Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

Can I make an observation before I start? The Labor government said they would respect parliamentary process and would be more transparent and more open with all these lovely words. But a lot of things they have done in the parliament since coming to government have been exactly the opposite, consideration in detail being one of those things. Consideration in detail when we were in government was respected as a debate and as a robust process where people would ask questions and the minister would hang around and answer them. Under the Labor government this has become a bit of a debacle.

To go to the issue of trade, I invite one of the four Labor members opposite me to mention the words 'coal, gas and iron ore' together in a sentence and say what economic and trading powerhouses those three industries are. Those industries have funded the budget surplus that was mentioned. Those three powerhouse industries in round figures are around $100 billion industries, and the royalties they pay are high, as we saw in the Queensland government's budget yesterday. Those industries pay royalties and taxes, and the workers in those industries pay taxes as they earn, so they are economic powerhouses for this country. But the Treasurer in his budget speech could not even mention the word ''coal', the word 'gas' or the words 'iron ore'. He just talked about 'the things that we sell overseas'. He couldn't even bring himself to say what they were, although, as we know, old Labor loved these industries. Your predecessors loved them, and you guys have turned your back on blue-collar workers in those industries and want to shut half of them down.

My first question is that I would love one of those four opposite to get up when they speak in the next 25 minutes and congratulate and thank the blue-collar workers in those industries. And why don't they speak? We know it's because Labor these days has turned into a lot of inner-city trendies, and they do not like those industries. I encourage one of them to have the courage to get up and thank the workers in those industries, which, as I said, are the economic powerhouse of our country right now. The other major thing going on is that in government we did free trade agreements, which lifted the amount of goods and services carried by FTAs when we came to government in 2013 from about 25 per cent to nearly 80 per cent when we left government, once you take into account both the UK deal and the India deal we did just before we left government. Again, those free trade agreements are the other things that are driving the economic powerhouse that we now are.

There was one major deal left to do, and that is the European Union deal. Labor members were laughing earlier, so I would like someone to address this next question as well.

We have geographical indicators that some of the sectors of our economy don't want to be given up, so I ask someone opposite to pay this process in the parliament respect and answer this question: is the government considering grandfathering the use of GIs, including prosecco? It was mentioned in Senate estimates that that may be looked at. Now, the prosecco industry have told me they don't want grandfathering to be considered. It causes a lot of distortions in the market, and they want the right to trade with those names even if they were to sell a business or expand a business. Again, to pay this process respect, I would like one of you opposite to get up and answer that question. Are you ruling out free trade agreements grandfathering GIs such as the words 'prosecco', 'feta' and others?

Labor have never been good at free trade agreements—half of them don't really believe in them—so I also ask that you not sell out our farmers. In most deals that are done, there is complete liberalisation of access for things like beef, sheepmeat, dairy and sugar. We're not talking quotas here; we're talking complete liberalisation. I ask someone opposite, if they're going to pay this process any due respect: are you aiming for complete liberalisation in those deals? One thing we had with the EU people in negotiations was critical minerals like lithium, which are very important to them. We should not be blinking. We should be getting a good deal for those people. Again, is someone happy to use coal, gas and iron ore in a sentence, and are you ruling out grandfathering GIs? It'd be nice to get a specific answer to a question.

See this speech in context