Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have spoken in this place many times about the China free trade agreement. I have outlined, in some detail, the benefits that will come to my electorate and to Australia at large. To our exporters, lower tariffs will mean that more Australian businesses will have access to lucrative and ever- growing Chinese markets. For the Northern Territory this will mean beef, seafood, fresh fruit and vegetable producers and our mining and energy producers will see the barriers come down in front of them. It means our service providers, in time, will be able to compete on a level playing field in one of the world's largest single markets.

Consumers and businesses will understand, by now, that lower tariffs on imports mean that the manufactured goods we buy from China will be cheaper. And, very importantly, workers should understand, by now, that the visa system that we have in place to manage the Australian labour market will remain unchanged. Even if the unions are screaming otherwise, the 457 visa system will not be changed. People who have been following the debate will know that any worker coming to Australia from China—or, in fact, any other country that we have a free trade agreement with, be it Korea, Japan, the United States or Chile—will not be displacing an Australian worker. Any worker coming in from overseas will have to demonstrate their skills and competencies. The free-trade agreements may change the method of the test, but not the principle. Despite the fact that all this information is in the public domain and despite the 18th century rhetoric of 'floods of Chinese workers' that the CFMEU and the MUA have been spruiking, people now understand that is simply not the case.

The public is waking up to these union lies. This debate has been run, and there is a general understanding that the sort of agreement we are entering into with China is already in place with dozens of other countries. In fact, some of them are nearly identical agreements which were introduced by Labor governments. Chile, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Thailand and the United States—we have free trade agreements in place with all of these nations. Some of these agreements went through while Labor was in government, but all of them went through this parliament with general bipartisan support.

Despite all this, the disgusting scare campaign funded and administered by the trade union movement continues. And, in what I am sure they will tell you is a coincidence, it continues in marginal seats which Labor hope to win at the next federal election. I see my colleague, the member for Robertson, in here. She also has been a victim of some of this scare campaigning by the unions.

This campaign has sunk to a new low. Last week, Australian unions began circulating a pamphlet through union channels in Darwin and Palmerston. It appeared on the Facebook pages of union staffers and a Labor-aligned local government aldermen or councillor. When I checked this morning, similar information was posted on the Australian Unions website. This information I am referring to is an invitation to all union members to attend a debate on the merits of the China free trade agreement. The proposed debate is supposed to be held at a community hall in Palmerston between an Australian Manufacturing Workers Union representative and myself.

I have no problem with debates, because we do that here in this place; it is how we test ideas and how we formulate policy. The problem I have with this proposed debate is that the unions invited the entire union membership base at the Top End before they even considered asking me. The first I heard about this was when one of my local aldermen, who is Labor aligned, had publicity on her Facebook page saying: 'Come along and see this debate. Come and get the facts.' How can you have a debate when the other person is not even going to be there? This is not an attempt by the unions to stage a debate. This is another union stunt. I know that it is a stunt because the member for Robertson has also had exactly the same thing happen in her electorate, and so has the member for Dobell. There was not even any consultation with us as to whether or not we were available.

They just decided to stage this absolutely disgusting rally, this supposed debate of merits, and all they are trying to do is rally up the trade sector to support the union movement, so that one of their organisers can get up there and say: 'We're here but Natasha Griggs is not here. Lucy Wicks is not here and Karen McNamara is not here because they don't care.' What a load of rubbish. You actually need to make sure that people are available before you put out the advertising. As far as I am concerned, the unions are not going to have me debating this sort of rubbish with them, because it is not a real debate. They are staging another stunt. As I said, my message to the unions, who are pouring their membership fees into marginal seat campaigns across the country, is this: if you want a debate on the China free trade agreement or any other topic, bring it on—but make sure that it is a proper debate. That is what this place was built for. We have been debating the China free trade agreement in this building for several months, and it is a debate that the unions are losing. Over the course of those months, the misinformation your puppets on the opposition frontbenches have been sprouting has been tested and it has been found lacking. The ideas that you have put forward through your Labor appointees have been debated and they have been found to be unsound. Many of the things that the unions have said in their advertising and via their puppets on the opposition frontbenches are simply not true, and I think people have actually cottoned onto that.

The unions are supposed to be representing their good members. They are supposed to be the advocates for workers' rights and conditions. That is a noble cause, but they have strayed so far from their path. How can they look into the eyes of the members they represent and tell them that their membership funds are being used for a set of coordinated stunts to support their allies' political aspirations? How can they tell the people they represent that the fees they are using, which are supposed to pay for their advocacy and protection, are instead being channelled into 21 marginal seats to try to change the government?

This debate has already happened. Here in this place, questions have been asked about the free trade agreement and those questions have been answered. Arguments from those opposite have been put forward and have opposed the China free trade agreement, but those arguments from Labor have not stood up. We have seen the union movement, for reasons I do not understand, lashing out at agreements that will create jobs and wealth and opportunities for all Australians. Now that the Australian public have seen through their untruths, their exaggerations and their outright lies, they are now, in desperation, staging these stunts. They could not win the debate in here, so they have taken their bat and ball and they are going home.

To those of you involved in this, you can stack an audience and you can create an echo chamber of your own opinion, but you cannot call it a debate. Debates are what happen here in this chamber. Debates have two sides involved. This is not a debate; it is a farce. Let me say loud and clear, here on the public record, that I will have no part of it. I will not be a party to any Labor or union stunts. In the Territory, I will leave those stunts up to Senator Peris and her Labor staffer who is contesting the election with me when it comes up next year. I think that they need to focus on making sure that they represent the people, because I know what Territorians want. Territorians can see through these lies. They can see. They want a government that is going to create jobs, and that is what we are doing.

See this speech in context