government, will continue to pursue a trade agenda that opens new markets for Australian businesses, contributes to a stronger economy and creates Australian jobs. It was not that long ago that those opposite—in particular Bill Shorten—said this deal was dead in the water. Well, this government didn't accept that. This government got on with the job. Even though there were challenges to having this agreement finalised, it got on with the job with the 11 countries who were still interested in having one of the largest free trade areas in the world and managed to get the deal done. Opponents are risking $15.6 billion in annual benefits to the Australian economy, forecast to be realised by 2030.

As I said earlier, agriculture is close to my heart. Again, we are a trading nation. Australian farmers export around 77 per cent of what they produce. We need to get our trade policy right for our farmers to ensure they have ongoing access to the markets they need but also have growth opportunities to supply the clean, green produce from Australia to the rest of the world. Australian farm exports were valued at $44.5 billion in 2016-17, and obviously that's been one of the significant growth sectors in our economy. TPP-11 does ensure better access for farm exporters, including beef producers, sheepmeat producers, dairy producers, canegrowers and sugar millers as well as cereal and grain exporters, rice growers, cotton growers, woolgrowers, horticulture producers and wine exporters. That certainly covers the gamut of the major agricultural assets in Australia.

I will go through some of these in detail. I will start with beef. Japan's beef tariffs will be reduced to nine per cent within 15 years of entry into the TPP. This will improve access for fresh, chilled and frozen beef exports into Japan. We'll also see elimination on tariffs on offal exported to Japan. That will give us the potential to boost those exports. Canadian beef tariffs will be eliminated within five years of the TPP coming into force. Currently, those tariffs run at 26½ per cent. We do have a market in Canada at the moment. It was around $100 million in 2016-17. But we certainly see the potential there to increase significantly with the removal of a 26 per cent tariff. There's also elimination of Mexican tariffs on beef carcasses and cuts, which are currently 25 per cent. That will take place over a 10-year period. Tariffs on offal, which are currently at 20 per cent, will come into force immediately the TPP is ratified by those six countries. So there will be significant gains for the beef sector.

We exported around $8.5 billion worth of grains and cereals in 2016-17. Nineteen per cent of that, worth $1.6 billion, was exported to the TPP countries. Again, the TPP builds on the existing free trade agreement with Japan, where there will be increased quotas for Australian grains and the mark-up on wheat and barley will be reduced by 45 per cent over an eight-year period. There will also be elimination of Mexican tariffs on wheat, currently at 67 per cent. I think many people thought the world had already moved on a lot of these tariffs and had started to bring down these barriers over the last 30 years, when people did widely share the view that tariffs were detrimental to the economy and particularly detrimental to those who bought products within an economy—detrimental to consumers. But there are still some very significant tariffs out there, including 67 per cent on wheat and 115 per cent on barley in Mexico. These will be reduced progressively over the years ahead. In Canada there will be the elimination of tariffs on grains and cereal. Canada is a significant grain and cereal producer and exporter in its own right, but there may be some niche market opportunities into Canada that our very high quality producers in Australia can access.

Dairy products exported from Australia were valued at more than $2.1 billion in 2016-17. Almost half were exported to Trans-Pacific Partnership countries. The TPP includes significant improvement to access to the Japanese, Canadian and Mexican dairy markets. The National Farmers Federation stated that the TPP-11 will lock in new valuable market access for our farm exports. Improved access to global markets is critical to achieving increased farm gate returns. We've been talking a lot in this place—and I'm sure many in this place would have heard from dairy farmers in their states—about some of the difficulties dairy farmers are facing, so opening market access will improve the bottom line for dairy farmers.

Australia's wine export volumes have improved over the last year. The value of wine exports is up 20 per cent to $2.7 billion and export volumes are up about 10 per cent, which I believe is a new record. Around 20 per cent of our exports go to the TPP-11 countries. The Winemakers' Federation chief executive said that the TPP-11 is a very good deal for Australia and a very good deal for rural and regional Australia in particular:

At a time when farmers around the country are experiencing crippling drought, deals like TPP-11 give hope for a long-term sustainable future.

That hope is real, that hope is there and that hope is built on increasing our market access to countries right round the world, which the TPP-11 does.

It is great news for the wool sector, which has been going gangbusters in the last six years or so after a very lean period. From entry into force the TPP eliminates all remaining tariffs on Australian raw wool exports to TPP-11 countries. We have all seen the burgeoning of high-quality merino wool in fashion labels right around the world. It is a fabric of choice now across so many different parts of the market, from the suit I'm wearing to sporting gear. People love wool. People love Australian wool. This will, as I said, eliminate all remaining tariffs on raw wool exports. That's great news for the Australian wool industry.

A majority of mining income is derived out and about in rural and regional Australia. It contributes about eight per cent of Australia's GDP and around 60 per cent of our exports. Iron ore accounts for 52 per cent of world trade. My home state of Western Australia accounts for 38 per cent of the global iron ore export market. Iron ore sales reached a record 270 million tonnes in 2016-17, valued at $63½ billion. Our mining sector depends on exports for its survival. The Minerals Council of Australia said:

Australian workers, jobs and business will benefit significantly from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP-11) trade agreement, with increased national income, exports, investment and wages …

It is pretty clear from the above that industries in rural and regional Australia are positive about trade and about the TPP in particular, and this isn't a surprise. There has been modelling conducted for Australian industry associations by Professor Peter Petri and Professor Michael Plummer, which looked at the impact of improved market access for goods, services and investment under the TPP-11 trade deal. The modelling showed that by 2030 the TPP-11 would increase national income by $15.6 billion, boost Australia's exports by about $30 billion, generate additional direct investment into Australia of $7.8 billion and additional overseas investment by Australian businesses of $26 billion, and lift real wages with higher wage gains for lower skilled workers.

Just briefly in the time left, I want to get back to the ISDS issue and why it isn't something that needs to be worried about. ISDS provisions have been in operation as part of free trade agreements for 30 years. They have only been used once. They're not automatically a part of free trade agreements; they're included on a case-by-case basis, always based on whether an ISDS mechanism is in Australia's national interest.

An ISDS mechanism is very clearly not a threat to Australian sovereignty. It does not prevent the government from changing its policies. It does not prevent the government from regulating in the public interest. It does not prevent the government from regulating in the interests of the environment or regulating in the interests of our own health system. It does nothing to freeze existing policy settings. Australian companies have used ISDS in proceedings against other countries to protect their investments overseas, so this isn't a one-way street. It isn't about giving evil multinationals the ability to tie up the Australian government in tribunals, because 30 years of evidence shows it's only happened once—whereas, on a number of occasions, it has given Australian companies the right to protect their investments overseas in that tribunal setting.

That's a very important note to end on. The TPPs are an excellent addition to our armoury of free trade agreements around the world. The government continues to negotiate a range of free trade agreements, including the Australian-European Union Free Trade Agreement; we have ongoing discussions with Indonesia about the comprehensive economic partnership agreement, and there has been some movement on that; the Australia-India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement; the Australia-Hong Kong Free Trade Agreement; the Pacific Alliance Free Trade Agreement; and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. And, of course, we are also talking to the United Kingdom about the possibilities of a free trade agreement with them in the post-Brexit era. Trade is good for Australian business. It's good for Australian families. It's good for consumers. It will reduce the cost of imports. It gives us increased opportunities to do what we do best and sell it to a global market. I absolutely commend these bills to the chamber.

Senator ANNING (Queensland) (13:22): I rise today to oppose and condemn the Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 and related bills, that enable what is commonly called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This agreement is bad for Aussie business and bad for Aussie workers and families. Because of this, I foreshadow that I will be moving a second reading amendment to the bill.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement might be great for Vietnam, the Philippines and other low-wage Third World economies, but it is very bad for Australia. This agreement is but the latest in a long line of deals with foreign countries that give away Aussie jobs and industry to supposedly disadvantaged foreign nations, beginning with Whitlam, who put a wrecking ball through Australian industry with his unilateral tariff cuts. Subsequent Liberal and Labor governments have all been infatuated with the internationalist vision of trade. In 1975, the Whitlam government signed the United Nations Lima Declaration, through which the Australian government sold out Australian industries and workers by specifically agreeing to transfer manufacturing to Third World countries, supposedly to help them develop. Almost every move to liberalise trade since that day has led to a net transfer of jobs and industry away from Australia, and the current TPP is just the latest outrageous example. Giant transnational corporations love the Lima agreement, of course, since taking jobs away from decently-paid Aussie workers and instead employing Third World semi-slaves made them a fortune. Perhaps that is the reason why both Labor and the Liberals agree on these kinds of trade deals. The Left think that our national prosperity is something to apologise for and that we have an unending obligation to subsidise foreigners. In practice, if not intent, the capitalist globalists agree with them. Transnational corporations don't care about the best interests of Australians, only their own profits, and profits are larger if you employ Third Worlders on slave wages than if you employ Aussies on decent award wages.

Like all post-Lima declaration trade deals, the TPP will allow foreign multinationals the right to dictate terms to our government regarding rules and regulations. The TPP will see Australia's sovereignty further eroded. This agreement will allow cheap foreign goods from countries with historically bad safety regulations to flood the Australian market. The TPP will see food from countries with almost non-existent workplace health and safety standards enter Australia—just like the Asian white spot disease, which was introduced and devastated our prawn sector. The TPP will see hardworking Australians fighting against workers whose wages would be considered slavery in Australia. Their wages are so low that they struggle to afford food, shelter or clothing. To protect our sovereignty, food security, wages and work, the TPP agreement must be rejected.

Australia was once a nation of doers, hard workers and builders. We tamed the harsh, dry land of the outback. We built massive infrastructure projects, like the Snowy scheme. Australia was the land of the worker and the farmer. Now, ever since the Whitlam era, we have seen a Liberal-Labor consensus in favour of globalism, foreign ownership, exporting jobs and importing cheap foreign labour. This has resulted in Australia becoming the land of unemployed university graduates and foreign workers. Our major parties have allowed Australia to become a nation without work, with our remaining major industries, mining and hospitality, digging things up and selling them to foreigners, and serving dinner and drinks to our foreign overlords. Our once prosperous economy has been raided and pillaged by multinational corporations. That is exactly what Australia has seen with these global trade agreements.

We have seen the demand for labour drop as factories move overseas, while the major parties allow foreign workers to flood the country. This has caused the devastating problems of wage stagnation and the casualisation of our workforce. Without a proper wage and stable, full-time work, how can Australians provide for their families? Before Whitlam, 70 per cent of the Australian workforce were employed in decent, well-paid jobs in manufacturing. Now there are barely any. One-sided trade deals since the Lima declaration, like the TPP, have seen almost all of our manufacturing closed down. The Liberal-Labor consensus is happy to see the whitegoods industry gone, the textile industry gone, the glass industry gone, the steel industry gone and, of course, the Aussie motor industry gone. Whatever we have left will be destroyed by the TPP.

The first focus of any Australian government should be the long-term security and prosperity of Australian families and Australia. Families are only strong when there is stable, well-paying, full-time work. A nation is only strong when families are thriving. My amendment goes to the heart of this issue. My amendment will provide that further consideration of the bill will be postponed until the TPP agreement is renegotiated to exclude countries with low wage levels and countries that provide direct or indirect subsidies for key products. My amendment will protect the jobs and conditions of Aussie workers. I ask my Senate colleagues to think again about this UN-inspired globalist compact, voting for my amendment or rejecting these bills if my amendment is unsuccessful.

Senator STOKER (Queensland) (13:29): I rise to speak in support of this bill before the Senate, the Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018, and related legislation. It will enact the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement that was signed in March, and it is the latest success in the coalition government's ambitious trade agenda. Following remarks in the other house from the Labor Party—which showed, at best, tepid support for the TPP-11—I am delighted to see that those opposite now are in support of these important bills today, and I commend them for it.

The coalition team consistently supports increased free trade agreements with our international partners. We're a team that recognises trade as a major economic driver for industry, particularly in my home state of Queensland. The confident trading approach taken by the coalition government will see our farmers and manufacturers more competitive in the Asia-Pacific region into the future. The TPP-11, which will enter into force before the end of this year, strengthens our existing free trade arrangements in the Asia-Pacific region. Parties to the agreement include Canada, Chile, Japan, Brunei, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam. The agreement will eliminate 98 per cent of tariffs on our exports in a marketplace consisting of over half a billion people and a combined GDP of $13.8 trillion. Last year nearly a quarter of all Australian exports went to TPP-11 countries. This deal will see preferential access to the additional markets of Canada and Mexico for the first time—the world's 11th and 15th largest economies, respectively. The modelling shows that the TPP-11 will see $15.5 billion, or a 0.5 per cent increase, in net annual benefits to our national income by 2030.

The passage of this bill into law is incredibly important for rural and regional Australian industry, especially for those who are already doing it tough in dealing with the difficult circumstances of the drought. The economic prosperity of communities throughout regional and rural Australia depends upon strong export markets. Farmers produce more than there is demand for in this country, and that's something on which they should be commended and supported. The increase in trade that the TPP-11 will deliver increases the wealth of our nation and concentrates that opportunity into the areas that are doing it tough, like rural and regional agricultural industries and the manufacturing sector.

As Australia is a net exporting country, greater access to the international market will not only benefit our farming communities but also enhance opportunities for our manufacturers. Across Australia, manufacturers of iron, steel, aluminium, paper and leather goods will benefit from the TPP-11. In Queensland, this extends to the agriculture, resources and coal industries. Let's not be mistaken: more trade means more Australian jobs, every day of the week. We are a trading nation, and the enactment of the most comprehensive trade deal ever negotiated will see more Australians employed directly and indirectly in the exporting, manufacturing and farming industries.

The TPP-11 is expected to reduce compliance costs for Australian exporters. I get pretty excited about a reduction in red tape, and that's something we will deliver with the TPP-11. Exporting to the various nations at present requires eight separate forms. That will now be streamlined to a single set of documents for our free trade agreement partners. The arrangements that are in place are even more complex for non-agreement partners, and anything we can do to make doing business simpler and easier for Australians in business is a good thing. Australians will also benefit from being able to self-certify the origin of their goods for export, unlike the current outgoing system, in which non-preferential certificates of origin had to be sought.

These are just some of the simple but practical ways in which the coalition government's ambitious and confident agreement with our international partners will achieve greater efficiency for Australian exporters. An example of the real benefits that this deal will provide is the advantage from which beef exporters from Australia will benefit within two years, when the tariffs they face will be 13 percentage points lower than those faced by their United States counterparts, one of our most significant competitors. Our manufacturers will benefit from the elimination of tariffs on industrial goods. Raw wool will see the immediate elimination of all remaining tariffs. There will be improved access to Japanese markets for our cereals and grains, including new quotas on barley. Mexican tariffs on wheat, currently sitting at 67 per cent, will be eliminated within 10 years—in addition to the elimination of the 115 per cent tariff currently on barley that goes into Mexico, which will be gone within five years. Dairy, pork, cotton, sugar and rice growers will also benefit from the TPP and similar measures. I could go on and on listing who and how this deal will benefit each of our rural and regional industries. Suffice to say that more products produced in Australia will have a market to go to with returns that will benefit Australians from coast to coast.

Given these significant benefits, it's really important that Australia implement the TPP-11 as soon as possible to ensure that we have a competitive advantage. The TPP-11 will enter into force 60 days after six member countries have ratified the agreement. Currently three countries—Mexico, Japan and Singapore—have ratified the agreement. A number of other countries, including New Zealand, Peru and Canada, have indicated that they will ratify the agreement in the coming months. If the TPP-11 were to enter into force this year without Australia having ratified it, our exporters would be placed at a significant competitive disadvantage. We would risk other countries having superior access to the beef, dairy, cheese and wine markets, for instance. That's why we need to move now to implement the TPP-11 and maximise the advantage we can gain for Australian exporters.

It's worth pausing to observe that the TPP-11 is an important example we can point to of this government demonstrating leadership when things look difficult. Reaching a deal for the TPP-11 was far from guaranteed. When the United States withdrew from the negotiation process early last year, the chances of securing the important agreement were far from certain. With no guarantee of success, this government nevertheless chose to stand firm and pursue the agreement rather than retreat or give up. And while the Leader of the Opposition in the other place preferred retreat—calling the deal 'dead', and labelling those on this side of the chamber 'delusional'—the government continued to advance Australia's agenda of free trade and open markets. I'm delighted to say that this government was successful in the process. In its dogged determination to secure more opportunities for Australian producers and manufacturers, it has delivered once more.

It's also regrettable that the actions of those who represent the Greens political party demonstrate that they don't understand the benefits of free trade to Australian industry and jobs. While the coalition government gets on with the job, the Greens' dissenting report to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into these bills now before the Senate details a striking ignorance about the benefits of free trade. It's rather curious that, in that dissenting report, they claim that the agricultural and manufacturing industries will be damaged by the TPP. The source for those concerns, a recent modelling report titled 'Australia will gain from continued Asia-Pacific trade integration', seems like an odd source for reaching that conclusion. While their dissenting report rejects passing these bills because of their impact on agricultural and manufacturing, we on this side of the chamber support passing the bills for that very reason. The impacts on these industries will be greater wealth, more jobs, more opportunity and more choice for our regional and remote communities. While we are strongly focused on creating greater export opportunities, the Greens seem to be more concerned about burdening our international markets with more and more tax-like effects. The government knows that Australia is an open-trading nation whose prosperity now and into the future depends upon our export markets and depends upon trade. For example, one in five Australian jobs relies on international trade, with that trade equating to 40 per cent of our GDP. It's no small measure. Today is a timely reminder of which parties are focused on delivering for Australia and which parties think that produce grows merely on the shelves of supermarkets.

The Liberal-National government has been focused on trade and creating more opportunities for Australia's farmers, families and businesses for every single day since its election in 2013. Five years ago, only 26 per cent of our goods-and-services trade received duty free or preferential access to overseas markets. During the time we have been in government this has substantially changed. We have concluded or updated seven free trade agreements, including with China, Korea, Indonesia and Japan, providing us with unprecedented access to overseas markets and bringing down prices for consumers. These agreements now account for nearly 70 per cent of our trade, with current negotiations potentially taking that figure up as far as 88 per cent. In 2017-18 Australia achieved record exports of $401 billion. Our global trade surplus was $6.3 billion. The TPP-11 continues on this work and is just another example of our tireless commitment to investment, jobs and trade.

The TPP-11 is truly a next-generation trade agreement and a significant moment for open markets, free trade and export opportunities for working Australians. The agreement will increase national income, remove tariffs, reduce red tape, and expand export access for Australian farmers and Australian manufacturers. It is for these, I suggest, very good reasons that I strongly support Australia's entry into the TPP-11 and, as a consequence, support the passage of these bills.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (13:42): Today we have before us legislation, the Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 and related bill, implementing the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. This deal started in 2005, nearly thirteen years ago, immediately following the failure of the Doha multilateral trade rounds. It didn't get supercharged until after 2010, when President Obama put his stamp on it, but it has been a long time coming. We need to ask ourselves as a chamber why that is. Why has it taken nearly 13 years for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement to come to us in legislation? You can draw your own conclusions. It's extremely complex, divisive, controversial and unpopular. I say to the senators in the chamber here today and those listening: for six years I have been campaigning against this so-called trade deal. Senator Milne before me opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement in 2010, and my colleague Senator Hanson-Young has done an excellent job in recent years flying the Greens flag on this.

There is a good reason that we oppose the TPP. This is a corporate takeover of our democracy, to put it in a nutshell. You can come in here and bung on as much as you want with speeches written for you by staffers about what a great deal this is for the country; if you have a look at it closely, you'll see that we already have bilateral trade deals with the majority of countries in the TPP 11, with very limited increases in market access. This is not a free trade deal in the way the coalition are describing it; this is much more about services and investment. This is a deal for large multinational corporations.

Let me tell you a little bit more about this. When the TPP negotiations were underway there was no access at all for community groups or other stakeholders, apart from big corporations who had exclusive access. They were covered completely by commercial-in-confidence clauses about what could be disclosed. And, of course, we had our DFAT negotiators, who I for five years tried to get answers from at every estimates and who, seemingly, felt insulted when we asked them questions about what was going on behind closed doors. And it wasn't just us in this country, I know our counterparts and stakeholders I've dealt with in other countries have had very similar issues. We have a deal that's essentially synchronising laws and regulations around things as important as investment and services. Things that cover nearly every facet of our lives in this country are being negotiated behind closed doors by people who aren't responsible to parliament.

What did I do when I took on this issue in 2012? I looked at our treaty-making process and I initiated an inquiry, which went for some time. I recommend senators have a read of that inquiry report. It's called Blind agreement: reforming Australia's treaty-making process. When the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee released this report I don't think there was any disagreement from any senator from any political party that our treaty-making process was in dire need of change and of reform. The report stated:

The committee correctly identifies that the scope and complexity of 'modern trade' or 'partnership' agreements—such as the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement—makes the case for reform compelling.

The committee identified, 'three major areas for urgent reform: transparency, consultation and independence'. The committee also acknowledged that:

The incursion of modern trade or partnership negotiations into matters of domestic policy and public interest is such that they now function as a 'de facto level of government'.

What have we done to reform our treaty-making process? Absolutely nothing. We've done absolutely nothing.

The Greens put in a dissenting report at the end of that committee inquiry. Unfortunately, while we got general agreement that our treaty-making process was in urgent need of reform, the Labor Party said: 'We're a party of government. We don't want to jeopardise the executive power that goes with government.' But that's ultimately the tension within trade deals. The executive is the one who control trade deals with their department, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and other negotiators. When they've got the deal to a point where they think it's good they then give it to parliament. Guess what? It goes through a JSCOT rubber-stamp process—a government-controlled committee. We have a references committee that is opposition-controlled and that often recommends change but nothing ever happens. We get lock, stock and barrel. We either vote for the whole lot or we can reject it. There are some good things in these trade deals. Why can't we change it? It's just not possible under our treaty-making process. It's a joke that we get given thousands of pages of text around these extremely complex trade deals and investment deals that cover just about every aspect of our lives in this country and elsewhere and we can't change a bloody thing; and if we do it jeopardises the entire deal, so nobody does.

I've seen it with the Japanese free trade deal. I've seen it with the Korean free trade deal. I have looked at it in relation to the Chinese free trade deal, the RCEP agreement and the new Indonesian deal underway. It's the same thing: no move at all to reform our treaty-making process. I recommend senators read that report, because there are a number of recommendations about what we can do to reform our treaty-making process so that we don't get ourselves into this situation here, this farce, where we have to say yes or no to thousands of pages of detail on extremely complex matters of investment and trade.

Now, the Greens support trade, but we support fair trade. One of the reasons the Doha round of multilateral negotiations, which included all WTO members, fell apart was that there was enormous hostility from civil society all around the world. In what is now commonly called the battle of Seattle, nearly 40,000 people turned up in Seattle to protest against globalisation and the rules being written, behind closed doors, by multinational corporations for sovereign nations like Australia with compliant governments—the same governments who were taking donations from those large corporations—to the exclusion of civil society and parliaments around the world. So it fell apart.

Why did the Greens—Senator Milne and I and others—make an early decision not to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership? We have a fundamental philosophy that every environmental problem on this planet and just about every social problem on this planet is caused by a business or commercial activity. I want senators to reflect on that. Whether it's climate change, the warming of our oceans, the loss of half the Great Barrier Reef, overfishing, the trashing of our forests or the pollution of rivers—you name it—it's caused by business activity. So, when all the business CEOs are in one room secretly negotiating a deal, why wouldn't we include externalities and rules and regulations that control the business activity that causes all these problems and undermines workers' rights—all the kinds of criticisms that have been raised by my party in this debate?

I've raised this issue too—and, by the way, it's in the treaty reform bill—and the only answer we've ever got is: 'It's not the right forum for that, Senator. It's not the right forum for dealing with emissions.' Well, what is? The Kyoto Protocol? The Paris Agreement? Look at that. The fact is that what we are about to sign up to here, including state-to-state settlements and investor-state dispute settlements, are binding agreements. They are binding agreements. But do you think, between 11 or 12 countries, we can get anywhere near a binding agreement on environmental protections? Look at Japan. Japan took the leadership on the TPP-11 when the US pulled out. Only a few weeks ago, they threatened to walk out of the International Whaling Commission because they didn't get their way. So much for rules-based order! The legislation before us today has come to us from Shinzo Abe, the Japanese Prime Minister, the same Prime Minister who's agitating to increase the size of Japan's whaling fleet and walk away completely from an international rules-based order banning whaling, including in the Australian Whale Sanctuary in the Southern Ocean. Do you think there is something in the TPP that might hold the Japanese to account on an activity like killing cetaceans? There are a few platitudes in there, but there is nothing binding so that we can turn around to Japan and say: 'Wait a second. You want to be our friend and ally on all these things to do with investment. What the about the protection of cetaceans?' That's what Australians feel strongly about. What about action on emissions or the illegal trade in wildlife? There is nothing at all binding in these agreements on that, because it's not a priority. It's not a priority for the corporations that cause a lot of these problems, and it's clearly not a priority for our government or for most governments around the world. That's why civil society have been fighting these multilateral agreements: because they want fair trade. They don't mind trade agreements, but they want agreements that are fair for all stakeholders, not just agreements that are written for business.

Let's talk about investor-state dispute settlements, another thing that you, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, may not be surprised that I wanted to know a lot more about when I was carrying the can for this portfolio. Once again, I had the committee's agreement to have another wide-ranging inquiry into ISDS, on my Trade and Foreign Investment (Protecting the Public Interest) Bill 2014, and it went for 18 months. We were the only parliament—the only parliament in the world—that had an inquiry into ISDS and banning ISDS. I had the French consulate and other people contacting us. There was a lot of interest in this inquiry. It has been quoted in journals all around the world since the inquiry.

Oddly enough, we got hundreds of pages of evidence from witnesses—including ISDS experts and lawyers who conduct investor-state dispute settlement cases—and there was agreement in the committee that these ISDS clauses had certainly outlived their use-by date and weren't necessary anymore. Yet do you think we could get them banned from future trade deals, like the Greens push for? The committee said, 'No, we're not going to ban these, because it might tie one hand behind our back in negotiations.' That was the key reason. If a country wants to include an investor-state dispute settlement clause, it may end up complicating future trade deals. Where's the principle that we shouldn't be giving special rights to corporations to sue sovereign governments in this day and age? If I've done anything in this place, it's stand up to excessive corporate power. That's what this TPP is; it's a blueprint for excessive corporate power.

I must say, I was very disappointed that, in a speech he made just two weekends ago, the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, commented that there's never been a better time to be a multinational corporation. He was saying that sarcastically, yet it seems as though Labor is going to vote for this legislation and give them exactly what they want. They have spent 13 years trying to get this legislation through this parliament and other parliaments—that is 13 years of opposition all around the world to the TPP, not just here in Australia but elsewhere. Here are some of the conclusions from the report on ISDS:

(a) Litigation using ISDS has proliferated in recent times and this is likely to increase into the future.

(b) ISDS clauses have outlived their usefulness and are now under review in a number of countries and trade negotiations, including 10 countries in Latin America, South Africa, India, Indonesia and the European Union …

In fact, the new NAFTA negotiations have excluded ISDS between US and Canada, so they are backtracking on the use of ISDS. The report continues:

(c) There is no evidence that ISDS clauses have any economic benefits for trade or investment, however the risks of using them are clear and supported by evidence and numerous case studies.

(d) Trade deals are changing from historic "market access trade" … considerations to facilitating … "foreign investment" … laws and policies in a wide range of areas, including public health, patents on medicines, the environment, food labelling, Internet use and privacy and local media content …

All these are in the TPP. As I said earlier, nearly every aspect of life in this country is going to be impacted by this trade deal, yet now is when parliament gets to look at it—at the very end of 13 years of negotiations. The report continues:

This makes the inclusion of ISDS more dangerous.

…    …     …

(f) There was strong evidence presented to the inquiry that ISDS "safeguard" clauses can and have been reinterpreted and overturned through the arbitration process.

Lastly but most importantly the report states:

(g) Parliament has no oversight or control over the inclusion of ISDS in trade negotiations—

except that we can reject the entire trade bill before us today because of the inclusion of ISDS clauses in the agreement.

I've only got a few minutes left to go before question time, but let me say this—

Senator Williams: That's good.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: You might learn something Senator Williams; I'll take that interjection. You might think this is about agricultural exports or you might think this is about selling more commodities to the world. Have a very close look at the fine detail; this is a deal about trade and investment. And what do we mean by investment? We mean direct foreign investment which, by definition, is significant investment. It's significant investment between countries. And, of course, the companies that conduct significant investment are, by their nature, usually large multinational corporations—the exact 300 or so businesses that had exclusive access to the negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. These were negotiations that civil society was excluded from, negotiations that we senators were excluded from, and negotiations about which I could get no detail from Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials at numerous estimates over recent years: 'This is it; you can take it—lock, stock and two smoking barrels.'

And the US has pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but, in case you didn't notice, there are 22 clauses that have been suspended in the TPP-11—including clauses related to monopoly pricing of medicines and pharmaceutical companies—that will be reopened if the US rejoins the TPP. What is the process we have to go through if the US wants to join the TPP? So far, we have very little illumination on that point. I would ask senators to think very closely about whether you want to sell your sovereignty down the river in a so-called trade deal.

Senator Colbeck: You want a one-world government!

Senator WHISH-WILSON: I know you would, Senator Colbeck. I'm very happy to take that interjection.

The PRESIDENT: It being 2 pm, we will interrupt the debate. Senator Whish-Wilson, you will be in continuation later.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (15:05): I seek leave to move a motion relating to an order for the production of a document, namely the final report of the Religious Freedom Review Expert Panel.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is not granted.

Senator RICE: Pursuant to contingent notice, and at the request of Senator Di Natale, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended, as would prevent me from moving a motion relating to consideration of a matter, namely a motion relating to an order for the production of a document.

It's interesting that leave hasn't been granted by the Labor Party, I understand? I wonder what deal the Labor Party—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Rice, it was Minister Cormann who denied leave.

Senator RICE: Okay. Leave has not been granted. What a farce! Just four days ago all 20 recommendations of the Ruddock review were leaked to the media, and yet we, as the Senate, are not able to see this report. In the meantime, of course, we have had the Labor Party and the government moving, backflipping, to reject at least one of the Ruddock review recommendations in that they are now supporting, so we are told, removing the ability for religious schools to be able to discriminate against LGBTIQ students. However, we do not know anything about the rest of the report. There is so much of this report that we need to see. We are told that the Labor Party is potentially supporting the rejection of another of the Ruddock review recommendations, and that's to end the ability for schools to discriminate against LGBTIQ staff. But we still have not seen the report.

How far have we come when, just a month ago, we had our requests for this production of the Ruddock review report rejected twice by Minister Cormann on the grounds that it was not in the public interest? How on earth can it not be in the public interest now? We have had so much that has changed—all of these backflips over the last month. A month ago, when we first moved an order for the production of documents, we were told that we were waiting impatiently for the report to be released by government but nothing was happening. Now, with that leak, with those two OPDs and with the pressure of an impending by-election, we have had these backflips, but still the government has not seen fit to comply with an order for the production of documents to provide the document.

In his response to the previous two OPDs and in his answer to a question by Senator Pratt today, the minister is still insisting: (a) this document should not be released because of cabinet confidentiality; and (b) it's not in the public interest to release it. On the first of those, it doesn't even appear that this document has been to cabinet. The minister is being very tricky in saying that, because the report has been submitted to the government, it is, therefore, a cabinet document. This does not fit the grounds as to what a cabinet document is. It should not be grounds; otherwise, almost any document could be considered to be a document subject to cabinet confidentiality. Second, it's whether releasing it is not in the public interest. Clearly, it is in the public interest now for this document to be released. Where we have got the backflips going on, where we have got a government talking about introducing legislation and where we have got recommendations of this review being rejected by government and the Labor Party, it has to be in the public interest for us to see not just the 20 recommendations that have been leaked to the media but the full body of the Ruddock report.

It is particularly important that we see it before the Wentworth by-election, so the voters of Wentworth know where the government stand and know where they are heading as to whether they want to increase discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, gender diverse and intersex people. It is important that the community sees this, because we know some of those recommendations that were leaked last Friday are extremely worrying. We need to know the background of those recommendations. There is worrying terminology in recommendations 15 and 16, which recommend amending legislation to protect not just religious belief but also religious activity as a protected attribute in our antidiscrimination law. How far is that being considered? Religious activity could be an awful lot of stuff and include a huge amount of extra discrimination against LGBTI people. Recommendation 20 says that the Commonwealth Attorney-General should take leadership of the issues identified in the report and that consideration should be given to further Commonwealth legislative solutions if required.

We need to see the discussion that is included in this Ruddock review. We need to see the whole report. There are no grounds for the government to be withholding it from the Senate, the Australian community or, in particular, the voters of Wentworth, who are going to the polls on Saturday.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and the Public Service, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:10): I refer to my comments this morning responding to the suspension motion moved by Senator Hinch and explaining why the government is not prepared to support a suspension motion: because it would disrupt the orderly processes of the Senate. There are, of course, appropriate and more efficient avenues available to deal with the proposed motion, and I made some remarks this morning on the substantive issue.

Let me quickly address the issue in relation to cabinet confidentiality. This is a report that was commissioned by the cabinet to inform cabinet deliberations. The cabinet deliberation does not commence at the point that a final recommendation is put in a submission to the cabinet for the cabinet to make a final decision. Cabinet confidentiality and cabinet deliberation commences quite a bit earlier than that. If that wasn't the case, then draft cabinet submissions would be subject to FOI and to orders for the production of documents, but, of course, they're not. This is a document that was commissioned by the cabinet to inform cabinet deliberations. It was received by the government in May. The minister with lead responsibility for putting a recommendation to the cabinet is considering this report as an important input.

Let me make a final point, and it's a very important point. This particular report touches on some sensitive issues in relation to which good Australians have sincerely held and genuine views on both sides of the argument. The way the government is considering this is with a view to bringing Australians together and not dividing them. It is going to be very important for us to respond to this report—as a government, and, ultimately, as a parliament—in a way that is appropriately balanced and that protects against discrimination on a whole range of grounds, including sexual orientation and religious belief. We believe that we need to consider all of the recommendations carefully. The government will release the report in due course, following proper consideration of its recommendations by government through the deliberative processes of cabinet, as I advised the Senate on 20 September, and that remains our position.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (15:13): The opposition will not be supporting the motion for the suspension of standing orders today. Unfortunately, we have before us a situation where the Greens have once again sought to use the Senate as a means for their political stunts and not for proper debate. As Senator Cormann highlighted, this is the second time we've been faced with a similar attempt today.

The normal practice for the moving of motions in this place is to give notice one sitting day in advance, and this is for a good reason. This is so that all senators are afforded the chance to consider the detail of what they're being asked to vote on. In this case, the motion was only circulated a few minutes before we got to the matter. That process has not been observed in this case, and there is no reasonable argument for this motion to be rushed through the chamber at this stage of the day with less than one hour's notice. There will, of course, be occasions where motions do need to be moved more urgently, but we do not believe that this is one of those occasions.

I need to put on the record that the Labor Party is very concerned that the government has not released this report, a whole five months after it was received. We question what the government has to hide. We believe that Australians should have the opportunity to consider the full report and not just the selections of it that someone has leaked to date. We have asked for this report to be released time and time again. This motion, if the government responds to it and it's dealt with in a timely fashion through Senate processes, may be the last straw that finally convinces the government to produce the report. It's clear what's happening here. There is no doubt that the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, is choosing to put his political fortunes front and centre by sitting on the report until the Wentworth by-election this weekend. Mr Morrison knows full well that constituents in the electorate of Wentworth will be very unhappy with what this review appears to contain.

In any case, the opposition respects the procedures of the chamber, and in that context I'll encourage the Greens to observe the proper process: lodge this motion in line with normal Senate practice, and then the opposition can give it the serious consideration that it deserves—tomorrow, for example. Tomorrow we can come into this place and vote, knowing that we have given the motion detailed consideration.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (15:16): The Centre Alliance won't support the suspension of standing orders, for the same reasons that have been mentioned this morning and by Senator Collins and Senator Cormann. We would support the body of the motion if it were to be lodged in the regular fashion. I do wish, however, to challenge what Minister Cormann has said in relation to his claim over the cabinet documents. He undermines the doctrine itself when he makes a claim which is not warranted over a document. The chamber is not asking for any record of your deliberations in cabinet. That is not what has been asked for. We're asking for a report that was commissioned by the Prime Minister at—I'm just going off the website—

Senator Cormann: On a point of order, this report was not commissioned by the Prime Minister; it was commissioned by the cabinet. It was a cabinet decision to commission this report.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's a debating point.

Senator PATRICK: Even if you say that it was commissioned by the cabinet, the doctrine clearly states that the document must be a submission of cabinet. It must at its point of birth have had submission to cabinet as its dominant purpose. Cabinet submissions typically have a particular form. Cabinet guidelines state that they shouldn't be more than about 50 pages. I wonder how many pages this particular document is. It's very clear in law that you cannot just tack a report onto the back of a cabinet submission and have that document attract the protection of the doctrine. In this instance the government has a half report out there, which may not even be fair to Mr Ruddock and his views. What has been put out is disturbing. The best thing I could encourage the government to do, even without the need for a motion to be brought tomorrow, would be to simply table the document in accordance with the original order. Let's resolve the controversy.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion, as moved by Senator Rice, to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:03): At the request of Senator Carr, I move:

That the following bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to give Australian workers a fair go in trade agreements and to fix the way the Commonwealth negotiates them, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

Senator URQUHART: I present the bill and move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:04): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

Senator URQUHART: I table an explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have Senator Carr's second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

No one doubts that trade is essential to the prosperity of this country.

The Centre for International Economics estimates that one in five Australian jobs is linked to trade.

That means 2.2 million Australians work in a trade-related job.

67 per cent of mining jobs and 41 per cent of manufacturing jobs are trade-related.

Because trade is so vital, we must ensure that any trade agreements we negotiate with other nations do not disadvantage Australians.

In seeking to gain access to new markets, we must not surrender the rights of Australian workers and those who depend on them.

We must take no action that limits the ability of Australia's national government to make policy and to legislate.

To do so would effectively undermine Australian sovereignty.

For these reasons, the way Australia negotiates trade agreements needs to change.

Many people are sceptical about the value of existing trade agreements, and about the proposed Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, known as TPP11.

Many people believe that the way we negotiate free trade agreements must be made more transparent.

Labor agrees with them.

This government continues to trade away labour-market testing in the agreements it negotiates.

It also includes Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, regardless of the growing opposition to them, in Australia and overseas.

The government's attitude is not acceptable.

That is why I have brought this bill before the Senate.

The bill will provide a fairer, more transparent approach to the negotiation of trade agreements.

And that will lead to better outcomes.

The bill prohibits the waiver of labour market testing in trade agreements.

The policy of Coalition governments has been that labour-market testing is required before a foreign worker can be employed in Australia, unless an international obligation applies.

That policy has allowed the government to use trade agreements to waive requirements for an employer to first check if an Australian can do a job before bringing in a worker on a skilled visa.

An employer who wants to bring a plumber, mechanic, electrician or other skilled worker from overseas into Australia, should first check whether there is an Australian who can do the job.

That is basic justice.

Trade agreements should not trade away Australian jobs.

The bill also prohibits the government from signing trade agreements that include Investor-State Dispute Settlement provisions.

These provisions provide foreign corporations with the right to sue the Commonwealth for legitimate policy decisions taken by the government.

That surrender of sovereignty would rightly be viewed as outrageous by most Australians.

The bill therefore makes clear that Investor-State Dispute Settlement provisions should not be included in Australian trade agreements or bilateral investment treaties.

The bill makes it mandatory for governments to enforce, in all future trade agreements, practical and theoretical testing of the skills of foreign workers.

To get better outcomes from trade agreements and to ensure proper consultation and scrutiny of trade agreements, the bill provides for the establishment of an Accredited Trade Advisers program.

The Minister would consult with Accredited Advisers from unions, civil society groups and industry.

The Accredited Advisers will be able to provide feedback on trade agreements as they are being negotiated.

The bill also requires the Minister to commission an Independent National Interest Assessment of each agreement.

This assessment would provide independent analysis of the economic, strategic and social impacts of a trade agreement. These social impacts include, but are not limited to, an agreement's impact on workers, the environment and gender.

This analysis would have to be tabled before an agreement is signed.

The bill legislates a number of policies that Labor has already announced, and which a Shorten Labor government would implement.

In addition to these measures that require legislation, we have also announced that a Shorten Labor government will end the secrecy surrounding trade negotiations.

To do this we will strengthen the role of the Parliament and provide the public with more information.

At the conclusion of each round of negotiation, members of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties will be provided with a briefing and a public update will be released.

Where feasible, a draft of the negotiated text will be tabled in the Parliament.

In addition, members of the JSCoT will be provided with the government's Statement of Objectives for negotiations, for examination and report prior to the commencement of formal negotiations.

4

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (16:05): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1104, standing in my name for today, concerning an order for the production of documents relating to the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.

Leave granted.

Senator SIEWERT: I move the motion as amended:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, by 10 am on Wednesday, 24 October 2018, any reviews or reports relating to the implementation of the recommendations made by the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.

Question agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (16:33): I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I want to take note of the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner's Annual report 2017-18. I know this has been in the media, but I want to point out that there has been a significant increase in the number of complaints to the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner, from 4,711 to 5,779. The predominant number of these complaints, 75 per cent, were about residential care, with 18 per cent about home care packages and seven per cent about the Commonwealth Home Support Program.

One of the issues that I wanted to point out here and bring to people's attention is that these complaints about home care have increased from the previous year. This is important because the amount of home care that is being provided is increasing. People are staying at home longer. They have more complex needs that need to be addressed at home. So it doesn't surprise me that the complaints have gone up, particularly when you look at why people are complaining about home care. The most common issues complained about with home care—and I'll come to waiting lists in a minute—were fees and charges; lack of consultation and communication; and communication about fees and charges. In other words, complaints around fees and charges took up a large percentage of the claims.

I was talking to somebody who is accessing home care on behalf of their parent. Thirty-eight per cent of the amount they were being charged was for fees and charges. One line was for administration and the rest was for management and management advice. It is outrageous that it would be 38 per cent of the cost of a home care package—something that people wait so long for. When we look at the complaints about the Commonwealth Home Support Programme, the largest number of complaints are about fees and charges. The government has refused to put a cap on fees and charges for home care packages—or, for that matter, for the Commonwealth Home Support Programme, which has been attracting concerns around fees for some time. But in terms of the home care packages, it is about time that the government agreed to put caps on the amount that providers can take for fees and charges. It is simply outrageous that it can be 38 per cent of a hard-won home care package. Where we're going to see more and more complexity of care, it is simply outrageous that providers can charge up to 38 per cent in fees and charges. When I mentioned this to somebody else, they told me that they'd seen up to 45 per cent of someone's home care package being charged.

Then we can look at the waiting list. Over the parliamentary break, we saw just how big it is. Once the government had finally released the waiting list for home care packages, not only did we see that that had increased but we also got a glimpse of how long people have been waiting for home care packages. They are waiting far too long for home care packages. The number of people on the list that are waiting for these packages is simply far too high, when you consider that a lot of people are having to hang around on level 1 and level 2 care packages and not receive the care that they need according to their level of acuity. People are receiving care that is below their needs at levels 1 and 2.

When we turn to residential care, one of the other issues that people were complaining about was staffing numbers. I was talking to the Queensland nurses' union last week and they were telling me of a study that they've done that showed that people need 4.3 hours of daily contact to receive appropriate care. Obviously, to do that, we need to increase the number of staff on the floor at any one time and we need to make sure that those staff have the proper skills and qualifications to provide the care that's needed. Now, we are way below that 4.3, and I'm not very surprised that we're seeing so many complaints. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland) (16:41): I present the second advisory report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2017, and I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

The government approached the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to seek its views on proposed amendments to the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2017. I am pleased that the government gave the committee the opportunity to review its proposed amendments to the bill. This bill prohibits the use of foreign donations to influence voting in federal elections. It is vitally important that Australians have confidence that foreign entities are not influencing the course of Australian democracy.

The government has worked constructively with JSCEM, sharing its proposals with the committee to facilitate scrutiny of the changes and to enable wide consultation with the public on the proposed reforms. Indeed, JSCEM has considered the matter three times, including an initial inquiry that considered the general issue of foreign donations, which reported in March 2017; an inquiry into the bill in its original form, which reported in April 2018; and then the current inquiry into the proposed government amendments to the bill, which we are reporting on today.

As chair I have appreciated the collaborative approach of JSCEM members during this inquiry and I recognise the work that has been invested in the preceding two inquiries in support of a goal that a foreign political donation ban must apply to all relevant electoral expenditure. I also appreciate the extensive input into the committee's deliberations from charities, academic institutions, think tanks and various non-government organisations with an interest in public affairs. In the committee's report tabled in April there were 15 recommendations. The minister responded positively to these proposals last month, sharing a draft of specific legislative amendments to address the majority of those recommendations that require a legislative response.

The minister's response to our last report also explained the government's plans for advancing the remaining proposals that need administrative action or warrant inclusion in other reforms—for instance, recommendation 14 dealing with breach of DGR obligations. In its proposed amendments the government has addressed all prior recommendations relating to reducing the compliance burdens for political actors. I highlight four changes in particular. The amendments establish a single transparency register on which key political actors are required to report electoral expenditure and large gifts. Most importantly, the new definitions ensure that pure issue advocacy is not treated in the same way as campaign activity. The new terms 'electoral matter' and 'electoral expenditure' will capture only activity that is aimed at influencing how people vote in a federal election. The new general anti-avoidance provisions are a welcome, simplified replacement for more-specific provisions while still protecting national sovereignty, voter transparency and democratic freedoms. Another important simplification is revision of penalty provisions, making them more proportionate to the scale of the breaches.

The government's draft recommendations go further than the committee's recommendations in two areas, to minimise red tape without compromising the bill's core policy objectives. First, in evidence submitted to the committee's inquiry, representatives from the not-for-profit sector indicated that there has been widespread inadvertent noncompliance with longstanding disclosure obligations in the sector. To assist these third parties with the transition to the bill's new requirements, the amendments provide statutory forgiveness for historical noncompliance. Second, the committee recommended that the bill include anti-avoidance rules dealing with the movement of funds through other organisations or jurisdictions. In responding to that earlier JSCEM proposal, the government proposed changes that would ensure that the Commonwealth laws apply to donations that may be spent on federal elections.

Of particular relevance, the committee took evidence about complications that arose from the Awabdy case, which was decided in the Queensland courts earlier this year. The court case found that there can be a concurrent overlap between the laws of different jurisdictions. If the government had not proposed amendments, there would be confusion for regulated entities. Such ambiguity would increase the regulatory compliance burden for affected entities. The committee heard evidence from legal experts in constitutional law about drafting amendments to clarify which laws apply when. Professor Anne Twomey suggested that there was a drafting flaw in the amendments. But if that issue was addressed, then the rule to prevent state and territory laws from regulating donations for federal elections would be considered valid and appropriate. As Professor Twomey said:

These provisions need to be altered to ensure that the Commonwealth law does not purport to override the State law where the donation concerned is used for the purpose of State electoral expenditure. Certainly, if it is used for Commonwealth electoral expenditure, then the Commonwealth law should prevail over the State law.

This view is endorsed in recommendation 10 of the committee report, which proposes an adjustment of the rule on the interaction of laws to safeguard the legitimate interests of states and territories in regulating donations within their jurisdictions.

The opposition has flagged in its dissenting report that the Commonwealth law should not interfere with legitimate state legislation. However, I would note that this principle ought to work in both directions, as it would be inappropriate for state and territory law to regulate donations that are used for federal elections. I would hope that appropriate adjustments can be made to the government's amendments to ensure that Commonwealth law applies to donations for federal elections while state and territory laws apply to donations for state and territory elections. I don't think the opposition is far apart from the committee's recommendation 10. I would encourage the opposition to engage positively with the government on the detail of the relevant amendments after the government has reconsidered the wording. Just as this bill would ensure that only those with a meaningful connection to Australia are able to fund Australian political activity, it is also appropriate to ensure that only the laws of the Commonwealth apply to the regulation of donations made for the purposes of a federal election.

The committee made a number of other constructive suggestions with cross-party support. I expect that the government will consider these on the same positive basis that it considered the proposals in our earlier report. These important reforms are necessary to support the integrity of Australia's electoral system and ensure that Commonwealth electoral laws keep pace with international developments.

Senator WATERS (Queensland) (16:48): I rise to speak on the JSCEM report on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2017. This is a very clever bill, because the government is selling it as a bill that's meant to restrict the impact of foreign money on our political system but in fact it does that very poorly. What it does very well is restrict the ability of charities and not-for-profits to undertake advocacy work to reform our system and to work for public interest outcomes and the social good of us all. So this is yet another exercise by the government where they're pretending to do something when in fact they're continuing their attack on the not-for-profit sector, which has been going on for several years now in various guises under countless different Prime Ministers. So we take great umbrage at the government's purporting to try to clean up the influence of money on our political system when they have completely left alone the issue of corporate influence over our democracy and the hundreds of millions of dollars that they and the opposition have taken from corporate donors, particularly in the last decade. This is a fig leaf of a bill that's just designed to keep attacking the charity sector, which has been resisting the clampdowns on civil society that this government has been promulgating since it's been in office.

The other sting in the tail of this bill, and in this report pertaining to the bill, was a new little bit the government snuck in that the committee didn't take any evidence on and it allows the Commonwealth to override state government donation laws. We're finally seeing some state governments start to tighten up the rules around how big money influences state politics. We have seen good restrictions brought in, thanks in part to the Greens, to stop donations from property developers and other large vested interests. We have finally seen the Queensland government, under threat from the Greens in the recent state election, bring in restrictions on property developers making donations. But this Commonwealth bill would override those restrictions. It is drafted very deliberately. If a donor doesn't say their donation is specifically for the state election then, hey presto, it just so happens that it can be used in any way that that political party deems okay, which is a back-door way of getting around those state restrictions.

This is not a drafting error; it is a deliberate attempt by this government to facilitate corporate dollars flowing into its own pockets—and, frankly, into the pockets of the opposition as well. This is a dirty deal to allow those corporate dollars to keep flowing into the coffers of the major parties. Thankfully, the opposition have decided that they don't like this part of the bill either. I flag that I will be moving amendments to remove this bit from the bill entirely. You can't have a bill that you say is about restricting the influence of foreign money on politics, and at the same time remove from your state governments the restrictions on dirty money influencing politics. It is sheer hypocrisy. So I hope we will get support from the opposition on those amendments. I think the government should think long and hard about whether they even bring this bill on for a vote this week because, frankly, it looks like it is going down—which I would celebrate, because we don't need another attack on the charity sector.

What we do need is genuine reform of the political donation system so that our democracy starts working for people. At the moment, it is working for vested interests, for corporate lobbyists, and for the people these folk go to fancy lunches with. Since 2010, we in the Greens have been moving to clean up politics and end the corporate donations from vested interests like big mining, property developers, and the tobacco, gambling and alcohol industries. All sorts of influence is peddled through those vested interests' donations. They get access that nobody else gets. The community doesn't get that sort of access to Parliament House. You have to have a lobbyist's pass and some dollars that you're prepared to donate to the political parties. You then get access and, hey presto, you get a decision that suits your bottom line.

Our democracy shouldn't be for sale. We are meant to be here to represent the public interest, the interests of people and the interests of our future—and, frankly, the interests of our planet. But this government has been completely hijacked by corporate interests. They don't even know what they stand for any more. They are being puppeteered by big corporates and big business who have made generous donations to both sides of politics to buy the outcomes that they want. It is disgusting and it deserves to be cleaned up. We have been moving to try to clean up the system, and there is growing discontent among the public that their democracy doesn't work for them.

When we see this sort of access and influence by big corporates and big business is it any wonder that people now hold politicians in very low regard? It is about time we started remembering who we are here to represent. It is about time we passed some of those measures to clean up our democracy, to ban those dirty donations from vested interests and to tighten up the lobbying rules—and stop the revolving door between ministers, frontbenchers and staff and big industry lobbying groups once they leave parliament. You can literally track it: they go back and forth, give or take a couple of years. It is an immense conflict of interest that has corrupted our system.

We will not stop trying to clean up politics. We think parliament is meant to work for people and the planet. We don't think you should be able to buy the outcomes that suit your bottom line. That is definitely not how democracy is meant to work. Unfortunately, that is how it works at the moment. This bill does nothing to change that. It is an attack on the not-for-profit sector. It doesn't actually stop the influence of foreign money. It pretends to, but they can actually keep donating through Australian subsidiaries. So it doesn't even achieve the stated purpose. It is a thinly disguised attack on charities to silence them and to put a shroud of uncertainty over the rules that they will now have to comply with if they venture into issue based advocacy.

We know this government can't stand advocacy, and it has been trying for many years now to restrict not-for-profits' undertaking any advocacy work. They're now saying, 'You'll have to comply with a whole range of red tape.' I thought they didn't like red tape; it turns out they like red tape for the folk whose opinions they disagree with. It puts a whole lot of red tape on charities which will have the effect of silencing those small organisations that can't afford the legal advice to tell them what the rules are meant to mean. It is drafted in a deliberately confusing manner to have precisely that effect, and that's shameful. The government needs to fix up that drafting if it wants to have any semblance of integrity. Hey, I'm an eternal optimist, but I won't be waiting for that.

Question agreed to.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education) (16:55): I table a replacement explanatory memorandum relating to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. The memorandum responds to matters raised by the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ) (16:56): The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education) (16:56): by leave—I move:

That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees, as follows:

Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee—

On 30 October 2018—

Discharged—Senator Waters

Appointed—Senator Steele-John

On 1 November 2018—

Discharged—Senator Steele-John

Appointed—Senator Waters

Privileges—Standing Committee—

Discharged—Senator Kitching

Appointed—Senator O’Neill

Question agreed to.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (16:59): In the last few minutes left of my speech, I'd like to summarise for the chamber that the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, an agreement that has taken nearly 13 years to get to this parliament, has come to symbolise just about everything that is wrong with a globalised, neoliberal, trickle-down approach to our economies, to our societies and to our communities. It was triggered by the GFC and the collapse of the multilateral Doha rounds. It was initiated by big corporations, nearly 300 of them, who pushed politicians in different countries around the world, many of them in political parties that they donate to, to start a new round of negotiations to create a megadeal that essentially gives them whatever they want. Remember that these companies operate in different countries all around the world. Civil society and parliaments didn't have access to these secret meetings. They were all deemed commercial-in-confidence. Finally, we got thousands of pages of documents on deals on trade, services and investments right across just about every facet of our society—from digital rights through to education, health care and the environment. What we have before us today is a set of rules and regulations synchronised amongst 11 countries written by big corporations.

This is exactly the wrong direction for this parliament and this planet to be going in. This TPP will drive privatisation. It will continue to ratchet up the effects of smaller government on our lives, giving more power, not less, directly to big business, especially the toxic Trojan horse clauses—the investor-state dispute settlement clauses—that give corporations special new rights to sue sovereign governments for the decisions we make. This is the wrong path for us to be going down. We have an opportunity here today to say no to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, to say yes to free trade and to say yes to a new treaty-making process that actually gives parliaments and all stakeholders—unions, workers, environment groups and social equity groups—a say in any deals if they're going to be signed and ratified by a parliament. It is absolutely critical that, after 13 years, we say no to this push to revitalise globalisation— (Time expired)

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (17:01): Centre Alliance are a supporter of fair trade. I need to state that up-front. However, we do not support the agreement in its current form. It contains some cancers that must be cut out of it. As such, we won't be supporting the enabling legislation unless one of the amendments that I have circulated is passed.

There are a number of downsides to this agreement. Two are of particular concern. My colleague, Senator Griff, will raise some other aspects of the agreement that need to be thought about as well in his speech a little bit later. The first one I'd like to talk about is ISDS. As we heard, Senator Carr stood up in the chamber and made some very good points about the ISDS clause and why we should remove that from this agreement. In fact, Senator Hanson-Young also stood up and laid out some cases whereby countries have been subjected to litigation for changing public policy. So I won't repeat that. I also note that Senator Carr pointed out that the Productivity Commission, a pretty rigorous and thoughtful body, has also indicated that it finds ISDS a little bit disturbing. I note that the Europeans are walking away from it. Senator Hanson-Young, once again, pointed that out in her speech. I might point out that the United States, in NAFTA, have now walked away from ISDS. Whilst we're walking towards this particular set of provisions, most are walking away.

We, of course, had our own experience with ISDS when Philip Morris, having failed to overturn legislation in relation to plain tobacco packaging in our highest court, simply went to Hong Kong and initiated an action against the Australian government. I supported the Australian government in their defending of the matter but, nonetheless, that particular ISDS litigation cost the Australian taxpayer $39 million. The government wasn't up-front in providing me with those details. Former Senator Xenophon and I fought for a couple of years to get access to how much had been spent, such was the government's embarrassment. It went all the way to the AAT, and finally the government realised they were going to lose the exemption case and the number was revealed—$39 million.

We need to understand that the ISDS provisions allow corporations to sue governments should they be affected by a change in public policy. In effect, it transfers what we typically know as sovereign risk from the corporation to the taxpayer, and that's totally unacceptable. It's interesting that Australian companies can't use those provisions here in Australia. So, in some sense, it even discriminates against corporations that may wish to invest here. They have no recourse other than through our court systems.

The second problem area with the current arrangements is labour market testing. It's been waived. We will have a situation where foreign companies bring in workers and they won't have to test the local market to see if there's an Australian here who can do the job. They can simply bring those workers in and there's not much we can do about it. Countries which we could find workers coming from are Canada, Peru, Brunei, Mexico, Malaysia and Vietnam. It's an assault on Australian workers.

In terms of benefits—I don't want to be completely negative here; there are some benefits; always look to the benefits—in this case, the best case is a modest gain, if anything at all. The gain over the next 12 years will be 0.5 per cent of GDP. That's according to the Johns Hopkins University. We must remember that the Productivity Commission looked at some of these estimates in the past and found them to be somewhat exaggerated. They actually don't live up to what was claimed initially. We've been able to measure that empirically.

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Senator PATRICK: Spin has been indicated to me by Senator Whish-Wilson. Of course, as has been mentioned by a number of speakers, there has been no independent modelling commissioned by the Australian government focusing on the national advantages and disadvantages for Australia in particular. We're relying on international analysis. Like Senator Carr, I too would like to know where Senator Birmingham got his numbers from when he made his statements to the media yesterday.

I was almost going to stand up and simply repeat Senator Carr's speech, because he clearly articulated the problems with the ISDS provisions and labour market testing being waived, but, unfortunately, his speech came to a different ending from mine. The Labor Party still intend to support this. They're crying wolf on these provisions. They're saying, 'They're bad; we don't want them in there,' but, given the opportunity to get rid of them, they're simply not. Their plan is to change things when they get into government. Firstly, I think that's arrogant. Maybe they won't get into government after the next election. Their modus operandi now is to let everything go through and wait until they get into government. I suspect we'll see that, hopefully, with every other piece of legislation. Is that how it works, I wonder? Once again, there is no guarantee that they will gain government, and, if that is the case, they've definitely sold people out.

I acknowledge that a private member's bill was introduced into this chamber today by Senator Carr, but the reality is—and we all know this—this private member's bill will sit in the Senate; it will be parked here. It's not like the amendments that I'll move in the committee stage, which are attached to a government bill and which have to go back to the House of Representatives to be voted on there. This is a private member's bill that will simply sit in this chamber.

In that sense the Labor Party are committing a fraud on their union comrades. They're committing a fraud on their constituent base. I will read what Sally McManus, the President of the ACTU, said. She is 'disappointed by the ALP's decision to vote for the TPP enabling legislation'. Allen Hicks, the ETU National Secretary said:

It beggars belief that the Labor caucus would sign off on ratifying the TPP given it's against the party's own policy. The TPP-11 is a disaster for Australian workers.

I will repeat that, 'The TPP-11 is a disaster for Australian workers.'

Even if you wanted the TPP to pass today, because you really wanted it to come into effect, the funny thing is you simply haven't used your negotiating position here. You've got the numbers with Pauline Hanson's One Nation, the Greens and the Centre Alliance voting against the enabling legislation. You sit in the box seat. You could have a conversation with the government and you could work to get to a better situation. Have you done that? No. You've simply come into the chamber, moved a private member's bill and said a few things, but you're not acting on it.

I will be moving a commencement amendment and, if that is successful, the treaty won't come into force. In fact, the effect of the amendment will be that it won't come into force until such time as the ISDS has been removed and labour market testing has been restored. It wouldn't require another vote of the parliament. Simply, once those are removed, those two cancers, the agreement could come into effect.

In the event that that fails I'm moving a sunset provision. This would allow the treaty to come into effect right now, as soon as the parliament sign off on the enabling legislation. The Australian government would be able to notify all of the countries involved in the TPP and it could come into force, but then the enabling legislation would sunset at the end of next year. That's absolutely consistent with what the Labor Party want to do. The Labor Party want to allow this through. They've stated that they then wish to negotiate the ISDS provisions out and the labour market testing back in. So I'll be very interested to see if Labor support that, because that's what they've said outside this chamber that they intend to do. They intend to allow this agreement to come into force and then negotiate these bad provisions out. The nice thing about the sunset clause is that it provides an insurance in the event that Labor don't get into government after the next election. The sunset clause will sit there and it will provide an insurance that will allow for the Labor Party national policy platform to be implemented.

In closing, what needs to happen here is Bill Shorten to stand up and show the courage of his conviction. We have an opportunity to draw a line in the sand. We have an opportunity to send a signal to DFAT and those who are involved in these negotiations that Australia will not accept ISDS provisions anymore and that we do require labour market testing. Time and time again these agreements are negotiated, the enabling legislation comes before the parliament, and time and time again the Labor Party complains about the provisions and nothing happens. This time around, you have the numbers. This time around, with the Greens, with Pauline Hanson's One Nation and with Centre Alliance, if you vote against the TPP as it stands, it will not come into effect. There are some very sensible, measured, reasonable amendments that Centre Alliance has put forward. There are some other amendments that have also been circulated today. It's an opportunity, and it really is going to be a situation where we will see what Labor really stands for.