Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 1:33:46 to 1:37:30
Discussion regarding the FTA's compliance with GAT standards and the role of civil society organizations in domestic advisory groups.
Topics: EU free trade agreement, Trade policy, Integrity
Speakers: George Mina, Senator Matthew Canavan, Cathy Raper
>> But this is a repeated game. It's not just one off and we're looking at a little bit too narrowly in my view. Uh uh uh have we I mean do we get there is also as an economist that's been around these things for a long time. There was a period of time when I was very young when economists used to not look very kindly on bilateral free trade agreements because notionally they were in contravention of most favor nation status and the general agreement on tariffs and trade. Do we get legal advice on whether uh this agreement has met uh the provisions of GAT and the need to substantially cover all trade?
>> Yeah, Senator, um first to address uh a couple of those assertions that we can't leave unanswered. This does not weaken standards or weaken access and it's a judgement. Of course, it is not a >> NF disagree pushover and there were uh there were substantial uh improvements from the deal that was on offer in 2023. So, all of that is uh is has to be corrected. I'm sorry. On the question of uh the GAT standards, the article 24 substantially all trade standards as uh Miss Holmes and Mr. Opra made clear our public international lawyers have been integrally involved in the negotiation of this deal and yes we are confident that this deal meets those high standards. It's one of the highest standards FDA's uh we have ever negotiated and I made clear earlier that it unlike the US Australia FDA left no agriculture sector uncovered and uh in respect of another major uh FDA with that with Japan substantially higher coverage on the tariffs uh coverage uh so it's um it's uh obviously uh consistent with that
>> these are all judgments and as I say it's not just myself but almost all farm groups are coming to the same conclusions about these issues. Um
>> Senator can I also add that there is a review >> just quickly because we have to move on but >> there is a review clause after 5 years on the tariff rate quotas for beef and sheep meat. That was a key request of Australian industry and one we've met in this agreement.
>> Okay. Thank you. Just I wanted to turn back to this both ends they called yeah both ends group. this um the deal gives some special rights to civil society groups. Is that correct or civil society organizations?
Well, I I think on on the previous occasion, Senator, you and I traversed the reference in the agreement to uh the involvement of civil society and consultation with civil society uh business uh industry groups uh and other groups uh as part of the way in which the agreement interfaces with the
community. So is there anything stopping the EU appointing both ends to a to the
>> well
>> or any organization like that that
>> Senator Senator I think to Australia's
second and third largest exports
>> these these are provisions that need to be worked through. I think again we traversed that last time as to the institutional arrangements relating to
the agreement. I just just ask again. Is it is there any restriction on the EU appointing non-govern organizations that are opposed to Australia's coal and gas exports to the domestic advisory group that's referred to in article 22.7 of the agreement?
>> I'll repeat again, Senator, that that is still being worked out and it would be part of the institutional arrangements that are being uh agreed once the agreement comes into force. So, we're not in a position to speculate about who or who the uh the the EU may or may not wish to uh to appoint to these groups.