Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

Labor supports foreign investment. We see foreign investment as one way to create the jobs and to create the opportunities that might not otherwise be created or be made available in our economy. Our engagement with the world has made Australia a more competitive, a more productive and a more prosperous nation. As others have said, including the Minister for Trade and Investment today, we are a capital-hungry country and there is a lot of capital looking for a home around the world. We do not have in Australia sufficient capital to maintain the sort of employment opportunities and living standards that Australians have a right to expect and that Australians deserve.

The benefits of an open market have flowed to everyday Australians through lower consumer prices and increased employment opportunities. Labor knows that we will not improve living standards and opportunities for working people by pulling down the shutters on the world, so we do support foreign investment. Subject to the right arrangements and subject to the right protections, we do want a more open Australian economy. We are the ones who believe very deeply that it is possible to combine economic expansion and Asian integration and opportunities for a greater number of Australians here at home. This is effectively the Keating model that so many of us on this side of the House see as an article of faith. Some of us joined the Labor Party to advance the cause of, for example, Asian integration and a more open economy and to do so in a way that gives our people more opportunities to prosper.

Labor does have a really proud record when it comes to investment. Contrary to a lot of the commentary that you hear from the government's cheerleaders, there was an investment boom under the Labor government despite a global financial crisis. In the minister's own statement, he refers to a really stunning statistic—and I do congratulate him for informing the House of this statistic, because it is important. Between 2008 and 2013—so for the period of the former Labor government—there was an investment boom. Foreign direct investment was up 40 per cent over that period, which is an extraordinary amount of growth and something that we are very proud of on this side of the House. I think the whole nation should be proud of the way that Australia has attracted that level of foreign investment. Unfortunately, for the government and for the minister, it undermines the rest of his argument that Labor was in some way an impediment to this kind of investment. There was an investment boom under Labor. His own speech refers to 40 per cent growth in foreign direct investment under Rudd and Gillard. It is extraordinary that he would then go on to make his partisan points about Labor, having already quoted the key statistic.

I am proud in my own personal sense to have been involved in some of these foreign investment decisions in a former role working with the member for Lilley, the member for McMahon and the member for Maribyrnong—the Treasurer and various Assistant Treasurers over that period. I was proud that we took such a pro-investment stance when it came to many of the applications that came before us as a government. So I do thank the minister for mentioning that crucial stat about the growth in foreign direct investment under the former Labor government.

Of course I do not have time to go through it in detail here, but the Asian century white paper was also geared towards how we would become a more attractive destination for investment here in Australia, in the most dynamic region in the global economy, which is, of course, Asia. How do we attract investment from these countries that are becoming not just big exporters of capital but also big consumers so that we have this virtuous cycle of investment and trade in our region.

It was also good of the minister to mention 23 years of consecutive economic growth in Australia. That is almost a quarter-century of economic growth and continuous expansion in the Australian economy—every Australian should be proud of that fact—with half of it under us and half of it under our opponents across the table here. It is worth mentioning that whenever we think of that quarter-century of continuous economic expansion in our economy, we should pay tribute again to the reforms put in place by the Keating and Hawke governments and also by the efforts that all Australians put in, including the government, in saving Australia from the global recession. Without the Keating reforms, without the stimulus and all the other factors that helped us over that difficult period in the global economy, those 23 years—entering 24 now—would not have been possible. So I think that, with our credentials as attractors of foreign investment and our economic record, we do come to this conversation with some credibility.

We also take a national interest approach to these questions. It is the only way to go. It is no use conducting these debates in an overly partisan way. It is of course our responsibility to highlight the flaws in each other's arguments. But this is after all about Australian prosperity, and we should always take a national interest approach to these sorts of questions. I think it is wonderful to hear from the minister for trade, for example, about the success that he might have in some of these forums. We support him touting Australia's wares around the world; that is the job of a trade and investment minister. As patriots first and partisans second we do want Australia to succeed in the global economy. We do want to have that success. We do want to have that prosperity. We do want to create jobs. So, where we can, we support the government. So we do not disagree with everything the minister said; we disagree with parts of what the minister said.

One of things we do disagree on is that we believe being 'open for business' should be more than just hanging a sign on a lectern. We need to be serious about it. You are not serious about it if you are hopelessly split as a party on decisions like the GrainCorp decision, which was a shocking decision for Australia. There was not a single mention of it in the minister's statement. When I was flicking through the minister's statement, I thought that a page had dropped out because there was nothing in there about GrainCorp, which was the most significant and detrimental decision that the government has taken when it comes to foreign investment, and I want to go through that in detail in a moment.

You are not serious about foreign investment if you have members like the member for Higgins denigrating the Foreign Investment Review Board, in the Treasurer's portfolio. I thought that they were disgraceful multiple interventions from the member for Higgins when she was running down Brian Wilson, who is a top servant of Australia, who runs the Foreign Investment Review Board, in the Treasurer's portfolio—not a peep from the Treasurer to defend his own Foreign Investment Review Board. You are not serious about foreign investment if you attack the confidence that overseas investors might have in that body. You can say what you want about their resourcing, you can even say what you want about their decisions, but for the member for Higgins to get into Brian Wilson about a lack of leadership, I think, sends the wrong message to the rest of the world. It would not surprise me entirely of some members opposite agreed with me. I would hope that the Treasurer would agree with me, given that the FIRB is in his own portfolio.

You are not serious about foreign direct investment if you have two views on agriculture, and we know that those opposite have very different views in terms of the threshold for—

See this speech in context