Senator MARGETTS (4:31 PM) —This report, Australia's trade relationship with India: Commonwealth, common language, cricket and beyond , bears some connection to the report about Australia's trade relationship with Hong Kong and Indonesia. I make that connection because during the inquiry and hearings on Australia's trade relationship with Indonesia I sought with the committee to get some understanding of the on-the-ground realities in Indonesia. This included an understanding of the internal politics of the country and what the relationship between Australia and Indonesia might be like in a post-Suharto Indonesia. To that end, I suggested a witness or witnesses that committee members could speak to who would not give them the idea that it was a static or hopeful situation or one set at a particular point in time. As such, they would have given information which might have been of some use. It did not happen then, and I do not think it has necessarily happened in this report.

I was a bit concerned about the subtitle of the report, which is Commonwealth, common language, cricket and beyond. It sounds very much to be about jolly hockey sticks and the old boys club. The situation in India is chan ging. It is not back in the 1950s; it is changing. We have perhaps not acknowledged to any extent the impact of those changes on India. If as a committee we do not attempt to find out the social and economic impacts of major changes in trade on a country that has had a very specific self-reliant trade policy for a long time, we will probably continue to be surprised when, in a general election, there is a change of government and people choose a fairly radical, economic nationalist approach. `What a surprise,' we will say, `how did this happen?'

I suppose that part of it is that Australia has not acknowledged the major social turmoil in India that has occurred as a result of the free trade agenda. There have been major changes to employment and people's life expectations. They are beginning to see that some of those things were built from Ghandian times, when India was basically ripped off by colonisers in a trade relationship. They got to a point where they were producing almost nothing. They were producing natural resources, and they were having their terms of trade dictated by another country. They had ceased to be able to produce a lot of their own goods and services.

The symbolic gesture at the time was that Ghandi became a spinner. He encouraged people to spin to make a political statement about India reclaiming its ability to meet its own basic needs, clothing being one of them. It got to be a very strong policy in India, considering its population, needs and employment situation. If the people could produce goods and services and value added products using their own technology and personnel, they did. It got to the point where India was even producing its own whiskey, which was probably not a good thing to do, considering the need for a particular water quality in that process.

There were many things to be admired about the post-Ghandian time, where Indians virtually pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. They became self-reliant and dictated the terms to other countries and, especially, to multinational corporations, which would otherwise go into a country and determine in advance the terms of investment. India chose not to do that. It was one of the few countries specifically outside the Soviet bloc that did not, for instance, have Coca-Cola established there for a long time.

Things are changing in India. The push for globalisation and so-called free trade has reached India as it has everywhere else. People realise that changes need to be made, but they still criticise the claim that free trade will bring all the benefits that it is meant to. Therefore, it is not surprising that when there is a change of government people respond. They will respond if they have not seen the benefits that they were promised, just as Australians responded to the Keating push for free trade and competition policy. The benefits included more markets for beef and wool and better prices for primary commodities. There was going to be an improvement in the balance of trade, but that is now off the agenda. There was going to be more choice and better outcomes for consumers. Consumers are finding that they are being pushed into the international global agenda. The big players are getting their needs met, but small consumers are being left off, particularly if they are bank consumers or consumers who do not matter to the large corporations.

You can also see a parallel with Australia. The push for globalisation and globalised free trade as a result of the Uruguay Round of GATT had a massive impact. Substantial social comments were made and large protest rallies were held. There were riots in some parts of India, just as there were in other parts of the world. If the committee had gone to India, and if I had been able to find time away from my electorate to go to India, I was hoping that the committee would have had a chance to talk to groups in India about the different viewpoints amongst groups in India about globalisation, globalised free trade and the impacts of the World Trade Organisation.

If, as a parliament, we understand the impact those issues are having in those countries then, apart from anything else, it might help us understand when we get a fairly substantial kick in the rear end from the electorate in parts of Australia. India is an almost totally closed market going to a substantially open market, and what is hap pening there might help us to understand some of the elements within our own economy and within other economies in the South-East Asian region.

I am making a plea that, when committees look at trade relationships with other countries, they understand that it is necessary to look at the social and economic impacts on the ground, how that has been spread throughout the economies, and how that is likely to impact later on in terms of political change. Otherwise, as a parliament, we will continue to be surprised when there is some substantial change in the politics of India or Indonesia because we have failed to understand that major global economic changes have social, economic and political impacts. It may well be a waste of time if committees of the parliament are not prepared to look into those aspects or if they try to pretend that everything is rosy in relation to trade between Australia and other countries. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.