Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

We oppose these amendments because they are appalling policy. They represent a sell-out by the Liberal Party to the Greens and to the National Party. It is just as well the assistant minister wore his green tie today. This is selling out policy to the Greens and to the National Party, creating red tape and discouraging important investment in Australia. I know the assistant minister would not for a second believe in what he just moved. It would be an affront to his principles. I accept that the assistant minister has principles when it comes to economic management and this is an affront to them, as it would be to many Liberals and as it would be to the Minister for Trade and Investment, because it is bad policy.

What we see is the introduction and the escalation of discrimination in our foreign investment rules at the hands of this government. We see discrimination against countries which this government has decided should be treated differently from the United States, New Zealand and Chile, which enjoy a $1 billion threshold for foreign investment in Australia that was instigated by the then Howard government. What this legislation does and what these amendments do is reduce the threshold for scrutiny for agricultural land from $252 million to just $15 million for investors from most countries, but not the United States, New Zealand and Chile. The government has to justify this discriminatory process against China and against other countries. What is different about foreign investment from some countries which makes it worthy of greater scrutiny compared to the United States, New Zealand and Chile, which enjoy a $1 billion threshold?

The government also has to explain why agribusiness is so different to the rest of the economy. Why does agribusiness need a different threshold to financial services or telecommunications or manufacturing and other important areas of the economy? Agribusiness is a very important area of the economy, but is it really so different to those other sectors like telecommunications or the financial services sector that it requires a different regime? What is different about it? What is the government's justification for that? Well, the justification is that Barnaby Joyce is running this government's economic policy. We have seen it again and again. As former Prime Minister Keating said in a different context of a different person, I would not let him near a jam jar of five cent pieces when it comes to making economic policy. But we have this government, this Treasurer, who is happy to outsource policy to his cabinet colleague the Minister for Agriculture and, on this occasion, to do a deal with the Greens, and railing against doing deals on economic policy with the Greens and yet doing it in the Senate last night.

This is a set of propositions which has been appropriately condemned by the Business Council of Australia, by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, by the Australian Industry Group, and by the Australian Food and Grocery Council—all have supported the principled position of the Labor Party. We get a lot of calls for greater bipartisanship for good economic reform. Well, this is one where the Labor Party will call out bad economic reform. In fact, this is not reform, because reform implies a positive change. This is a retrograde change. We will not have a bar of bipartisanship on this policy because it is bad policy, and we will call it out for what it is. I know that there are many members opposite, including many cabinet ministers, who agree with us on this proposal.

It is easy to play cheap politics on foreign investment. We can all go out there and run campaigns against foreign investment. What actually shows a bit of political courage is the Labor Party coming in and supporting good policy. We will not engage in the populist nonsense that the Minister for Agriculture is engaging in. We will not engage in the cheap, grubby deal-making with the National Party that this Treasurer, this Minister for Trade and Investment and this entire government are engaged in. The now Prime Minister has done deals with the National Party on an effects test and now he is also selling out to the National Party on this matter.

I will not accept for a second members opposite—who, just a few weeks ago, were railing about the China free trade agreement—coming in here and moving amendments which effect discrimination against the world's second largest economy and investment in China. We will not accept that. We will not accept being lectured to by this bunch who engage in these sorts of deals, these sorts of poor public policy outcomes, and this appalling process that we saw in the Senate through the deal between the National Party and the Greens last night. And the Treasurer is claiming, as this government does, that they are 'open for business'. What this shows is that that is rank nonsense and hypocrisy from the government. This is a government selling out their so-called pro-foreign investment credentials and selling out all their anti-red-tape agenda for this deal with the National Party and with the Greens. Well, we will not cop it. We will stand for good policy. We will recognise that it takes more than rhetoric to get foreign investment and more than just saying that that foreign investment is vital for Australia's capital needs, but actually putting in place the mechanisms to get it. We will support good policy over this rank hypocritical nonsense.

See this speech in context