ACTING CHAIR —Mr Jeffers, I understand you are appearing as a private citizen. We have received a submission from the Global Learning Centre.

Resolved (on motion by Senator Cooney ):

That the document be received as evidence and authorised for publication.

ACTING CHAIR —I invite you to make a brief statement.

Mr Jeffers —Having had the benefit of listening to the evidence of the preceding speakers, in particular Mr Downey, Professor Hiscock, Associate Professor McDonald and Mr Grace, I do not think I can add anything to what they have already said so competently and comprehensively. As a lawyer, I wish to endorse and repeat what they have said for the reasons they have advanced and to assert that the Australian government should under no circumstances become a party to the MAI in its present draft form.

Mr Boyd —Unfortunately, I have not had the privilege of being able to listen to a lot of the previous submissions this afternoon. I have only recently arrived and regrettably I cannot reflect on those, but I am sure I would support and applaud any concerns that have been made to the committee today that would be highlighting concerns about the possible impact of the MAI on Australia.

I guess what I very briefly wish to do is express concerns about the implications of the MAI on the developing world—developing nations particularly. I think it is quite appropriate to do so. We are as Australians concerned not only about ourselves but about our neighbours and, certainly in the case of a developing world, our near neighbours.

It may seem a slight tangent, but I think it was significant that as recently as last Monday our own Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer, released a media statement publicising the findings of a Newspoll which indicated that just over half of all Australians believe on a moral basis that Australians should provide overseas aid to developing nations and a further 33 per cent of Australians feel that it is in the long-term interests of Australia to provide overseas aid. So there is clear evidence that we have a large proportion of our population clearly concerned about the welfare of the developing world.

From the point of view of democratic process, it is of clear concern that the MAI is clearly excluding a large chunk of our world. As I understand it, only five non-OECD

nations have been included in the negotiation process, those nations being Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Slovakia and Hong Kong. From the point of view of global citizenship and global participatory democracy, it is of great concern that so many people who are going to be potentially affected and affected severely by the MAI are not involved in the negotiation process.

I highlight some of the recent findings of the United Nations. I am quoting here the United Nations Development Program's human development report from 1997. It has indicated from its findings that between the years 1995 and 2001 global income is set to increase from somewhere between $212 billion to $510 billion. This sounds like good news, but it is not so good news for the developing world, where the least developed nations in the same period will lose up to $600 million per year with sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest part of our planet, facing a loss of up to $1.2 billion in that same period.

In specific reference to investment, that same human development report notes that 90 per cent of foreign direct investment currently circulates only in North America, Europe, Japan and China, which represents only 30 per cent of the world's population, with the remaining 10 per cent of foreign direct investment going to 70 per cent of the world's population. So, while there is a lot of global rhetoric about the universal benefits of liberalising both trade and investment practices, in reality only a small proportion of the world is enjoying the benefits of that liberalisation.

I guess what I would be arguing is: that is a clear case for not going down the path of the MAI but for formulating a truly international agreement that includes not only Western and developed governments but all governments—and not just governments but representatives of a broad cross-section of the community, such as trade unions, human rights groups and community organisations, so that we come up with an authentically international agreement on what investment should look like.

Investment is not meant to benefit just multinational corporations. It is meant to benefit the people and it is government's responsibility to ensure that it does. So it is on the basis that we are here not only for ourselves but also for our neighbours, who are in far more dire straits than we are, that we do not support the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.

ACTING CHAIR —So it would be your contention that Australia provides leadership to its region and what we do is important to our region and also that the MAI in itself will further exacerbate this condition that you have identified that will see global capital concentrating more on the developed countries?

Mr Boyd —Absolutely. Here we are on 24 July 1998, long before the MAI is to be signed, yet already one in five people on our planet lives in absolute poverty. What are those figures going to look like 20 years from now if we sign the MAI? That is my concern.

ACTING CHAIR —I thank both of you for participating in this discussion this afternoon.

[3.10 p.m.]