De-Anne Kelly (Dawson, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary Trade) Share this | Hansard source

In closing this debate, I would like to thank all of those who have spoken. I will refer to them in more detail later, but I think that all those who have spoken have made a significant contribution to the debate. I would like to acknowledge the members for Bowman, Cunningham, Hasluck, Werriwa, Cowper, Prospect, Riverina and Fraser. Later in my address I will respond in more depth to the points that they have made.

Before I talk in detail about the Export Market Development Grants Scheme, I would like to put the record straight for those who perhaps have overlooked the facts on Australia’s export performance. In 1996, Australia’s exports were worth $99 billion. In 2005, they were valued at $176.7 billion. That is an increase of 78 per cent over that 10-year period. Of Australia’s top 10 merchandise exports, six reached record levels in 2005. Those figures speak for themselves.

I would like to specifically address the scheme that we are looking at: the EMDG Scheme. It certainly is a proven success. I appreciate the comments of the member for Fraser and the suggestions he has made. It is a proven success in assisting small and medium businesses to become exporters. It also supports the government’s wider strategy for a robust, internationally competitive economy. We need to build a diverse community of successful exporters. That is absolutely vital to underpin Australia’s future economic prosperity and it is a key objective of the EMDG Scheme.

Over the last decade the government has successfully retargeted the scheme to small and emerging exporters—those businesses that most need assistance to build their export markets and grow to be sustainable. Last year, of the more than 3,200 businesses that received export market development grants, over three-quarters of them reported an annual income of $5 million or less. So it certainly is achieving the aim of targeting those emerging exporting companies. Through the EMDG Scheme, the government is encouraging businesses Australia wide to think globally and to reach out to potential customers around the world, to win export sales and to create jobs.

Other speakers—and I will deal with many of those in more detail—have highlighted the value of the EMDG Scheme to small and medium enterprises in their own electorates. There is no doubt that the review of the scheme recently showed that it enjoys very strong support from Australian businesses across a wide range of industry sectors. Independent research has confirmed that the scheme works and that it is an effective means of encouraging small and medium businesses.

I note that one of the previous speakers, the member for Cunningham, wanted the scheme to grow to $300 million a year. However, it is not meant to accommodate larger and more experienced exporters. In fact, the independent economic analysis that has been undertaken shows that the export behaviour of firms with annual incomes of $30 million or less is more likely to be responsive to the EMDG Scheme than that of larger firms. So we believe the targeting is right. It is the small and emerging exporters that most need our help at the embryonic stage of their venturing into export markets, and we will continue to focus on that group. The member for Cunningham also mentioned a lag in payments. The reality is that if applications are put in in a timely fashion then payments will be made in a timely fashion. But if any members are finding that there is an anomaly in the scheme that is delaying payments into their electorates, I would be very glad to hear about that and assist them in ensuring that that is overcome.

I would like to move to what individual members have contributed. I notice the member for Bowman was very energetic in his support for export and resource industries. I mentioned the member for Cunningham. Again, every speaker was in support of our Australian export industries and generally very supportive of the EMDG Scheme. I am pleased to see that members on both sides of the House are such champions of our Australian export industries. The member for Hasluck mentioned the $176.7 billion in record export achievements last year—an increase of 15 per cent—and the need for innovation and productivity. The member for Werriwa gave a very comprehensive address, mentioning the monthly trade deficit, but perhaps I will go into more detail in addressing his points later in my address. The member for Cowper looked at areas of growth for exports of minerals, coal and medicines in the context of an overall growth strategy that includes tax reform, the Work Choices legislation and a range of other initiatives. He also noted that $124 million in the EMDG Scheme leverages out $3 billion in exports. I also note that surfboards into Japan are part of the process in Cowper for achieving exports, and I congratulate the Dahlberg firm that does that.

The member for Prospect claims that the government is riding on the Chinese wave and the coalminers’ backs. There is no doubt that we are experiencing record export growth from our resource industries, but it is not right to merely focus on resources. I would like to comment on the Committee for Economic Development of Australia’s World Competitiveness Yearbook. Significantly, that shows that for exports of goods as a percentage of GDP Australia ranks 54th out of 61 countries. On the face of that, you would say that perhaps it is not a result that we would be pleased with, but when you look at which country ranks 57th you see it is Japan, and 61st is the United States. It is quite plain that countries that have very strong domestic demand have that offsetting their export success. There is no doubt that the growth in Australia’s resource industries—the rapid investment in Australia—is creating a great deal of domestic demand and diverting resources to domestic needs. Australia’s rankings in 2006 from the World Competitiveness Yearbook show that we have risen overall from ninth position to sixth. Our economic performance is 14th, as opposed to 22nd last year. For infrastructure we are 19th out of 61. The results speak for themselves: in terms of the value of direct inward investment flows, Australia is fifth out of 61 nations.

The member for Riverina spoke glowingly, and it is wonderful to see a local member so proud of the export achievements of their electorate. She is justifiably proud of the rice industry in her electorate. She very graciously thanked the member for Fraser for his contribution when he was the Minister for Trade—

See this speech in context