Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1)   record the enormous economic potential of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) to deliver Australian jobs, growth and investment;

(2)   acknowledge that for benefits to flow to Australian businesses and workers without delay, it must be passed by the Parliament this year; and

(3)   fully support the China-Australia FTA in its negotiated form.

It is important to remind the House of just how big a deal the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement is—just how big an opportunity for our exports and for jobs in Australia the China free trade agreement is. Already China takes about one-third of our exports. China is already the strongest economy in Asia, and soon China will be the biggest economy in the world. What the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement—the China-Australia export agreement—does is give Australia and our exporters privileged access to the biggest market in Asia and what will soon be the biggest market in the world.

It is important for people in this parliament to understand that this is the only free trade agreement that China has made with another G20 country. This is by far the best agreement that China has done with any significant developed economy. As members right around this chamber should know, this agreement has been 10 years in the making; it was started by the Howard government and it was finalised and concluded by the Abbott government. It is also important for people right around Australia to understand that, under this agreement, more than 95 per cent of our exports to China will enter duty free—will enter without any tariffs at all. That is why this agreement gives us absolutely unparalleled and absolutely unprecedented access to what is certainly the biggest market in Asia and will soon be the world's biggest market. This is something which applies across the board when it comes to our exports. Our resources will go in on a better basis than now, our agricultural exports will go in on a better basis than now and there will be unprecedented access for Australian services to the Chinese market because of this particular agreement.

We all know that about five years ago New Zealand successfully concluded a free trade agreement with China. We probably do not know, but we should, that under this agreement New Zealand's exports to China more than quadrupled. At a time when our exports to China merely doubled, New Zealand's exports to China more than quadrupled because of the free trade agreement that they had and we lacked. Our free trade agreement with China is a much better agreement than New Zealand's. It is a much better agreement than New Zealand's because ours involves services too.

I have to point out to the House that the agreement that was negotiated by us with China—the agreement that was so carefully and painstakingly finalised by the Minister for Trade and Investment, the member for Goldstein, with China—is a done deal. It cannot be renegotiated. It is a done deal. It is a deal that we either take or leave, and I put it to the House that it would be absolutely unconscionable for us not to take the deal as negotiated by this government with the Chinese.

I have to say that, on a momentous day 10 months ago in this very chamber, the Leader of the Opposition said to this House:

… Labor welcomes the prospect of a trade agreement between our two countries. A decade of hard work has gone into creating this opportunity for Australia, from Prime Minister Howard to Prime Ministers Rudd and Gillard, and now Prime Minister Abbott.

That is what the Leader of the Opposition said 10 months ago in this chamber, in the presence of President Xi Jinping himself. He said, 'Labor welcomes the prospect of a trade agreement between our two countries.' That is what he said in this chamber when President Xi Jinping was here on his historic visit to our country.

What has happened since? What has happened since is that the CFMEU has come out and condemned the deal, and as soon as the union movement started to condemn the deal what happened was that the Leader of the Opposition started to shift his position. The problem right now that the Leader of the Opposition faces—and I invite him to come into this chamber and speak on the deal—is that, unless he is to come into this chamber and speaks on this motion, the very strong impression will be created in the minds of the people of Australia that every time the Leader of the Opposition moves it is the CFMEU that is pulling the strings, and every time the Leader of the Opposition speaks it is the CFMEU's voice that we hear.

Notwithstanding all the advantages of this export agreement for Australia, the CFMEU has already spent what is estimated to be $12 million on undermining, sabotaging and telling lies about this agreement—this agreement vital for the future of our country.

Right on cue, as soon as the CFMEU and other unions started attacking this agreement, what did the Leader of the Opposition say? The Leader of the Opposition, on cue, said, 'It's a dud deal.' He now has his chance to stand up in this parliament and say exactly where he stands. Right now what we have had is Labor member after Labor member taking their cue from the union movement, standing up and threatening to block this deal which is vital for Australia's future.

Let me make it absolutely crystal clear to members opposite what this deal will involve in this parliament. In this parliament, acceding to the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement involves no legislation to change the Fair Work Act. It involves no legislation to change our immigration laws. The only bills that will be before this parliament to put the China Free Trade Agreement into practice, to put it into effect, are changes to our tariff laws. So there are no changes to the protections for workers, no changes to the protections built into our immigration laws—none whatsoever.

So there is absolutely nothing possible under this agreement with China that is not already possible. Let me repeat that: there is absolutely nothing possible under this agreement with China that is not already possible, including under free trade agreements negotiated by members opposite when they were in government. So absolutely every single thing which is envisaged under this free trade agreement was envisaged under free trade agreements negotiated by members opposite when they were in government. It is absolutely critical to note that there is absolutely no possibility of placing any foreigner in an Australian job without labour market testing. That was the situation under members opposite when they were in government and that is the situation under this government under this agreement.

So what have we got here? We have a campaign of lies. It is a campaign of lies—xenophobic at best, racist at worst—being peddled principally by the CFMEU, being taken up by the ACTU more generally, being connived at by members opposite, being articulated by members opposite. I just want to make it absolutely crystal clear: the only free trade agreement that members opposite have complained about is the free trade agreement with China. What have they got against China? Why is it that they are preparing to snub the strongest economy and the strongest power in Asia? What is it that members opposite have got against China? Why is it that members opposite seem to be channelling the ghosts of the Federation parliament, echoing the kinds of sentiments that were heard in the Federation parliament at the time of the White Australia policy? Let me make it absolutely crystal clear. Members opposite talk about the Asian century. This agreement makes us part of the Asian century. Why are members opposite against an agreement which makes us part of the Asian century?

I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition has finally deigned to enter the parliament and I hope he is going to contribute to this debate. I hope that finally the Leader of the Opposition is going to tell us exactly what he thinks is wrong with this agreement, if indeed there is anything that he can come up with which is wrong with this agreement. We know exactly where other significant Labor leaders stand. Bob Hawke supports this agreement, Bob Carr supports this agreement, Simon Crean supports this agreement and the Labor premiers of Victoria, Queensland and South Australia support this agreement. Where does the Leader of the Opposition stand? Whose side is the Leader of the Opposition on? Is he on the side of Bob Hawke, Bob Carr, Simon Crean and the Labor premiers of Victoria, Queensland and South Australia, or is the Leader of the Opposition yet again listening to the CFMEU? That is the challenge that I put to the Leader of the Opposition: just for once, tell us where you stand. Just for once, stop playing politics. Just for once, put the interests of Australia first and back this agreement.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That paragraph (3) be deleted and that the following be inserted:

(3) support the China-Australia FTA and call on the Government to work with the Parliament to legislate safeguards which:

(a) maximise job opportunities for Australian workers;

(b) protect overseas workers from exploitation and maintain Australian wages and conditions; and

(c) promote safety on Australian work sites by ensuring the skills and qualifications on temporary trades workers are of the highest standard.

Labor supports this amendment and the amended resolution, because otherwise here we will be again—another day, another stunt from the Abbott stunt factory of Australian politics. I can just imagine the Liberal brains trust—if that is not an oxymoron—high-fiving each other this morning. They would have rushed in and said, 'We've got a great idea. We've got a great idea—we're going to have another national time-wasting resolution from the champions of national time wasting.' They would have said, 'Let's put up a parenthood resolution on the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement and try to wedge Labor.' Unfortunately, this unamended motion changes nothing about Labor's position. It is the ultimate hollow resolution of the ultimate hollow man.

The Prime Minister's motion pre-empts consideration of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. The treaties committee had its latest public hearing only yesterday. The committee is still deliberating and it has set 19 October as the date for reporting to this parliament. This kind of reckless behaviour we have learned to expect from this Prime Minister—pre-empting this report—does not surprise. But this motion does provide an opportunity for me to set the record straight and to restate Labor's priorities for a China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Labor wants the best possible free trade agreement with China: a high-quality agreement that creates and protects Australian jobs and a deal that generates high-skill, fair-paying jobs here in Australia and ensures that Australians are given the first opportunity to do the work in Australia.

Firstly, in support of this, Labor believes in trade liberalisation and the bilateral and multilateral agreements which support this. We have delivered trade liberalisation when in government. It was Labor governments that reduced Australia's trade tariff barriers unilaterally in the 1980s and 1990s. It has been Labor that has opened the way for the modernisation of Australian industry and improvements in living standards for working people. It is Labor that has presided over the formation of the Cairns Group, an initiative that secured significant freeing up of world markets, delivering benefits for Australian farmers in particular. It was Labor that secured the WTO Uruguay Round Agreement, one of the most significant multilateral trade agreements of the modern era. It was Labor that has negotiated and implemented free trade agreements with Malaysia, Chile, the 10 ASEAN countries and New Zealand. And in my time in opposition we have supported the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement and the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement.

Our support for free trade is not a matter of extreme ideology or unthinking orthodoxy. We do not see the signing ceremony as the end of the game. Our goal is to always ensure free trade, open markets and economic change that works for all Australians. I stress: all Australians. Labor understands that open markets are an excellent way of achieving economic growth and that economic growth is the best way to create good jobs. But we do not just want economic growth; we want quality growth and we want the benefits fairly shared amongst all Australians. We want market access for Australian firms and we want new jobs for Australian workers.

Secondly, Labor fundamentally believes in an Australia engaged with our region. We are the party of APEC and of the Asian century. We know that more trade with Asia is an essential part of building a high-skill, high-wage future for all Australians. If Australia gets this agreement with China right, everyone can benefit. This is what Labor wants. We want our hardworking farmers to get their high-quality produce onto the Chinese market more easily. We want new opportunities for our growing services sector. And we want emerging industries, like advanced manufacturing, to get a boost too. But the fundamental point remains—we need to get the package right. For Labor, this will always mean doing the right thing by Australian workers. There is nothing for Australia to gain by entering a race to the bottom with our neighbours on wages and conditions. There will always be other countries, Mr Prime Minister, that have more people willing to work longer and for less money. Our goal should be to play on Australia's strong ground.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why is it that the government does not believe in a high-skill workforce, good at doing high-quality work? Why is it that these people opposite are always so determined against safe workplaces and fair wages? This is what Australian Labor has fought for and this is at the heart of our specific factual and legitimate claims. We are seeking 'ChAFTA plus'—plus safeguards for Australian jobs and Australian workers. All of the shouting and catcalling from the rabble opposite does not change the fact that this government has not paid sufficient attention to Australian jobs.

We call upon the government today, including this person who is currently the Prime Minister, to look at enabling legislation which includes—and I will be specific for the sake of the government—mandatory labour market testing for projects over $150 million, ensuring that Australians always get first opportunity before overseas workers are considered. We want an assurance in the legislation that Australian workplace skills and safety standards will be maintained, and we want an assurance that Australian wages will not be undercut. Without these safeguards, the current agreement would allow employers to fly in temporary workers for infrastructure projects worth more $150 million without having to first check whether Australian workers are available to do this job. I repeat: it is a fact that this government are proposing the diminution of labour market testing for projects over $150 million. What has the Prime Minister got against Australian construction workers getting access?

Government members interjecting—

These investment facilitation agreements and these arrangements—these IFAs—mean that a company could, for example, build a new hotel in the Sydney or Melbourne CBD and not have to advertise in the local paper or seek.com for Australian workers first. This is explicitly outlined in the memorandum of understanding attached to this agreement. There is a side letter to the deal also outlining the option of removing mandatory skills assessments for temporary guest workers in key trades—carpenters, machine and motor mechanics, joiners, electricians. Why do you not like Aussie carpenters and electricians over there?

Government members interjecting—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order or my right!

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know the impact that poor workplace safety has on Australian workers. I have met too many victims of industrial injuries and too many of their families to be a party to knowingly reducing the skills and safety standards on Australian work sites. This government—

Mr Hutchinson interjecting—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Lyons!

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These are Labor's core concerns which the Prime Minister wanted me to articulate, and I will say them again for his benefit: upholding Australian safety standards and conditions and protecting Australian jobs. I invite the Prime Minister and the government to drop the political stunts.

Government members interjecting—

Look at these people opposite. They must have been pumped this morning. They have gone, 'Fantastic; at last we're going to be on the front foot. We've got the mother of all wedges to give the opposition.' That is all those opposite are good at—politics, never the policy. It is not too late, Prime Minister, to sit down and talk with us. What do you have against negotiating with the opposition? You are the opposition leader in exile. You have never been so happy as when you were sitting here, I think. You should sit down with us and talk about our serious, legitimate concerns. If you have time to play games like this stunt, you have more than enough time to negotiate with the opposition. Why do you think you are the 100 per cent know-all of Australian labour standards? Let me be clear: Mr Abbott, we are not asking you to go back to Beijing; we will come to your office if that helps. Labor's position is crystal clear, and I will repeat it again: mandatory labour market testing for projects over $150 million and an assurance that Australian skills and safety will be maintained and that Australian wages will not be undercut.

Over the last decade politicians from both sides of politics have worked hard for this deal. The real problem with the China free trade agreement is that we have a Prime Minister who would rather have a fight than a feed. What I say to this Prime Minister and his followers—such as they are on the backbench—is: do not confuse being stubborn with being strong. You are a good man at being stubborn, but you confuse it with strength. Put aside politics as usual, Mr Abbott. John Howard was capable of doing it on the US free trade agreement—but you are no John Howard. It is time for you to put aside the persona of the brawler. All I say, Mr Abbott, is put Australian jobs first in the agreement. Your resolution unamended changes nothing, helps no-one and goes nowhere. Grow up, Mr Abbott, and do your day job.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that the motion be agreed to. To this, the honourable member for Maribyrnong has moved an amendment. If it suits the House I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. All those of that opinion say aye and to the contrary no. I think the noes have it. Is a division required?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment. It is duly to be seconded by the shadow Treasurer and we then proceed with debate and there is a vote at the conclusion of the debate, so that people can speak in favour of or against the amendment. You do not vote on it now, because—who knows?—they might be convinced by the Leader of the Opposition's excellent speech.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment be agreed to. I call the Minister for Trade and Investment.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade and Investment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a sad contribution from the Leader of the Opposition, given the significance of what is being debated here today. He was just parroting a lot of union propositions. The Leader of the Opposition said this morning on ABC radio:

But I didn't become a Member of Parliament just to become a rubber stamp for Tony Abbott.

He said:

Imagine if in the last two years of the Abbott Government the Opposition just rolled over and said tickle us on the tummy …

Perish the thought! He continued:

We've got very clear propositions—

which he then put to us by way of an amendment today.

Mr Mitchell interjecting—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for McEwen is interjecting outside of his place in the chamber.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade and Investment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The sad thing is that all of the propositions in the amendment have been debated, discussed and examined for weeks on end and there has been no substance found in any of those propositions—not one of those propositions. No-one except those opposite and the CFMEU supports any of the propositions that you are saying are weaknesses of this agreement—not one person. It is fair to say that, if you did have propositions which were questioned by people other than the CFMEU legitimately—

Mr Champion interjecting—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wakefield is interjecting out of his place in the chamber.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade and Investment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not one person except the CFMEU. If you did have legitimate propositions there would be a case for negotiation. When you come up with something of substance we will think about the proposition of negotiation. There is nothing to negotiate. You have brought up nothing to be negotiated—nothing. You just went on with a lot of drivel again today. You have not looked at the arguments. You have not looked at the propositions. I can confirm this. I confirm that you are being led by the nose—because what fell into my hands this morning?

Opposition members interjecting—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left!

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade and Investment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was leaked by someone on the other side—one of many I suspect who are totally embarrassed by the way in which your leadership is carrying your party in this debate. They are totally embarrassed by your leadership. So we get leaked, from one of many of you who are embarrassed, the CFMEU written instructions. You have got them all there in your back pockets. You have them there; pull them out. He pulled them out this morning. So what does the CFMEU say?

An opposition member interjecting—

Listen if you want to learn something, you ignoramus! The CFMEU says:

Under EMAs—

That is, enterprise migration agreements, the agreements on which we based the IFAs, the investment facilitation agreements—

Ms Butler interjecting—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Griffith is out of her place in this chamber.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade and Investment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It says:

Under EMAs, the project proponent at least had to produce a 'labour market analysis' showing detailed projected shortages to justify upfront the need for 'concessional' 457 visa …

IFAs will be approved with no upfront or subsequent requirement to demonstrate projected shortages of Australian workers.

…   …   …

There is no mandatory obligation for direct employers on IFA projects to undertake Labour Market Testing (LMT).

That was at the heart of the major request and concern of the Leader of the Opposition today. He repeated it on radio this morning. He pulled out his speaking notes and repeated it on radio this morning. But let us look at what went out to business in May this year.

Ms Butler interjecting—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Griffith, you are disorderly. You are out of your place in this chamber and interjecting.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade and Investment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These instructions are associated with projects of over $150 million. The department of immigration, the authority that you used for the EMAs, wrote this. What does it say? About IFAs, it says:

Evidence of your domestic recruitment efforts should include details, for each requested occupation, of advertising undertaken within the past six months, including the period the job was advertised; the number of applicants who were hired; and reasons why other applicants were unsuccessful; or provide other compelling evidence of why no suitable Australian workers are available.

That looks to me like labour market testing.

A government member: It is labour market testing.

That is labour market testing. If it looks like it, if it says what it is, it is it. That is mandatory. In the EMAs, it was not mandatory.

Mr Conroy interjecting—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Charlton is disorderly.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade and Investment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The only thing was labour market analysis. You have been stooged by the CFMEU and you have not bothered to even check the formal arrangements. It is a con. You know it is a con. There is nothing to debate. There is nothing to change. Get on with this. If you dump this agreement, this will affect our relationship not just economically but in a much wider sense. The damage you will do will be monumental.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today the Prime Minister had an opportunity to show some leadership, and all we got was a stunt, a typical stunt from a man not up to leading this nation. The Prime Minister could have moved the enabling legislation today. He could have actually got on with implementing a China free trade agreement. But no. What did he do? He could not resist a stunt. A motion is an excuse when you do not have legislation.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Off he goes! Why doesn't he go back to his office and call the Leader of the Opposition?

Honourable members interjecting—

An opposition member: He's declared out!

An opposition member: He's retired hurt!

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Until there is silence, I will not call the member for McMahon to resume his speech.

Honourable members interjecting—

Government members: Warn them!

That is gross disorder on my left, and they know it. I issue a warning to all members of the chamber.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let us be very clear. The Prime Minister has abrogated all leadership, as he does right now. I hope he is going back to his office to call the Leader of the Opposition and say: 'Let's get this issue sorted. Let's get the China free trade agreement implemented. Let's make arrangements to meet your concerns,' because, let us be very clear, Australia needs a free trade agreement with China, not least because the poor economic management of this government, and this Treasurer in particular, has given us 0.2 per cent growth and 800,000 unemployed people—and they lecture us about jobs and growth!

I will tell you something else we will not be lectured about, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that is China. We will not be lectured about China by this government. This week, legislation will be debated which reduces the threshold for foreign investment review of investment in agriculture from China to $15 million, when the threshold for the United States is $1 billion. 'Don't you dare engage in a xenophobic scare campaign'? The Minister for Agriculture goes around the country warning about the dangers of China's investment. Not a week goes by when the Treasurer does not hold an emergency press conference about China's investment in residential real estate. Don't you lecture us about xenophobic scare campaigns. Not a week goes by, not a day goes by, when they do not do that.

Let us be very clear. There is an option here for the Prime Minister to show some leadership. He has got a precedent. The Liberal Party has got form. When concerns were raised about the US free trade agreement, John Howard showed leadership. He reach an arrangement with the Leader of the Opposition, and the legislation passed. Well, does the love child of John Howard and the member for Mackellar have the same leadership in him? Does he have it in him? I have got to say the evidence is looking pretty good. I knew John Howard. I worked with John Howard. This man is no John Howard. He will not show the leadership.

The point is very clear. If everything the government say is true, if they are confident in everything they say, if there are no plans to water down labour market testing requirements, if there are no plans to make it easier, then why won't they simply agree to a sensible amendment to enshrine it in legislation? The government should have nothing to fear. Instead they engage in cheap politics. Instead they engage in stunts and wedges, because that is all this Prime Minister is capable of—stunts and wedges.

The Labor Party will act in line with our heritage and with our legacy. When Gough Whitlam recognised China, he did it because it was in the interest of all Australians. When Bob Hawke and Paul Keating increased engagement with Asia, it was to benefit all Australians. It was to ensure that all Australians benefited. This side of the House will insist that that same legacy, that same heritage, is implemented as we implement a free trade agreement with China. The China free trade agreement can be passed. The China free trade agreement can be passed quickly if this Prime Minister is up to showing the leadership that the Australian people formed a judgement a long time ago he just does not have.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is one of the best trade deals that China has ever offered. We need to recognise that China 20 years ago was the eighth largest economy in the world. Today it is the second largest economy in the world. We have been a massive beneficiary of that. Each year, we export $150 billion of Australian goods to China. In return they export $50 billion. With $150 billion of trade each year, $100 billion to the benefit of Australia and $50 billion to the benefit of China, for every dollar we spend on Chinese goods, they spend $2 on our goods. To put in in perspective, China even with a seven per cent growth rate represents 30 per cent of the world's growth this year

As I was just informed by the finance minister of China, Lou Jiwei, in discussions at the G20 and as Governor Zhou also advised the G20 and, previously, Chairman Xu, the head of the NDRC, advised Minister Robb and me, the transition in the Chinese economy is going to take five to eight years to go from a focus on investment to a focus on consumption. During that transition of the economy in China, we are going to go from a major beneficiary of Chinese demand for our exports to an even greater beneficiary of Chinese demand for our exports.

The bottom line is this: if you care about well-paid Australian jobs, you will vote for the free trade agreement with China. It is as simple as that. Give us another lecture on growth. Give us another lecture on jobs. It means zero if you vote against the free trade agreement with China, because China is going to be the major driver of global growth over the next decade and we are the best friend China has in trade and services from our region—if we continue down the path of removing the barriers.

And what are those barriers on the ground? They apply 20 per cent taxes to Australian dairy produce. They apply a 25 per cent tax to our beef exports. They apply a 23 per cent tax to our lamb exports and a 20 per cent tax to our wine exports. All are gone under this trade agreement with China, which means we can get more wine, more beef, more lamb, more dairy. In fact, China applied a three per cent tariff to our coal, so, if you care about coal jobs, they are going to abolish their tax on our coal from day 1. If you care about jobs in Queensland, if you care about jobs around the country then support the free trade agreement with China.

The opportunity going forward is even greater. The services industry represents more than 70 per cent of the Australian economy but just 17 per cent of our exports. It is a huge opportunity for our exporters as China moves from its investment phase to its consumption phase. That means more and better-paying jobs in Australia. The evidence is clear: as a result of the trade agreement that we have negotiated, all of those restrictions that apply to financial services, legal services and key areas of aged services and building and construction, the Chinese are removing the barriers.

Let me say one thing about the political efforts of the Labor Party and the CFMEU. I have absolutely no doubt following discussions with the leadership in China that they will walk away from the free trade agreement if this is held up or if the Labor Party knocks it off in the Senate. Because of the transition in the Chinese economy, where they have massive policy priorities, they will not return to the negotiating table, because they have other priorities in their domestic economy. So this is not a game. I say to the Labor Party and the CFMEU: this is not a political game. It has taken a decade to get this agreement, and you know what? The Chinese will wait at least another decade to come back to the table if the best agreement they have ever offered is rejected by the Australian parliament as a result of the politics of the Labor Party.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is incredible that, instead of coming in there with legislation that would enable a free trade agreement with China, what we have got is one more stunt from this government. We have got a Prime Minister who would rather pick a fight than get a result. Any day of the week this Prime Minister would rather pick a fight than get a result. Instead of a methodical approach that would introduce enabling legislation negotiated with the Labor Party, knowing that we have some legitimate concerns about labour market testing and other provisions of this agreement, what does this government do? This weak, empty rhetoric today and a Prime Minister who cannot even see it through. He runs out halfway through the debate. And a trade minister who cannot even see it through, who gives up on his speech halfway through the debate. It is topped off by a Treasurer who is just back from the G20, where he has been claiming that he is responsible for global economic growth. It is not China; it's him alone! As for that little outing by the Treasurer: I reckon I have heard better economic analysis about Australia's future from high school students in my electorate.

Of course trade is important to Australia's future, and of course a free trade agreement with China is important to Australia's economic future. The reason we invested so much time and so much energy in the relationship with China is that we know how important it is to our economic future. It is the reason that we released the Australia in the Asian century white paper with a specific country approach for China as well as for other nations. What has happened to the Asian century white paper? There has been an electronic book burning by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It has disappeared from view, which would be fine if the government actually had a strategy to replace it, but there is nothing there.

We strengthened our regional partnership, including our strategic partnership with China. We increased the total number of consulates in China to five in addition to our embassy in Beijing, strengthening the relationship with China at every stage. We know—

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So why are you trashing it now?

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear from members opposite, 'Why are we trashing it now?', after an outing by the Treasurer that has basically goaded China to walk away from the negotiating table. We have said for many years that this agreement will be critical to Australia's future. We want an agreement that delivers for China but an agreement that delivers for Australia also, for Australian jobs. We know that there are weaknesses in this agreement—

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade and Investment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are no weaknesses!

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The trade minister says, 'There are no weaknesses.' We believe that the Abbott government could have and should have secured a better deal. It is disappointing that a number of agricultural goods are left out of the deal. They failed to win further market access for rice, wheat, cotton, sugar and canola or vegetable oils. And personally, as a former health minister, I am pretty concerned about the investor-state dispute settlement provisions in this deal. Investor-state dispute settlement provisions have us in court in Hong Kong right now, protecting our right to defend the health of Australians by maintaining our current provisions for plain packaging of cigarettes. The government is spending millions and millions of Australian taxpayer dollars. We did when we were in government to defend our right to legislate for the health of our citizens.

But one of the most important concerns that we have in this area is around the ability for ChAFTA to support rather than replace local employment. We want to ensure that this agreement supports local jobs, maintains workers' skills and safety requirements and prevents the exploitation of workers from overseas.

I know that there is an agreement for this debate to conclude at 1.15, so I will take my seat.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the motion be agreed to.

Question agreed to.