Last week, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) released a “fact sheet” attempting to dispel “common misconceptions” around the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – the US-led trade deal being negotiated between 12 Pacific Rim nations, including Australia.
Amongst the topics covered was the notion that the TPP negotiations have been shrouded in secrecy, which DFAT strongly denied:
[DFAT] has engaged in over 1000 TPP stakeholder briefings and consultations between May 2011 and mid-2015. In addition to consultations with State and Territory Government representatives, a wide range of domestic stakeholders have been consulted, including representatives from peak industry bodies, individual companies, academics, unions, consumer groups, special interest groups and other organisations representing civil society. Many stakeholders have been consulted on several occasions.
DFAT’s defence came after the Productivity Commission’s latest Trade and Assistance Review called on the texts of Australia’s trade deals to be publicly released for scrutiny before they are signed:
The emerging and growing potential for trade preferences to impose net costs on the community presents a compelling case for the final text of an agreement to be rigorously analysed before signing. Analysis undertaken for the Japan-Australia agreement reveals a wide and concerning gap compared to the Commission’s view of rigorous assessment.
In a similar vein, a Parliamentary committee last week released a report slamming the lack of adequate “oversight and scrutiny” pertaining to the TPP, and lamented that “parliament is faced with an all-or-nothing choice” on whether or not to approve trade agreements and can only officially review trade laws once they have officially passed.
Now, Fairfax’s Peter Martin has published a stellar article that outlines why DFAT’s consultations on the TPP have been a sham, with participants effectively going into discussions blind-folded:
The department runs consultation sessions with community groups, providing “over 1000 stakeholder briefings on the TPP alone since 2011”, but they have been curiously bereft of information. Alan Kirkland from the consumer group Choice said the meetings take the form of “tell us your views”. The Australian Industry group said attending them is like “voicing concerns blindfolded”…
Trade minister Andrew Robb accuses critics of the as -yet-unseen agreement of being anti-trade. But they’re not. There’s no greater believer in free trade than the Productivity Commission, and few organisations more enthusiastic than the Chamber of Commerce and Industry. It’s the new layers of red tape that worry them, and the add-ons – changes to Australian law that wouldn’t stand a chance of making it through Parliament if they were proposed and debated in in their own right.
There is a world of difference between attending a bunch of stakeholder meetings, whereby DFAT bureaucrats feed you selective information and motherhood statements, and having access to the negotiating text and draft agreement so that the right questions can be asked.
And it is not just us so-called ‘anti-free traders’ that are concerned by the secrecy surrounding the TPP. Let’s not forget that Liberal Senator, Bill Heffernan, has also raised concerns:
“Politicians and governments need to have enough self-confidence to be able to have a contest of ideas, rather than doing something in secret and dropping it on the table,” he told Fairfax Media.
“I’m concerned about unintended consequences. I’m worried about how much will be fait accompli”…
“I want to be asking these detailed questions, about the capacity for corporations to sue governments”…
…[Heffernan] wants to see the TPP released to the public so that it can be tested by people with “dirt under their fingernails”. He said: “It ought to pass the paddock test.”
“The average person here in Parliament hasn’t got their head around a range of things. If you don’t know what’s on the table, how do you know what questions to ask?”
It’s worth reiterating that US Congressmen received access to the draft TPP, as did the Malaysian parliament, whereas Australia’s parliamentarians have been kept in the dark.
If the TPP is going to be such a great deal, as claimed by Trade Minister Andrew Robb, then why is the Government denying interested parties access?
