Senator BROWN (6:21 PM) —I find the process here totally unsatisfactory. This is a monumentally important piece of legislation. It is a substitution for the Australian parliament looking at the US-Australia free trade agreement itself, something that both houses of the US Congress did. This is a very complex trade agreement that Australia is entering into. It has massive ramifications, not just across the spectrum for Australians now but forever into the future. In many respects it binds the hands of this parliament forever into the future as well.

One problem that we have with the process here is that we have complex enabling legislation—two bills brought forward by the government—and it is impossible to adequately draft amendments which will safeguard the interests in a whole range of areas which the Greens are concerned about and which are not even touched upon by these pieces of legislation. It is a sham process. We should have the full agreement before us. That is what the parliament should be looking at. This is not some rump of democracy at the behest of the Prime Minister or George W. Bush; this is the sovereign parliament of this country. Where is the free trade agreement brought before the parliament by the government for its adjudication? The government has decided it is not going to do that. Instead, it has brought a couple of bits of legislation to make sure that the free trade agreement—and its hegemony over this parliament—is passed. We dispute it from the outset.

On top of that, we have controversial amendments coming from the opposition, which are complex and require legal explanation, and we have not had them before us until this committee began sitting five minutes ago. No doubt other amendments are in the offing. We have some amendments before us—we have a running sheet. The government does not even know whether the opposition amendments are on the running sheet. It is a totally unsatisfactory process. This chamber needs time to digest those amendments. It would be entirely appropriate for us to go away now and look at the amendments and the legal opinion on the impacts on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the so-called `evergreening' of pharmaceuticals in Australia. We should have had these amendments over the weekend. There is no headlong rush to get this agreement settled. Even taking the terms entered into, 1 January 2005 is the implementation date. We cannot be hijacked and forced into making decisions without due consideration. That is not the role of the Senate, nor is it our role to get things out of the way for the big parties to have an election. That is not our role either. Our role is to adequately look at every particle of the free trade agreement and try to make it the best agreement that the people of this country can have.

The Greens are far from satisfied that that is the case right across the spectrum. It is an enormously complex piece of legislation. It has huge ramifications. How do you interpret the legislation? As a joint committee set-up, outside the reach of this parliament, to arbitrate. Underneath all that, it could set up a range of other committees to interpret, arbitrate and decide outside the purview of this parliament—for example, between Australia and US corporations in future. So much for democracy a la the period of John Howard.

This is a totally wrong process. It demeans democracy, it demeans this parliament. This is not about the free trade agreement—it is not before us. It is about a couple of pieces of legislation that the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. Mr John Howard, has agreed with George W. Bush and his administration need to be passed through this parliament so that this free trade agreement will have rule over this parliament forever and a day. This process here is not about this parliament ruling on this free trade agreement; it is about this free trade agreement having rule over this parliament, straitjacketing this parliament in so many ways forever and a day. Even when it comes to repudiating the agreement—if the government finds that it is untenable for Australia at some future date—that is left to the executive. It is not the role of this parliament to do that, as the agreement unfolds. It is a derogation of this parliament; it is a slight on this parliament and it is a wrong process.

How dare the government say,' We're going to make the most monumental agreement with the United States and anybody who stands in the way of that is not a friend of the United States.' We are, but friendship demands that you look after your own interests and that you respect each other's democracy. Even if another country does not respect our democracy, you would expect that our Prime Minister would. This process says that he has second-rated it to his own immediate political interest. There may be, by and large, a compliant press—with some notable exceptions—and a press gallery and a business community in Australia. But they are not the representation of the average Australian who has his or her democratic rights, their security about Australian culture, their assuredness that they will have cheap drugs when they are very ill—even if they are poor—under the great system that we have in Australia, which is second to none and came from the Chifley government. But not now.

We have a second rate agreement here and a so-called `free trade agreement'. This is a restricted trade agreement. What happened to agriculture? The free trade agreement was going to be the boon for Australian agriculture. The door shut on sugar to start off with. The taxpayers in this country paid $400 million upfront to fix that one. Far from being a free trade agreement, it is an expensive trade agreement. The Greens will not allow this position to stand without a long and detailed review here in the chamber of what is involved in the trade agreement, disadvantaged as we might be by the process, which is wrong. So expect some searching questions and we expect the right answers. If the Labor Party, in its wisdom, brings in amendments—which are amenable to the government in one way or another—and votes, as it just did for the second reading of the free trade agreement, nevertheless, without those amendments, expect that we will ask questions of the Labor Party as well, the alternative government. Senator Conroy indicates that he assents to that and I therefore expect we will get answers.

It is very important to have a parliamentary debate for a healthy democracy and for those millions of Australians who are worried about this agreement. They might be beguiled by the complexity of it—everybody in this chamber probably is as well—but it is our job to unravel it and to ensure that at the end of the day this parliament is supreme in directing the future for this country's interests.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Senator BROWN —I move Greens amendment (1) on the running sheet:

4 Definitions

This is a simple definitional matter. It relates to and is important for later amendments. It simply states that, where there is reference to the US-Australia free trade agreement, the word `agreement' means that.

This is an appropriate time to look—at the outset—at something that is not canvassed at all by the amendments that we have before us, or at least not by the bills that we have before us. That is the matter of environmental review. Just before dinner, the government and opposition voted against an environmental assessment being done before the agreement comes in. I would like to ask the minister these questions: how will the environmental assessment that is required by the agreement be undertaken; what are the parameters; what will be the public input; and when is the expected date of delivery?