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

I am particularly proud to have the opportunity to speak on this very important enabling legislation allowing, as it does, Australia to sign up to become a member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Bill 2015 is a piece of legislation which is not only important today; I believe that, in the decades to come, people will reflect back on the formation of this bank and see it as a very significant development in the Asia-Pacific economy, in China's relationship with the region, and, most importantly for us, in the relationship between our great nation and China. This is a very, very big deal, to put it simply.

The relationship between Australia and China has got stronger and stronger under the Abbott government. It is, of course, the Abbott government—through the good offices of the Minister for Trade and Investment—who finally delivered a free trade agreement between Australia and China. I will come back to that a little bit later, because there have been some very unfortunate and plainly wrong comments made on that free trade agreement, by those opposite. We will need to address those comments a little later in this discussion.

In relation to the AIIB specifically, there are three things that I want to do. I want to explain what it is, I want to talk a little bit about why it matters so much generally and I want to talk about how it is consistent with our policy of very practical engagement with China. Engagement is one of those words that can be a bit of a cliche. In a practical sense, what it means is that we continue to work closer and closer with China, because every day that we do that is the day that we are creating more jobs. That is what it is all about.

The AIIB, of course, is a $100 billion fund to invest in infrastructure in the Asia-Pacific region. Infrastructure is so important, as we all know, because it is the economic gift that keeps on giving. You build a road today, and that road is there for decades to come. You build a port, and ships not yet built will be arriving at it in the years ahead. That is particularly important in the Asia-Pacific region, where there is a very clear deficit of infrastructure. Infrastructure helps trade between our nations, it helps to raise living standards in the nations in which the infrastructure takes place and it can only be a good thing.

It also creates commercial opportunities, because you cannot get goods into a market unless that market has the infrastructure to cope with the physical delivery of those goods. There are many places in the Asia-Pacific region where the roads are so bad, the ports are non-existent or in a very, very poor condition and the general supporting infrastructure, frankly, is not there to enable the development of the modern market economy. We know that modern market economies produce the best results. They produce the best results for the most people and they produce the best results for the ordinary members of those communities, so anything that we can do to light the spark of modernisation and industrialisation in the Asia-Pacific region is something that we should absolutely do.

That is what this fund is going to do. It is going to be $100 billion, which is a lot of money and a lot of investment in various projects around the Asia-Pacific region. It has a greater significance as well, because the AIIB represents a very significant formation of a new multilateral institution in our region. Importantly, with China initiating the AIIB and taking a lead role in its formation and subsequent development, it creates a fantastic opportunity for nations of our region and, indeed, of the world to work closely, collaboratively and cooperatively in a multilateral environment.

Multilateral organisations have their frustrations. They can sometimes get bogged down in bureaucracy. When they are not functioning effectively, they can become debating societies and that is a problem. It is certainly not something that we would ever want to see with the AIIB. But multilateral institutions are very important because they get us all around the table and they get us, as nations, talking at the same level about issues of common concern. If you look at the history of the last 70 years or so since the Second World War, it is difficult not to conclude that the development of multilateral institutions has been a very good thing for the world.

We know in Europe there is a long history of horrendous conflicts and of economic sabotage by one nation onto another. We know that through the EU, with all its limitations and all its faults, that we now have a situation where European nations are sitting around a table and talking about how much milk should be allowed into one country or the other, or whatever the controversies of the day are. That is far preferable environment than one where there is an absence of direct relationships between nations and where there is an absence of the space in which to have those practical and pragmatic conversations. The development of multilateral institutions is a good thing. Even with the UN—again, for all its faults—it is very hard to argue that it has not had a constructive benefit on the international security environment since the Second World War.

I believe that the AIIB is going to have a fantastic impact in bringing dozens of nations in—50 have signed up so far and there are more to come—to talk about the infrastructure needs of the Asia-Pacific region and to constructively—through agreed, objective articles of association—determine where to invest for both the economic return and the benefit of the investing nations. It is really significant to think about all of the nations that have signed up to the AIIB. This is no small enterprise. China, to its tremendous credit, initiated the AIIB and has played the lead role in bringing together all of these nations.

It is a very diverse group: China is there; Israel is there; the Middle East is represented through nations like Qatar and Saudi Arabia; and the United Kingdom has signed up to the AIIB, despite being a little way away from the region. We have signed up too. We are the sixth largest investor and a founding investor. That is a good thing, because it means we are there on the ground floor and it means that we have the capacity to have a direct stake in those discussions about the precise governance model, the operating fashion and so on of the AIIB. The development of this is something that is, as I said before, not just something for today but something that 30 years from now people will look back on and think was a very important development.

The AIIB is significant also in the broader context of Australia's relationship with China. My community has the largest group of Australians of Chinese background of anywhere in the nation; it is about 20 per cent. My community is extraordinarily supportive of both the AIIB and the relationship between Australia and China more generally. It is really interesting to reflect on how that relationship has evolved. If you go back 20 years, which is not that long ago in the history of the world, back then China's trade with Australia was about $6 billion. It was less than one-fifth of the size of the trading relationship with Japan and less than one-quarter of the size of the trading relationship with the United States. That was only 20 years ago.

If you go back 15 years, and I find this to be probably the most interesting statistic of all, Australia's trading relationship with China was smaller than our trading relationship with New Zealand. Until about 2000, we had a bigger trading relationship with New Zealand, a nation of a few million people, than we did with China. It was just extraordinary. By 2003-04, trade with China was our third-largest trading relationship but still substantially smaller than with the US and Japan. By 2008-09 China had become our largest trading partner, but with only a little bit more than Japan. Then in the last year for which we have figures, 2013-14, the relationship was worth $160 billion. It was more than double the size of trade with our second-biggest trading partner—still Japan—and represented 24 per cent of our entire trade with the entire world in goods and services. Think about that: 24 per cent, one quarter of our entire relationship in international trade, was with the People's Republic of China. Another key point is that for every dollar that we send to China $2 comes to Australia. For every dollar we spend buying goods or services from China, $2 comes from China to our shores. That is a powerful indicator of the importance of this.

The relationship with China through the AIIB and the FTA is incredibly important. That is why it is a very negative development that those opposite have sought to oppose the free trade agreement between Australia and China and make outrageous and inaccurate claims about what that agreement contains. Remember that this is the nation with which we have one quarter of our entire trade, and it is growing very rapidly. It is the biggest economy in the world today on some measures, certainly within the decade, regardless of what measure you use. We should be doing everything we sensibly can to create Australian jobs by building the relationship with China. If that is not economics 101 then I do not know what is, but those opposite have been shamefully misrepresenting the terms of the free trade agreement, basically to say two things: (1) that workers from China are going to come in on lower wages than Australians and (2) that workers from China are going to come in without the appropriate qualifications, and this is going to be an appalling thing.

Bob Carr is the chairman of an institution called the Australia China Relations Institute. It has turned its mind to these questions in recent days. I might just read a quote from ACRI about this issue of workers: 'If the China FTA is ratified any temporary workers will come to Australia under the existing 457 visa scheme. This scheme allows employers to access workers where a genuine skills shortage exists. The worker protection act of 2008 means that these visa holders are entitled to receive pay and conditions at least as good as those of Australian workers who are doing the same work at the same workplace.' Let's repeat that: at least as good as those of Australian workers who are doing the same work at the same workplace. The same applies to skills. If there are state or federal rules about skills, any worker who comes to Australia under the free trade agreement needs to comply with those rules.

So, it is absolutely false, it is damaging and it is, frankly, irresponsible for those opposite to seek to sow division and fear rather than to appeal to the better angels of our nature and the economic future of the country, and they stand condemned for it. This shameful campaign against the free trade agreement is something that I suspect some of the more sensible members opposite will be reluctant to associate themselves with. It is absolutely wrong.

My community is very supportive of the free trade agreement. A few weeks ago we had the indefatigable small business minister in my electorate to host a seminar on the free trade agreement. It was very well received in Hurstville. I would like to thank the members of the Southern Region Chinese Business Association for their attendance at the event. The association does a great job advocating on behalf of the local business community in my electorate and I know they are strong supporters of the free trade agreement.

In this area it is all about action; it is all about getting things done. The Abbott government, the Minister for Trade—the whole team—are getting a lot of things done in this space, and it will be to the great long-term benefit of the nation.

See this speech in context