Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (12:43): I move: That paragraph (3) be deleted and that the following be inserted: (3) support the China-Australia FTA and call on the Government to work with the Parliament to legislate safeguards which: (a) maximise job opportunities for Australian workers; (b) protect overseas workers from exploitation and maintain Australian wages and conditions; and (c) promote safety on Australian work sites by ensuring the skills and qualifications on temporary trades workers are of the highest standard. Labor supports this amendment and the amended resolution, because otherwise here we will be again—another day, another stunt from the Abbott stunt factory of Australian politics. I can just imagine the Liberal brains trust—if that is not an oxymoron—high-fiving each other this morning. They would have rushed in and said, 'We've got a great idea. We've got a great idea—we're going to have another national time-wasting resolution from the champions of national time wasting.' They would have said, 'Let's put up a parenthood resolution on the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement and try to wedge Labor.' Unfortunately, this unamended motion changes nothing about Labor's position. It is the ultimate hollow resolution of the ultimate hollow man. The Prime Minister's motion pre-empts consideration of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. The treaties committee had its latest public hearing only yesterday. The committee is still deliberating and it has set 19 October as the date for reporting to this parliament. This kind of reckless behaviour we have learned to expect from this Prime Minister—pre-empting this report—does not surprise. But this motion does provide an opportunity for me to set the record straight and to restate Labor's priorities for a China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Labor wants the best possible free trade agreement with China: a high-quality agreement that creates and protects Australian jobs and a deal that generates high-skill, fair-paying jobs here in Australia and ensures that Australians are given the first opportunity to do the work in Australia. Firstly, in support of this, Labor believes in trade liberalisation and the bilateral and multilateral agreements which support this. We have delivered trade liberalisation when in government. It was Labor governments that reduced Australia's trade tariff barriers unilaterally in the 1980s and 1990s. It has been Labor that has opened the way for the modernisation of Australian industry and improvements in living standards for working people. It is Labor that has presided over the formation of the Cairns Group, an initiative that secured significant freeing up of world markets, delivering benefits for Australian farmers in particular. It was Labor that secured the WTO Uruguay Round Agreement, one of the most significant multilateral trade agreements of the modern era. It was Labor that has negotiated and implemented free trade agreements with Malaysia, Chile, the 10 ASEAN countries and New Zealand. And in my time in opposition we have supported the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement and the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement. Our support for free trade is not a matter of extreme ideology or unthinking orthodoxy. We do not see the signing ceremony as the end of the game. Our goal is to always ensure free trade, open markets and economic change that works for all Australians. I stress: all Australians. Labor understands that open markets are an excellent way of achieving economic growth and that economic growth is the best way to create good jobs. But we do not just want economic growth; we want quality growth and we want the benefits fairly shared amongst all Australians. We want market access for Australian firms and we want new jobs for Australian workers. Secondly, Labor fundamentally believes in an Australia engaged with our region. We are the party of APEC and of the Asian century. We know that more trade with Asia is an essential part of building a high-skill, high-wage future for all Australians. If Australia gets this agreement with China right, everyone can benefit. This is what Labor wants. We want our hardworking farmers to get their high-quality produce onto the Chinese market more easily. We want new opportunities for our growing services sector. And we want emerging industries, like advanced manufacturing, to get a boost too. But the fundamental point remains—we need to get the package right. For Labor, this will always mean doing the right thing by Australian workers. There is nothing for Australia to gain by entering a race to the bottom with our neighbours on wages and conditions. There will always be other countries, Mr Prime Minister, that have more people willing to work longer and for less money. Our goal should be to play on Australia's strong ground. Government members interjecting— Mr SHORTEN: Why is it that the government does not believe in a high-skill workforce, good at doing high-quality work? Why is it that these people opposite are always so determined against safe workplaces and fair wages? This is what Australian Labor has fought for and this is at the heart of our specific factual and legitimate claims. We are seeking 'ChAFTA plus'—plus safeguards for Australian jobs and Australian workers. All of the shouting and catcalling from the rabble opposite does not change the fact that this government has not paid sufficient attention to Australian jobs. We call upon the government today, including this person who is currently the Prime Minister, to look at enabling legislation which includes—and I will be specific for the sake of the government—mandatory labour market testing for projects over $150 million, ensuring that Australians always get first opportunity before overseas workers are considered. We want an assurance in the legislation that Australian workplace skills and safety standards will be maintained, and we want an assurance that Australian wages will not be undercut. Without these safeguards, the current agreement would allow employers to fly in temporary workers for infrastructure projects worth more $150 million without having to first check whether Australian workers are available to do this job. I repeat: it is a fact that this government are proposing the diminution of labour market testing for projects over $150 million. What has the Prime Minister got against Australian construction workers getting access? Government members interjecting— Mr SHORTEN: These investment facilitation agreements and these arrangements—these IFAs—mean that a company could, for example, build a new hotel in the Sydney or Melbourne CBD and not have to advertise in the local paper or seek.com for Australian workers first. This is explicitly outlined in the memorandum of understanding attached to this agreement. There is a side letter to the deal also outlining the option of removing mandatory skills assessments for temporary guest workers in key trades—carpenters, machine and motor mechanics, joiners, electricians. Why do you not like Aussie carpenters and electricians over there? Government members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order or my right! Mr SHORTEN: I know the impact that poor workplace safety has on Australian workers. I have met too many victims of industrial injuries and too many of their families to be a party to knowingly reducing the skills and safety standards on Australian work sites. This government— Mr Hutchinson interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Member for Lyons! Mr SHORTEN: These are Labor's core concerns which the Prime Minister wanted me to articulate, and I will say them again for his benefit: upholding Australian safety standards and conditions and protecting Australian jobs. I invite the Prime Minister and the government to drop the political stunts. Government members interjecting— Mr SHORTEN: Look at these people opposite. They must have been pumped this morning. They have gone, 'Fantastic; at last we're going to be on the front foot. We've got the mother of all wedges to give the opposition.' That is all those opposite are good at—politics, never the policy. It is not too late, Prime Minister, to sit down and talk with us. What do you have against negotiating with the opposition? You are the opposition leader in exile. You have never been so happy as when you were sitting here, I think. You should sit down with us and talk about our serious, legitimate concerns. If you have time to play games like this stunt, you have more than enough time to negotiate with the opposition. Why do you think you are the 100 per cent know-all of Australian labour standards? Let me be clear: Mr Abbott, we are not asking you to go back to Beijing; we will come to your office if that helps. Labor's position is crystal clear, and I will repeat it again: mandatory labour market testing for projects over $150 million and an assurance that Australian skills and safety will be maintained and that Australian wages will not be undercut. Over the last decade politicians from both sides of politics have worked hard for this deal. The real problem with the China free trade agreement is that we have a Prime Minister who would rather have a fight than a feed. What I say to this Prime Minister and his followers—such as they are on the backbench—is: do not confuse being stubborn with being strong. You are a good man at being stubborn, but you confuse it with strength. Put aside politics as usual, Mr Abbott. John Howard was capable of doing it on the US free trade agreement—but you are no John Howard. It is time for you to put aside the persona of the brawler. All I say, Mr Abbott, is put Australian jobs first in the agreement. Your resolution unamended changes nothing, helps no-one and goes nowhere. Grow up, Mr Abbott, and do your day job. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the amendment seconded? Mr Bowen: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that the motion be agreed to. To this, the honourable member for Maribyrnong has moved an amendment. If it suits the House I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. All those of that opinion say aye and to the contrary no. I think the noes have it. Is a division required? Mr Albanese: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment. It is duly to be seconded by the shadow Treasurer and we then proceed with debate and there is a vote at the conclusion of the debate, so that people can speak in favour of or against the amendment. You do not vote on it now, because—who knows?—they might be convinced by the Leader of the Opposition's excellent speech. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment be agreed to. I call the Minister for Trade and Investment.