Penny Wong, TOPIC: CHINA FTA

SENATOR THE HON PENNY WONG

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION IN THE SENATE

SHADOW MINISTER FOR TRADE AND INVESTMENT

SENATOR FOR SOUTH AUSTRALIA

TRANSCRIPT

18 November 2014

ABC AM WITH CHRIS UHLMANN

E&OE - PROOF ONLY

UHLMANN: Penny Wong is the Opposition’s Trade spokeswoman. Good morning.
WONG: Good morning, good to be with you.
UHLMANN: Penny Wong, do you have enough detail now to say whether this free trade agreement is a good deal?
WONG: Let’s be clear: very little detail actually has been announced. The Government’s refused to release the text to you, me and every other Australian to tell us the detail of what they’ve actually agreed. And in fact, the text won’t be released until after signing next year.
But, overall, what we say is, the principle is that trade liberalisation is good for the economy and good for Australian jobs, and we’ll look at the agreement to assess whether it’s in the national interest.
UHLMANN: Is this process, though, any different than the one you had with Chile, for example?
WONG: I think you’ll find that Craig Emerson and Simon Crean were more transparent about their objectives and what was agreed; I don’t think there’s any reason why the Government has to only release a bunch of glossy pamphlets and have a photo opportunity rather than the text of the agreement.
There are some very important issues Australians are entitled to understand; one of them is labour movement; that’s obviously a critical issue.
UHLMANN: And on skilled labour, that’s on projects over $150 million; what are your concerns there?
WONG: The Government really needs to answer this question: have they ensured that this agreement will mean Australian jobs increase and are not replaced by the movement of people, by the bringing in of Chinese workers.
And there are two questions: is there labour market testing? That is, employers looking for an Australian to fill the job first in relation to the contractual providers. And, is there labour market testing on their IFA, Investment Facilitation Agreements, up to $150 million?
UHLMANN: And the Government would say yes to those things and say that these deals are no different from the ones that you’ve struck.
WONG: Well, if that’s the case, I’d welcome Andrew Robb clarifying that, because, certainly in relation to the first category, that is contractual service providers, I think you’ll find Labor governments sought to maintain policy space to allow labour market testing for those categories of workers.
And certainly on the IFAs – so the Investment Facilitation Agreements – it’s a much lower threshold than we looked at – 150 million, which obviously means much more significant potential movement of workers.

UHLMANN: Is Labor comfortable with the change in foreign investment thresholds – especially on farmland.
WONG: In fact, we probably have a more liberal position – that’s in a small ‘L’ liberal sense, of course – when it comes to foreign investment.
UHLMANN: Very small L.
WONG: In fact, Bill Shorten and I called earlier this year for an increase in the threshold that the Government has put in place – that is, up to just over a billion dollars for private investment; we think that’s a sensible policy move and we welcome the Government agreeing with us on this.
I don’t agree, and Labor doesn’t agree, with lower thresholds for agriculture; I think that is nothing more than a political sop to the National Party.
UHLMANN: But do you think that concerns about China buying up the farm are overblown, as it was about Japan all those years ago.
WONG: I think that the better way to look at it is, will this investment create jobs in Australia? And as I’ve said before, it’s inconceivable that we can scale up our agricultural industries without foreign investment. Why is it in our interest to make it more difficult for investors to invest here?
I would have hoped that that National Party might focus on things like including sugar in the FTA, rather than simply putting in place what really is a political position.
UHLMANN: Sugar, cotton and those kinds of things are always difficult, though. You would concede that.
WONG: Yes, they are difficult, but I think what’s interesting to observe is the National Party have copped this exclusion of sugar again for a trade agreement without so much of a murmur.
UHLMANN: Now, when the Chinese President talks about democracy, just to clear this up, he’s not speaking about the kind of democracy as we conceive it, is he?
WONG: China obviously has a different political system, and so how they look at these principles in their political system is probably quite different to how we do. But we understand that, that China has a different way of organising themselves.
I think what was really striking about the speech, though, were two things: one is the very strong articulation of China as a peaceful and ethical player, and secondly, the feeling of partnership, the emphasis on partnership with Australia and China’s focus on the region. These are good things for Australia.
UHLMANN: Words have to be transformed into action, don’t they? Vietnam wouldn’t necessarily think that China was peaceful in its rise.
WONG: All I can say is, I thought the speech did articulate a vision of China in its region that was as an ethical and peaceful player, and that is to be welcomed, not just for Australia, but for the region.
UHLMANN: Now the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper says his country will contribute to the Green Climate Fund; Australia says it won’t.
How much money do you think Australia should put in?
WONG: Can I say on this, Tony Abbott really has been left hanging by world leaders. He’s out of step with them when it comes to climate change; he resisted inclusion of discussion of climate change, simply to be overrun by world leaders who said, ‘Look, this is an international issue; we have to deal with it’.
And, on this, the Green Climate Fund, which he very disparagingly referred to. You know, we’ve got the US, Canada – conservative government in Canada – Germany, France signing up to it.
So, I think he’s really left standing there.
UHLMANN: So how much money should Australia put in?
WONG: That’s ultimately a matter for the Government.
UHLMANN: Well, their answer is none.
WONG: What I’d say to them is climate change is a global problem. As President Obama said, as Chancellor Merkel said: no country is immune; it has no borders and I think the international community is well ahead of where this Government is.
UHLMANN: Well Tony Abbott’s also been ridiculed for his support of coal. Should Australian coal miners and exporters be vilified?
WONG: I’ve never thought you should vilify particular sectors. What I said as Climate Minister is, coal will be part of the energy mix, but we have to put in place the right signals so that the market invests in clean energy.
That’s what the Labor government did, and that’s what Tony Abbott appears to be opposed to, including his plans to effectively dismantle the Renewable Energy Target.
UHLMANN: But, briefly, there will be export markets for coal for a long time to come. India wants Australia’s coal; China will continue to use Australia’s coal.
WONG: Yes, and coal will continue to be a part of the world’s energy mix. What’s significant, of course, is China has agreed to peak its emissions and then to decline them. That’s an extraordinary commitment from China, and one that really demonstrates how far behind the eight ball Tony Abbott is.
UHLMANN: Penny Wong, we’ll have to leave it there, thank you.
WONG: Good to speak with you.
ENDS