David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Griffith proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The effect of political instability within the Government on Australia’s national reputation and export performance

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mark it down in your diaries: Monday, 29 May 2006, the day that the once great Australian Country Party simply curled up into a shell and died. The only thing that has happened is that the friends and relatives are now having a dispute over what should be in the formal content of the funeral notice. But let us make no bones about it: this party is no more. Despite all the hollering and hooting from all those up there in cocky corner, there has been a death in the Australian political family: ‘RIP Australian Country Party. Born 22 January 1920. Died 29 May 2006. Aged 86 years. Sadly missed by Mark and the kids.’

This is what has happened to the once great Australian Country Party. The party of Black Jack McEwen is reduced to what we have seen today—this pathetic, squabbling, comatose cadaver, twitching quietly in the corner before it finally shuffles off its mortal coil. The only one with any dispute about this is, of course, the Deputy Prime Minister himself. The Deputy Prime Minister reminds me so much of that bloke in Monty Python who says, ‘But I’m not dead yet!’ Remember that? The problem, Mark, is this: Doug Anthony says you are dead.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will refer to members by their seat or by their title.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Federal President of the National Party says you are dead. The Queensland President of the National Party says you are dead. The Queensland Leader of the National Party says you are dead. John Bjelke-Petersen, son of Joh, says you are dead. Even Senator Julian McGauran said you were dead some time ago. And who would have thought that Julian McGauran would be a market leader in anything?

That leaves us with the Deputy Prime Minister himself protesting to the parliament at large, to the country at large and to his party at large that this is a mere flesh wound. In fact, this is a dead parrot. This parrot is completely dead. This party is a dead parrot. But today it was like a voice channelling from the past. In answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, what was the initial response from the Deputy Prime Minister? ‘Don’t you worry about that.’ I hear the voice of distant years. It was Joh Bjelke-Petersen down the time tunnel of politics and into the House of Representatives—a place to which he wished to come once, did he not?—wreaking parallel havoc on this mob opposite. Well, the ghost of Joh is back in a different form, channelling through the Deputy Prime Minister today—‘Don’t you worry about that.’ I have to say, though, Deputy Prime Minister, most of your colleagues are very much worried about that. Peter Beattie got it right: Joh Bjelke-Petersen today would be rolling in his grave at the thought of the once great, proud Australian Country Party turning into what we have seen today—a subset of a minor branch of something now called the New Liberals in Queensland.

All students of political history have a bit of an interest in this, and I have a bit of an interest in it too. I make the confession here, in the parliament, that my father was a member of the Country Party.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My father was once a member of the Country Party!

Kim Beazley (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Billy Hughes sent him through the line and back.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He did not follow the Billy Hughes dictum; he actually joined the Country Party. But that was back in the days when I grew up on a farm in rural Queensland and when the Country Party stood for something. That was when the Country Party stood for standing up for the country against the city based Liberals. They stood up for rural Australia in those days. This was the party of Black Jack McEwen. My father always told me as a kid that, at the end of the day, you could depend on the Country Party to go out there and argue your case. That was back in the sixties. That was before they sided with the city based Liberals—to do what? Sell off Telstra. They sided with the city based Liberals to simply become a subset of city based Liberal politics and philosophy right across the board.

None of the spirit of Black Jack McEwen is alive in this mob today. None of the spirit of even Doug Anthony is alive in this mob today. That is why Doug has basically said that the show is over as well. But the rot really set in in the eyes of all rural and regional Australia when the Country Party, later called the National Party, said, ‘We’re going to roll over on Telstra.’ Can you imagine any previous leader of the National Party or the Country Party ever saying to his constituency out there, right across this great, vast country of ours, that we are going to support the privatisation of Telstra, Telecom or the Postmaster General? Could you ever believe that any previous National Party leader would simply roll over and say, ‘Tickle my tummy’? That is exactly what happened—‘Tickle my tummy.’

When you unpack it all and look at how many times the Nats have folded to the Libs, the pattern of behaviour is simply consistent. There is a fundamental schism at work here. When you stack it up on a piece of paper, the National Party is supposed to stand for opposing unbridled free market principles as it impacts on rural working families. If you unpack it all, that is what they are supposed to stand for. Yet they have somehow teamed up with this mob—Peter Costello’s Liberal Party or the Liberal Party which Peter Costello would like to have—a party whose philosophy is this: there shall be no break on the market, there shall be no intervention on the market, and when it comes to any part of the country, city or country, let the principles of the market rule. There is such a deep philosophical chasm between what the Country Party used to stand for and what the Liberal Party still stands for. But what has the Country Party, now the National Party, done instead? Instead of arguments of political principle and basic principle, it has simply hauled up the white flag and said, ‘Over to you, Pete.’

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will refer to members by their seat or by their title.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is why Nationals in Queensland, Nationals including their federal president, have simply said, ‘The game is up; it is time to roll in to this new entity called the New Liberals.’ Could you imagine, by the way, Bob Katter going back into the National Party as the federal member for Kennedy—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Griffith will refer to members by their seat or their title.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and saying he was running on a platform of ‘Bob Katter, New Liberal candidate for Kennedy’? Can you just imagine the impact across rural Australia? We are having this debate because the National Party itself as an institution is collapsing before our eyes and the political authority of the Deputy Prime Minister, as a consequence, is collapsing before our eyes. He got some advice today from Senator Boswell in the Senate. Senator Boswell’s advice was this: ‘Mark, resign.’ That was the advice.

If you have look at the trade figures over which the Minister for Trade has presided in his period since the year 2000, the trade figures of themselves suggest he do nothing else other than resign. Since he has been trade minister of the Commonwealth of Australia, we have registered 49 consecutive monthly trade deficits, contributing to a $20 billion annual trade deficit, contributing to a $55 billion current account deficit and contributing to a record half trillion dollar foreign debt. And this trade minister thinks there is no case to answer.

Dig down into the detail of what our Minister for Trade and Deputy Prime Minister has presided over. This is where, colleagues, it gets interesting—comparing the basic export data during this minister’s custodianship of the trade portfolio and those who have preceded him. Let us look at total exports. Between 1983 and 1996 total exports from Australia grew annually on average by 8.1 per cent. That was our period in government. In the first four years after we lost government and the other mob took over—that is, between 1996 and 2000—that slowed to four per cent annual growth. Guess what has happened since 2000. Since this trade minister has occupied the portfolio, which is now six years, growth in exports is now just over 1.6 per cent per annum. Let me frame it for you again: 8.1 per cent per annum under us, four per cent per annum under his predecessors and now 1.6 per cent per annum during his six years in the job.

When you go through the individual parts of the export profile of this country the data is just as disastrous. Elaborately transformed manufactures achieved 12.9 per cent annual average growth under us and 5.3 per cent growth between 1996 and 2000. But since the year 2000 elaborately transformed manufactures exports have slowed further to only 3.6 per cent per annum. Go to rural exports. You would think that in this area the Deputy Prime Minister would excel. Average annual export growth from 1983 to 1996 was 4.8 per cent, slowing to 1.9 per cent between 1996 and 2000. But guess what has happened since 2000. They have actually gone south. They have gone into negative, recording an average annual decline in growth of 2.4 per cent per annum.

Let us go on to minerals and metals exports, and remember that this government has had the happy happenstance of being in office when we have had record terms of trade, for which they can claim no credit—that is just a function of the international market. Between 1983 and 1996 minerals and metals exports had an average annual growth of 6.5 per cent per annum, slowing to 3.6 per cent per annum in 1996-2000. But since 2000 and this minister’s six years at the table, it has gone down to 1.3 per cent annual growth. Again, it is a collapse. You see it across each category of exports.

Let us go finally to services. This is the great long-term hope of the Australian economy: how do we boost services exports? Services exports when we were in office between 1983 and 1996 grew by nine per cent per year. Between 1996-2000, before this minister took over, they grew by just two per cent per year. In the six years since this minister has taken over, they have declined at an average rate of 0.3 per cent per year.

Across the categories—not just exports as a whole but across rural exports, mining exports, elaborately transformed manufactures and across services exports—the pattern is the same: robust export growth under us, where a government believed it had a job to do in encouraging exports by concrete things in industry policy and elsewhere, and decline under a government which has now taken its hands off the policy levers altogether, resulting in a performance against all categories of exports that is sad and sorry indeed.

This minister says that his other great policy achievement, before he exits the portfolio and takes Bos’s suggestion in the Senate, is the free trade agreement with the United States. Let us have a quick look at how that one has gone. In the first 12 months of the operation of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement exports to the US fell by $280 million in year average terms while imports from the United States—what?—grew by close to $870 million in year average terms, with the net result that Australia’s trade deficit with United States increased by $1.1 billion or 11 per cent to a total of $12 billion. This is the US free trade agreement.

How many times have we heard this Minister for Trade, the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Prime Minister stand at that dispatch box and say, ‘This is the greatest thing since sliced bread’? Yet in the first year that the numbers flow through, Australian exports to the US are down, imports from United States are up and going through the roof, the result being that our bilateral trade deficit has got worse. This is the USFTA, where here we have a National Party Minister for Trade, a National Party Deputy Prime Minister, who could not even get our American cousins to let in one extra bit of sugar. Sugar was completely off the table. How can you be a self-respecting National Party Minister for Trade and front up to the Americans and say, ‘Okay, roll over, tickle my tummy, there will be no sugar additionally exported to the United States.’ I have to say on that one as well that it is pretty pathetic.

The trade minister’s other boast a year or two into his occupancy of this portfolio was particularly interesting. It was that the trade minister was going to do what, Mark? What were you going to do for the number of exporters in Australia?

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Griffith will address his remarks through the chair.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Was the Deputy Prime Minister going to increase the number of exporters by 25 per cent. No. By 50 per cent? No. Could it have been by 75 per cent? No. The Deputy Prime Minister said, I think it was four years ago, that he was going to double the number of exporting firms in Australia. How has that one gone since then? How is it going? According to the ABS data in 2004, there were 43,452 exporting firms. In 2005 that went down to 40,797 exporting firms. They are going south rather than north, according to the ABS data on that year on year. I would be interested to see the rest of strategy that you propose to unfold.

Whether it is in export numbers across rural, mining or services manufacturing, whether it is your performance on the whole question of the USFTA and what that has delivered additionally to Australian exporters or whether it is in boosting the numbers of exporting firms, the pattern is the same. Deputy Prime Minister, you should not just consider leaving the portfolio. The national interest demands right now, on the back of the AWB and on the back of everything else, that you leave politics altogether. You stand condemned.

Mark Vaile (Lyne, National Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You still have a bit of time left, mate. In your dreams—the Milky Bar kid is dreaming again. This discussion on a matter of public importance is about political instability and export performance. Let us have a look at the political instability that exists in the Labor Party ranks. We have the Leader of the Opposition who only has an approval rating of 25 per cent and who is only one caucus meeting away from sitting back on the backbench. The member for Griffith—and this is why he is running this MPI; the member for Griffith is going to run out and have a Milky Bar now—is on 27 per cent. He wants to try to get past the member for Lalor, the Manager of Opposition Business, who is on 31 per cent. She has not helped herself today as she has been put out of the House for 24 hours. That is the opposition. That is the sort of political stability they are putting forward.

Since we have been in government, look at the form on the front bench in the leadership of the Australian Labor Party. When we won office in 1996 we had Mr Beazley, then we had Mr Crean, then we had Mr Latham—we can all read about Mr Latham’s escapades—and now we have Mr Beazley back again. When we look at the research about Mr Beazley, we see the member for Lalor breathing down the neck of the member for Brand, we have the member for Griffith breathing down the neck of the member for Brand and we have the incoming member for Maribyrnong who is going to breathe down the neck of the lot of them. So, if you want to have a look at some political instability, you need go no further than the Australian Labor Party.

We all remember the former Leader of the Opposition, the then member for Werriwa, when he described the sickness that infects every level of the parliamentary Labor Party. He has written about it in his book and he has put it out there for all to read. It is a description of political instability and it exists from top to bottom in the Australian Labor Party. He pointed out that more than 30 of the Labor MPs and senators in this parliament think of themselves as factional powerbrokers. Their only interest is in securing factional advantage, not in making policies that would benefit the Australian people. That is his view, not my view; I am just repeating it. He has written that about all of the front bench and all of those involved in the recent warfare that has taken place in Victoria that has seen two frontbenchers lose their preselection. The member for Hotham only just, by the skin of his teeth, salvaged his. The Labor Party ought to be the last group of people in this place to talk about political instability.

The rest of this discussion is about export performance. The member for Griffith can come in, spin his wheels and talk about all sorts of statistics and percentages, but the reality is that, in 1996, the value of Australia’s exports was $99 billion. In 2005, their value was $177.5 billion. When you reconcile those figures with the percentages and statistics that the member for Griffith was spinning, if you have a look at today’s statistics, there is an improvement in the balance of trade. Our exports rose in the month of April by five per cent or increased by $799 million to $16.9 billion in April this year. This was the highest April level on record. This was the second highest level of monthly exports on record. So we are continuing to set higher standards in the value of our exports going out of Australia.

What did that consist of? It consisted of an increase in resource exports, yes. On the one hand, the Labor Party like to slag off at the government about taking the benefits of the resource boom, yet, on the other hand, they ask us to protect Australia against the competitive advantages that other countries have, such as cheaper labour markets. But one of the competitive advantages that Australia has is that we are well endowed with resources and energy and we have a perfect right to take advantage of them when there is an upswing or boom in the resources cycle across the world. Of course we are going to factor that into our figures. Of course we are going to work hard to ensure that we capitalise on that for the benefit of the entire nation.

The Labor Party like to rail against what they see happening to manufactured exports. In the month of April, manufacturing exports rose by three per cent to $3.4 billion. We have continued to see an increase in the growth of exports of fully built-up motor cars and automotive parts that have taken place under the programs that this government has put in place since the late 1990s to help restructure the automotive manufacturing industry in this country and launch them into export markets across the world and into opening up markets. The classic example of that is Toyota. Toyota Australia is one of the best exporting components of the Toyota network into the Middle East particularly. That cannot be ignored. The growth in the volume of exports of Toyota product out of Australia, as with all automotive products out of Australia during recent years, took place after this government put in an industry policy. The member for Griffith was bragging about the industry policy implementation of the Australian Labor Party and what they did when they were in office. This is an industry policy that this government put in place that has helped put the automotive manufacturing sector where it is. We put that in place in the late 1990s.

I spoke about the political instability that exists in the current Australian Labor Party in this place. Let us cast our minds back to the economic instability that they wreaked on this nation when they were in office for 13 years that saw massive unemployment of 10.9 per cent. These are undeniable statistics. Under Labor, unemployment peaked at 10.9 per cent in 1992. In contrast, the coalition has reduced unemployment to 5.1 per cent. That is a statistic that the Labor Party could only dream about in their term in office. That is about the lowest level of unemployment in 30 years.

Going to management of the budget, we all recall the last budget that the then Labor government brought down. When we came to office in 1995-96 there was a $10.3 billion budget deficit compared to a surplus of $10.8 billion that we are forecasting in 2006-07. We have continued to deliver budget surpluses to help strengthen the Australian economy, to lift our international credit rating and to assist Australian companies that borrow offshore to compete internationally. We have improved the economy in Australia. For 10 years we have been reminding the Labor Party and the people of Australia about the debt that was left by the Labor government when they left office in 1996—a debt of $96 billion that the taxpayers of Australia have had to pay off over that period. The Labor Party love to rabbit on about the national debt that the private sector owes. The debt that is the most important to Australian taxpayers is the public sector debt that they have to service, and they have been servicing it for years as a result of mismanagement by the Australian Labor Party. We have eliminated that debt. We have retired that debt to the point that we are now saving roughly $8 billion a year in interest that we were paying to service that debt.

Of course, one of the great legacies that the Labor Party left this country was how they wrecked small business and farming businesses with their high interest rate policy. They believed that the economy was heating up too much, so the then Treasurer and later Prime Minister Keating decided he would slow it down. He slowed it down all right—he slowed it down with a sledgehammer. He said, ‘I’ve got the levers in control of this.’ He was controlling interest rates at the time and saw them peak at 17 per cent—interest rates that are undreamt of today. There is a generation of Australians now who cannot recall how personally damaging those interest rates were during the period of the Labor government. It is our responsibility to continue to remind them.

We should not just be talking about the political instability that exists in the Labor Party today; we should be talking about the economic instability that was their legacy for this nation of Australia when we came into office in 1996. Importantly, we have worked very hard since then to strengthen the Australian economy, to improve the circumstances, to introduce reforms and reform the taxation system. As you would well remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, we removed $3.5 billion worth of taxes off the back of Australia’s exports. Just imagine if they were still trying to carry that burden and compete in the international marketplace.

If I can just reiterate: along with those statistics, which were the legacy of the Australian Labor Party when we came into office in 1996, their legacy was $99 billion worth of trade exports and today we have $177 billion worth of exports. Of the 1.7 million jobs that have been created in the Australian economy since 1996, about 320,000 of those have been generated through our strong export performance. So our exporting industries are also contributing to jobs growth in this country. The Labor Party in office could have only dreamt about that level of jobs growth—the creation of 1.7 million new jobs—in the Australian economy. Over that period we have strengthened the domestic economic circumstances to give strength to Australia’s exporters to compete in global markets. We have not been lazy on trade policy by putting all our eggs in one basket and just thinking about the multilateral system. We have continued to put our energy into improving the circumstances in the multilateral system and we are on the verge of doing that at the moment, I believe.

We also embarked, as the member for Griffith indicated, on a series of bilateral trade negotiations, which not only opened up new opportunities but also consolidated our position. He referred to the US free trade agreement. That is fine because I will respond to his comments about the US free trade agreement. There are two key statistics that resulted in those figures for last year, and they had nothing to do with the negotiated agreement we put in place at the beginning of 2005. One key point was the shift in exports of beef from the United States to Japan. We dominate the Japanese imports of beef today. Almost 100,000 tonnes of beef went out of the American market into the Japanese market because it was a higher value market. That is what business does. It is not the responsibility of the government; it is the responsibility of business to look for the best market across the world. There was a big drop in exports of oil from Australia to Hawaii that are part of those statistics.

Make no mistake: our businesses, particularly our service providers getting into the US market and being treated the same as American companies in that market, getting access to the massive government procurement programs in the United States, will continue over time to deliver benefits—as will our negotiated outcomes with Singapore and Thailand, those that we are working on with the other ASEAN countries and indeed China. Just remember that there are two aspects to this policy. One is consolidation in our key markets and opening up new opportunities in those key markets. But there is also the effect that bilateral negotiations have on energising the multilateral system. Competitive liberalisation has been needed to drive and create a stronger focus to deliver an ambitious outcome in the multilateral system, something that I know the Australian Labor Party support. They supported the Uruguay Round of negotiations. Both sides of politics agreed on that.

We have experienced strong economic circumstances in Australia, recognised globally, that have given us a strong exchange rate—an exchange rate that has been well above the 72c range for quite some time. I am not using that as an excuse, but we do know that that makes it a little bit more difficult for exporters and more attractive for importers. But that is the result of a strong economy and the view of the world about the Australian economy that has been created by this government’s economic management over the last 10 years.

In responding to this matter of public importance raised by the member for Griffith, talking about political instability, I ask everybody to look at the political instability that exists in the ranks of the alternative government of Australia, today and into the future—because it is going to keep on going; they are going to keep on recycling leaders, unless the member for Griffith can get his polling up a little bit higher. He may get a guernsey yet, but he has to get past the member for Lalor first. And that is what this is all about. That is the challenge for the member for Griffith. If I can have the last word on export performance: in 1996, $99 billion by the Australian Labor Party; in 2005, $177 billion by the coalition government.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to concur with the member for Griffith when he started his contribution to the debate in a very sombre tone, for what we are seeing is a funeral procession. It is the end. It is the death of the National Party. As they leave this chamber they should mark the days off on the wall, those last few days that they actually have in existence when they can call themselves the National Party. Whether it is days, weeks, months or years, their end has already been struck.

There are two big issues around right now, amongst the many important political issues affecting Australia’s national reputation—our reputation as an exporter, our credibility and the sort of impact it has on our national performance. One of those is our trade deficit: the way we trade, the problems we have had—our trade deficit is literally the worst in history—and all the associated problems.

The other of course is the deficit in the National Party itself. This is also the worst on record, and one that is continuing to slide. We do not need to look very far to see the evidence of either: our trade performance, our trade figures; or the deficit within the National Party. The big question, the question that is on everyone’s lips, including those of the National Party members and probably a few of the Liberal Party members, is: to merge or not to merge? What should they do? This is going to be a big question for them. I do not think they actually know the answer. Big questions; no real answers—to merge or not to merge.

The other big question is: what are they going to call themselves? What new name will they go by? They are going to play around with a few names—the Old Nationals, the New Liberals, the whatever you want to call them. But I might suggest at least one name to them. We should call them the Libirrationals. That is exactly what they are. These guys have no sense of which direction they are actually walking in. If you have ever seen footage of somebody trying to herd cats, you can imagine what it is like in the party room for the National Party on this issue. I think it is an apt name that we can start using right away. I encourage people to refer to them not as The Nationals in Queensland anymore but as the Libirrationals, because it perfectly reflects the collective, confused state of mind of the Queensland Liberals and the Queensland Nationals. Under this new name they will be well regarded.

For those of you who are not as familiar with Queensland politics and the particular nuances as I and the member for Griffith, the Libirrationals are supposed to be looking after country people. That is what they were set up to do. That is supposed to be their charter: country people, people living in the bush, regional Queensland and regional Australia. That is supposed to be what they do. But if you actually look at their record, who looks after people in the bush? It is the Labor Party. As is often said in this place, the best friend the people in the bush have ever had is the Labor Party. It is the Labor Party that looks after the interests of the bush. It is the Labor Party that stood up to this government, and this National Party in here, on the full sale of Telstra. That is something they have no answer for.

We heard a moment ago from the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party—soon to be the Libirrationals—on a whole range of issues, defending his party and a whole heap of things. But he would not mention the ‘T’ word: Telstra. He will not mention it because he is ashamed. He has disgraced himself, disgraced his own party, because he did not stand up to his Liberal Party masters on the issue of Telstra. There are many big issues for country people, people in the bush, but you would have to say that one of the biggest for them in recent times has been telecommunications—the full sale of Telstra. There may be confusion in the minds of the National Party, but there is certainly no confusion in the minds of people who live in the bush. They know that, if they are going to prosper, if they are going to be productive, if they are going to be able to survive out in the bush, in tougher and tougher environments, then they will need world-class telecommunications. They simply will not get that from this government, and they certainly will not get it from their so-called friends, the National Party.

What we see in this place time after time is The Nationals capitulating to their Liberal masters, their political masters who stand over them. For too long the National Party have put the Liberal Party first and their constituents in the bush last. They have no clear answer on any of the issues that affect the bush. They have no clear ambition on any big issues in the bush. They just have clear ambitions for themselves, clear ambitions like those of the Deputy Prime Minister, who knows that the end of the National Party coalition spells the end of his deputy prime ministership. He knows that, were he to have to compete for his office and title against every other member in the Liberal Party, he might not succeed. That is the reality. They are in here debating all sorts of issues—protecting themselves, protecting their jobs, protecting their titles, protecting the benefits they enjoy from office. But I have not heard one of them yet—and we still have one more opportunity, from the member for Casey—

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aviation and Transport Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He’s a Liberal!

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is a Liberal; that is right, because they cannot get the National Party to come in and defend themselves. There is one opportunity left in this sitting period for at least a Liberal member to come in here and defend the National Party. But I have not heard one defence yet—I have not heard one argument yet—from any of them about protecting people in the bush. They will talk about protecting themselves. They will talk about protecting a whole range of things. But they will not talk about protecting people in the bush. I would have loved to have sat here in the chamber and heard the Deputy Prime Minister talk about what he is going to do for people in the bush, talk about the future of telecommunications and talk about what the important issues are—but you will not hear those.

I want to draw a couple of analogies, because there are a couple of clear ones, between the state of the National Party and the Liberal Party in Queensland and the state of our trade performance and our overall performance. Both clearly come under the control of the government and the Prime Minister. He actually controls what the National Party do. Not only does he control his own party; he controls what the National Party do. He will not put up with—not for one minute, not for one second—or entertain the thought that the Queensland Nationals or Liberals could actually determine their own futures. No, he will not have that, because the Prime Minister controls the levers of power. He will be telling them what to do, just as he tells them what to do on the big issues, just as he told them what to do on Telstra. They pretended for a little while there that they were all so concerned about Telstra. They were going to cut some special deals, and they were going to do all these things. But, if you boil all that away, what do you have left in the pot? Just a whole heap of bones. There is not much left, nothing for country people and nothing on the big issues. So, if you want to draw any analogies about our trade performance and how poorly we are doing, just turn to the Prime Minister and have a look at how he is running this government. Have a look at how he is riding roughshod over the National Party.

Also, while the Prime Minister is telling them what to do, he does not exactly step in, help them out and give them a bit of a hand up. They need a leg up, because these guys are suffering. Anybody who comes from Queensland or who reads the national media will understand that these guys are in a whole heap of pain, a whole heap of hurt, because they really do not know where they are going. They are like a bunch of old Brown’s cows, milling around the bottom paddock. The farmer has been away for years. They are just feeding on whatever is left. If a drought comes along, they are in a lot of trouble. If you have seen Queensland lately, you know what I am talking about.

So all that you see in here—the feigned indignation, the attacks on us and everything else that you see and hear in here—is not about the future of the country. It is not about the future of where we are going. It is not about the future of the bush. It is not about the future of Telstra. All the frenetic activity you see is about saving their own hides. It is about saving their own skins. But the reality is that it is not going to matter what they do; they are already dead. I think the point that the member for Griffith led on is that they are already dead. They are the proverbial dead parrot: ‘He’s not dead; he’s just having a rest.’ It is a long rest. It is going to be a long sleep. They are going to fall off the perch at any moment. They are dangling upside down. But we all know that they are already dead.

Funnily enough, they do not know they are dead, but their constituents do. Their constituents already know they are dead, and they will not be voting for dead parties or dead members. Doug Anthony can spell it out and say: ‘Look, guys, I don’t want to make too much of an issue, but I think you actually might have a point here in Queensland. You guys are dead; you’re finished. Do something now, get on with the job; otherwise you’re all gone.’ The national president of the National Party had to be sacked yesterday because he actually told it how it was. That is what happens to you in the National Party if you speak out.

But my favourite comment of all—and I have to hand this one to the member for Brisbane—was from the member for Brisbane. He said, ‘Who would have ever thought that Julian McGauran would have been ahead of the game?’ Poor old Julian. No-one in their wildest dreams could have ever thought that—

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Even the member for Dickson thought that was funny!

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I will take the laughing interjection from the member for Dickson on his views. Just like the long drought we are having in Queensland, we are not just having a drought on the land; we are having a drought in the National Party caucus room as well. It has been a long time between drinks for them, so much so that they are calling for last drinks—farewell, adios, sayonara, arrivederci, adieu, good night and good luck. I am not quite finished, though. Mind you, the National Party is, but I am not quite finished. This ship of rats has just started sinking. A few of them—the well heeled, the fatter rats, the fatter Nationals—can smell the rising damp. They know what is happening to the ship. It is sinking, and they are starting to run like the rats they are. (Time expired)

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is yet another MPI from the opposition, yet another substance-free performance, almost an hour of debate at the pinnacle of the parliamentary day, following question time, when you would expect the opposition to be putting forward detailed policy positions, putting forward their alternative view for Australia. But instead what you get is this gaggle opposite—the member for Griffith moving a motion about alleged political instability and about Australia’s export performance.

The member for Griffith might have many things. The member for Griffith is obviously very hard working. He is obviously very ambitious. We know, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, that the member for Griffith is in a perpetual leadership parade. But one thing the member for Griffith does not have—and his colleagues would attest to this—is a sense of irony. He has absolutely no sense of irony, to put in an MPI on export performance on the day Australia’s exports rose yet again and to talk about political instability at the time when those on the opposition front bench are in perpetual political instability and when he is in a parade with the member for Lalor, who was suspended from this House this morning, trying to become the alternative opposition leader. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, the member for Griffith needs to lift his polling a bit. He is on 27 per cent. The member for Lalor is apparently on 31. The current Leader of the Opposition comes third, which has to be a record in Australian politics.

But, more than that, I have to say that I thought the Deputy Prime Minister was too kind on this subject. How could the member for Griffith move a motion about political instability and fail to see the irony that sitting on his front bench are two frontbenchers—who are there by virtue of the fact that they are supposed to be alternative ministers—who have been rammed out of their own party in Victoria in the most despicable way as a result of branch stacking? And he sees no irony in that at all.

If we go down the front bench, we can start with the member for Hotham. He managed to survive by taking time off from this House and, accompanied by an interpreter, doorknocking his electorate—this is the modern Labor Party—apparently informing branch members that they were members of the Labor Party and then, through the interpreter, begging them to support him in preselection. The member for Corio and the member for Maribyrnong were not so lucky. But they are still there on the front bench and are supposed to be alternative ministers. How do they do their job?

The member for Corio is the shadow minister for agriculture and fisheries. What does he say when he meets groups in his portfolio? What is the opening line in his speech? ‘I’m the alternative minister, except for one problem: my party found an alternative to me.’ Is that his opening paragraph? What about the member for Maribyrnong, who is the shadow minister for Pacific island affairs, who presumably is travelling around the Pacific islands, drawing up a policy that he will not be around to implement? But only the member for Griffith could talk about political instability and not see the irony in that.

Mr Deputy Speaker, if you had read the MPI and listened to the member for Griffith and the previous speaker, the member for Oxley, you would think that Australia’s exports were plummeting month by month. But, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, here are some of the facts. Today—and it would have been before the member for Griffith put in his MPI—Australia’s export figures were released, which recorded our second highest level for monthly exports. We have exports growing in key sectors. Exports have grown 17 per cent in the 10 months to April. In the last 12 months, we have had a 40 per cent increase in merchandised exports to China and a 26 per cent increase in merchandised exports to Japan.

However, the other feature of the MPI, like so many brought on for debate by those opposite, is its utter hypocrisy. In a policy sense, if those opposite think Australia’s export performance should be better, what are their responses? We do not know, because all we have heard is a juvenile political attack by the member for Griffith and the member for Oxley, showing their obsession with Monty Python movies. But we do know, in a sense, what members of the opposition did in the 1980s and 1990s and we know how they have acted in this parliament when it has come to policy positions on exports. If those opposite cared so much about Australia’s export performance, they would not oppose legislation to remove all taxes from exports.

In the year 2000, when the tax reform package was passed through this parliament, those opposite voted against the abolition of all taxes on exports, which is what the GST brought in. On top of that, if you go back a couple of years earlier, they very vigorously opposed measures to reform Australia’s ports. Seven or eight years on, Australia’s ports are now the most efficient in the world. But, if those opposite had had their way, we would be stuck with world’s worst performance. So how can they come into this House and argue for a better export performance, when every action they have ever taken has been to make it more difficult and costly to export and, when the exports get to the ports, more difficult to get out of Australia?

The contribution of the member for Griffith lacked substance, evidenced by what he failed to mention. I do not recall him mentioning interest rates, the level of government debt or the employment situation that existed back in 1996. If you wanted to start a business in Australia, would it be easier to do it with business interest rates of 12 or 13 per cent or with business rates of seven or eight per cent? The answer is obvious. This government—on the tax front, on the reform front and through wider economic management—has made it easier for businesses to employ people. As the Deputy Prime Minister has said, there have been 1.7 million new jobs. Businesses are merging and growing and adding to our export performance.

In the brief time left, I would like to address the free trade agreement with the United States, which has been mentioned by the member for Griffith and by the member for Oxley. They asked what was in it for country people. The fact is that the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement, one of the most important ever negotiated, has opened up opportunities for our exporters, particularly in country Australia, for generations to come. If you look at some of the early figures, you will see that lamb and dairy exports to the US are now at record levels as a result of that agreement—a clear-cut example. It is well known in this place that our lamb market was effectively shut out of the US for many years. That is now open and that market is growing. Services exports have also increased by four per cent.

The sorts of changes we are seeing as a result of those agreements that have been negotiated by the Deputy Prime Minister will lift Australia’s export performance in the years ahead. The speeches of the member for Griffith and the member for Oxley on this MPI, introduced by the member for Griffith, lack substance. This MPI has wasted the time of this parliament and has illustrated again the total lack of ability of those opposite to develop, let alone communicate, an alternative policy of seriousness for Australia.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The discussion is concluded.