Senator MARSHALL (3:22 PM) —Again we hear today government senator after government senator getting up and singing the praises of an agreement that they have not yet seen and have not yet read. It is an agreement that has not yet been released and it really beggars belief that the government senators are able so confidently to say what is in the national interest. What is happening is that they are confusing their political interest with the national interest, and we on this side of the chamber will not do that. Labor's position is simple and clear. We will analyse the agreement and make a considered determination on whether or not this proposed free trade agreement is in the Australian national interest.

Government senators seem to be relying on an initial study done at the height of the free trade agreement negotiations that indicated that a full and free trade agreement—one that provided absolutely free and total and immediate access to all markets both ways—may deliver up to an extra $4 billion a year for the Australian economy. Of course, when that study was undertaken the Australian dollar was worth around 50-odd US cents, and that has changed considerably since then.

We have seen how quickly the government realised that they had oversold the benefits of this agreement, because we did not get anything like full and immediate free access to both markets. The author of the report, Dr Andy Stoeckel, said on ABC radio on 11 February:

He was referring to the estimate of $US4 billion. Even further, a significant proportion of the $US4 billion came from the elimination of the Foreign Investment Review Board, the abolition of restrictions on new investment in Telstra and Qantas, and the abolition of the four-pillars policy of our banking system—that did not occur. And 25 per cent of that $4 billion was derived from free access to sugar, and we all know that sugar was not included in the US free trade agreement.

The government is really just resorting to the spin that the deal will generate big bucks. That is the best they can come up with: big bucks. That is a nonsense. It is a nonsense for them to get up here and propose that the Senate should consider passing enabling legislation without even having seen the agreement and without even having any real understanding of what the impacts of this agreement will be on this country.

We even see Mr Vaile now backing away from his earlier claims about the size of the benefits to this country. At the Press Club on 12 February Mr Vaile said:

Indeed this has been oversold but the government, rather than actually considering the benefits when they have seen the agreement, continue to want to push the agenda because they have been seduced by the notion of `free'. This government thinks that they are getting something for nothing, and without even reading the agreement they will tell us that a free trade agreement, which this is not, is going to be good for us. It is possible that at the end of the day the agreement could produce winners all around, but until we see the agreement we cannot determine that.

I just want to go to something that I consider very important. Being a senator from Victoria, where the manufacturing base of this country is located, I would like to go to what the Office of the United States Trade Representative say in their public information when they refer to the manufacturing industry. Their document, `An FTA for America's manufacturing sector', says:

That is $US2 billion in extra exports into this country. How many jobs is that going to create? How many jobs is it going to potentially destroy? (Time expired)

Question agreed to.