Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It's with great pleasure that I rise in the chamber to speak about diversifying Australia's trade and investment profile, because we are of course an island nation, rich in resources and ingenuity. We are a trading nation; we always have been. Since the early 1980s, those on this side of the House have been in favour of free trade. Trade is inherently political, and it's naive to pretend that it's not. We have experienced this firsthand over the past year or so, and it's taught us a painful but very important lesson: an overreliance on trade, either on the product being traded or on the end destination for our products, exposes us to political and market forces that are, obviously, often out of our control. But diversification brings us two things. It brings us greater stability in the face of these forces and it encourages innovation and growth here at home. Given how immediately important diversification is and has been for the last eight years, the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth is late but timely still. So I welcome this report, which recognises the urgent need for Australia to begin diversifying.

Like my colleague the member for Bruce, I will remind those watching—because sometimes, with the vacuum of leadership in our nation, you forget—that those opposite have been in government for eight years. So, yes, they should begin diversifying. It's late, but it's needed. This report is a substantial piece of work towards that aim, and I do commend the committee for its efforts. The committee consulted widely, taking evidence from federal government departments and agencies, the NT government, unions, industry groups, think tanks, scholars and obviously the private sector broadly.

The 21 recommendations of this report are sensible and constructive. The first recommendation of this report calls on the government to:

… develop and release a plan for trade diversification, which includes:

More eggs, more baskets. Obviously, I completely agree with this recommendation. The government need a clear and public strategy to drive this trade diversification, but, as the member for Bruce has just finished saying, the government don't have a plan to do it. They love an announcement; they love announcing a free trade deal, but when it comes to the work, the policy work, the grunt work to actually drive that change, drive that diversification, drive more baskets and more eggs, they're a bit MIA—missing in action. Even after our economy, our producers and our businesses have been battered by a global pandemic and a trade war, there is still no plan to make us stronger and more prosperous.

Obviously, before this latest disruption began, we needed to address the diversification issue. The government with almost eight years on the Treasury benches have had time to get it right, but they haven't even taken the first step in eight years. This report is a welcome small step. The government have dropped the ball.

I want to give those listening a perspective that they may not be aware of. I had the privilege of chairing the Labor Party's Indo-Pacific trade task force, and I want to thank all the members of that trade task force once again. We reported to the Labor leader in December. In the introduction to the report, I wrote: 'Economic diversification can be more than a money maker, which is how the coalition has tended to treat trade. It was a nation builder under Labor governments, whose visionary Hawke-Keating reforms created our modern trading economy of today. Diversification is a national economic and strategic imperative on the same scale as this challenge, but it's a 50-year project under a government with a 280-character-long vision statement. Labor alone can transition our trade portfolio to build a wealthier, safer and more resilient Australia.'

Our Indo-Pacific Trade Taskforce took evidence from 88 different groups and stakeholders—among them, business, industry, scholars and government departments. We came up with 13 considered, wide-ranging and robust recommendations. I'm pleased to note that many of our recommendations are in complete agreement with those of this report by the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth that we are discussing today. These recommendations are underpinning the important work we're undertaking on our side to prepare for government—and we've been undertaking that work for some time. We'll be ready to act swiftly on trade diversification when we form government because we've done that hard work, and I'm proud to have played a role in that process.

Before I come to discuss a major component of the report of this joint standing committee, I will comment upon one other element that caught my attention. Recommendation 3 recognises the importance of having a full understanding of export markets to the success of any trade agenda. It states:

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government commit to building the Asia-capability of Australian exporters and investors, including:

greater development and/or utilisation of programs to boost Asia-literacy of businesses and training for jobs of the future;

… … …

Our Asia literacy is not a new topic but it's incredibly important for our nation. We cannot hope to survive and thrive in our region without being able to communicate with, and appreciate the perspectives of, our friends and neighbours in the Indo-Pacific. Australia's deficit in Asia literacy has held back many of our businesses from thriving and taking on opportunities. We can also see a distinct lack of Asia literacy in many of the decisions of this government. Successive Labor governments have funded and boosted Asia literacy—from primary schools to universities. Successive coalition governments have gutted these commitments. I have pursued the study of Bahasa Indonesian, which has given me a greater insight into the culture and philosophies of one of our most important trading partners. I wholeheartedly endorse recommendation 3 and call on the government to act on it.

The part of the report that gained the most publicity is the discussion on the leasing of the port of Darwin to the Landbridge Group in October 2015. I have spoken and written extensively on this. The facts of the matter are largely in the public domain, but I'll repeat the three key points of this fiasco. Firstly, the lease is for 99 years—just short of a century. Secondly, the deal was done by the former Country Liberal Party government of the Northern Territory, with the full support of the coalition federal government. Those opposite have been in government for eight years. A part of their record—we wouldn't call it an achievement—that will be there, in infamy, forever is that, with a conservative Northern Territory Country Liberal Party government, they were part of leasing the strategic port of Darwin to a foreign company. Landbridge Group is known to have extensive links to the People's Liberation Army and the Chinese Communist Party. This is an issue I feel strongly about. I have spoken up about it from the start. I'm glad that this report has looked into it. The port is in my electorate. Like many, I have long held those deep concerns about the deal and the possible national security implications in the uncertain times we live in. It seems that the joint standing committee shared my concerns. Recommendation 19 calls on the government to:

... provide a report on whether the 99-year lease of the Port of Darwin to a foreign company will be subject to the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Act 2020 ... and if so, consider taking measures to have the Port of Darwin brought back under Australian ownership if current arrangements are not deemed to be in the national interest.

See this speech in context