Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Hansard source

Of course they have changed. Haven’t you been listening? I have told you what the functions are that are changing. We are changing them to make sure that there is a focus on investment. We are changing them to make sure that there is more of a focus on services. We are changing them to make sure that they integrate and are more effective in terms of understanding a dynamic approach to trade policy that you never had the wit or the wisdom to comprehend. And the fact is that you would never stand up to the National Party and argue for them, even though you understood them far better than anyone else.

I remember the shadow minister at the table, the member for Groom, being quoted in a newspaper—I do not have the exact quote in front of me; I did not think he was going to go down this line—as saying that he and the former Minister for Trade argued in cabinet for increases in the Export Market Development Grants Scheme but they could never get them. They could not win. Not only couldn’t he win against the National Party; the two of them together could not win in cabinet. As a consequence, we had the ridiculous circumstances in which, despite the fact that he knew the trade facilitation role that Austrade exercises—the Export Market Development Grants Scheme—needed additional resources, he could not win the argument. This was in the context of a government that were spending like drunken sailors—and that is the reason that we have had to impose the sorts of fiscal disciplines we have, including the efficiency dividend, because inflation was out of control under them. That is why there were eight interest rate rises on their watch. This minister could not win the argument in the drunken sailor carve-out. He could not win it, even though he knew that the trade facilitation role of Austrade required it.

Worse than that, what they did was to change the guidelines to make it more attractive to access the Export Market Development Grants Scheme. They changed the guidelines but gave it no money. I heard the member for Groom in the parliament the other day—it was in response to a ministerial statement I made about New Zealand, but he went off about the EMDG—saying that we had no money in the forward estimates for this year, $50 million for next year and nothing for the year after. Whilst that is true, what did their government have in the forward estimates for increased expenditure in the EMDG over the next four years? Zero, zero, zero, zero. What we did when we saw that stupidity, despite the fact of them acknowledging that they had to get the EMDG Scheme up to scratch, was to say, from opposition, ‘This scheme needs additional resources.’ We also said that additional changes to the scheme needed to be made to make it more attractive.

I am pleased to see the member for Leichhardt in the room, because one of the issues that he campaigned on—which was partly responsible for his magnificent win in that seat, I might say—was that not-for-profit bodies that in a group sense want to promote exports should have access to this scheme. That was a meritorious suggestion. We picked it up and ran with it. It is one of the changes that we have now legislated which are in the Senate awaiting approval. I am pleased to acknowledge that the opposition is supporting the scheme. But not only did we make changes; we funded them. As for the question of the resources beyond the $50 million that we have already put in, of course that is going to be subject to the outcome of the review that we get from Mr David Mortimer. This government has a commitment to expanding our trade performance, is prepared to put money on the table and is prepared to put constructive proposals forward when they come forward from interested bodies.

See this speech in context