Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (13:12): I think it is incredible that, instead of coming in there with legislation that would enable a free trade agreement with China, what we have got is one more stunt from this government. We have got a Prime Minister who would rather pick a fight than get a result. Any day of the week this Prime Minister would rather pick a fight than get a result. Instead of a methodical approach that would introduce enabling legislation negotiated with the Labor Party, knowing that we have some legitimate concerns about labour market testing and other provisions of this agreement, what does this government do? This weak, empty rhetoric today and a Prime Minister who cannot even see it through. He runs out halfway through the debate. And a trade minister who cannot even see it through, who gives up on his speech halfway through the debate. It is topped off by a Treasurer who is just back from the G20, where he has been claiming that he is responsible for global economic growth. It is not China; it's him alone! As for that little outing by the Treasurer: I reckon I have heard better economic analysis about Australia's future from high school students in my electorate. Of course trade is important to Australia's future, and of course a free trade agreement with China is important to Australia's economic future. The reason we invested so much time and so much energy in the relationship with China is that we know how important it is to our economic future. It is the reason that we released the Australia in the Asian century white paper with a specific country approach for China as well as for other nations. What has happened to the Asian century white paper? There has been an electronic book burning by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It has disappeared from view, which would be fine if the government actually had a strategy to replace it, but there is nothing there. We strengthened our regional partnership, including our strategic partnership with China. We increased the total number of consulates in China to five in addition to our embassy in Beijing, strengthening the relationship with China at every stage. We know— Ms Julie Bishop: So why are you trashing it now? Ms PLIBERSEK: I hear from members opposite, 'Why are we trashing it now?', after an outing by the Treasurer that has basically goaded China to walk away from the negotiating table. We have said for many years that this agreement will be critical to Australia's future. We want an agreement that delivers for China but an agreement that delivers for Australia also, for Australian jobs. We know that there are weaknesses in this agreement— Mr Robb: There are no weaknesses! Ms PLIBERSEK: The trade minister says, 'There are no weaknesses.' We believe that the Abbott government could have and should have secured a better deal. It is disappointing that a number of agricultural goods are left out of the deal. They failed to win further market access for rice, wheat, cotton, sugar and canola or vegetable oils. And personally, as a former health minister, I am pretty concerned about the investor-state dispute settlement provisions in this deal. Investor-state dispute settlement provisions have us in court in Hong Kong right now, protecting our right to defend the health of Australians by maintaining our current provisions for plain packaging of cigarettes. The government is spending millions and millions of Australian taxpayer dollars. We did when we were in government to defend our right to legislate for the health of our citizens. But one of the most important concerns that we have in this area is around the ability for ChAFTA to support rather than replace local employment. We want to ensure that this agreement supports local jobs, maintains workers' skills and safety requirements and prevents the exploitation of workers from overseas. I know that there is an agreement for this debate to conclude at 1.15, so I will take my seat. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): The question is that the amendment be agreed to.