Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is yet another MPI from the opposition, yet another substance-free performance, almost an hour of debate at the pinnacle of the parliamentary day, following question time, when you would expect the opposition to be putting forward detailed policy positions, putting forward their alternative view for Australia. But instead what you get is this gaggle opposite—the member for Griffith moving a motion about alleged political instability and about Australia’s export performance.

The member for Griffith might have many things. The member for Griffith is obviously very hard working. He is obviously very ambitious. We know, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, that the member for Griffith is in a perpetual leadership parade. But one thing the member for Griffith does not have—and his colleagues would attest to this—is a sense of irony. He has absolutely no sense of irony, to put in an MPI on export performance on the day Australia’s exports rose yet again and to talk about political instability at the time when those on the opposition front bench are in perpetual political instability and when he is in a parade with the member for Lalor, who was suspended from this House this morning, trying to become the alternative opposition leader. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, the member for Griffith needs to lift his polling a bit. He is on 27 per cent. The member for Lalor is apparently on 31. The current Leader of the Opposition comes third, which has to be a record in Australian politics.

But, more than that, I have to say that I thought the Deputy Prime Minister was too kind on this subject. How could the member for Griffith move a motion about political instability and fail to see the irony that sitting on his front bench are two frontbenchers—who are there by virtue of the fact that they are supposed to be alternative ministers—who have been rammed out of their own party in Victoria in the most despicable way as a result of branch stacking? And he sees no irony in that at all.

If we go down the front bench, we can start with the member for Hotham. He managed to survive by taking time off from this House and, accompanied by an interpreter, doorknocking his electorate—this is the modern Labor Party—apparently informing branch members that they were members of the Labor Party and then, through the interpreter, begging them to support him in preselection. The member for Corio and the member for Maribyrnong were not so lucky. But they are still there on the front bench and are supposed to be alternative ministers. How do they do their job?

The member for Corio is the shadow minister for agriculture and fisheries. What does he say when he meets groups in his portfolio? What is the opening line in his speech? ‘I’m the alternative minister, except for one problem: my party found an alternative to me.’ Is that his opening paragraph? What about the member for Maribyrnong, who is the shadow minister for Pacific island affairs, who presumably is travelling around the Pacific islands, drawing up a policy that he will not be around to implement? But only the member for Griffith could talk about political instability and not see the irony in that.

Mr Deputy Speaker, if you had read the MPI and listened to the member for Griffith and the previous speaker, the member for Oxley, you would think that Australia’s exports were plummeting month by month. But, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, here are some of the facts. Today—and it would have been before the member for Griffith put in his MPI—Australia’s export figures were released, which recorded our second highest level for monthly exports. We have exports growing in key sectors. Exports have grown 17 per cent in the 10 months to April. In the last 12 months, we have had a 40 per cent increase in merchandised exports to China and a 26 per cent increase in merchandised exports to Japan.

However, the other feature of the MPI, like so many brought on for debate by those opposite, is its utter hypocrisy. In a policy sense, if those opposite think Australia’s export performance should be better, what are their responses? We do not know, because all we have heard is a juvenile political attack by the member for Griffith and the member for Oxley, showing their obsession with Monty Python movies. But we do know, in a sense, what members of the opposition did in the 1980s and 1990s and we know how they have acted in this parliament when it has come to policy positions on exports. If those opposite cared so much about Australia’s export performance, they would not oppose legislation to remove all taxes from exports.

In the year 2000, when the tax reform package was passed through this parliament, those opposite voted against the abolition of all taxes on exports, which is what the GST brought in. On top of that, if you go back a couple of years earlier, they very vigorously opposed measures to reform Australia’s ports. Seven or eight years on, Australia’s ports are now the most efficient in the world. But, if those opposite had had their way, we would be stuck with world’s worst performance. So how can they come into this House and argue for a better export performance, when every action they have ever taken has been to make it more difficult and costly to export and, when the exports get to the ports, more difficult to get out of Australia?

The contribution of the member for Griffith lacked substance, evidenced by what he failed to mention. I do not recall him mentioning interest rates, the level of government debt or the employment situation that existed back in 1996. If you wanted to start a business in Australia, would it be easier to do it with business interest rates of 12 or 13 per cent or with business rates of seven or eight per cent? The answer is obvious. This government—on the tax front, on the reform front and through wider economic management—has made it easier for businesses to employ people. As the Deputy Prime Minister has said, there have been 1.7 million new jobs. Businesses are merging and growing and adding to our export performance.

In the brief time left, I would like to address the free trade agreement with the United States, which has been mentioned by the member for Griffith and by the member for Oxley. They asked what was in it for country people. The fact is that the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement, one of the most important ever negotiated, has opened up opportunities for our exporters, particularly in country Australia, for generations to come. If you look at some of the early figures, you will see that lamb and dairy exports to the US are now at record levels as a result of that agreement—a clear-cut example. It is well known in this place that our lamb market was effectively shut out of the US for many years. That is now open and that market is growing. Services exports have also increased by four per cent.

The sorts of changes we are seeing as a result of those agreements that have been negotiated by the Deputy Prime Minister will lift Australia’s export performance in the years ahead. The speeches of the member for Griffith and the member for Oxley on this MPI, introduced by the member for Griffith, lack substance. This MPI has wasted the time of this parliament and has illustrated again the total lack of ability of those opposite to develop, let alone communicate, an alternative policy of seriousness for Australia.

See this speech in context