We hear all of the loudness from the opposition leader talking about putting Australians first. Well, he failed to do that when he voted against the tax cut for Australians this year. He failed to do it when he voted against a tax cut for Australians for next year. Eight hundred and fifty thousand Australians are benefiting from Labor's free TAFE initiative. This leader of the opposition, who now walks out of the room, also turned his back on those who rely on free TAFE, which is supporting people in getting the skills and jobs that they need and that small businesses need across this nation. Indeed, this leader of the opposition found, wherever he could, an opportunity to vote against bills that help people earn more and to vote against bills that help people keep more of what they earn. When he was last in government, in the dying days of the government that he was a cabinet member in, he proudly opposed an increase in the minimum wage.

I have seen a few different opposition leaders at the dispatch box here over the years—and I think I might see a few more in the years to come—but that was a particularly flat performance from the Leader of the Opposition. I wonder: Is he flat because his tearing down of Sussan Ley was somehow a failure? Is the Leader of the Opposition a bit flat because he was the headline act in a losing Liberal campaign in the electorate of Farrer? Is he flat because, before question time, he tuned in and he saw the member for Canning doing a far more convincing job than the Leader of the Opposition himself is able to do? Is he flat because he is the leader of the Liberal Party in name only? We know that it's the National Party that's continuing to dictate policy to all those in the Liberal Party, and so, as a result, we see a leader of the opposition with his economic credentials under real threat. I'd also note the thing that I found amazing about that speech from the Leader of the Opposition was that he would be so disrespectful to the great state of Western Australia, to my home town of Fremantle, that he would come in here and, just a month on from the grand final, attack the Fremantle Dockers. Even the member for Durack thought that was a step too far, and I agree with the member for Durack.

The Leader of the Opposition does face a leadership test, and that leadership test is called the Australia-European Union free trade agreement. The question is, ultimately: Does the Leader of the Opposition agree with himself? Does the Leader of the Opposition stand up for his own values, or does he agree with Senator Canavan? He faces a real choice: does he believe in his own values, or does he believe in Senator Canavan values; or, in another way, does he believe in free trade, or does he believe in fake tradie? I will let you say that I stand for free and fair trade and the deal negotiated by Senator Farrell, because it means Australia will get eight times more beef exports into the $30 trillion economy of the 450 million people represented by the European Union, five times more sheepmeat exports. Then, of course, when it comes to creating new jobs in the Australian economy, this backs the critical minerals industry of Australia, especially for the west.

I heard the interjection asking me about shopping. It does mean cheaper white goods. It does mean abolishing tariffs on wheat and barley, and it means that, particularly for that barley sector—I think those who know the history of trade in this country would know there were significant impediments to the trade for barley when we came to government. We removed a range of those trade impediments, and we want to remove even more trade impediments.

I'll say—maybe it will help persuade those in the Liberal Party and the National Party—there's even something in this for the blue ribbon branches of the Liberal Party: cheaper champagne. For the rest of the wine producers here in Australia, what we will see is that this free trade agreement abolishes the $56 per 100 litre tariff on Australian wine going into Europe. That means more for our wine producers across the country, and, again, I would have thought that that would be something that those opposite could support. It means cheaper pasta for Australian families. Again, I ask: why does the Leader of the Opposition—the first time he spoke in this place he said he believes in free trade and he believes in getting rid of taxes on trade. Why is he now finding himself standing up for massive taxes on Australian exports? It makes absolutely no sense.

I'm not the only one who's saying that. I note the comments from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry boss Andrew McKellar, who said:

… Australian business is calling on everyone in the Parliament to back a deal that has been worked on across the political divide for the better part of a decade.

And he had a warning, and this warning is important to those opposite, and I agree with it:

If we lose this opportunity now, we won't get it back.

That is right.

I was listening carefully when the Leader of the Opposition started off his comments in this matter of public importance, and he started off talking about, of all things, the Melbourne Cup. I agree that every meeting of the Reserve Bank is a consequential meeting, and it's important, but, unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition's shadow treasurer thinks that these things are incredibly trivial. It was just a year ago that the shadow treasurer got this headline—we know that the shadow treasurer likes headlines. This is the headline the shadow treasurer got last year: 'Senior Liberal MP Tim Wilson is really unhappy about having to work on Melbourne Cup Day'. Does anyone remember that? This was the great big idea of the now shadow treasurer. It's clearly interesting. Maybe no-one else wants the job. I don't know why he's got it, but this was his big policy idea, and it's a bit inappropriate. I'm going to read it from the shadow treasurer's Facebook page.