Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Trade) Share this | Hansard source

I am happy to sit on that side of the chamber and do something about trade, unlike those who sit there and talk about doing something on trade or about having a review into doing something about trade.

We on this side of the House are committed to APEC. When in government rather than just talk about that commitment our government preferred to let our actions and achievements within APEC speak for themselves. The trade minister talks about recent developments within APEC but, again, with glaring omissions—anything that the previous government did is omitted. Anything previous governments achieve is expunged from history. The government having spent so much time during question time today highlighting the importance of taking measures to lower emissions, I would have thought the minister would have at least mentioned the Sydney declaration, which was a major achievement of APEC last year, and a truly historic international consensus on the challenges related to that issue.

The member for Hotham’s greatest achievement in trade should not be reading out a list of trade liberalisation goals of APEC. He should actually be out there doing something about it. He should actually have evidence that his actions will further trade liberalisation in the region. It is almost as if the trade minister hopes that if he studies the rules hard enough and long enough and regurgitates some statistics often enough he might overcome the fact that there is little happening in trade policy on that side of the chamber—apart, of course, from a review. You can go anywhere in government at the moment and find a review. In fact, you would probably find 10 or 20 or 30 or 40. In fact, there are over 100. I would like to see, in what are deemed to be his ministerial statements, something substantial in the next one.

We all know that he comes from a government that is renowned for frenzied, one-off announcements as the government approaches a 24-hour media cycle. Things these days are either in that 24-hour media cycle or they are in 2020. There seems to be nothing in between. I was interested that again today we got absolutely no more detail on what the Prime Minister had announced, completely out of the blue, with regard to the Asia-Pacific union. I have been fascinated listening to some of the ambassadors around the hill here who say, ‘The Prime Minister made this announcement; none of us knew anything about it. We thought we had better ring up and see what issues there are and what is planned.’ Their inquiries to the Prime Minister’s office have been fruitless—in fact, less than fruitless. It was a waste of the cost of a telephone call.

Today, in anticipation that this ministerial statement that we had been asked to come and listen to had something of substance, I thought, ‘Well, it’s two weeks down the track, let’s be honest, let’s be open, let’s listen.’ I sat at the doors when the Prime Minister announced it; at face value it was a step in the right direction. But there was nothing. We got a history lesson on APEC. We got the usual jumble of bilateral this week, multilateral next week and whatever is the flavour of the day depending on the location. Still there is nothing on the Asia-Pacific union. I wait patiently.

I know this all came as a surprise to a lot of people, including, I understand, Richard Woolcott, who found out about the proposal literally hours before the Prime Minister revealed his grand vision. There are trading partners who are important to Australia, and certainly I welcome their involvement and interest in trade policy in Australia. There is the Indian community, who have been out here. They had heard nothing about it either and they still do not know any more about it.

I mentioned earlier that we have been treated to a bit of insight from previous prime ministers about what they think about it. Both previous prime ministers Bob Hawke and Paul Keating basically said it was flawed. I guess they know something about it. I know those opposite never give credit to anything that our side of politics has done but I assume that they have some respect for their own prime ministers, and their own prime ministers’ comments were that they thought the concept of an Asia-Pacific union was flawed. We can only speculate about what black hole of Labor policy ideas this grand scheme has fallen into. We await with interest what thought bubble pops out of the Prime Minister’s head next on this. We wait—perhaps maybe the review will come out and put some meat on the bones of the Asia-Pacific union.

The trade minister says the Rudd Labor government is committed to the principles that underpin APEC. But again it seems words are favoured over actions as the evidence shows this commitment is shaping up as little more than lip service. Again, the Rudd Labor government is not living up to these principles. The trade minister talks about furthering trade liberalisation by bringing down the barriers to trade at the border, but at the same time the government seems determined to undercut the possibilities of bilateral free trade agreements, as I mentioned earlier, by cutting the budgets for the negotiations on FTAs with both China and Japan.

As for living up to the goals of APEC by removing behind-the-border barriers, the Rudd Labor government seems to have done the reverse and, instead, is intent on creating a new barrier behind the border by appointing pro-tariff former Labor premier Steve Bracks as the head of the automotive review. This issue will create a real credibility problem for Australia if a decision is made to retain tariffs. That is something that every minister has to make a decision on, and the best way to have some international credibility when you do that is to have a credible process. They have no credible process. They dispensed with the Productivity Commission—they did not want them involved; they did not want a rigorous process. They put a previous Labor premier in charge of the process and then bolstered the committee with a few union hacks to make sure that they got the answer they wanted. Well, whatever answer they want, they are in government and they have to sell it internationally as well as to the Australian people. If they are trying to be credible in this trade arena they do have to have some consistency and some substance to what they do. They have been found wanting in that regard.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I can assure you I was paying attention to the minister’s history lesson—that was only to see whether or not he was correct. I must admit I did not learn anything new. One of the features that stuck in my mind was the minister’s declaration of the Labor government’s strong support for APEC’s ongoing encouragement of comprehensive free trade agreements with APEC nations. The reason I found this statement so remarkable is that it is a marked divergence from what the trade minister has been proclaiming far and wide about Doha being his main priority, in fact at times his only priority—and in the process has downgraded the value of bilateral agreements. Either the government has seen the error of its ways and is now ready to follow the example of the previous, coalition government and adopt a comprehensive trade policy that gives strong support for both bilateral and multilateral agreements, or it is fudging the facts on its commitment to APEC principles. As for working on trade facilitation and encouraging investment, it seems strange that this government thinks the best way to do so is to merge trade facilitation bodies like Invest Australia and Austrade while slashing the staff numbers and budgets.

Earlier today I discussed the issue of engagement with Asia at the Asialink leaders forum and outlined the way in which the coalition had engaged extensively with Asian trading partners on a comprehensive basis. Those opposite do not want to acknowledge this but, in fact, the Howard government’s record on this is held in very high regard in the Asia-Pacific region. Mr Howard was a Prime Minister who looked for the opportunities when they presented themselves in order to further the trade and therefore the economic opportunities for Australia but, at the same time, to ensure that the process was mutually beneficial. On that basis, with the countries that our trade relationship grew with and that our diplomatic relationship grew with, we were able to do that in a mutually beneficial way. The trade minister spoke after me at the leaders forum but unfortunately I had a very important meeting I had to come back here for because I would have been interested to hear what he had to say. Apart from that, I was not invited to the lunch! But I will get some reports on that, and I hope what he had to say had more substance and interest than the 20-minute diatribe we have just had here. And I would like to know whether or not today is a bilateral trade day or a multilateral trade day, because it does vary depending on the audience and the place. I am always open to some insights. We did not get one today but, as I said, I am a patient man; I will wait.

See this speech in context