Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Trade Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2016 this afternoon. I would like to start by saying that I was very disappointed with the member for Rankin in his speech. He gave the impression that this bill was unworthy of the House's time. He clearly did not understand the importance of the Export Market Development Grants scheme to this nation, to our exporters and to our future prosperity. Ninety-eight and a half per cent of the world's commerce occurs beyond our shores. What is going to drive the future prosperity of our nation is innovative, experimental small businesses, taking risks to take their products offshore and sell them in those markets. That is why the free trade agreements, the trade liberalisation agreements, that this government has struck with China, South Korea and Japan are so important. For the shadow Assistant Treasurer to come in here and play down the importance of this bill is very disappointing. He simply does not understand the importance of this legislation.

We also heard him claim that the coalition somehow has some antibusiness approach with regard to this. I would remind the member for Rankin that it was the Labor Party that slashed the funding for the Export Market Development Grants scheme when they were in government. They slashed it from $200 million back to $125 million. That was how much they slashed it, and yet we know the KPMG reports show that this scheme, for every dollar of government investment, gets a $7 return to the economy—seven for one. The former Labor government had money to spend and throw everywhere, yet they slashed this scheme back from $200 million to $125 million.

We do not have an unlimited budget. It would be very nice if we here in the coalition government could restore that funding back to $200 million and then index it. With the times that we live in and the budget constraints that we have, unfortunately that is just not possible. But what we have done is we have kept our election promise: we have increased funding for the scheme. Another $12.5 million went into it in the 2014-15 year, so the scheme now sits at $137.9 million. It would be nice if we could increase it further, but we need to live within the budget restrictions that we have.

It was interesting that the member for Rankin, as I said, talked about the antibusiness approach of the coalition, yet he is part of a party that plans to increase capital gains tax by 50 per cent. What antibusiness message does that send? If the members of the Labor Party are planning to increase capital gains tax in this country by 50 per cent, they are sending an antibusiness message to every single investor, to every single business, in this country. They do not know the damage that they are preparing.

It was also interesting to hear the member for Longman, the Assistant Minister for Innovation, talk about how the Export Market Development Grants scheme was first introduced in 1974. I actually first applied for an Export Market Development Grant about eight years after that, in the 1982-83 year. I think I am one of the few people in this place who has actually filled in one of these forms and who understands the importance of the scheme to small business and how it actually works.

I will give an example of how this scheme is important to incentivise small business. I was working for my parents' company in the mid-1990s, and we had been successful doing an export job in Singapore, for the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. It was very successful. It created a lot of jobs, a lot of employment, a lot of work, for people here in Australia. At the time, we thought, 'Is this just a one-off or is this a market—up in Singapore—that is worth exploring more?' The Export Market Development Grant scheme was available, so we decided, on the back of that scheme, to take the risk and to participate in a trade fair in Singapore. It was an expensive exercise, because you needed to design a stand, make the samples, pack them up, airfreight them all to Singapore and fly up yourself. Then you had your accommodation on the ground and you had the cost of going into the exhibition. It was an expensive exercise and it was a risk-taking exercise. But what tipped the decision in favour of doing that, of taking that risk, was the fact that we had that Export Market Development Grants scheme behind us. We would have to cough up the money up-front, but there was a little bit of a relief there from government to help offset some of those expenses down the track if we were unsuccessful. From that exhibition, I remember we wrote about $1 million-plus worth of orders that we would never, ever have achieved otherwise, purely because of the scheme. And that is just one example of the thousands and thousands of companies that have taken advantage of this most important scheme.

So, contrary to what the member for Rankin says, this is a very worthy bill to take the time of the House and spread the message to those small businesses out there in this country today who are thinking of what they can do to expand. I would say to most businesses in Australia today: look at what you can do in the export market. We are in a unique period of human history. Never before have we seen so many people lifting themselves out of poverty and into the middle class who can become consumers of goods made here in Australia.

'Made in Australia' carries a lot of weight. It is not all about competing on price; it is about competing on quality and style—and with the 'Australian made' logo behind it. It is the high end of the market. That is where our future prosperity lies. So we as a government need to do everything we can to encourage businesses to go out there, take that risk and explore those markets. For the member for Rankin not to understand the importance of that and come into this chamber and say this bill is all just a waste of time is frankly a disgrace.

Since the scheme has been going, since 1974, there have been four-yearly reviews. This legislation gets rid of those four-yearly reviews. Each review has been important. Each review has made minor changes. But we think this scheme should be legislated with no sunset clause, and that is exactly what this bill does. The message we are sending to small businesses out there is that this is how the scheme works: if you have eligible export promotional expenditure, the first $5,000 is not counted; above that, you are able to get a reimbursement of 50 per cent of all of your eligible expenditure and you are able to get grants for eight years. That can be consecutive years or it can be spread out. After the first two years there is an export performance test to make sure the grant money is being wisely given out and people are spending it wisely. The maximum grant is $150,000—although, as the assistant minister said, the last year averages $44,000. That is the message that we should all be selling and sending out to our businesses in our electorates to encourage them to get out there, have a go and utilise the scheme.

There are a couple of changes in this legislation that I would prefer not to see there. One is the capping of the free samples provision. That is capped at $15,000. Each individual business determines whether promotion should be done through overseas representation, marketing consultants, marketing visits, trade forums, promotional literature or free samples. I understand that there have been times in the past when those free samples may have been overclaimed, but I think that should be left to each individual business rather than putting a cap on it. I would not like to see that there, but it is there. The other one is the removal of communications. As someone who sat up at night and spent many long hours on the phone talking to customers over in the Middle East, I would like to see communications still in there.

Although these things have been removed, this is still a very good scheme. This is still a very important scheme for our economy. It shows the commitment that this government has to the small businesses of this country. It shows the commitment that we have to risk takers—those who innovate and will drive the prosperity of our nation forward in future years. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context