Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement
Summary of concerns
The Australian Greens continue to express deep concern at the lack of transparency and genuine community consultation that goes into the trade agreement process.
The Greens note with concern that there was minimal community consultation undertaken prior to and during the negotiation process for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP), and the texts were negotiated and agreed to in secret before being released to the public.
As was made clear during the course of this inquiry, there are no additional market access benefits for Australian exports that come out of RCEP. Additionally, there has been no independent study of the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits that come with this agreement.
Further, RCEP contains no minimum requirements for signatory governments to uphold human rights, labour rights, and environmental protections. This is entirely unacceptable when put in the context of the climate crisis, significant human rights violations occurring in states who are signatory to this trade agreement, and the inconsistent approaches taken by signatory states to the implementation of labour basic rights as defined by the International Labour Organization.
The Greens are deeply troubled by the trade-in-services rules which lock-in current levels of regulation and restrict future changes. This places significant and unnecessary limitations on any government to be able to regulate in the public interest, particularly where major inquiries like Royal Commissions have recommended to do so . As noted by AFTINET in their submission to the inquiry
In the context of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, it is unacceptable that that aged care services have not been reserved from RCEP trade-in-services rules which freeze regulation at current levels and could prevent increases in quality standards and staffing levels recommended by the Royal Commission. It is also unacceptable that state regulation of carbon emissions and other forms of pollution have not been reserved, when increased regulation is required to reduce carbon emissions. The government should seek re-negotiation of the RCEP to address these issues.
Additionally, as noted by AFTINET and others, there is a gaping hole on human rights protections in the RCEP:
The RCEP would legitimise a brutal military regime in Myanmar at a time when the US and other allies are implementing sanctions and withdrawing from economic agreements with Myanmar. The RCEP also ignores violations of human rights and labour rights in China, the Philippines and other RCEP countries. Australia should not be ratifying a preferential trade agreement without any commitments to human rights and labour rights.
When weighing the lack of any clear economic benefits from RCEP, against the considerable risk and costs as summarised above, it does not seem to be appropriate or in the interests of the community to take binding treaty action.
Finally, the Greens note and support the submissions and evidence given by community groups who have expressed their opposition to RCEP. These include AFTINET and its membership, the ACTU, the AMWU, the ETU, ActionAid, the Public Health Association of Australia, and the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation - NSW Branch.
Recommendations
Recommendation
The Australian Greens recommend that no binding treaty action be taken.
Recommendation
The Australian Greens recommend that the current process for negotiating trade agreements be amended to increase transparency around the negotiations and final text of agreements, that independent national interest assessments be made, that ISDS provisions be excluded from all trade agreements, and that human rights, labour, and environmental protection provisions are included in all trade agreements.
Senator Janet Rice