Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 25 August 2011
Page: 5632

Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (18:33): I speak on two issues today: Australia's reluctance to support independent trade advice for the Pacific island countries and Australian community support for protecting the Amazon forests. Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd has stated that he wants to 'see an aid program that is world-leading in its effectiveness'. One of the key elements of aid effectiveness, as defined by AusAID, is ownership by partner countries who 'exercise effective leadership over their development policies'. Sadly, this goal is not being achieved currently in the Pacific.

Negotiations are currently underway on a regional free trade agreement known as the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus, or PACER Plus, and Pacific Islands Forum leaders in two weeks will make a key decision that will impact the ability of the forum island countries to determine for themselves where they get their trade advice from. At the 2009 meeting of Pacific Islands Forum leaders it was announced that negotiations on PACER Plus would commence. This decision came days after the forum island leaders, when meeting by themselves, had agreed they needed more time. Prior to the launching of the negotiations, Australia's then Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs had said that 'this is not about Australia, there's nothing in'—PACER Plus—'for us … it's just good for the region as a whole and that's why we're doing it'.

The documentation of the arm-twisting, power politics and pressure that went into the launching of these negotiations is starkly at odds with the quaint comments from Australian officials and MPs. For the island countries, independent trade advice was a key prerequisite for launching negotiations and they had made a decision that the Office of the Chief Trade Adviser, the OCTA, should be established to serve that purpose. The forum island countries—the FICs—as sovereign actors, had made a decision about their needs and went to Australia and New Zealand not for permission to establish such a body but only for funding. Any decisions to launch PACER Plus negotiations were on the condition of funding for such a body. Coherence in trade policy is crucial for the Pacific islands, and the push to have one body be the focal point for trade advice makes sense.

There is nothing in the decisions by forum trade ministers and leaders in 2009 that sets the parameters of the OCTA's work exclusively to PACER Plus. The statements by forum trade ministers in 2010 must be viewed through the lens of the political pressures that led to negotiations and are an attempt by Australia and New Zealand to rewrite the agreements of 2009.

The incursions by Australia and New Zealand have not just stopped there. Australia went as far as to insist that the OCTA constitution limit it to only PACER Plus matters and that Australia have the ability to influence amendments to the constitution through decisions made by forum leaders and trade ministers meetings. This was rightly rejected by the forum island countries. Failing this, Australia has offered the OCTA a funding agreement that has been called unworkable. Primarily this is due to Australia's condition that the OCTA only work on PACER Plus and undergo quarterly reviews where the funding could be terminated.

We only have to look across the Pacific to see that it is indeed possible to provide a way forward. The OCTA has recently signed on to an agreement with New Zealand that protects the integrity of the advice and support provided by the OCTA to the FICs, while ensuring full accountability for funds raised, according to a media release from OCTA in August this year. This is in line with the decision by trade ministers in May this year to ensure that funding arrangements should not compromise the independence and integrity of the OCTA.

The question remains as to why Australia cannot provide something suitable. What possible barriers to such an agreement could there be? Why is it proposed to use AusAID money in this way? Any sovereign country has the right to determine where its policy advice comes from. In technical areas, like trade agreements, this is crucial. If a country cannot determine where its advice comes from then it is robbed of the opportunity to make decisions based on its own interests. Australia would under no circumstances accept such a compromise of its sovereignty. Yet through its aid program the government is attempting to make such an imposition on the forum island countries. The islands have asserted that the OCTA is theirs and should be under their control and not the control of all forum countries.

It is a sad irony that I stand in the building that asserts Australia's sovereignty, asking for it to allow other countries to do the same. I call on the Australian government, when it attends this year's Pacific Island Forum Leaders Meeting, to live up to its call for good governance and aid ownership in the region and respect the right of forum island leaders to decide for themselves what the mandate of the OCTA is. At the end of the day, they are asking only for funding, not permission.

On the second matter, many thousands of concerned people have come together this week in united opposition to the assault on the Amazon's rainforests and its peoples from an unprecedented level of development. Monday of this week, 22 August, was International Day of Action for the Amazon. I pay tribute to the many Australians who rallied to the cause in Canberra as part of a worldwide action held in 17 countries and six US cities. As the Greens forests spokesperson, I add my voice to this worldwide coalition of Brazilian and international non-government organisations, human rights activists, environmentalists, students and concerned citizens.

The focus of this week's action was to call on the Brazilian government to reverse their recent decision to grant approval to build the Belo Monte hydro-electric dam on the Xingu River in the Amazon Basin, one of the Amazon's major tributaries. If built, it will become the third largest hydro-electric dam in the world, behind the Three Gorges Dam in China and the Itaipu Dam on the border of Brazil and Paraguay. As well, the day's action voiced opposition to the 60 other dams that have been given the go-ahead by the Brazilian government and which will flood the heart of the Amazon rainforest and displace tens of thousands of local indigenous tribal people who have been living in harmony with the Amazon jungle for millennia.

The Belo Monte Dam project will have devastating social and environmental consequences for indigenous peoples and other riverbank communities living along a 100-kilometre stretch of the Xingu River, such as family farmers, fisherfolk and Quilombolas—the descendants of African slaves who escaped their slave plantations in Brazil and made their home along the river. The affected stretch of river is known as the Big Bend, where 80 per cent of the river's flow will be diverted into an artificial reservoir. The dam will cost $20 billion to construct and has attracted unprecedented subsidies for huge dam construction companies, raising serious questions among the Brazilian public about the project's efficiency and economic viability.

Brazil's congress is also preparing to approve a major roll-back of the Brazilian forest code, which could have disastrous social, economic and environmental impacts in the Amazon and other forest regions. Local people defending the forest, who are questioning the approval process for the dams, are being murdered and intimidated. Their government is failing them. An amnesty for illegal deforesters that is coupled with proposed changes to the forest code has also sent a message that unlawful activities will be tolerated by the state.

Given the Belo Monte Dam's astronomical cost, aside from accounting for its massive social and environmental impacts, Brazil would be better off pursuing more sustainable energy alternatives. A 2007 study by the World Wildlife Fund Brazil found that, by 2020, Brazil could cut its forecast electricity demand by 40 per cent by investing in energy efficiency. The power savings would equal the output of 14 Belo Monte hydro-electric plants. The study projected national electricity savings of up to $19 billion by 2020 and a growth of eight million new jobs through power generation from renewable sources such as wind, solar and small hydro.

The struggle to save the Amazon rainforest is of critical importance to our planet, given the important role that this forest plays in the world's natural systems. I urge others to find out more about this issue and to add their voice to the call to halt this disaster. I believe the two issues I have spoken about tonight, trade relations in the Pacific and the development in the Amazon rainforest, require the attention of the Australian government to prioritise the needs of local people and their environment.