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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (20 June) . . Page.. 2231 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

from developing countries and they were extremely concerned about the impact of globalisation on poor, marginalised and socially excluded people in their countries. They were saying that economic globalisation as it exists now is having a very bad effect on the environment, on social justice and on democracy. I am talking about marginalised countries with huge poverty, such as South Africa and Kenya.

If members read the transcript of the proceedings, they will get a bit of an idea of what the reality is. Mary Robinson spoke on human rights. Last time there was a discussion on racism in South Africa. For the first time the economic dimension was in there. The gender issue was discussed. I have upstairs piles of papers which I would be delighted to move around this Assembly if people want to read them and look at what the analysis, where occurring, is showing about the impact of the current form of globalisation. I am not saying that there should not be any kind of trade rules. I am saying that I am very concerned, as are most informed commentators, about the way the current economic globalisation trade rules are being developed.

I was interested to hear Mr Humphries say that he does consult; he consults with peak industry bodies. He has just supported everything I have said: the agenda is one that is informed by the corporate sector. That is why it is out of balance and that is why people are concerned. Mr Humphries talks about treaties as if this is an ordinary treaty. It is not an ordinary treaty; it is an extraordinary treaty. There are very severe sanctions tied up with these rules. When we have disputes about other treaties there is an open process. The United Nations is a fairly democratic body. I went through in my speech how undemocratic the WTO is in its dispute settlement processes. I have explained all that and I will not go through it again.

Not only do we have a situation where we are having internationalised rules being developed which will stop governments at all levels being able to have a different view into the future, but also the way that they resolve disputes is not democratic and is not open or accountable. That is a very serious situation. That is why I have moved this motion. Why is it that so many governments round the world are now asking these questions? There is an agenda, the free trade agenda, that people like the Liberals are pushing. We have just heard from members of that side of the house the usual ideological rhetoric. But it is just not the case, I am afraid, that that view is being shared across the world. What we are seeing is much greater concern round the world.

This motion is not against GATS. I have not done what the UK councils are doing. The series of council motions now being put in the UK are actually anti-GATS motions. I knew that that would not get up here. I know that people need time to think about these issues, so what I have brought to this place today is no more than a request to do some work, a request to do more than read a Tom Connors article in the Canberra Times or look at the web page of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which is supporting a government which has an agenda of free trade, even though locally and domestically they are saying that they are pulling back from the concept of free trade because they know that they would get voted out over their ridiculous approach to these matters. They are now saying, "Maybe competition policy is not quite that good. Maybe we need to look at the public interest again. Maybe we did not get it quite right." By signing up to GATS, forget the public interest argument. I have already explained in this place how it works. There will be no capacity in Australia to have that public interest argument once we have signed these agreements. That is why people are worried. That is

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