• Home
• Media releases
• Transcripts
• Speeches
• Statements
• Current Minister
• Department

SIMON CREAN: I'm leaving later this week for a trip to Latin America, five countries, but essentially the opportunities presented by a meeting of the Cairns Group which is taking place in Uruguay. I'll also be visiting Mexico, Chile, Argentina and Brazil. Latin America, of course, has huge potential market opportunities for us. We have a strong partnership in Chile, not just with a comprehensive quality FTA, but as strong partners in wanting to advance the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. Mexico, following a visit last year by my counterpart Minister Ruiz, we have agreed to pick up the notion of a joint trade and investment council — a ministerial council. That will be taking place and there will be a strong business delegation going to Mexico, to Chile and to Argentina. Opportunities in terms of the mining sector from the business community with strong resource development and potential within Latin America, but also strong opportunities in the clean energy space. The Cairns Group meeting in Uruguay will provide a timely opportunity to seek ways in which we can progress the Doha Round. Finally, the US has — the President of the US has announced the appointment of their chief negotiator, Mr Punke and he will be in Uruguay so the opportunity to engage not just with the Cairns Group members, but with other invited guests: India, the US and China, will be a timely opportunity ahead of the G20 meeting in Toronto.

One other point that I would make today, I was interested in reports in the Fairfax newspapers today of a report that talks about the need for China to change its attitude towards the approach to investment in Australia, following the Chinalco fallout. If this report is accurate, then it is welcome news indeed. Because it is signalling on the one hand the fact that China is prepared to accept Australian advice about the approach to its investment strategy, following what's referred to as the Japanese model. Essentially not to seek controlling interests as part of the drive to strengthen their resource security needs. They are also very conscious of the problems associated with state-owned enterprises, making the approaches and the need for them to be conscious of that. China has been making the point that it's concerned about the high prices for iron ore, in particular. This, however, a pure function of demand and supply. It is the market at work. Demand for our resources is extraordinarily high because Asia is growing. Asia has invested strongly in stimulus packages. Those stimulus packages have invested, in turn, strongly in infrastructure. Demand is ahead of supply and hence, prices have gone up. One way to address that is to obviously increase supply. Foreign investment is a mechanism for increasing the supply side of the equation. We welcome foreign investment. We've given advice to the Chinese as to how this can be pursued, and if these reports are true, we welcome the fact that they are heeding that advice.

QUESTION: Does China still have some maturing to do in terms of understanding the market at play with its proposal to boycott iron ore negotiations?

SIMON CREAN: Well, again, I've seen reports of them saying that they've called for a two month moratorium on iron ore, or on purchases by steel companies. If this report is true, it is a very blunt instrument. What they have to understand is that this is the market at work, and they can't influence the market by centrally controlled edicts. That will be bound to fail. If their demand is as strong as it is, and they're having to compete with other countries who are competing for the same resources, then the price effect in the current circumstances is the natural consequence. Our advice is to think medium to long-term. To look at the investment climate, look at the opportunities for supporting the expansion of resource availability, particularly here in Australia, and it's one of the fundamental reasons why I've been arguing that they need to address this investment framework in the context of the Free Trade Agreement — so that we have a framework for investment.

QUESTION: So, Australia — with our expanding coal exports, does Australia need more controls on the way — on the shipping licenses, and the shipping routes and perhaps more controls on the companies and how they export, given this ship that's run aground in Queensland?

SIMON CREAN: Well, that is a very worrying concern. As I understand it, and I'm not across the full details of this report I watched it over the weekend  but as I understand it, that vessel was where it should not have been. And so the fact that it has breached its obligations is a matter to be determined on the facts and then, dependent upon how the Government chooses to pursue it. But I think it is true to say that they're — the coal industry and the reason coal exports went down in the last month was due significantly to seasonal factors affecting the ability, or the inability, to get the coal out of the loaders and into the markets. So, obviously the infrastructure question is something that we said as part of our election over two years ago, was something that had to be addressed. The capacity constraints, skills, infrastructure and the like, and we've taken key steps in that direction, but climatic conditions are very hard to control.

QUESTION: Would a limit on population growth have a flow on effect in terms of resource development, and do you think it's sending the signal to Australia's trading partners about how we might go about business?

SIMON CREAN: Well, I think that we, as a government, have made this point consistently and clearly, that the natural rate of population growth has increased in this country, so our population is going to grow regardless of what happens to immigration. But the further truth is that we have significant growth in demand for our resources, particularly in states like Western Australia and Queensland, and Western Australia, in particular, and the mining companies generally, are saying one of the biggest challenges they face going forward, quite apart from these infrastructure questions, is the availability of skilled labour.

Now, we've consistently taken the view that if the nation has failed in the past to invest in the skills formation of the country, then you do have to resort to temporary arrangements with immigration to address those skill shortages. What we've set about doing is investing in skill formation in this country. It was an important component of the stimulus packages. It's an important component of last year's Budget, and I believe it will continue to get importance in the coming Budget, because we understand the importance of building the skill base of the country. What are the drivers of economic growth? They're skills, they're infrastructure and they're innovation. And these are the things that unless a nation invests in them, their productivity will slip. We demonstrated, when we were in office last time, that if a government invests in those sorts of things, it can significantly increase productivity. We, in fact, achieved the highest rate of productivity growth in the world as a result of making those investments. Unfortunately, in the 12 years that the Howard Government was in office, they disinvested in many of those areas. We've come to office committed to rebuild again. So, in the medium to longer term, I think you'll see the benefits of that investment showing through. But, in the meantime, we can't afford to deny our economic opportunities if we're to cut off opportunities for skill shortages.

And so, people calling for cuts to immigration programs ought to understand how the economy is functioning. And I think the Opposition has shown a lack, disinterest indeed, an appalling understanding of the way the economy works. And if they're calling for cuts, this is another example of their misunderstanding and their misinterpretation of the facts.

QUESTION: But that's happening in your own party too. Kelvin Thomson's very supportive of cuts and believes they don't go far enough. The Opposition's proposed one.

SIMON CREAN: Well, the — lots of people will have different views. But we, as a government, have to deal with the facts of life. I'm, as Trade Minister, looking for opportunities whereby we continue to use trade to secure Australia's economic future. If we're not providing the skill base, if we're saying to resource companies, other companies that face skill shortages that because the previous government failed to invest in skills, bad luck, you just have to wait till we rebuild, well, I don't agree with that course of action. I say that we do have a responsibility to address the shortfalls. That's what we have been doing; it's what we will continue to do.

QUESTION: So do you see in the high levels of immigration naturally coming down as the policy mechanisms kick into play?

SIMON CREAN: No. I think, as the natural rate of population growth increases, obviously, that's going to drive population. I think immigration policy has always been a function of the economic circumstances, and it will continue to be.

QUESTION: Minister, is there any prospect of a change in your policy on uranium sales to India?

SIMON CREAN: No, we have no plans in prospect for a change. We have consistently said, made this clear to India — I've made this point directly to Minister Sharma, who I see is in the papers today calling for a rethink that we — because of our policy, cannot supply to countries that are non-signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. We've sought to address the particular concerns that India faces in terms of developing its civil and its renewable energy supply. As a member of the uranium suppliers group, we were positive in that direction. But the constraint in terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty still stands.

QUESTION: You know what it's like to lose the party leadership and then go on and continue in success. Do you think it will always be a case of what if for Malcolm Turnbull?

SIMON CREAN: Oh look, I think once you've made the decision to move on, it's the right decision. Only you can make that decision. And I think that all Members of Parliament should be entitled to make it on their own terms, particularly when they've given important service to the country. I wish Malcolm Turnbull well. I heard of his decision this morning. I wish him well in terms of whatever he chooses to do.

QUESTION: Would there be concerns from within the Government that it's losing a voice of reason on the CPRS from within the Liberal camp?

SIMON CREAN: Well, it was a voice of reason that was reflective of, I think you would have to say, more than half of the Liberal Party. You know, wherever the Coalition, as a whole stands, is another question. But of the Liberal Party, there — it is evenly split on that question, and I think it's line ball as to where it falls. So he wasn't the only voice of reason. He happened to lead it, in my view, courageously. It cost him the leadership and now he's made a decision about his future. That happens, that's politics.

QUESTION: Was it really that courageous though? I mean, he obfuscated for months, and months and months and delayed on making a decision on the CPRS because his leadership was on the line. In hindsight, don't you think he should have made the call a lot earlier on?

SIMON CREAN: Well, we always believed they should have made the call a lot earlier, because I think that there is strong bipartisan support for the direction in which we were seeking to take this debate. So I think the delay did cost him, but, nevertheless, he stood up to the plate when it counted.

ENDS

Media inquiries

• Trade Minister's Office: (02) 6277 7420
• Departmental Media Liaison: (02) 6261 1555