Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 49:29 to 55:18
Debate over the "Right to Regulate" provision versus international climate commitments in the trade deal.
Topics: Climate change, Trade policy, International law
Speakers: George Mina, Senator Matthew Canavan, Unknown Speaker
Well, no, the the very the very existence of a an article at the top of the chapter titled right to regulate,
>> I know,
>> means precisely that, Senator.
>> But that that very article we just read out said you can only adopt or modify your commitments in a manner that's consistent with the commitments in this chapter, which includes the promotion of trade and climate policies and measures that contributes to the transition to a
net zero economy. Again, I think you've bridged, if I uh can be uh uh precise here, you've a bridged that phrase in a manner consistent with his commitments under the international agreements referred to in this chapter
>> and and you're missing at the end consistent with the commitments in this chapter which include this chapter includes 18.63
manner consistent with the commitments under the international agreements senator referred to in this chapter that could not be clearer. Yes. >> Now the point of our evidence earlier senator was to make the to be very clear that under Paris yes we have nationally determined contributions. We have the right to amend those and uh this uh article here, the right to regulate article uh makes that explicit, clear and explicit.
>> Well, it it to me it it clearly refers to the commitments referred to in this chapter which include the taking measures to go to net zero. It's a commitment to net zero.
>> Commitments under the international agreements. Senator, you you've omitted
the internal agreements referred to in this chapter >> under the international agreements later on the chapter in this chapter. >> Yes. And later on
>> if it is to if it is to Paris to which you refer senator we have nationally determined contributions individual nationally determined underline individual under underline nationally determined.
>> Right?
>> We had those that flexibility before this FTA came into effect >> and we will have that flexibility after.
article changes >> well in article 18.63A it the start of it says in light of paragraph 1 and paragraph 1 refers to the UNFCC the uh the climate agreement and the purpose and goals of the Paris agreement. So it's very clear this to me uh and and the problem with these sort of things is whatever you say here is not determinative particularly for let's say a court that we're an activist group might take action whatever you say doesn't change the text the text clearly refers that this commitment the UNCCC agreement and the Paris agreement requires us to promote the mutual supportiveness of trade and climate policies and measures that contribute to the transition to a net zero economy
>> precisely Senator that is precisely the
>> locked into net zero under this deal.
>> I don't know how you get to that position out
>> I do but don't worry it's a political
>> we've been pretty clear Senator we are trying to be helpful here and we are trying to explain the applicability of what is a very clear and explicit provision referencing the right to regulate. We also have been very clear in our evidence, Senator, that the Paris agreement contains the flexibility for countries to modify their nationally determined contributions. I think you're aware of that.
>> Can you refer to any statement by the government or yourselves before this became a controversial issue? So in the in the days or weeks after the deal was announced where you stated what you just stated there that this deal gez chair not sorry if you're contin just just call can you refer to back to anything that the government or department said in the days or weeks after the deal was struck that made the point you're making tonight that this deal does not lock us in to the Paris agreement or does not lock us in uh to
net zero. Yes, Senator, the minister has made this point on several occasions. I myself made this in evidence to you on the last occasion we met at estimates. Uh it it ought not require constant uh uh reaffirmation because it is clear in the text of the chapter itself. on
notice. Can you refer back to the first time you or the minister made that claim because I think probably the first time was at estimates last time. >> So that's my point that seemingly this has been a interpretation provided when this became controversial not something that was made clear at the time the deal was announced. At the time the deal was announced the government was actually trumpeting quite the opposite. But this is the first time this agreement has made this this a trade deal has made the Paris agreement binding. >> And now it's become controversial. Oh, actually no, we've got lots of flexibility. But when you go to the text of the deal, it is very clear that Paris has mentioned time and time again that uh any flexibility is granted is constrained by requiring it to be consistent with the provisions in the agreement, which include, as the text says in the agreement, the promotion of trade and climate policies and measures that contribute to the transition to a net zero economy.
Well, Senator, uh, it it ought to be obvious that that what is in black and white, uh, the right to regulate applies. It ought to be obvious that the Paris agreement, which contains references to nationally determined contributions, allows for flexibility. Uh, we have stated this on numerous occasions. If you're asking me to go through the record and find references, we'll be happy to do that. Senator,