ABC Rural

ANNA VIDOT: Looking at India, in January last year, we were told that the deal would be done or certainly could be done before the end of 2015. That appears to have died a bit of a death. Is there any momentum at all towards an India agreement right now?

STEVEN CIOBO: So the original time table that was proposed with respect to the discussions between Australia and India were agreed between the Prime Ministers of both countries at that stage, Prime Minister Abbott and Prime Minister Modi. Now there has obviously been, and I'm not letting out any state secret, there has obviously been slippage in relation to that timetable. There remains a high level of ambition from Australia to engage productively with India around these discussions. I'm hopeful that we'll be able to move forward with it. In fact, just last week I took the opportunity to meet with my Indian trade counterpart in Laos as part of discussions that we were having at a Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Minister's Meeting, which took place in Vientiane in Laos. And look, I'm confident off the back of that meeting, that we'll be able to continue to move forward with discussions. Ultimately, what that's going to look like, I'll be in a better position to assess once I have the chance to travel to India and sit down with negotiators and have that fulsome conversation about where things are at.

ANNA VIDOT: When do you plan to do that, to visit India?

STEVEN CIOBO: It'll be in the second half of this year, as in over the next six months. What we're going to focus on right now is undertaking a stocktake. So we'll have that stocktake of the respective positions and then work out a pathway forward.

ANNA VIDOT: When you say stocktake, is that just a polite way of saying that things have stalled?

STEVEN CIOBO: No, not at all. What it's a way of saying is we're going to crystallise, for my benefit and for the Indian trade minister's benefit, exactly where we sit with respect to the various discussions and negotiations that have transpired over the past 12 or more months so we're then able to continue those discussions in a fruitful way.

ANNA VIDOT: The biggest trade game in town obviously right now though is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the TPP, which has been agreed to, but, of course, the deal now is ratification. You've said that you're still hopeful that the TPP will be approved by congress, but on what basis are you hopeful given that even pro-traders, like Hillary Clinton and Orrin Hatch, two of the most vocal advocates for TPP on both sides of the isle during the negotiations have now distanced themselves from this agreement? Why are you hopeful?

STEVEN CIOBO: The words I've used is that I'm cautiously optimistic and I'm cautiously optimistic off the back of conversations that I've had with our Ambassador in the United States, as well as conversations I've had directly with congressmen on Capitol Hill. I've taken the opportunity to meet with Senator Orrin Hatch. I've taken the opportunity to meet with Congressman Kevin Brady, the Chair of the House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee. I, of course, continue to have conversations with the United States Trade Rep, Mike Froman. Ultimately, this is a decision of the US Congress. Ultimately, a decision of those actors in the US Congress and the decisions and positions they take. Now, I'm not astute of the Congress in the United States. I can't say definitely what will or won't happen, but off the back of conversations I've had, my position is that I remain cautiously optimistic that hopefully we'll see US ratification of the TPP before Christmas.

ANNA VIDOT: The landscape, of course, back here in Australia is not all that much easier. You're not only facing an increased anti-trade number of voices on the crossbench in the Senate, but also from within the Labor movement, and the Labor party has been under increasing pressure from the Labor movement. You've also lost in your opposite number, Penny Wong, an opposite member who was arguably Labor's biggest trade advocate. What is your plan to navigate TPP ratification in that context?

STEVEN CIOBO: Well look, I'm optimistic about the prospects of TPP ratification in Australia, and the reason I'm optimistic is because ultimately it's in Australia's national interest. Notwithstanding the fact that there are elements of the Labor party, which appeal quite frankly to xenophobic claim. The new shadow trade minister, Jason Clare, is someone who, you know, he and I are yet to speak in relation to these specific matters, but I'm certainly very hopeful that he'll put Australia's national interest first.

ANNA VIDOT: You say it's all about what's in Australia's national interest and that the critics are all from the left, but that's not true. No lesser body than the Productivity Commission has questioned the value of Australia's trade agreements generally and the TPP specifically saying that they have a negligible benefit to GDP and crucially the concessions in those agreements, particularly in the TPP, like allowing an ISDS clause that allows companies to sue the Australian Government in secret tribunals with no right of appeal, that to give away something like that gives away far too much to make it worth it for Australia. So how do you respond to those criticisms? Not of the left, but if anything, of the right.

STEVEN CIOBO: Well there's been plenty of international modelling that's been done that showed the economic benefits that flow from it. So on economic benefits, there's quite clearly compelling case for it. We've seen that not only in terms of international analysis of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but more importantly off the basis of history. You can look at the fact that Australia over the past 25 years has enjoyed the longest period of continuous economic growth, growth that's been delivered not exclusively by trade liberalisation, but trade liberalisation has certainly played a very big role in the fact that Australians today continue to be among the richest and most prosperous nation on the face of the planet. Now that is a consequent, like I said, not exclusively, but in large part of trade liberalisation. These agreements are agreements that will continue to deliver that prosperity into the future. Now with respect to those that are critics, for example, ISDS, make all sorts of, frankly, far-fetched claims about what the impact of ISDS will mean. ISDS has been a feature of Australian trade agreements for around 30 years. In that 30 years, there's been two occasions where actions have been brought against the Australian Government. The most recent, of course, was the action in relation to plain packaging of tobacco. And guess what? Australia won because we make sure that we have safeguards in place to protect Australia's national interest -

ANNA VIDOT: But it's also something that no less a figure of your own party than John Howard refused to include in any comprehensive way in the Free Trade Agreement signed between Australia and the United States. Now Australia, as you know, gave away a lot in that agreement, but that was judged to be a bridge too far. So what's changed? And if you do believe that this is the right thing to do, what more can you do to convince the Australian public that that was a legitimate change in policy?

STEVEN CIOBO: Well I will convince to the Australian public by taking the opportunity like exactly this one. The fact is that ISDS has been part of Australia's trading framework for more than 30 years. We've also got to look at the flip side of that coin though because a lot of people are keen to just either ignore or pretend that the flip side of that coin doesn't exist, so what is the flip side of that coin? It's the fact that ISDS actually also provides Australian businesses the opportunity to bring actions against foreign governments where foreign governments basically are seeking to misappropriate that Australian investment. Now we've found that Australian companies have used ISDS far more than foreign companies have used them in Australia.

ANNA VIDOT: One of the things that's been said to me privately though by some agricultural actors who have certainly been very close observers or involved indeed in the TPP talks, in particular, is that it doesn't really do very much. It's just better to be part of it than not at all, that incremental improvement is better than nothing. Given the real push, of course, between the United States, countries like the United States and Australia, to so-called set the rules in Asia with an agreement like the TPP. Does the Government need to be up front about the fact that in many ways, this agreement is more about geopolitics than it actually is about economics?

STEVEN CIOBO: No. It's not that at all, and I reject entirely the assertion that you're making in your question. This is about securing preferential market access for Australia. That's precisely what the Government's doing. Now are these incremental gains? Yes, they are. They're incremental, but in some instances, those are very large increments. In others, they're smaller increments, but the point is any time that we can reduce tariff and we can reduce non-tariff measures, so we're able to boost export volumes and values from Australia, that's driving prosperity in this country, and that's precisely, as I said, the reason why Australia has enjoyed 25 years of continuous economic growth. The envy of the developed world.