Division Description Changes — Bills — Customs Amendment (Growing Australian Export Opportunities Across the Asia-Pacific) Bill 2019, Customs Tariff Amendment (Growing Australian Export Opportunities Across the Asia-Pacific) Bill 2019; in Committee — 26th Nov 2019

Change	Division
senate vote 2019-11-26#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2020-06-05 10:10:32	Title Bills — Customs Amendment (Growing Australian Export Opportunities Across the Asia-Pacific) Bill 2019, Customs Tariff Amendment (Growing Australian Export Opportunities Across the Asia-Pacific) Bill 2019; in Committee Customs Amendment (Growing Australian Export Opportunities Across the Asia-Pacific) Bill 2019 and another - in Committee - Investor-state dispute settlement Description ~~<p class="speaker">Jordon Steele-John</p>~~ ~~<p>In respect of the Customs Amendment (Growing Australian Export Opportunities Across the Asia-Pacific) Bill 2019, I move amendment (1) on sheet 8823:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(1) Clause 2, pages 2 and 3, table items 2 to 4, omit the table items, substitute:</p>~~ The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2019-11-26.4.3) introduced by WA Senator [Jordon Steele-John](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/jordon_steele-john) (Greens) in respect to [investor-state dispute settlement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement). Senator Steele-John explained that: > This amendment deals with the very pernicious clauses within these agreements that give corporations the right to sue governments. People might not be aware—although we've previously covered it pretty comprehensively in the debate—so I'll make it very clear: this deals with the inclusion of ISDS clauses, so the pathways through which corporations are able to sue governments for taking action in relation to regulating in the public interest. Australia has had more experience than many nations of the potential impact of these clauses. We have had the experience very close to hand of the way in which Philip Morris utilised an ISDS clause in a previous agreement with Hong Kong to pursue the Australian government in relation to plain-packaging laws after we had had that legislative decision upheld by the highest court in our land. The Labor Party did not support the amendments, with ACT Senator [Katy Gallagher](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/act/katy_gallagher) (Labor) [explaining that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2019-11-26.6.1): > The improved ISDS clauses in these agreements include safeguards on the public interest, which allows Australia to regulate on legitimate public welfare objectives. This includes the protection of public health, safety and the environment. ### Motion text > (1) Clause 2, pages 2 and 3, table items 2 to 4, omit the table items, substitute: > > 2. Schedule 1 > >> If the Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement, done at Canberra on 12 February 2018, enters into force for Australia—the first day that bilateral side letters exchanged between Australia and each other party to the Agreement agreeing that the part of the agreement which deals with investor-State disputes does not apply in relation to an investment in Australia by an investor of the other party are in force for Australia. >> >> However, the provisions do not commence at all unless all of the events mentioned in this item occur. > > 3. Schedule 2 > >> If the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, done at Jakarta on 4 March 2019, enters into force for Australia—the first day that bilateral side letters exchanged between Australia and each other party to the Agreement agreeing that the part of the agreement which deals with investor-State disputes does not apply in relation to an investment in Australia by an investor of the other party are in force for Australia. >> >> However, the provisions do not commence at all unless all of the events mentioned in this item occur. > > 4. Schedule 3 > >> If the Free Trade Agreement between Australia and Hong Kong, China, done at Sydney on 26 March 2019, enters into force for Australia—the first day that bilateral side letters exchanged between Australia and each other party to the Agreement agreeing that the part of the agreement which deals with investor-State disputes does not apply in relation to an investment in Australia by an investor of the other party are in force for Australia. >> >> However, the provisions do not commence at all unless all of the events mentioned in this item occur. <p>This amendment deals with the very pernicious clauses within these agreements that give corporations the right to sue governments. People might not be aware—although we've previously covered it pretty comprehensively in the debate—so I'll make it very clear: this deals with the inclusion of ISDS clauses, so the pathways through which corporations are able to sue governments for taking action in relation to regulating in the public interest. Australia has had more experience than many nations of the potential impact of these clauses. We have had the experience very close to hand of the way in which Philip Morris utilised an ISDS clause in a previous agreement with Hong Kong to pursue the Australian government in relation to plain-packaging laws after we had had that legislative decision upheld by the highest court in our land.</p> <p>There are arguments made by the major parties in this place that the Hong Kong free trade agreement, which we are partially facilitating the implementation of today, includes a revamped ISDS clause, with many wonderful protections against the occurrence of these particular situations. Once again, however, as my colleague Senator Whish-Wilson so clearly put to the chamber yesterday, there is, in fact, no such thing as a properly revamped ISDS clause. It is one of those great legal fictions that continues to pervade us. These mechanisms were created and are always inserted within these agreements for the sole purpose of enabling corporations to get away with the pollution of our environment, the undermining of our labour standards and the violation of our human rights, and it is continually the case that they have the practical effect of a legislative chill upon our government.</p> <p>This amendment does something very simple. I would hope, given the contributions of so many members to these debates yesterday, that some of it has sunk in, particularly to the Labor Party's mind, in relation to this amendment. There are very clear statements that have been made by the ACTU, by the electrical trade unions, flagging the concerns over these clauses, and our amendment seeks to simply make the implementation of these agreements contingent upon the removal of these clauses. Highly practical, it should be a rather non-controversial move that the chamber could make. I remind the chamber that the EU and the US are, at the moment, in the business of excluding ISDS clauses from many of their agreements, precisely because of the danger that they pose to national sovereignty, and are working their way out of these agreements. I commend this amendment to the chamber and would ask all parties to consider, deeply, supporting it.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p>~~ <p>Very briefly, the government will not be supporting this amendment. Australia has had ISDS arrangements in place for over 30 years. During that time, only one ISDS case has been brought before Australia in tribunal. That, indeed, is the one that Senator Steele-John referenced, in relation to Philip Morris, which I note the government successfully defended. I further note that, in terms of ISDS provisions, further safeguards have been built in to modernise ISDS provisions that would see even that case, which we successfully defended, not get as far as it did, in the future.</p> <p>In contrast, the government is aware that at least five Australian companies have made ISDS claims against other governments in relation to the protection of investments that were threatened by those governments, often in the case of places that don't have the same type of respect for sovereign risk and other practices that Australian governments tend to have. Removing ISDS from these three free trade agreements, as this amendment proposes, would not remove ISDS with these countries. Instead, it would simply leave in place older provisions. The new provisions are far superior and ought to stand.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p>~~ <p>The Labor Party won't be supporting these amendments in relation to ISDS provisions. The improved ISDS clauses in these agreements include safeguards on the public interest, which allows Australia to regulate on legitimate public welfare objectives. This includes the protection of public health, safety and the environment. Australia will be protected from actions against important prudential reform, such as those stemming from the banking royal commission, and, with the new ISDS clauses, tobacco company Philip Morris—which I know has come up in debate a lot through this bill—would not be able to sue the Australian government for its plain cigarette packaging legislation, as they did previously under the existing Hong Kong bilateral investment treaty. If these agreements are not ratified, Australia will be objectively worse off with regard to ISDS. The government, in writing, confirmed to Labor that it would seek to review other old-style investment provisions in existing agreements.</p> <p>In relation to labour market testing, all of the agreements uphold Australia's WTO obligations, signed and entered into by the Keating Labor government, and have applied since 1995. There is no waiver of labour market testing for contractual service suppliers in any of the three agreements, and the government has confirmed that it will not use the provisions of article 12.9 of the Indonesian agreement to propose or introduce any additional labour market testing waivers. Labor will continue to hold them to account on this commitment.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Jordon Steele-John</p>~~ <p>I want to respond to some of the observations put by the Labor and Liberal parties through the course of that exchange. First of all, to the minister's statement that these clauses have been used by Australian companies no less than 15 times—</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p>~~ ~~<p>Five times.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Jordon Steele-John</p>~~ <p>Five times—you're absolutely right, Minister. They have been used five times, including by OceanaGold, a WA based mining company, to take the El Salvadorian government to a tribunal process for no less than the entire budget of El Salvador for one year. It was a case which commenced in 2009, ceased in 2016 and was chucked out. The crime of the El Salvadorian government for which they were taken to a tribunal under this process was simply asking a mining corporation to clean up after themselves. I will make it very clear to the chamber that our opposition to these clauses and their use absolutely stands in relation to the use of them by Australian corporations to bully sovereign nations into allowing those corporations to pollute their lands.</p> <p>In relation to the commentary made by the Labor Party, through Senator Gallagher, I'll make this very simple point, which should be clear to any of those who followed the JSCOT process closely: we are dealing with the implementing legislation for three separate free trade agreements here. There may well be so-called revamped ISDS clauses used in relation to the Hong Kong free trade agreement, flawed as they are. However, that is not the case in relation to the Peruvian and Indonesia free trade agreements. I would specifically point out that there exists in neither of those agreements specific carve-outs in relation to tobacco. They do not exist in the Indonesian or Peruvian free trade agreements, which is why civil society is concerned by the prospect of us entering into an agreement with a country that plays host to large tobacco corporations, who are ready, willing and waiting to re-litigate, potentially, the plain packaging debate that we've had in this country, as is absolutely open to them to do under ISDS processes.</p> <p>Again, in case you haven't been paying attention, precedence does not operate in ISDS tribunals. They sit outside usual procedural justice norms here in Australia, so cases may be litigated and re-litigated under these processes. There is an additional concern that tobacco may well use these clauses with Indonesia to fight any potential future vaping legislation that may be put forward by this place or another. There can be no doubt that these clauses present an unacceptable risk to Australia's sovereignty and the ability to legislate in the public interest. That is why I would remind the Labor Party that the ACTU oppose these deals. The Electrical Trades Union opposes these deals so stringently, in fact, that they have said that they are going to have nothing more to do with you.</p> <p>We are simply asking you folks to stick to the manifesto under which you went to the election. We are simply asking you to stand by the platform that you apparently spent three or four years formulating. It's not a large ask. It's just a tiny piece of opposition that is being asked from the Labor Party today. I would again urge them to reconsider their position on this particular amendment.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Jacqui Lambie</p>~~ <p>I just want to say a few things about this. Obviously the bills, which enact agreement made between the Australian government to Peru, Indonesia and Hong Kong, all include an investor state dispute settlement, once again, which means foreign investors will be ineligible for compensation under the agreements if the Australian government tries to regulate them. They can sue if they don't get what they want—no surprises here. That's why I oppose the bills. As usual, the major parties are handing over more power to the big corporations. As usual, they're taking power away from the Australian workers.</p> <p>I have to say it's pretty ironic that I'm one of the ones standing up for workers here today, when the unions have been at me for months. It's strange, isn't it, that they're happy to blast my office, take up calls and take time away from those who are vulnerable and who actually need services from my office, and yet here we go. I don't see any billboards and I don't see any pages running in newspapers about what the Labor Party is doing to them. Honestly, where's that ad campaign? It suits the CFMMEU and the ETU, but when it has to go on at their own and taking their political donations—I'm telling you, it just blows me away. I don't even know how you're supposed to take these two unions seriously anymore.</p> <p>So I'm calling Labor out for walking away from the workers they're supposed to represent, because obviously the CFMMEU and the ETU won't do the job. Labor used to be the party of the worker. These days they're the party of foreign investors. They're the party of rolling over for the government. I've come to expect the government to wave this sort of stuff through, but for it to come from Labor? I tell you what—it's a pathetic day for Australia today. Do they even know what they stand for anymore or who they actually stand for? That's the question.</p> <p>I can tell you who I stand for. I stand for the workers in Tasmania whose jobs have disappeared overseas. I stand for the people who are languishing on Centrelink because the industry in their town has shut down. I stand for the Tassie farmers who are watching the land around them get bought up by Chinese developers. I stand for the people who are horrified that their government is handing control to foreign investors who can sue if they don't like policy change. Who does that? Who does that to their own country? Who does that?</p> <p>Labor, you should be standing up here with me. You should be standing against the coalition. It isn't good enough for them to say, 'We have an agreement with the government.' The government has agreed to what exactly? All I can see are vague commitments to nice ideas. Where's the concrete action? How are we going to protect the people who will feel the impact of these free trade agreements? There are no protections. What, more reviews when the deal has already been done? That's not going to help people in towns who are struggling now. It's not good enough to note the importance of ensuring there are public interest checks on the ability of foreign investors to sue our government. The fact is, these provisions shouldn't exist at all. It just isn't right. No-one should be willing to let multinational corporations hold our government hostage. I believe that you're going to regret this action in years to come, I can tell you. And I'll be one of the ones standing up here saying: 'Ha, ha! What do you know? The crossbench told you so. What do you know?'</p> <p>Labor, you should actually see that, and frankly I'm surprised that you don't. I don't know why you would do these deals, and I don't know why the unions keep giving you political donations. If you're not doing the job to help their workers, then why do they bother? They're going at crossbenchers like me, Centre Alliance and One Nation over an integrity bill, yet they don't have the guts to stand up to you people and say, 'Hey, you're taking thousands of jobs off us.' This is what's going on here, and I'm supposed to take the CFMMEU and the ETU seriously? You've got to be kidding me today. They're just as shameful. They're not standing up for their workers; they're out there standing up for their thugs, and, quite frankly, I think Australia's had a gutful of it.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

~~Jordon Steele-John~~
~~In respect of the Customs Amendment (Growing Australian Export Opportunities Across the Asia-Pacific) Bill 2019, I move amendment (1) on sheet 8823:~~
~~(1) Clause 2, pages 2 and 3, table items 2 to 4, omit the table items, substitute:~~
The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2019-11-26.4.3) introduced by WA Senator [Jordon Steele-John](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/jordon_steele-john) (Greens) in respect to [investor-state dispute settlement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement). Senator Steele-John explained that:
> *This amendment deals with the very pernicious clauses within these agreements that give corporations the right to sue governments. People might not be aware—although we've previously covered it pretty comprehensively in the debate—so I'll make it very clear: this deals with the inclusion of ISDS clauses, so the pathways through which corporations are able to sue governments for taking action in relation to regulating in the public interest. Australia has had more experience than many nations of the potential impact of these clauses. We have had the experience very close to hand of the way in which Philip Morris utilised an ISDS clause in a previous agreement with Hong Kong to pursue the Australian government in relation to plain-packaging laws after we had had that legislative decision upheld by the highest court in our land.*
The Labor Party did not support the amendments, with ACT Senator [Katy Gallagher](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/act/katy_gallagher) (Labor) [explaining that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2019-11-26.6.1):
> *The improved ISDS clauses in these agreements include safeguards on the public interest, which allows Australia to regulate on legitimate public welfare objectives. This includes the protection of public health, safety and the environment.*
### Motion text
> *(1) Clause 2, pages 2 and 3, table items 2 to 4, omit the table items, substitute:*
>
> *2. Schedule 1*
>
>> *If the Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement, done at Canberra on 12 February 2018, enters into force for Australia—the first day that bilateral side letters exchanged between Australia and each other party to the Agreement agreeing that the part of the agreement which deals with investor-State disputes does not apply in relation to an investment in Australia by an investor of the other party are in force for Australia.*
>>
>> *However, the provisions do not commence at all unless all of the events mentioned in this item occur.*
>
> *3. Schedule 2*
>
>> *If the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, done at Jakarta on 4 March 2019, enters into force for Australia—the first day that bilateral side letters exchanged between Australia and each other party to the Agreement agreeing that the part of the agreement which deals with investor-State disputes does not apply in relation to an investment in Australia by an investor of the other party are in force for Australia.*
>>
>> *However, the provisions do not commence at all unless all of the events mentioned in this item occur.*
>
> *4. Schedule 3*
>
>> *If the Free Trade Agreement between Australia and Hong Kong, China, done at Sydney on 26 March 2019, enters into force for Australia—the first day that bilateral side letters exchanged between Australia and each other party to the Agreement agreeing that the part of the agreement which deals with investor-State disputes does not apply in relation to an investment in Australia by an investor of the other party are in force for Australia.*
>>
>> *However, the provisions do not commence at all unless all of the events mentioned in this item occur.*
This amendment deals with the very pernicious clauses within these agreements that give corporations the right to sue governments. People might not be aware—although we've previously covered it pretty comprehensively in the debate—so I'll make it very clear: this deals with the inclusion of ISDS clauses, so the pathways through which corporations are able to sue governments for taking action in relation to regulating in the public interest. Australia has had more experience than many nations of the potential impact of these clauses. We have had the experience very close to hand of the way in which Philip Morris utilised an ISDS clause in a previous agreement with Hong Kong to pursue the Australian government in relation to plain-packaging laws after we had had that legislative decision upheld by the highest court in our land.
There are arguments made by the major parties in this place that the Hong Kong free trade agreement, which we are partially facilitating the implementation of today, includes a revamped ISDS clause, with many wonderful protections against the occurrence of these particular situations. Once again, however, as my colleague Senator Whish-Wilson so clearly put to the chamber yesterday, there is, in fact, no such thing as a properly revamped ISDS clause. It is one of those great legal fictions that continues to pervade us. These mechanisms were created and are always inserted within these agreements for the sole purpose of enabling corporations to get away with the pollution of our environment, the undermining of our labour standards and the violation of our human rights, and it is continually the case that they have the practical effect of a legislative chill upon our government.
This amendment does something very simple. I would hope, given the contributions of so many members to these debates yesterday, that some of it has sunk in, particularly to the Labor Party's mind, in relation to this amendment. There are very clear statements that have been made by the ACTU, by the electrical trade unions, flagging the concerns over these clauses, and our amendment seeks to simply make the implementation of these agreements contingent upon the removal of these clauses. Highly practical, it should be a rather non-controversial move that the chamber could make. I remind the chamber that the EU and the US are, at the moment, in the business of excluding ISDS clauses from many of their agreements, precisely because of the danger that they pose to national sovereignty, and are working their way out of these agreements. I commend this amendment to the chamber and would ask all parties to consider, deeply, supporting it.
~~Simon Birmingham~~
Very briefly, the government will not be supporting this amendment. Australia has had ISDS arrangements in place for over 30 years. During that time, only one ISDS case has been brought before Australia in tribunal. That, indeed, is the one that Senator Steele-John referenced, in relation to Philip Morris, which I note the government successfully defended. I further note that, in terms of ISDS provisions, further safeguards have been built in to modernise ISDS provisions that would see even that case, which we successfully defended, not get as far as it did, in the future.
In contrast, the government is aware that at least five Australian companies have made ISDS claims against other governments in relation to the protection of investments that were threatened by those governments, often in the case of places that don't have the same type of respect for sovereign risk and other practices that Australian governments tend to have. Removing ISDS from these three free trade agreements, as this amendment proposes, would not remove ISDS with these countries. Instead, it would simply leave in place older provisions. The new provisions are far superior and ought to stand.
~~Katy Gallagher~~
The Labor Party won't be supporting these amendments in relation to ISDS provisions. The improved ISDS clauses in these agreements include safeguards on the public interest, which allows Australia to regulate on legitimate public welfare objectives. This includes the protection of public health, safety and the environment. Australia will be protected from actions against important prudential reform, such as those stemming from the banking royal commission, and, with the new ISDS clauses, tobacco company Philip Morris—which I know has come up in debate a lot through this bill—would not be able to sue the Australian government for its plain cigarette packaging legislation, as they did previously under the existing Hong Kong bilateral investment treaty. If these agreements are not ratified, Australia will be objectively worse off with regard to ISDS. The government, in writing, confirmed to Labor that it would seek to review other old-style investment provisions in existing agreements.
In relation to labour market testing, all of the agreements uphold Australia's WTO obligations, signed and entered into by the Keating Labor government, and have applied since 1995. There is no waiver of labour market testing for contractual service suppliers in any of the three agreements, and the government has confirmed that it will not use the provisions of article 12.9 of the Indonesian agreement to propose or introduce any additional labour market testing waivers. Labor will continue to hold them to account on this commitment.
~~Jordon Steele-John~~
I want to respond to some of the observations put by the Labor and Liberal parties through the course of that exchange. First of all, to the minister's statement that these clauses have been used by Australian companies no less than 15 times—
~~Simon Birmingham~~
~~Five times.~~
~~Jordon Steele-John~~
Five times—you're absolutely right, Minister. They have been used five times, including by OceanaGold, a WA based mining company, to take the El Salvadorian government to a tribunal process for no less than the entire budget of El Salvador for one year. It was a case which commenced in 2009, ceased in 2016 and was chucked out. The crime of the El Salvadorian government for which they were taken to a tribunal under this process was simply asking a mining corporation to clean up after themselves. I will make it very clear to the chamber that our opposition to these clauses and their use absolutely stands in relation to the use of them by Australian corporations to bully sovereign nations into allowing those corporations to pollute their lands.
In relation to the commentary made by the Labor Party, through Senator Gallagher, I'll make this very simple point, which should be clear to any of those who followed the JSCOT process closely: we are dealing with the implementing legislation for three separate free trade agreements here. There may well be so-called revamped ISDS clauses used in relation to the Hong Kong free trade agreement, flawed as they are. However, that is not the case in relation to the Peruvian and Indonesia free trade agreements. I would specifically point out that there exists in neither of those agreements specific carve-outs in relation to tobacco. They do not exist in the Indonesian or Peruvian free trade agreements, which is why civil society is concerned by the prospect of us entering into an agreement with a country that plays host to large tobacco corporations, who are ready, willing and waiting to re-litigate, potentially, the plain packaging debate that we've had in this country, as is absolutely open to them to do under ISDS processes.
Again, in case you haven't been paying attention, precedence does not operate in ISDS tribunals. They sit outside usual procedural justice norms here in Australia, so cases may be litigated and re-litigated under these processes. There is an additional concern that tobacco may well use these clauses with Indonesia to fight any potential future vaping legislation that may be put forward by this place or another. There can be no doubt that these clauses present an unacceptable risk to Australia's sovereignty and the ability to legislate in the public interest. That is why I would remind the Labor Party that the ACTU oppose these deals. The Electrical Trades Union opposes these deals so stringently, in fact, that they have said that they are going to have nothing more to do with you.
We are simply asking you folks to stick to the manifesto under which you went to the election. We are simply asking you to stand by the platform that you apparently spent three or four years formulating. It's not a large ask. It's just a tiny piece of opposition that is being asked from the Labor Party today. I would again urge them to reconsider their position on this particular amendment.
~~Jacqui Lambie~~
I just want to say a few things about this. Obviously the bills, which enact agreement made between the Australian government to Peru, Indonesia and Hong Kong, all include an investor state dispute settlement, once again, which means foreign investors will be ineligible for compensation under the agreements if the Australian government tries to regulate them. They can sue if they don't get what they want—no surprises here. That's why I oppose the bills. As usual, the major parties are handing over more power to the big corporations. As usual, they're taking power away from the Australian workers.
I have to say it's pretty ironic that I'm one of the ones standing up for workers here today, when the unions have been at me for months. It's strange, isn't it, that they're happy to blast my office, take up calls and take time away from those who are vulnerable and who actually need services from my office, and yet here we go. I don't see any billboards and I don't see any pages running in newspapers about what the Labor Party is doing to them. Honestly, where's that ad campaign? It suits the CFMMEU and the ETU, but when it has to go on at their own and taking their political donations—I'm telling you, it just blows me away. I don't even know how you're supposed to take these two unions seriously anymore.
So I'm calling Labor out for walking away from the workers they're supposed to represent, because obviously the CFMMEU and the ETU won't do the job. Labor used to be the party of the worker. These days they're the party of foreign investors. They're the party of rolling over for the government. I've come to expect the government to wave this sort of stuff through, but for it to come from Labor? I tell you what—it's a pathetic day for Australia today. Do they even know what they stand for anymore or who they actually stand for? That's the question.
I can tell you who I stand for. I stand for the workers in Tasmania whose jobs have disappeared overseas. I stand for the people who are languishing on Centrelink because the industry in their town has shut down. I stand for the Tassie farmers who are watching the land around them get bought up by Chinese developers. I stand for the people who are horrified that their government is handing control to foreign investors who can sue if they don't like policy change. Who does that? Who does that to their own country? Who does that?
Labor, you should be standing up here with me. You should be standing against the coalition. It isn't good enough for them to say, 'We have an agreement with the government.' The government has agreed to what exactly? All I can see are vague commitments to nice ideas. Where's the concrete action? How are we going to protect the people who will feel the impact of these free trade agreements? There are no protections. What, more reviews when the deal has already been done? That's not going to help people in towns who are struggling now. It's not good enough to note the importance of ensuring there are public interest checks on the ability of foreign investors to sue our government. The fact is, these provisions shouldn't exist at all. It just isn't right. No-one should be willing to let multinational corporations hold our government hostage. I believe that you're going to regret this action in years to come, I can tell you. And I'll be one of the ones standing up here saying: 'Ha, ha! What do you know? The crossbench told you so. What do you know?'
Labor, you should actually see that, and frankly I'm surprised that you don't. I don't know why you would do these deals, and I don't know why the unions keep giving you political donations. If you're not doing the job to help their workers, then why do they bother? They're going at crossbenchers like me, Centre Alliance and One Nation over an integrity bill, yet they don't have the guts to stand up to you people and say, 'Hey, you're taking thousands of jobs off us.' This is what's going on here, and I'm supposed to take the CFMMEU and the ETU seriously? You've got to be kidding me today. They're just as shameful. They're not standing up for their workers; they're out there standing up for their thugs, and, quite frankly, I think Australia's had a gutful of it.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~