Call for TPP Plan-B cost-benefit analysis to be released and ISDS provisions to be removed

NXT Senator Rex Patrick has called on the Federal Trade Minister Steven Ciobo to release the full cost-benefit analysis of the Federal Government's multi-trillion dollar Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement.

"The Australian public has a right to see the basis of the Federal Government's decision to secure this deal," said Rex. "Shallow rhetorical statements cannot be used to make the case."

The Productivity Commission has found that predictions for growth and jobs from Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) have rarely been delivered because the economic models employed exaggerate the benefits, ignore many of the costs and assume away unemployment effects.

A 2015 study by the Australian National University on the outcomes of the Australia-US FTA after 10 years showed the preferential agreement diverted trade away from other countries. Australia and the United States have reduced their trade by $US53 billion ($71 billion) with the rest of the world and are worse off than they would have been without the agreement. 

"There are always pros and cons with these deals and we need to see what they are," said Rex. 

"The devil is always in the detail, and the detail can make a huge difference in terms of the impact on Australian industry and jobs. There are always winners and losers and we need to know all the details.

"The Government should not presume that the Australian Parliament will just rubber stamp any legislation to give effect to the TPP before ratification."

Senator Patrick also called for the removal of any Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions in the TPP agreement. These provisions allow foreign corporations to mount costly challenges to the decisions of Australian courts, including the High Court.

"These provisions are an affront to our sovereignty," said Rex. 

In 2012 the High Court determined that legislation relating to plain packaging of tobacco products was constitutional. That did not deter Philip Morris from challenging these laws in the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague using ISDS provisions in the 'Agreement between the Government of Hong Kong and the Government of Australia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments'. 

"Thankfully Australia won the case on a well-argued jurisdictional technicality, but not after spending a reported $50 million in legal costs," said Rex.

In a 2014 speech Chief Justice French laid out his views on ISDS provisions when he said:

"The Federal Government must have regard to the concerns of the then Chief Justice," said Rex. "We can't have international corporations trying to overturn determinations of our highest court. ISDS provisions must go."

As an aside, the Federal Government has refused to release the costs of the tobacco plain packaging ISDS litigation - a matter Nick Xenophon is challenging with the Information Commissioner with a decision imminent.