ACTING CHAIR —For the Hansard record, could you please state the capacity in which you appear before the committee.

Ms Lamont —I appear for Soroptimist International. For those people who do not know the organisation, it is a business and professional women's group. It is one of the oldest business and professional women's groups in the world and it is certainly the largest at the moment. As well as in service, it works in advocacy for others. It is really mostly in terms of the advocacy for others that our submission has been put.

We work at local, national and international levels. Because we felt that largely the national issues would be taken up by single issue groups here within Australia, a lot of the submission has been focused on developing countries. Generally, whilst we would not disagree with the need for international rules governing investment, we do take issue with the MAI because it is an agreement that has excluded the input of some of the major stakeholders in development: the developing countries, NGOs—particularly women's NGOs—and the general public. We feel that the negotiation process is clearly undemocratic.

We question the lack of protection that is offered to the environment in the MAI and the effect it will have on the priorities and policies of national governments, particularly the governments of developing countries, on labour standards and sustainable human development in general. As has been pointed out this morning and just recently, the MAI is based on the assumption that unbridled investment is good for everyone. I think that experience has shown that it is not. It can destabilise financial systems, lead to the lowering of environmental and labour standards and increase unemployment, and we have plenty of evidence of that in the world.

We would argue that the MAI needs to incorporate international regulations on things such as the environment and labour standards, and that was discussed this morning. We would certainly argue for that. We would argue that they need to be binding on investors, and this can only be done in negotiation with everybody concerned, that is, with all countries, the NGO community, trade unions and all people who are concerned. But our major concern in our submission is the potential danger of the MAI to the economic wellbeing of women, especially those women in developing countries. I would like to expand a little more on that.

ACTING CHAIR —Please do.

Ms Lamont —Women's NGOs have always hoped for change through democratic policy making powers of national governments to make laws and address their needs. There is plenty of evidence in Australia that that has worked very well for us and evidence is coming forward of that being so in developing countries. Our fear is that the provisions in the MAI would remove this power and actually place it in the hands of multinationals. For instance, we would think that beneficial laws that discriminate for women and assist women could be challenged by corporate investors under this agreement.

At the international level, the question of UN conventions and declarations has come up this morning, and there are many of these. The inference this morning seemed to be that in some ways they were country specific. We would argue that they have been well argued in the international community and many of them are there to address the disparities for women and their families. There is no recognition of these in the MAI draft. There is a recognition of Agenda XXI and one other agreement, but that is in the preamble and that would not be binding anyway. We would like to see this recognition binding, and I will say some more about that in a moment.

In 1995 there was a world conference on women, and from that world conference came the platform for action. There were 189 member states at that conference, and they agreed to the platform for action which emanated from the conference. There were reservations but, to the best of my ability to discover, there were no reservations in the area covered by the MAI. So a very public document has been agreed to, and I think it would be good to look at some of the things that have been agreed to within that document. It contains 12 critical areas of concern. The first of these is the persistent and increasing burden of poverty on women. For those of us who were at the conference, this was often looked upon by people as pertaining more to women in developing countries. However, I think there is plenty of evidence in Australia that this is not so. If we look at unemployment statistics and the statistics of poverty in Australia, we see that women are disproportionately represented.

The lead-up to the conference was an interesting one in that many of the organisations that were involved—and people like the World Bank were involved—brought forth figures, which I think was probably the reason why there was so much concern over poverty at that conference. According to those figures, women represent 70 per cent of the world's 1.3 billion poorest of the poor. Women represent 40 per cent of the world's work force in agriculture, a quarter in industry and a third in services. We would say that there are many hidden statistics within these figures because a lot of agreement is yet to be had on what counts as work within those statistics. But those statistics show that women are major players in this debate.

UN documents show that women farmers grow 50 per cent of the world's food—80 per cent in some African countries—and they contribute 60 per cent of hours worked. However, they earn only 10 per cent of the world's income and they own only one per cent of the world's property. This was the situation that was being addressed in the

platform for action. We feel and fear that the MAI will, in fact, affect the lives of all these women even more because they are excluded from the negotiating process and what, in fact, has been negotiated in that process.

If we look at the actions that were agreed to in that platform for action—and I would remind you that the 189 governments did agree to this, although we do recognise that this is not a binding document, but it was possible to get 189 governments to agree—those governments agreed that women in poverty and women in the economy were very closely linked as, in fact, they were with health and environment, but I will concentrate on those first two at the moment.

They agreed that policies and programs needed to address the structural causes of poverty and be directed at eradicating poverty and eliminating gender based inequalities. They agreed that it should be ensured that structural adjustment programs are designed to minimise negative effects on disadvantaged groups and to support financial institutions that serve low incomes, small scale and micro scale women, entrepreneurs and producers, and, where necessary, undertake legislative reform to ensure that women have equal access to economic resources and equal opportunity. That does not sit with the MAI. Because of that, we fear that, if the platform for action is not in any way acknowledged within this document, these hard-won actions that were agreed to will be lost.

When it comes to women and the environment, a decision was made to involve women actively in environmental decision making at all levels and to integrate gender concerns and perspectives in policies and programs. There was an agreement that the world would strengthen or establish mechanisms at the national, regional and international levels to assess the impact of development. We do not see any of this being addressed in that MAI as we know it has not been addressed, but we would argue that this needs to be addressed and we would argue further that it probably may have been addressed had the scope of the negotiation been much wider. The World Bank was not so much a part of the negotiations at the conference, but it agreed that it would examine grants and lending to allocate loans and grants for implementing the platform for action in developing countries, especially Africa and the least developed countries. We wonder how this is going to be able to come about under the MAI.

We feel that innovative policies are needed to address the disparity. I do not think that we can go down the same road that we have been travelling. There are programs that are looking at such things as innovative policies. For instance, the United Nations Development Fund for Women has programs that are funded through the UN and by member states to encourage sustainable economic development for the benefit of women. It has programs that are already under constant attack because they are being forced to compete with multinational investors. We would question how much worse this will be under the MAI because it will reinforce this competition and reinforce the notion of export manufacturing.

ACTING CHAIR —Could I invite you to make your remarks as brief as possible? Could you try to bring your opening statement to a close?

Ms Lamont —We feel that the MAI is not a viable strategy for sustainable environment development. We would argue that we should be aiming for sustainable human environment development. The MAI is, in fact, even less helpful in this respect. People have talked about what is already happening where there are less than perfect regulations. There are existing examples of what would happen under total deregulation that has been asked for under the MAI. We would argue that ultimately there is a lack of obligation on investors, and this came up this morning. We feel that investors must take responsibilities. We would even go so far as to argue that investor responsibility should take precedence over investor rights.

ACTING CHAIR —Could I suggest to you that, at the heart of your argument—and it comes through your submission well—is the fact that there was really one select self-interested group involved in the negotiation process, and that would be Treasury officials and people looking at the sorts of broad economic matters rather than the specific matters. Do you think that that perhaps accounts for why a lot of these other international matters that you have very well explained and brought out this afternoon as well were not even considered? In other words, from what you have said, the MAI conflicts almost wholly with a lot of other well established human rights arrangements.

Ms Lamont —I would agree with you, and I am sure that that is why this has taken place in this way. Unless we go back to the drawing board and unless it is renegotiated right from the beginning and there is much broader input, I do not see that it will change. I think a select group is now interested in this and I do not see that the select group will change, unless they are actually forced to change.

ACTING CHAIR —In relation to binding agreements on environment, labour, health, safety, human rights standards and those sorts of things, how do you then see investment arrangements between countries? I guess these days companies operating in various countries often do it internally beyond the gaze of government. How do you see those matters actually being monitored and enforced?

Ms Lamont —That is an alternative way of going, but in many ways we would argue that, if the negotiations are international, it gives it more teeth. We are particularly looking at where women are concerned because we feel that in many developing countries where there is no particular commitment to raising the status of women this is one instrument that women could actually use to assist in raising their own status. If things become the province of investors in countries, we do not think the outcome of that will augur so well for women.

Senator COONEY —You say Soroptimist International has branches all around the world.

Ms Lamont —Yes.

Senator COONEY —Are you able to help us with the attitude taken overseas by the branches there? Have you discussed this treaty with people overseas?

Ms Lamont —No, we have not.

Senator COONEY —But what you express is the Australian view?

Ms Lamont —Yes.

Senator COONEY —I see you refer to the south-west Pacific?

Ms Lamont —Yes.

Senator COONEY —Would your words include that or have you not had an opportunity yet to speak to the south-west Pacific?

Ms Lamont —No, we have not had an opportunity to do this. I am speaking as the national representative, so I am speaking on behalf of the Australian soroptimists.

Senator COONEY —Thanks very much.

ACTING CHAIR —So you obviously then would have a concern? This committee is set up to see what is in it for Australia. Because we are a key ingredient in what happens in the south-west Pacific, obviously we send signals to the south-west Pacific by our own attitudes.

Ms Lamont —And also, where our own organisation is concerned, I think one of the criticisms of this document has been what has been called its secrecy. It certainly has not been negotiated very openly. I think the lack of knowledge means that, in fact, what we have to do and have been doing is making women in the developing countries aware that the treaty actually exists. This is why we have no feedback as yet. This is something, though, that we will continue to pursue.

Senator COONEY —You are pursuing that?

Ms Lamont —Yes.

Senator COONEY —Thanks for that.

ACTING CHAIR —I think it is a matter that this committee will continue to pursue as well. If you have any further comments to make, please do so. Otherwise I would like to thank you on behalf of the committee for your time this afternoon.

Ms Lamont —Thank you.

ACTING CHAIR —Thank you very much. In view of the fact that the witness scheduled to be here for 2.30 is not here—and that is understandable, given that we are running about 37 minutes ahead of time, which assists the committee in its travel problems—we will hear from some individuals now in order to make sure that all of those who are coming to give brief statements of a few minutes each can do so, because there are a lot of people here. I suspect that limiting statements to about three minutes should be sufficient. If the committee needs to ask further questions, we shall.

I say firstly to all those individuals, as well as to those broader submitters, that we really do appreciate the time you have taken to come here today. I do not want you to think for a moment that the brevity that we are advising you of is meant to diminish the importance of your views on this. We appreciate the written submissions we have received; they are an important element in the overall complexion, the picture, that the committee is getting as we are conducting this open and accountable process of inquiry.

Before we do take some comments, I would like to note that, in fact even today in one of the Gold Coast newspapers, there has been some criticism about this committee's efforts to advertise, to make it obvious to all and sundry, that these hearings themselves are taking place.

For the record and for all those in attendance, I would like to state that the inquiry was in fact advertised in the national press at considerable expense, not just in the Weekend Australian . The committee also sent out hundreds of letters with terms of reference and background information deliberately inviting submissions from organisations right across the country. In fact, as a result of those efforts 850 submissions and 400 form letters were received. So, if you like, 1,250 people have responded to it. Everybody who has put in a submission in any of those forms has received a copy of the interim report, in which the committee recommended that no further action be taken by government while consultation continued and until the case of what is in it for Australia has been proved.

The inquiry and the hearings have also been advertised on the Internet. Whilst I submit that not every home has one, a lot of interested groups do have access to Internet technology. Overall, the committee has a modest budget, as is in keeping with all committees of the parliament. We do advertise all treaties that are under consideration. In addition, all treaties are tabled in the parliament for the viewing of all 224 members and senators so that they are under no doubt at all that the parliament and, through that, the constituents of each of those senators and members are advised and are able to contribute to discussion about those treaties.

With regard to the MAI matter, the committee decided that the issue was so important that it was necessary to advertise as widely as possible—given also the budget that takes place. To advertise in every newspaper, in every document that is published in

Australia, would cost not thousands but millions. I think the fact that the media have been reporting elements of our approach and our public discussions to date—there have been a number of articles in a number of different newspapers—proves that there is some coverage of this matter. I do not know whether anybody from the media is here today; they were certainly invited to attend. Nevertheless, I thought it was important for everyone to understand that we have certainly been keen to have as many people aware of this process as possible.

[1.57 p.m.]