Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Leader of the National Party talks about a sell-out. The only sell-out that we had in terms of trade was under the National Party. Trade has always been within the bailiwick of the National Party. I was pleased to hear the member say that trade was important, because it did not seem to be so important when they were in government. It was always in their bailiwick. It is amazing; he used the phrase that it was somehow amazing or remarkable and it was, because for the last five or six years there was a trade deficit. Under the coalition government, and under the National Party directly, there were 69 consecutive months of goods and services trade deficits—and a lot more, which I will turn to later in my contribution.

In speaking to support the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill, I want to say that it does a number of things. Structurally, it amends the Australian Trade Commission Act and the Export Market Development Grants Act and substantively it does two things: it enhances the Export Market Development Grants Scheme, which I will address in some detail, and it goes some way towards addressing the Rudd government’s election commitment—a major one, I add—to improve Australia’s trade performance, which was abysmal under the previous government.

I will first turn to the proposed changes to the grants scheme, then cover the commitment to improve the performance and conclude with more general comments. The maximum grant will increase from $150,000 to $200,000, and $250,000 in some cases. Two claimable expense categories will be added to the range of eligible expenses—an important change. Also, importantly, it expands the range of bodies able to access the scheme and significantly some of the tourism bodies and some of the regional bodies that were not able to access it before. It lifts the maximum turnover limit to $50 million. It reduces the minimum threshold of expenditure to $10,000 from $15,000. That is more realistic in terms of the costs that a business has to outlay. It extends the limit on the number of annual grants from seven to eight—again, more realistic, and an extra one really helps the businesses a lot. It removes the distinction between internal and external services to provide that all non-tourism services are eligible products. The tourism industry has widely endorsed this. It introduces a good governance requirement by way of a performance measure for applicants claiming their third and subsequent grants.

I note that the Leader of the National Party talked about the performance measure and he mentioned that it had not been done because people were concerned about the WTO. The fact is that there can always be advice about what the WTO might or might not raise, what might be challenged, but the fact is that it makes sense. When we are giving our public money to bodies, particularly the third or subsequent grant, it makes sense that we have a performance measure. We do that in all areas of public life, but perhaps the National Party want it to be along the lines of Regional Partnerships, where money was given out helter-skelter, willy-nilly, without any performance measures.

See this speech in context