James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, I accept the point that iron ore, coal and natural gas are doing the lion's share of making sure that we stay in surplus, and that's an important thing for people to remember about our economy, too.

When I studied international trade more than a decade ago, one of the more famous examples of the issue around export data—commercial-in-confidence versus giving free giving access to important trade statistics—was the company Phillips, a very famous Dutch electronics company. It was the case that if the Dutch government released certain data on electronics export values et cetera for the whole economy, they would be revealing information about Philips because they were the only electronics manufacturing company operating in that country. That meant there were always important provisions to make sure that commercial-in-confidence information was not published invariably or accidentally or because it was necessary under the legislation. I understand the need to keep sensitive information that companies need to provide to government as commercial-in-confidence where it is necessary for the business.

I also understand completely the need for this change and how it would benefit the government in supporting industry to grow our exports and to make it a lot easier for government to share information between departments. I certainly understand that different organs of our government are all working together to support growing our exports. We know how important information is for DFAT, who obviously have responsibility for undertaking trade negotiations by looking for opportunities to negotiate FTAs and make sure Australian businesses are going to benefit to the maximum from the sorts of negotiations that we will set as priorities in those bilateral and multilateral fora. Of course, DFAT need to be in possession of the most up-to-date and comprehensive data in those areas, and surely we want them to be so that they can make sure that what they're doing in these discussions will maximise the benefits for Australian industries. We wouldn't want them not to be in the possession of certain information that another department could have provided to them about Australian exports in sectors, in product lines et cetera.

We want all levels of government to have all the information they need to deliver in the best interests of Australian exporters and in times when Australia is in dispute with the WTO. We want to make sure that government agencies have all the information that they need, if we are engaged in disputes to protect the interests of Australian exporters. At WTO level we want to make sure that they have all the facts that they need to make the strongest argument in support of Australia's interests. Obviously, we understand government supporting individual exporters to properly understand some of the issues around documentation et cetera. Going back to the example of the wool industry, I remember we often had interesting requirements suddenly foisted upon us, particularly from the European Union if I'm honest. There would suddenly be the miraculous requirement for a health certificate for a dramatically transformed product like spun worsted wool and yarn for some reason like because it was a sample quantity instead of a commercial transaction. It would then be necessary to spend a couple of thousand euro to have a vet come to look at a spindle of yarn. That's fine, and we always followed the rules. We're always proud of the strong biosecurity framework that we've got, and it's also important for our businesses and our exporters to properly know and understand, perhaps with support from our government, what the various elements are when it comes to engaging in new export opportunities et cetera.

Clearly, we can do better to make sure that all levels of government are in receipt of the best information possible from other agencies, who at the moment have significant challenges to provide the information that they've got that would freely advance the best interests of our businesses and our economy, and we should support that. For those very simple reasons I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context