David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is very good to have an opportunity to speak on this most critical area of the free-trade agreement between Australia and Japan. I think there is no more important economic policy area than free trade. We talk a lot about removing red tape from the economy, removing impediments and so on. The reality is that the international system of trade barriers and protections represents probably the single most value-destructive act of global governance over the last century.

That is because what we are talking about in free trade liberalisation is effectively undoing the work that nations have done in previous era. When you impose a tariff on the product, you make it more expensive and you make it less attractive to buy. Consequently, less of it gets bought. You also make it more difficult on the other side for people in your own nation to manufacture goods, because it is harder to sell them overseas. It is just an economic philosophy that is entirely flawed and entirely wrong.

But, interestingly, it took this government to actually do something about it with our big trading partners—Korea, Japan and China. All within the space of 12 months, the Minister for Trade has managed to secure these blockbuster agreements. The Japanese agreement is the one we are talking about today. It is our second largest trading partner. There is more than $70 billion in trade relations and 97 per cent of our exports will now be free of tariffs or treated preferentially as a result of this deal. Earlier, we have the tremendous outcome on the Korean agreement as well. Just last week, there was the China agreement, which will benefit businesses like the owners of Lamb & Cumin, which is located in Hurstville in my electorate of Banks. We do not have a lot of lambs in the electorate of Banks, but we do have business people who export lamb product to China. They will benefit immensely from the liberalisation of free trade under this agreement.

The question is, as the member for Bowman alluded to, why this did not happen in the last six years. Why did it not happen? Why did we have this pause button on trade liberalisation during the entire period of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government? The reason is very clear. That is that they did not really believe in free trade. They did not really believe that these agreements were politically attractive for them and for their union base. As a consequence, they did not pursue them.

If you go back to 2008, the member for Lilley showed great foresight when he said in relation to the free-trade agreement with China:

We're negotiating with the Chinese but I don't anticipate any outcome of that process for some time…

He said that back in 2008 and he was absolutely right. That was because it took six years and a change of government for there to be some outcome. You do wonder why it took so long and it took a change of government.

Again, in 2011 the member for Lilley, who was the Treasurer of the whole country of Australia, was involved—according to The Australian Financial Reviewin arguments within cabinet to the effect that the politics of free trade were not very good and, as a consequence, the government should not pursue it. The AFR at the time, through Matthew Franklin, said:

…at least four sources have agreed that Mr Swan, with the backing of several other ministers, challenged the political saleability of trade reform.

There it is: politics before substance and media releases before the actual business of doing government. What we know about our Minister for Trade is that he is not focused on tomorrow's press releases. He is focused on the hard execution and the hard work that actually leads to real results. That is what we have seen over the last 12 months. It is not about putting out some fantasy press release; it is about actually closing deals. That is what he has done.

In a statement in 2012 that you could describe making a virtue of necessity, then Minister for Trade Craig Emerson—who I believe had quite a lengthy title in his previous role, but trade was among that—actually said:

Free trade agreements, I think frankly, are overrated in what they can achieve in terms of a relationship between Australia and China.

Overrated? Come to Hurstville and tell that to the many small business people in my electorate who are trading every day with China in relation to tourism, professional services and many other areas. The former minister for trade should come to Hurstville and say to them that free trade with China is overrated. It is not overrated; it is actually a blockbuster breakthrough that has been delivered by the minister for trade. It is a fantastic thing for my electorate of Banks. It is a fantastic thing for the entire nation. We see, in the Japanese agreement, the Korean agreement and of course now the Chinese agreement, what happens when you have clear convictions, a clear philosophy and the people, frankly, with the capacity and horsepower to get hard work done. That is what you see in this government, and that is why we have been successful in free trade. Certainly, the bill we discussed today is a great exemplification of that, and I commend it to the House.

See this speech in context