Mr PROSSER (2:21 PM) —My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the strategic benefits to be gained from free trade agreements? Would Australian exporters to the United States be placed at a competitive disadvantage in respect of other countries in the absence of a Australia-United States trade agreement? Is the minister aware of other views?

Mr DOWNER (Minister for Foreign Affairs) —First, I thank the honourable member for Forrest for his question. In response, let me make essentially three points. First of all, this country has entered into free trade agreements since 1983, which was the year when we entered into the closer economic relations agreement with New Zealand. A review was done last year—the 20th anniversary of CER—and it found that, as a result of that agreement, two-way trade had grown by 550 per cent in those 20 years. So the benefits have been enormous for New Zealand as well as Australia. Proportionately, I would concede the benefits have been greater for New Zealand because it is the smaller economy but nevertheless benefits have been there for Australia as well. It has been a good thing. There have also been free trade agreements negotiated recently with Singapore and Thailand.

The fact is that these agreements are a win-win situation for Australian trade. I note that the Labor Party did not oppose any of those agreements. Although the free trade agreement with New Zealand was negotiated by the Fraser government it was actually brought into force once the Hawke government came to power—no opposition from the Labor Party.

The second point I would make is that the free trade agreement Australia has entered into with the United States is not unique in another respect: the United States is entering into free trade agreements with a number of other countries. Recently, it concluded a free trade agreement with Chile. It is negotiating a free trade area of the Americas, which is expected to be completed in 2005, and it is about to initiate negotiations with Thailand. One point that the House—particularly the opposition—needs to reflect on is that if we do not proceed with our free trade agreement with the United States then those countries that have concluded those agreements will gain a still greater competitive advantage over Australia in the American market.

My own electorate includes a lot of grape growers and winemakers, as does yours, Mr Speaker. Those people will be less competitive in the American market after the free trade agreement with Chile comes into effect because Chileans will have the advantage over Australians in the American wine market. The list of countries that have FTAs with America will grow and grow and our relative disadvantage in that American market will grow and grow if the Labor Party gets its way and scuttles the free trade agreement with the United States.

Let me make my final point: Labor's proposal is apparently that it is better to reject the free trade agreement we negotiated, it is—

The SPEAKER —Order, the member for Kingston's wishes to continually interrupt! Competition with South Australian grape growers is inappropriate. The minister has the call.

Mr DOWNER —better to make sure that our businesses miss out on that greater market access; it is better to ensure our businesses have a relatively poorer position in the American market because other countries have FTAs. We in this House are expected to believe that a Leader of the Opposition who called the President of the United States `the most incompetent and dangerous president in living memory' is somebody who, on becoming Prime Minister, can pick up the telephone and say to President Bush, `Give us a better free trade agreement,' and that President Bush would say, `Yes, we'll do that.' If you believe that, you will believe one of the Mem Fox stories that the Leader of the Opposition says we should all read to our children—and we do.