Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (20 June) . . Page.. 2220 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The power of the WTO can have very serious consequences for the constitutional and regulatory powers of democratically elected legislatures, for the balance of power between different levels of government, and for the balance of power within a parliament and within the executive itself. The trade minister will be making decisions which go well into all areas of domestic policy and we can have no confidence that the diverse range of considerations of the executive will inform the trade minister's position when trade and business concerns are likely to be the primary influence. In any event, trade agreements are usually put as a package and there is little scope for debating the detail. The parliament itself will be significantly excluded.

Most parliamentarians know very little about trade matters. When the multilateral agreement on investment was being debated in Australia, which was only after it was brought into the public arena by citizen campaigns, it was clear that even ministers did not understand its implications for democracy and for government's ability to control the economy. Other levels of government, such as our own, will be even less able to influence the process.

Currently, Australia's constitutional arrangements ensure checks and balances exist through the various levels of government. Different areas of government have particular responsibilities and power is prevented from being too centralised. Local government is particularly important in ensuring local knowledge informs policy decisions, but global trade rules may not fit with local community building initiatives. How does a local community respond to a proclamation from afar that their appropriate local response is actually seen as trade restrictive and is therefore basically illegal? How will further disempowerment affect communities already fragmented and socially excluded?

Local governments, even state governments, are not adequately consulted as the Commonwealth sets its trade agenda. The creation of laws at an international level means that these checks and balances are eroded. It may well suit advocates of deregulation to hand over responsibility in this way-buckpassing has been developed to a fine art in this country-but for the rest of us it is dangerous. It is clear that, once agreements are made with the WTO, legislators may find themselves unable to progress particular policies and programs that are in the interests of their communities. There is, as well, some competition with United Nations conventions. It is impossible to know the effects of WTO rules on established UN treaties and conventions until they are fought out in the disputes settlement process.

Another important aspect of this discussion is how the WTO itself rates in terms of democratic process. Unlike the United Nations, there is no public debate or majority voting. In Seattle, over 60 developing country governments refused to be steamrolled into supporting decisions in which they had no effective voice. They did, at least, have the capacity to resist by blocking consensus.

The WTO has no formal process for non-government observers, although business representatives are often included in government delegations. The dispute-settling process is closed. The burden of proof lies with the party complained against to disprove the complaint. Disputes are often the result of governments imposing standards of environmental protection, public health, labour and so on. However, disputes are settled, not on the merit of these regulations, but on whether they can be proved to be trade discriminatory. There is, of course, an additional serious problem for even the devoted

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .