Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Hansard source

They have made no more progress either as far as I am aware in terms of autos. But, in any event, the commitment that we are seeking is that if they extend any entitlement in terms of preferential treatment then we would expect that to flow to us, and I have been very clear on that.

Let us talk about Vietnam and market economy status. Yes, we did recognise market economy status and we were prepared to do it because Vietnam was prepared to pay for it. They paid for it by signing up to AANZFTA—the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement—whereby they have had to make important concessions for market liberalisation. You have heard me talk about AANZFTA before. It is collectively our second-largest market behind the EEC. It is something in the order of $80 billion in two-way trade before this free trade agreement was struck. It has 600 million people and those countries, Vietnam and Indonesia included, are still growing. So these are opportunities for us to grab that market share, hence the need to invest in the Export Market Development Grants Scheme to help our companies get market share.

You asked me the question as to how we rationalise that compared to our criticism of you on China and the granting of market economy status. It is simple: because you got nothing in return. You negotiated a dud agreement. That is why, after having conceded the point about market economy status, the talks stalled. They got what they wanted and made no commitment to do anything else. Now you come and ask us if we are making progress. You have conceded the most significant point to them without getting a damn thing in return. There is a fundamental difference between our approaches; and not just to negotiations generally but to understanding the importance of getting a give and take concept—the fundamental concept of bargaining—which seemed to escape your previous government.

As for China, the talks have stalled at the technical level but they have not stalled at the political level. What we still have to break through with at the political level is the coordination mechanism within China itself. I believe the political will to conclude this agreement does exist. It is a political will that has been exchanged at the leadership level with our Prime Minister and their president and prime minister, as well as at the level of my engagement with the trade minister. I went to Beijing about six weeks ago and made it quite clear that we were not going to settle, in agriculture, for anything less than New Zealand and that they needed to understand that. Secondly, given the whole issue surrounding investment in this country, they needed to understand that investment was a two-way street and that we should also be developing a framework for facilitating investment flows between our two countries.

The only point I make in terms of the next trade negotiating round is that I am not going to send officials to negotiate the next round unless we get a stronger political signal. If we were to get the political signal, we would be there tomorrow to undertake the 14th round. This is the clear message that we have conveyed, and I am in regular contact with my counterpart in China. I am confident that we can conclude an agreement, but it is only going to happen if the political will is not only given but subsequently acted on.

Proposed expenditure—$4,966,185,000—agreed to.

Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $565,856,000

See this speech in context