Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2014. This is a refreshing bill that delivers on our election commitment to actually increase the funding for export market development grants. This bill increases the funding to the EMDG Scheme by $50 million over four years. In contrast, the former Labor government in their first bill on export market development grants in 2010—and I spoke on that matter on 16 June 2010—reduced the export market development grants from $200 million to $150 million. Just to show that they could be outdone, when I spoke on the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2013 on 14 March last year they cut it from $150 million to $125 billion.

When I hear speakers from the opposition speaking on this bill saying how good export market development grants are—how they are going to increase local businesses' opportunities to get into overseas markets and how they will bring great economic benefit to this nation—I often wonder if these are the same people who sat there very quietly when it was cut from $200 million to $50 million, when their plan was to cut it from $150 million to $125 million. Over the reign of their government, they reduced funding for export market development grants from $200 million per annum down to $125 million per annum at the very time when we needed to grow our export markets.

There are some measures in this bill that will be well received by all industry sectors, but most importantly by small- to medium-sized enterprises. This bill will increase the number of grants an applicant can receive from seven to eight. That is good news. What the former government wanted to do was not only restrict the number of applications but also direct where those applications could be spent. Now we all understand that we are right at the cusp of a rapidly emerging Asian market, and, yes, we should be doing everything we can to embrace that market and capitalise on our efforts. But at the end of the day, it is actually up to individuals in business to put their own money on the line to attract markets, and then have government support. It is not for governments to dictate where markets should and should not be. If you believe in free enterprise, if you believe in return on investment for the risk that you take, then you should allow individuals to determine which markets they think they will get the best return on.

In a former role I held in this House—that is, as the shadow minister for tourism—I held a number of roundtables with the tourism industry. At each and every roundtable, the issue of export market development grants came up. Tourism operators in particular need access to those grants, because tourism operators in particular are usually very small-sized businesses, and access to that supporting capital can mean the difference between those businesses surviving and crashing. If those businesses survive and grow, that means more jobs for Australians. That is why this is good. What is particularly impressive about these amendments put forward by Minister Andrew Robb is that they will reduce the minimum expenses threshold to be incurred by an applicant from $20,000 down to $15,000. That means smaller operators will be able to go overseas, will have financial support for printing brochures in different languages to make sure that those new customers can read in their own language what they want, will be able to attend trade shows, will be able to beat down the doors and will be able to bring new business to Australia. This is good news.

The other thing that is particularly good for businesses sharing the love, as I call it, is to reduce the $5,000 deduction from the applicant's provisional grant to $2,500. To give you an understanding of how that works, currently on an eligible expenditure for $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000 there is no rebate proposed, no export market development grant. But what will happen now is at $15,000 there will be a $5,000 proposed rule. Then at $20,000, the current grant rule of $5,000 goes up to $7,500. All the way through it provides a great benefit, but it caps out with eligible expenditure of $305,000 at $150,000. So up to 50 per cent of what you spend marketing your business opportunities for Australians in overseas markets—you have the ability to have that rebated by this government.

There are two other aspects of this bill which are worthy of consideration and show an understanding and an engagement with industry. One is the prevention of payments of grants to applicants engaging in EMDG consulting assessed to be not a fit and proper person. The one that really is impressive and will win small business in particular, is to enable a grant to be paid more quickly where a grant is determined before 1 July following the balance of distribution date. Small businesses run on very tight cash flows at times. The opportunity to have these grants to promote their business and to get that money in a timely manner is critically important.

Some of the people in my electorate who accessed these grants in previous rounds are companies like Moonshadow Cruises, who win national tourism awards for taking people out whale watching and dolphin watching. I have watched that business grow from one boat to a number of boats. They are now operating out of my home port of Port Stephens, and they are also expanding into Newcastle. What is really good is that when I go down there to the waterfront, I see the numbers of tourist buses with people from the Asian region just lining up. They are lining up, spending money in my electorate, and that is great. I encourage them and other operators like Tamboi Queen Cruises, who have also accessed the EMDG Scheme.

But it is not limited to tourism operators. As the previous speaker said, winery operators—there is no doubt we have the best wine in the world in the Hunter Valley. You would often wonder why you would need export market development grants to compete when you have the best wine such as comes from the Hunter Valley, but you actually do.

See this speech in context