The advantage of extensive consultation is well demonstrated by this Inquiry. Throughout the course of this Inquiry, the Committee conducted hearings around the country, which provided a valuable opportunity for the Senators to meet with concerned stakeholders. The Committee has heard from organisations and individuals ranging in size from the huge Australian Wheat Board, to an independent peanut farmer from Queensland. From academics and actresses to lobbyists, unions and industry representatives—the Committee managed to hear from them all. The benefit of such widespread consultation is that you get a broad range of views, and through this process the Committee managed to build a clear picture of the likely impact these trade agreements may have on Australia's future. A number of witnesses identified the significant opportunities that may open up for individual sectors of our economy as a result of better access to overseas markets through trade agreements. Having said that, there was wide consensus regarding the range of various concerns that would compromise the advantages that could potentially be gained.

As a result, the Committee's Report thoroughly analyses the various issues of concern with respect to social policy objectives that may be compromised as a result of GATS and the proposed USFTA. It discusses the potential impact these agreements may have on the right of future Parliaments to freely regulate in the public interest, and the importance of retaining the ability to deliver essential public services. The Report also makes recommendations urging the Government to protect the PBS, Australian content in both traditional and new forms of media, quarantine rules and foreign investment regulation.

A particularly pleasing aspect of the Report is the fact that the Committee has concluded that trade agreements should be brought to the Parliament before ratification for debate. This is something the Democrats have emphasised and repeatedly called for this throughout the year. Parliamentary approval of treaties has been an important part of Australian Democrat policy for some time. Former NSW Senator Vicki Bourne introduced the Parliamentary Approval of Treaties Bill in1995, which we continue to pursue. Throughout this year, we have emphasised the importance of this issue, and have continually called for agreements such as the GATS and the proposed USFTA to be brought before the Parliament for scrutiny and debate.

We would like to make one distinction, however, between our policy in this regard and the approach taken in this Report. The Democrats appreciate that a distinguishing feature of modern international trade agreements is that unlike other types of international treaties, trade agreements are strictly enforceable, and impose (as the Report states) `binding justiciable constraints on government'.

However, the Report argues that this therefore establishes greater justification for Parliamentary approval of trade agreements, as opposed to `conventional' treaties. We understand that the focus of the Committee in this Inquiry is on the impact of trade agreements specifically, and can therefore appreciate why Parliamentary approval of trade agreements is the main concern of the Report. However, it is our strong belief that Parliamentary approval of treaties should not be restricted to trade agreements alone.

As a matter of principle, we believe Australia should consider itself strictly bound by all international agreements it enters into, irrespective of the nature of dispute settlement procedures contained within each treaty. The mere fact that one treaty is not as `enforceable' as another is not, in our opinion, sufficient reason to consider it exempt from the need for Parliamentary consideration. The Democrats will continue to support the need for parliamentary approval of all international agreements.

Having said this, the recommendations of the Report in relation to the Parliamentary approval of trade agreements propose a useful process to ensure that there is greater democratic legitimacy in seeking to bind Australia to major trade agreements.

This process, which is outlined in the Report, would ensure that the elected representatives of the people of Australia have an opportunity to have a voice in the process of entering into binding international commitments. The Parliament would have a role in approving the Government's priorities for trade negotiations, which would give the Government a greater democratic mandate in negotiations. A concluded trade agreement that conformed to already agreed objectives would be more likely to receive final Parliamentary approval.

This process is similar to the one that operates in the United States, where Congress has an opportunity to accept or reject any major agreement entered into by the Executive Government. It is time that Australia embraced a similar arrangement. The current system, where commitments are made by our Executive without consultation that have a significant impact on every facet of Australia's economic and social structure and bind us long into the future, is inappropriate and lacks democratic legitimacy.

In conclusion, once again I'd like to thank the Committee Secretariat for their impressive efforts in producing a report of an outstanding quality. I commend this report to the Parliament, and urge the Government to seriously consider its findings and take these recommendations on board.

The General Agreement on Trade in Services and the proposed US Free Trade Agreement are significant agreements that are likely to have a major impact on Australia's future. We must proceed with caution—embracing the possibilities that are opened up as a result of greater trading opportunities, but ensuring that these are not at the expense of social policy objectives and the long-term national interest.