Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:26): The opposition notes the tabling of the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the government's National Interest Analysis. I am a little disappointed that the minister did not bring the whole 16,000 pages in—I would have liked to have seen the strength of the minister in carrying those big folders into the chamber today! We acknowledge also the very hard work of the minister and his predecessors, Simon Crean, Craig Emerson and Richard Marles, and of the very many dedicated public servants who have spent, in some cases, many years working on this agreement. I would like to thank the minister for acknowledging the work of Senator Penny Wong, the opposition trade spokesperson, and her staff. The tabling will allow parliamentary scrutiny of the TPP, including through an inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. Modern trade agreements are increasingly complex and wide-ranging documents, including the agreement itself—multiple agreements on occasions—side letters, annexes, schedules and implementation agreements, often running to hundreds and, in this case, 16,000 pages. They raise important public policy issues too, not only in the traditional areas of market access for goods and services but also in new areas ranging from investment and intellectual property to competition policy and regulation of sectors like financial services. That is why it is very important that this agreement be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. Stakeholders, including business, academic experts, unions, non-government organisations and members of the public themselves must be afforded the opportunity to have their say on agreements like the TPP. For our part, the opposition will utilise the parliamentary processes, including the Treaties Committee inquiry, to closely scrutinise the agreement. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a trade agreement between 12 countries from around the Asia-Pacific rim which account for approximately 40 per cent of global GDP. In addition to Australia, the TPP covers Brunei, Dar es Salaam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, New Zealand, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam. We were pleased to join in the TPP negotiations in March 2010 under the former Labor government. The conclusion of negotiations was announced by the ministers of the TPP countries last October and the agreement signed by ministers just last week in New Zealand. Labor recognises the many potential benefits for Australia from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, including increased market access for our goods and services. In 2014, a third of Australia's goods and services exports went to TPP countries. The TPP will improve access to these markets, firstly, by eliminating 90 per cent of all tariffs on Australian goods exported to TPP countries and, secondly, by liberalising access for Australian services industries to TPP markets. The agriculture sector stands to benefit substantially from the Trans-Pacific Partnership reduction in tariffs and other barriers to Australia exports, including beef, sugar, rice, dairy products, cereals, wine and seafood. The resources and energy sector will benefit from reduction of tariffs on Australian exports of commodities such as iron ore, copper, nickel, liquefied natural gas and refined petroleum. The TPP, of course, also includes provisions designed to liberalise the trade in services. Increasing services exports is a key to future opportunities for Australia, as the number of middle-class consumers in the Asia-Pacific area is set to grow significantly in coming years, resulting in increased demand for high-quality services—services that our companies are ideally placed to deliver. The Trans-Pacific Partnership would help realise some of these opportunities in a number of service sectors. For example, in professional services under the TPP, Malaysia has agreed to remove restrictions on access to legal, architectural, engineering and surveying services. In the area of financial services, the Trans-Pacific Partnership would provide new opportunities to provide cross-border services such as investment advice, portfolio management services and insurance for freight transport. In the area of education, for example, Australian universities and vocational education providers, who are doing so well in many countries across our region, would gain access to Brunei Darussalam, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru and Vietnam. In telecommunications services, Australian telecoms providers would benefit from phasing out of foreign equity limits in Vietnam's telecommunications sector. In health services, Australian health providers would have greater certainty regarding market access in Malaysia, Mexico and Vietnam. In hospitality and tourism services, Australian suppliers of travel and tour services benefit from access in Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Mexico and Peru and greater certainty regarding access in Malaysia and Vietnam. Increased market access for Australian goods and services exports around the Asia-Pacific region gives Australian business the opportunity to boost export earnings. Higher export earnings in turn, of course, can translate into stronger economic growth for Australia and greater job opportunities for Australians. I note that the government has not conducted any modelling of the economic impact of the TPP and that the minister has publicly ruled out undertaking any modelling. I believe this is regrettable because modelling which focuses on the impact on Australia would be a useful contribution to the public debate on the TPP. The Trans-Pacific Partnership can be a stepping stone to even closer economic engagement across the Asia-Pacific. Labor have always been a strong supporter of such engagement, including during our most recent time in government through our development of the Australia in the Asian century white paper. It is the goal that Labor pursued from the establishment of APEC to that more recent expression in the white paper. So the opposition welcomes the potential benefits from this agreement. However, we do have a number of concerns about aspects of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and I will briefly outline some of those concerns now. In the area of pharmaceuticals in particular, as a former health minister I have observed the development of this agreement very closely. Labor has insisted that no element of the TPP should affect the cost and availability of medicines in Australia. We will examine the intellectual property provisions of the agreement closely to ensure that the commitment the minister has made, that Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme will not be affected, is fully honoured. This is an area where we have seen a great deal of consternation in the Australian community in recent years because Australians are very attached, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Irons, to our world-leading Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which enables Australians to have access to medicines at a price they can afford. The Minister for Health is at the table today, and she would know what strong support there is in the Australian community for a system that means that medicines that sometimes cost thousands of dollars, or even, in some cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars, for a course of treatment are available to patients through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme at either the discounted rate available to pensioners or others on income support or, nevertheless, a very reasonable amount to people who are entitled to use our pharmaceutical benefits provisions. So we will look at the intellectual property provisions of the agreement closely, because the affordability of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme does rely on Australia being able to negotiate a good price with the makers of medicines, and that good price includes paying less as medicines come off patent. The issue of data exclusivity for biologics—new medicines developed from biological materials—is particularly important. Stakeholders have raised a number of questions about the impact of the TPP on pharmaceutical benefits and biologics. These questions need to be clearly answered to remove any doubts about the impact of the TPP on the cost and availability of these medicines in Australia. The opposition is also concerned that the government has agreed to investor-state dispute settlement provisions in the TPP. Labor has led the way in arguing against investor-state dispute settlement provisions in trade agreements. In government, we adopted a policy of not including these provisions in trade agreements and we remain opposed to the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement provisions; but the Abbott government and, now, the Turnbull government have included these provisions in trade deals with Korea and with China and now in the TPP. There are widespread and, I believe, legitimate concerns over ISDS provisions. The concerns come from mainstream economic and legal experts. They include the Productivity Commission; the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Justice Robert French; the former head of the Australian Industry Group and Reserve Bank of Australia board member, Heather Ridout; and numerous academics. Even former Liberal Prime Minister John Howard refused to include an ISDS provision in the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement, despite pressure to do so from the United States. But now the Turnbull government has included ISDS provisions in the TPP, which will potentially give multinational corporations the right to challenge Australian public policies and regulations. As a former health minister I can say that one area that has been raised as an area of concern is our very strong world-leading plain package tobacco laws which have been so successful in driving down rates of smoking in Australia. But that is not the only area of concern. There are legitimate public concerns over the impact of ISDS provisions on Australia's public policies in areas— Ms Ley interjecting— Ms PLIBERSEK: It is extraordinary to find a health minister who does not support tobacco excise increases. That is the thing that I find remarkable—given how successful they are and given that the World Health Organization says they are the best way of getting smoking rates down. Anyway, back to the TPP. Labor will closely examine the minister's claims that there are acceptable safeguards in the TPP's investor-state dispute settlement and investment provisions and will also examine the impact of any implementation agreements in this area. The other area where we have been looking at the impact of the Trans-Pacific Partnership on Australia is the area of the Australian labour market. This also warrants careful attention. As we made clear in the debate on the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, our view is that trade agreements should enhance and not constrain job opportunities for Australians. An important safeguard in Australia's temporary skilled migration system is labour market testing. We will examine the impact of the TPP's chapter on temporary entry on labour market testing and other safeguards in Australia's migration system. Labor will scrutinise the Trans-Pacific Partnership to ensure that it delivers economic benefits without undermining Australian public policies in areas such as affordable medicines, environmental protection and balanced intellectual property laws. Labor recognises the potential economic benefits to Australia from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, including increased market access for our goods and services. The Trans-Pacific Partnership will also significantly benefit some of the poorest countries in our region, and we are pleased that they will be able to export more of their goods and services and drive economic growth in their own countries. We note that the agreement also contains a number of progressive measures. It contains commitments to tackle environmental challenges in the Asia-Pacific region, such as illegal logging, unsustainable fisheries management and biodiversity conservation. We know how important the stewardship of such resources is for the long-term prosperity of our neighbours. The TPP also contains a chapter on labour standards. This requires TPP countries to adopt core labour standards such as workers' rights to organise, decent minimum wage regulation and acceptable standards in areas such as occupational health and safety. The TPP also contains a development chapter which acknowledges the importance of promoting inclusive economic growth, including a more broad based distribution of the benefits of economic growth through the expansion of business, creation of jobs and alleviation of poverty. Mr Deputy Speaker Irons, you would know, as members across the chamber would know, that recent work done through our time on the G20 and work done by the IMF and by the OECD continues to emphasise and show that inclusive growth leads to longer and stronger growth. So inclusive growth within countries and between countries is good for us all. We acknowledge that the TPP has the potential to deliver a range of benefits. Labor does not support the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement provisions within the TPP. We will insist that the agreement must not adversely affect the cost or availability of medicines for Australians, and we have some concerns about the impact of the agreement on safeguards in Australia's temporary skilled migration system. I would have to add that the refusal of the government to take action in recent cases of egregious worker exploitation does not give us particular confidence in this area. Now that the agreement has been tabled by the minister, the treaties committee will conduct its inquiry. This will allow members of the public and stakeholders to have their say and will be a very important and valuable forum for scrutinising the Trans-Pacific Partnership. For our part, we will rigorously scrutinise the agreement to ensure that it lives up to the government's claims and to the potential of the agreement itself.