Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying yesterday evening on this Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2014, what is most important to Tasmania is Bass Strait. It is a critical link to the mainland and it is a critical link currently to international shipping services, which in the last five years have been absolutely decimated. In fact, they have been removed completely. One of the reasons for that is the cabotage arrangements that were in place by the previous federal government. I welcome wholeheartedly the comments made by the Prime Minister in this place this morning in announcing the repeal day next Wednesday and in relation to taking a serious look at the current cabotage provisions.

This has hurt my state enormously, more than any other place in Australia. A regional community that depends on shipping to move goods on and off the island has been hurt enormously. Unfortunately, the previous Minister for Infrastructure in my state, Minister O'Byrne, who was dealt a very harsh blow on the weekend and was not able to retain his seat of Franklin, spent three years doing nothing whilst exporters and businesses in my state were hurting. So anything we can do to support exporters is a good thing for my state.

I echo the words of Sally Chandler, who has spent much of her life advocating on behalf of and working with exporters in my state as a consultant. Sally Chandler suggests anything that supports exporters is very much welcomed. As she also point out, the export industry is not for the faint-hearted. It does come with challenges. Those people who are prepared to look beyond our shores, to take our goods and services to foreign climes—it is not for the faint-hearted and does involve risk. It involves risk every day, but their success ultimately becomes local success and ultimately their community's success. This is why exports are so important to our nation and to my state.

Governments can provide their support by supporting the export industries in a number of practical and tangible ways. I referred earlier in my speech to the free trade agreement with South Korea that was recently signed by the Minister for Trade and Investment. This is indeed an enormous benefit to many businesses and service providers within this country. The Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2014 also does that in a practical way; it is indeed welcome. It goes beyond the $50 million election commitment that we made. We are a government that will keep our promises, and this is another indication that we are doing exactly that. It is indeed welcomed. It also proposes increasing from seven to eight the maximum number of export market development grants that can be applied for by one organisation, business or individual. This is a very practical enhancement of the existing scheme. Having worked for many years with customers in Asia—Japan, China and South Korea—I know relationships are important and that building relationships is critical. Unless the price is wrong, business never occurs on the first, second or third instance. Often it takes repeated visits and it takes repeated efforts. This practical extension of the scheme from seven to eight potential grants is indeed welcome.

Similarly, in terms of small businesses, reducing the threshold for eligible expenditure from $20,000 to $15,000 is indeed an enhancement that will help small business. It will help small business that is the backbone of our economy. It will help small business to be able to access these grants in a far more practical way. These are the people who fly economy; these are the people who do not spend their money on business class airfares. This practical reduction is another way that this bill will be an advantage to them. It reduces the current $5,000 deduction from the applicant's provisional grants to $2,500, and it provides for quicker payments of the grants in years of low scheme demand or where additional funding has been provided.

For an understanding of that, I would refer the House to explanatory item No. 7 within the notes attached to this piece of legislation. Where the department is quite aware of the fact that all of the money will be paid out in that particular year, it has the provision to be able to bring that balanced distribution date forward. This is a really big advantage for small business. This is about cash flow. This is a practical way to help businesses.

These grants have been in place for 30 years, and, indeed, they are a practical way of supporting small businesses. They often are supporting businesses that are getting into this space, that are looking to expand their businesses beyond our shores into the export market. It is really about helping businesses that are helping themselves, and this is very much something that is dear to my heart and dear to my party's philosophy around how governments should support businesses. They can use these funds for attending international trade fairs, for marketing products overseas or to bring potential buyers to Australia to see their product in its own environment. Obviously, product origin of food is increasingly important, but I have seen it also in the field in which I worked for many years—that is, exporting wool products. Whilst I spent that time in the market talking to customers, more often than not when I got those customers to come back to Tasmania, it was the producers themselves who were very best salesmen. They were the people who got the deal over the line. These are people like Julian and Annabelle Von Bibra, Peter and Ann Downie, Julian Cotton from the east coast, Adam and Granyre Greenhill, Jon and Isabelle Atkinson, Will and Nina Bennett and Frank and Prue O’Connor from Avoca.

Anyone who has been in business will know that if you do not have a marketing budget for international sales then you are way behind the eight ball. A diverse range of businesses in my electorate have benefited from this in the past 12 months. They include tourist businesses, agricultural businesses and pharmaceutical processing businesses such as TPI. Indeed, we are about to embark on another part of exporting our food produce. I am very excited and I know exporters within my state are celebrating the fact that we have a government in place that understands small business, that understands the importance of exports. I commend the bill to the House.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2014. This is a scheme that is widely supported and used by many businesses in the community that I represent in Kingsford Smith. It is a scheme that generally has good support and it is a scheme that provides opportunities in export markets, particularly for small- to medium-sized enterprises. The scheme was initiated in 1997 under the Howard government. It was supported by Labor whilst in office. In 2008, Labor introduced a number of reforms to the scheme. These have seen the reach and expanse of the scheme improved, and made it much more efficient and effective in supporting small- to medium-sized businesses in opening up new markets throughout the world.

In 2013, Labor sought again to amend the scheme. Due to the proroguing of parliament, those measures were not put before the parliament, but it is pleasing to see that some of the measures detailed in the proposals at the time have been picked up in this legislation. However, there are others which were not picked up and we would encourage the government to have a look at those measures in the future.

This scheme is administered by Austrade, a wonderful arm of government, which is doing great work internationally, supporting growth and development of export markets, particularly for Australian small- to medium-size businesses. I was recently speaking to a young entrepreneur in my community who had set up a business involved in the exchange of gold and silver. He was keen to open new endeavours in the Asian market, particularly in China, where the expanding middle-class is providing opportunities for services such as those his business is delivering. He told me that on the first occasion he went to China he basically cold-called other businesses. He went to many of the capital cities and sought to speak to the heads of various businesses to promote the work he was intending to do, but he did not get a very good reception. He had not done the necessary groundwork or made contacts to effectively convert his approaches into opportunities for his business. Before he went to China a second time, he went to Austrade. Austrade officials worked out the opportunities and assistance they could give him in Asia and, through their contacts in China, he had much greater success. As a result of Austrade's work, he converted some of those opportunities into solid business proposals and has created jobs here in Australia and in our community. That is the role Austrade should play and that is the role that export market development grants can play in assisting small- to medium-size businesses to open opportunities.

The purpose of this bill is, firstly, to amend the Export Market Development Grants Act 1997 to increase the number of grants able to be received by an applicant from seven to eight, with no change to the rules for approved bodies and for approved joint ventures. Secondly, it is to reduce the minimum expenses threshold required to be incurred by an applicant from $20,000 to $15,000. Thirdly, it is to reduce the current $5,000 deduction from the applicant's provisional grant amount to $2,500. The final two elements are to prevent the payment of grants to applicants who EMDG consultants have assessed are not a fit and proper person under the act.

The EMDG scheme has fit and proper person rules under section 87AA of the act to provide for the non-payment of a grant if the CEO of Austrade has formed an opinion that the person or an associate of the person is not fit and proper to receive a grant. This provision has been activated since 2004 and has generally worked well. However, under the current rules where an applicant engages an EMDG consultant to prepare a claim and the EMDG consultant is not a fit and proper person, the applicant is not subject to the provisions of 87AA, which obviously is an anomaly that needs to be fixed. This item extends the fit and proper person provisions of the EMDG Act to consultants who engage in false and misleading behaviour, or whose behaviour is considered to be inconsistent with accepted community standards of commercial and personal property.

The item provides the legislative framework to enable the CEO of Austrade to decide whether a person should be assessed as an excluded consultant, similar to the provisions that apply generally to applicants and their associates in respect of the fit and proper person test. The item provides that the consultant or the associates of the consultant who are not fit and proper will be subject to the rules. The rules for determining an associate of an EMDG consultant will be a legislative instrument made by the Minister for Trade and Investment, as provided for in this particular bill. The instrument will also contain assessment criteria to be used by the CEO of Austrade to determine whether or not a person or an associate of that person is fit and proper and that will be done in accordance with the guidelines.

Importantly, this part of the bill also provides for consultation and for Austrade to seek further information about the associate or about the consultant. The provisions allow for a request that a person provide Austrade with specific information—books, records, documents and/or written consent—to enable the CEO of Austrade to obtain relevant information to assist in the formation of an opinion.

The final element of this bill is to enable a grant to be paid more quickly, where a grant is determined before 1 July, following the balance distribution date. This relates to section 67 of the act where, essentially, applicants entitled to a grant of less than the initial payment ceiling amount are paid their grant at the time the claim is determined. Applicants entitled to an amount exceeding the initial payment ceiling amount are paid the initial payment ceiling amount and then, often many months later and following the settling of the balance distribution date, are paid the balance of their entitlement. This balance amount will depend on an assessed value of the applicant's entitlement and will be paid to applicants entitled to a second tranche amount on a pro rata basis. Under the two-tranche arrangement, Austrade is unable to pay the full amount of assessed grants to applicants as quickly as desirable when scheme demand is lower than expected or when additional money is appropriated for the scheme. In these circumstances, it would be preferable to bring forward the balance distribution date and this is what these provisions do. This item looks to amend section 82 of the Market Export Development Grant Act to provide that if Austrade determines the amount of a grant after the balance distribution date the grant becomes payable immediately. There is no additional cost associated with this change.

It is interesting to note that in 2011-12, the last reported figures for the uptake of the EMDG Scheme grants, 2,933 businesses throughout Australia benefited from export market development grants with a total value of $125.6 million. This scheme encourages small- to medium-sized Australian businesses to develop export markets and receive some form of reimbursement of the expenses incurred on eligible export promotion activities. It is a wonderful example of a partnership between government and small- to medium-sized businesses. It opens doors for businesses, it provides opportunities to businesses to grow their markets, and it ensures those businesses have opportunities into the future and, importantly, are employing Australians.

In 2008 the Labor government delivered in full on its commitment to better tailor the EMDG Scheme to the needs of exporting businesses. It was Labor's intention, following a period of some stagnation, to revitalise Australia's trade performance and to ensure that our trading sector once again became a positive contributor to economic growth and that the Australian economy was sustainable beyond the resources boom—that we looked to diversify our economy by providing new opportunities, beyond mining, in support of small- to medium-sized enterprises. We took a twin pillars approach to our trade policy for sustainable economic growth—trade liberalisation at the border was complemented by economic and trade reform behind the border. Labor worked through bilateral and regional agreements consistent with our multinational objectives to ensure that trade liberalisation occurred, but also that new opportunities were opened up. The Export Market Development Grants Scheme has been a key Australian government financial assistance program for aspiring and current exporters, and under Labor it was a huge success.

Companies to benefit from the scheme include Opengear, which designs, manufactures and delivers secure remote infrastructure management solutions. They have seen their sales grow 40 to 50 per cent annually for each of the past three years. Opengear has graduated from being a business supported by the Export Market Development Grants Scheme to a business with $10 million in revenues, branches located in the US and Europe, and 90 per cent export sales. Other beneficiaries of EMDG Scheme grants include Bartco Traffic Equipment, an Australian manufacturer of portable traffic management equipment—full-matrix LED displays, portable traffic signals, message signs, directional arrow boards and other road safety equipment. Bartco has seen a remarkable growth in its export sales over the past few years and there is growth in the pipeline in Eastern Europe, the UAE, South America, India, the UK, Hong Kong and the USA. There are a whole host of examples of great Australian companies—small- to medium-sized enterprises, many of them in my community—that have benefited from export market development grants.

Labor took the approach of supporting this scheme while ensuring that the operation of the act effectively and efficiently assisted Australian businesses. It is pleasing to see this bill continue that tradition of supporting Australian small- to medium-sized businesses. I am pleased to commend the bill to the House.

Peter Hendy (Eden-Monaro, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill. As we said in our election policy, the coalition believe exports are the basis for a successful economy in services, agriculture and manufacturing. We said that we would progressively restore funding for the Export Market Development Grants Scheme with an initial $50 million boost and look to further increases as the budget improves. We noted that over one in five Australians are linked to trade, and an increased export capacity will allow Australian businesses to grow by accessing new and emerging markets. The EMDG Scheme assists in encouraging small- and medium-sized Australian businesses to develop export markets, particularly those who specialise in unique and high-value manufacturing operations.

The government has a well thought through trade agenda and I am pleased that I was able to help draft the coalition's trade policy before we came to government. Today's bill is an integral part of that policy. Rather than assisting Australia's vital export sector, the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government severely weakened Australia's trade position. The catastrophic decision to ban live cattle exports to Indonesia without warning significantly damaged not only Australia's valuable cattle export trade to Indonesia but also our reputation as a trusted and reliable trade partner. It was a huge blow and it will take years to repair that part of our relationship with Indonesia. It was the iconic issue displaying the previous government's attitude to the export sector—they were ever ready to bow before the Greens despite the damage to Australia's national interest.

The last government's frequent changes to the EMDG Scheme created unnecessary business uncertainty at a time of global economic instability. In the 2012 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, the Labor government took the decision to make annual cuts of $25 million to this scheme. That was the second significant budget cut to the scheme following their 2007 election promise to actually expand the scheme. Soon after taking office in 2007, Labor expanded the scheme by lowering the eligible expenditure threshold from $15,000 to $10,000, increasing the number of grants that an applicant could receive from seven to eight and increasing the maximum grant from $150,000 to $200,000. The cost of these changes was estimated at $50 million a year, but—and this is the key—Labor increased funding only for a bit over a year. In June 2010, Labor amended the scheme to reverse the 2008 implementation of their election commitments.

The EMDG Scheme, administered by Austrade, partly supports the export promotion expenses of eligible enterprises in order to boost exports and to grow our economy through Australian produced goods and services. The scheme began operation in financial year 1974-75, which would mean that it was started under the Whitlam government. Given the hit to small business caused by that government, it is quite ironic that this scheme has that pedigree, but credit should go where it is due. It has proven to be a successful policy that has helped many businesses over the years. When I was the chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry we regarded the EMDG Scheme as one of the most successful small business programs around. The added bonus is that it is an export assistance scheme that fully accords with the rules of the World Trade Organisation. According to the Austrade website, claims are reimbursed retrospectively for expenditure incurred in the previous financial year, pro rata up to the cap. I understand that about 5,000 enterprises per year apply for grants.

As the minister noted in his second reading speech for the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2014, the changes proposed in this bill deliver on the coalition's pre-election commitment. As promised, after the election the 2013 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook allocated an additional $50 million over four years. The associated policy changes required to give effect to this provision, as well as some additional administrative enhancements to the scheme, are contained in this bill.

In summary, the bill increases the maximum number of grants per applicant from seven to eight and reduces the required expenditure threshold to qualify for a grant from $20,000 to $15,000. According to the minister, based on the profile of last year's applicants, this will enable hundreds of extra small businesses to benefit from the scheme. Currently the export market development grant does not reimburse the first $5,000 of an eligible claim. With this bill, this figure will drop to $2,500, and around 85 per cent of export market development grant recipients will receive an extra $2,500 per grant as a result.

The improvements the coalition is making will benefit many small business exporters in rural and regional areas, such as in my electorate of Eden-Monaro. Last financial year, 2012-13, I note that there were two recipients in Eden-Monaro. One recipient was Campbell Foods Australia Pty Ltd, which deals in meat, poultry and smallgoods wholesaling and is based in Narrabarba, south of the town of Eden. They export to five-star hotels and restaurants around the world. The other recipient was Found Enterprises Australasia Pty Ltd, based in Jerrabomberra in my electorate, which undertakes a grocery wholesaling business. They export organic pomegranate juice, watermelon juice and other products.

Our EMDG policy is only part of a larger trade policy. The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government was a disappointment to Australia's exporters, especially in its failure to conclude bilateral trade agreements with key regional partners. The failure to conclude free trade agreements with Australia's major trading partners has resulted in a loss of real export income. Since the launch of Australia's free trade agreement negotiations with China in 2005, over 20 rounds of discussions have been held without result. This lack of action stands in stark contrast to New Zealand, which concluded a free trade agreement with China in 2008 after three years of negotiations. Indeed, they started the negotiations the same year we did—in 2005. Since then, New Zealand's goods exports to China have trebled, with more than 90 per cent of its goods now entering China duty-free. New Zealand has also finalised a free trade agreement with Taiwan.

The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government's disregard for bilateral free trade agreements and the benefits they provide to Australian exporters and investors is exemplified by former trade minister Craig Emerson's statement that a free trade agreement with China was 'overrated'. This is despite a joint feasibility study finding that a free trade agreement with China could boost Australia's real gross domestic product by approximately $24 billion over the period 2006 to 2015. We have a vastly different attitude. The Prime Minister has put a deadline on the China free trade agreement negotiations and has asked that they be concluded by the end of the year. Similarly the Chinese Prime Minister has backed an accelerated timetable. I am sure our Minister for Trade and Investment is up to the task, given his great performance in relation to trade with Korea.

Labor's refusal to consider a proposal for an investor-state dispute settlement clause in a free trade agreement with South Korea placed Australian exporters at a direct disadvantage compared to their competitors in other countries. The Korean-United States free trade agreement, which entered into force on 15 March 2012, has enabled the USA to capture a significant part of Korea's lucrative beef market at the expense of Australian beef producers, who are still subject to higher tariffs. When the competitiveness of our exports is lost, so too are Australian jobs.

I am glad to say that the Minister for Trade and Investment and his team have been able to pull off a great win with the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement, KAFTA. It is a world-class, comprehensive agreement that substantially liberalises our trade with a major market. KAFTA gives Australian exporters significantly improved market access in goods and services and substantially improves investment protections. I understand that when KAFTA comes into force 84 per cent of Australia's exports, by value, to Korea will enter duty free, rising to 99.8 per cent on full implementation of the agreement.

As part of our commitments, Australia will be removing its remaining tariffs on Korean goods over several years. For rural and regional Australia, where my electorate sits, I note that in the agriculture sector, the KAFTA will see Korea eliminate tariffs immediately on entry into force for raw sugar, wheat, wine, and some horticulture. Tariffs of up to 550 per cent on most other agricultural products will be eliminated within short time frames. Importantly, Korea will eliminate its 40 per cent tariff on beef progressively over 15 years, which will help to level the playing field for Australian beef exporters. And with a large dairy industry in my electorate, I should note that duty-free quotas for cheese, butter and infant formula and high tariffs will be eliminated on many dairy products between three and 20 years. KAFTA will also provide Australian services exporters with the best treatment Korea has agreed to with any trading partner. Key outcomes include: expanded markets for Australian law firms, Australian accountants, telecommunications providers, Australian financial services providers, education, engineering and other professional services.

Of course it would be preferable that more progress was made in the multilateral negotiations area. Despite the current the World Trade Organisation impasse on negotiations, the coalition remains committed to the Doha Round of negotiations as the best way to improve global economic growth and remove the barriers that restrict trade and investment. With its global framework of agreed trade rules, the WTO remains crucial in preserving the openness of markets around the world.

As an export-oriented economy, Australia has much to gain in pushing for further international trade reform. Over the last 20 years, multilateral trade liberalisation has boosted real family incomes by between $2,700 and $3,900 per year. However, the current impasse in the Doha Round increases the need for Australia to pursue bilateral agreements that expand trade and investment opportunities for Australian businesses. The government is devoting increased resources to fast-tracking the conclusion of free trade agreements not only with China—which I was talking about before—but also with Japan, India, the Gulf Cooperation Council and Indonesia. We will also explore the feasibility of free trade agreements with other trading partners including the European Union, Brazil, Hong Kong, Papua New Guinea, South Africa and Taiwan.

We are also committed to the negotiation of a Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement as a stepping stone to a longer term goal of an Asia-Pacific free trade area. The TPP negotiations have been progressing well and I have heard encouraging reports out of recent negotiations in Singapore. We also support negotiations for a Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership centred on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, and the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations or, as it is called, PACER Plus.

This bill is part of our small business policy as much as being part of our trade policy. It is therefore part of our jobs policy. Over the last 14 years the EMDG scheme has helped support small and medium business exports worth more than $60 billion. On average, those exporters employed 97,000 employees each year, thus, strengthening the EMDG scheme is also about boosting jobs. I conclude by again noting that I support the bill before the House as it further strengthens the EMDG scheme.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2014. As other speakers have noted, the bill amends the EMDG Act to increase the number of grants available per applicant, to reduce the minimum expenses threshold for a grant, and to halve the current deduction from the applicant's provisional grant, among other quite technical amendments. We will be voting in favour of these amendments, several of which were proposed by Labor prior to the election last year, but we do voice our concern about the omission of some important measures which were proposed in Labor's EMDG Amendment Bill, and I will come back to that concern in a moment.

The export market development grants are an important incentive for small and medium businesses, as the member for Eden-Monaro just mentioned, to promote Australian-made products overseas. Goods made in Australia, or overseas from primarily Australian products, are eligible for this scheme as are tourism services and conferences and events held in Australia. Eligible applicants are reimbursed up to half of their expenses related to export promotion as long as their export costs are over a certain threshold. This program does make it easier for Australian producers to place their product in foreign markets and it was worth, I think, just over $120 million in the last financial year.

Foreign trade has been in the headlines a lot recently. We have had stories at least weekly about the Australia-China FTA, the Japan FTA, the TPP, the RCEP and the KAFTA. What all these high-level technical discussions and all these acronyms often conceal—and it is pleasing to see both sides of the House recognising this in this debate—is that it is Australian producers and Australian industries who can be the key beneficiaries of trade liberalisation between Australia and its regional partners if and when the agreements are in our national interests.

When the governments go into discussions with our foreign neighbours and deliver tangible outcomes, that should not be the end of the discussion when it comes to trade. The next key step is for Australian producers and industries to win market share in our trading partners. In a world where bilateral and preferential trading agreements are becoming increasingly commonplace, it is critically important for us to support Australian producers to win contracts and earn sales overseas. That is ultimately what this EMDG scheme is about—giving our small and medium businesses a leg-up in touting their wares in marketplaces overseas.

It is true that the nature of international trade is constantly evolving, and the trading environment today is remarkably different from what existed 50 or 20 or even 10 years ago. The nature of production has changed so that huge global value chains have become the norm in many industries. To take just one example, a recent study has found that the Apple iPhone that many of us carry around in our pockets has components from at least nine companies from five countries—the screen built in Japan, the processor in Korea, the camera in Germany, the Bluetooth in the US and assembly in China. That is just one example of the types of global value chains which have become possible and viable only as a result of the liberalisation of the international trade environment. It is vitally important in this context for Australia to stake out its place in these global value chains, and schemes like the EMDG program allow this government and this country to help Australian businesses get in on the action.

Staking out our claim in global value chains is also important in the face of structural changes in the domestic economy, particularly in the labour market. Every member in this place would be aware that the current unemployment rate, at six per cent, is higher than at any time in the global financial crisis. What this figure does not include is the job losses that have been announced but not carried out over the last six months. At Qantas, Holden, Toyota, Rio, Electrolux, Caterpillar and another 22 major Australian employers, a total of 27,300 job losses have been announced since the election. The reality of the situation is that the vast majority of these jobs are likely now gone for good, at least in their most recent form. Finding a place for Australians at the good, technological end of global value chains is therefore absolutely critical for the goal of future employment. Getting the conditions right in trade and the Australian market for exports, including the best possible scheme for incentivising export promotion, is a critical step towards achieving that goal.

So, in the face of a changing environment for world trade, the opposition will be supporting the amendments to the EMDG scheme. We are particularly supportive of the amendments in this legislation that were suggested by Labor in last year's proposed bill, including the increase in the number of grants available per applicant and technical amendments to enable the grant to be paid more quickly and to ensure that grants are not paid to companies engaging an EMDG consultant found not to be a fit and proper person. The member for Kingsford Smith talked at length about that particular measure. The decrease in the minimum expenses threshold is also welcome, as it allows even smaller players in Australia assistance for access to foreign markets. This will be particularly useful for niche producers to become part of the global value chains that I was talking about earlier.

Unfortunately, the bill does walk back some of Labor's proposed amendments from last year, and that risks Australia missing some opportunities. Before the election, Labor had proposed special incentives in the EMDG scheme for Australian producers to seek market share and promote exports in our Asian neighbours in particular. Everybody knows that in this Asian century our region will become the powerhouse both for production and for consumption. To see this, consider some statistics presented by my colleague the member for Lilley on Sunday, when he said that 60 years ago, in 1950 or so, just 15 per cent of the world's GDP fell within 10,000 kilometres of Australia's shores. Today this share has more than doubled and by 2030, with the continued expansion of China and India in particular, close to 60 per cent of the world GDP is projected to fall within 10,000 kilometres of Australia. This is the biggest story in the world economy in our lifetime—the shift in weight and heft from west to east and the tremendous opportunities flowing to smart countries from the middle-classing of Asia. It is disappointing in that context that the government has ditched the more specific incentives for Australian businesses to take advantage of these spikes in production and consumption, and in doing so we risk missing out on some of that huge growth in opportunity in the world's most dynamic region.

So we are disappointed but not entirely surprised that the government has put Australia at risk of missing the boat in the Asian century. Ever since the days of the Whitlam government and then again under Hawke and Keating, Labor has been the party of engagement with Asia, and the member for Sydney discussed some of this in her contribution to the debate last night. It was widely reported when the Abbott government officially dumped the Labor government's white paper on the Asian century from the Internet, doing their best to banish all traces of it from departmental websites. I commend the Australia in the Asian century report. There are still ways to access it, and anyone listening to this debate should familiarise themselves with this very important document.

If the government had bothered to read the Asian century white paper before they deleted it and removed traces of it from their own websites, they would understand some of the opportunities that we risk missing out on. By 2025, more than two billion people will be living in Asia's cities. By 2050, this number will be more like three billion, close to double the number living in an urban environment now. With Asia's rapid urbanisation and population growth, we will see greater demand from the emerging middle class. After 60 years of trade history with Asia, Australia is perfectly placed to capitalise on Asia's rapidly developing needs for transport, infrastructure, health care, housing, agribusiness, education and more. As the authors of the white paper put it, the tyranny of distance to Europe is being replaced this century by the power of proximity to Asia.

Australia needs to get the domestic environment right for trade promotion so that we can use this power of proximity to its full advantage. The opportunities for Australia for trade in the Asian century are extraordinary and we need to grab them. In agribusiness Australia will be able to take advantage of Asia's growing share of food demand, with more than 60 per cent of international demand to be driven by Asia by 2050. My colleague the member for Hunter was talking in this place yesterday on another bill about the 'dining boom' that Asia presents for Australia, and I think the opportunities in agribusiness and the related sectors in particular are extraordinary. In advanced manufacturing Australia has opportunities in pharmaceuticals and aerospace technology exports to Asia. In biotech Australia will provide services and healthcare products for Asia's rapidly ageing population, with almost 700 million people aged over 60 in Asia by 2030. In infrastructure Australia can play a key role in the financial markets and design services of the estimated $8 trillion worth of infrastructure investments in Asia by 2020. And in energy Australia is well placed to provide both the resources and the sustainable energy skills for our regional partners. All in all, across each and every industry, Australia's trade with Asia will only grow over the course of this century.

But these opportunities are going to escape us unless our small and medium businesses become part of the international global value chains that characterise world trade today. To work towards this goal the EMDG scheme should be tailored in the way recommended by the previous Labor government so that exports of goods and services to Asia are given the priority that they need and deserve.

With the large number of regional and bilateral trade agreements currently under negotiation, it is a bit disappointing that the government has not taken full advantage of this opportunity in this bill to help domestic producers take advantage of the biggest economic and demographic shift in our lifetime. This is the big omission from an otherwise commendable bill.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak today and contribute to this very important debate around supporting the export potential of small and medium-size businesses in Australia, particularly in my electorate of Barker. Few of the elected members in this place could claim to represent electorates as reliant on exports as the seat of Barker. As such, I am very much in favour of this bill, which I believe will significantly improve the Export Market Development Grants scheme. The work the coalition government is undertaking to enhance the way the EMDG scheme is administered is even more significant given that the scheme was cut by $25 million a year by the previous Labor administration. I think that funding cut is another sad reminder of the lack of understanding Labor has for the small and medium-size business sector, particularly in agriculture.

I am proud to be a member of a broad political organization which understands the mechanics of our economy and is willing to support its engine room—private enterprise—rather than get in the way of the business community and job creation. I am proud to be a member of this coalition government, because this bill will progressively restore funding to export market development grants, starting with an initial $50 million boost

When I was growing up, my father produced, packed and exported onions to the world. Though his business enjoyed much success, I saw firsthand how the profound lack of support from government for export businesses such as his ultimately drove my father to pursue other business and farming opportunities. Whilst he has enjoyed those other business and farming opportunities, the sad reality is that he employs far fewer than he did when he was operating a large-scale exporting business. That is the reality that we hear today: this is a program that is not focused on providing jobs and opportunity for Australians in, as the previous speaker indicated, the Asian sector during the Asian century.

That sort of firsthand experience means that I know how important it is for the government to play a positive role in helping small and medium businesses help themselves when it comes to export growth. That is why EMDG scheme grants, which assist small and medium-size enterprises to enter new export markets and become self-sustaining exporters, are just so important. I know that the allocation of an addition $50 million over the forward estimates in the 2013 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook will be very much welcomed by my constituents in Barker.

I want to ensure that Barker is one of the best places to start and grow a business, and these grants assist small and medium-size businesses to enter new export markets and become self-sustaining. What is more, the bill clearly shows the coalition is delivering on its election promises by driving real growth and innovation in our economy. The improvements the coalition is making will benefit many small business exporters in rural and regional areas across Barker, whether they are based in the south-east, the Mallee, the Riverland, the Murraylands or the Barossa.

All of these regions in Barker boast very proud export histories, and their local economies are all major beneficiaries of a range of sectors such as grain, red meat, dairy and wine. In fact, local businesses are already benefiting from this program, with some 15 recipients across Barker sharing in $565,370 from the 2012-13 round of funding. Some of those businesses include: the De Bruin family near Millicent, who are involved in wagyu production; the Almond Board of Australia at Berri; the Barossa Grape and Wine Association, based at Tanunda; BMD Wines at Berri; Farmer's Leap at Padthaway; First Drop Wines at Nurioopta; Hobbs Vintners at Angaston; International Timber Solutions at Mount Gambier; Irvine Wines at Eden Valley; John Duval Wines at Nurioopta; Koonara Wines at Penola; Ringbolt at Angaston; and State Peters Investments (SA) at Renmark. The breadth of the agricultural production and export potential in Barker is on show in that list.

I am sure these and other recipient businesses in Barker echo my strong endorsement of this bill and would speak very highly of the positives they have derived through the EMDG scheme. I believe very strongly that strong export markets are the key to generating economic wealth and job creation in Barker and the nation more generally; and, as such, I know these grants will help small businesses with market access which may not otherwise have been possible.

This provides an opportunity for me to place on record my thanks and the thanks of the constituents in Barker for the very good work that was done and finalised late last year by the Minister for Trade and Investment, the Hon. Andrew Robb, in securing the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement. This is a significant development in Australia's trade relations with Asia. I note with interest that negotiations with respect to the agreement meandered and ultimately stagnated under the former administration but were finalised thanks to the very diligent hard work of the minister. Why is the achievement of this agreement so important to the people of Barker? It is so important because of the following. For those in my electorate involved in the sheepmeat industry—like my father, producing lamb, sheepmeat and goatmeat products—a tariff of 22.5 per cent will be phased to zero over 10 years. For those involved in the dairy sector, the current eight per cent tariff on Australian dairy spreads into Korea will be eliminated over three years. In this regard, I think of Kraft International in Mt Gambier.

Australian table grape growers in my electorate currently face a 45 per cent tariff into Korea. This will be cut by half on day one and then phased to zero over five years. Growers of chipping potatoes face, wait for it, a 304 per cent tariff into Korea. This will be cut to zero when the FTA enters into force. I should say that my electorate includes the single largest producer of chipping potatoes in the nation. Oranges will benefit from a reduction of a tariff of 50 per cent to zero over seven years. That of course comes as good news to those blockies in the Riverland who have faced the vicissitudes of drought over recent years. Korea's 24 per cent tariff on Australian cherries will be eliminated when the FTA enters into force. Cherry producers at Kalangadoo have hailed that a great success. Australia's $10 million wine exports into Korea face tariffs of between 15 and 30 per cent. These will be eliminated. Exporters of crayfish fished off the rugged coast of my electorate face a 20 per cent tariff, which will be reduced to zero over three years.

I take this opportunity to remind the House that this agreement is critical and it is critical that it is finalised so it can come into force in advance of 1 January 2015, so that we can enjoy the first step down in tariffs for these various commodity groups on that date. Any delay will effectively increase the competitiveness of other countries relative to ours, and will also delay the reductions that I have just outlined that are of such importance to primary producers throughout Barker. Again, I place on record my thanks to the hardworking achievements of the Minister for Trade and Investment on behalf not of myself but of the primary producers in my electorate.

Returning to the bill before the House, an important aspect of the legislation is also to make the scheme more accessible to businesses looking to export. As anyone who has experience in the small- and medium-business sector knows, time is often the most precious commodity. This improved accessibility will also be welcome. For example, regional businesses in Barker looking to pursue their first export sales will now be eligible for a $5,000 grant if they spend $15,000 on export promotion. This is a significant improvement on the existing settings where such businesses would have received nothing and would have had to spend a minimum of $20,000 before they were eligible for any EMDGS funding assistance. I understand that in the past some exporters chose not to apply because they were not confident of meeting the grant threshold, which is why we are lowering that threshold. I believe this will be a catalyst for many small and medium enterprises to think about exporting for the first time or exporting into a novel market.

I note that the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry's Director, Trade and International Affairs, Mr Bryan Clark, praised the initiative and in particular the minister for trade for his commitment to opening up new markets through market visitation and through advancing talks on trade liberalisation in our region. I share the view of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry that these changes to the EMDGS will provide direct assistance to companies seeking to secure more commercial contracts, underpinning their viability and profitability, and ultimately providing more jobs and investment to our country. I enthusiastically commend this bill to the House.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The purpose of the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2014 is quite simple: it is to amend the Export Market Development Grants Act 1997—a good act, one that does a great job for small business. It has changed only slightly over preceding years and is one that is supported very much by the Labor Party, by Labor in government and by Labor in opposition as well. It is an essential scheme that assists small business in being able to deliver to export markets in a more efficient and effective manner and, possibly further than that, being able to access export markets for the first time, or being confident that they have a hand-up rather than a handout when exporting. Through my electorate and through other electorates, I know of the good work that individual small businesses and enterprises have undertaken and the value of this assistance to them. I am very much in support of anything that improves this scheme.

The EMDGS is administered by Austrade. The scheme is generally regarded by everyone as a successful measure to support Australian small to medium exporters and business. The act has been amended over the years, largely for efficiency reasons. I do not think anyone would argue about the good quality of the work and the development of markets that can be achieved through some government assistance. On the face of that, this would just seem like common sense.

While the government are moving these amendments and we support them, it does fly in the face of a lot of what the government say on other matters. The government say, 'We'll just get out of the way and you can get on with doing your own things.' They do not want to intervene. They do not want to help. They are dismantling all sorts of assistance measures, including direct small business assistance lines and, very importantly, some very good consumer protection measures that were put in place by the previous government specifically to support small business.

We are seeing this develop and come out under the cloak of getting rid of red tape and regulation—which everyone supports. Why wouldn't you? You would be mad if you did not support getting rid of red tape. It drives us all crazy and we should get rid of more of it. And that is exactly what Labor did in government. We actually had a minister for deregulation. We took this so seriously that we repealed thousands and thousands of regulations and got rid of red tape. We went further. We did not just do the easy lifting. We did not just pick the low-hanging fruit—while we are talking about export markets. We actually did some serious stuff, some reforms. Whether it was in the charitable sector or the small business sector, with business names registration and a whole range of other measures we went a very long way to reduce red tape, regulation, costs and paperwork. We did all the things that you would expect any good government to do.

What we are going to see develop out of this week and the coming weeks, unfortunately, is the government operating under the cloak of red tape reduction and all of that—that nice big cloak they are going to put over all this. Everything that is red tape and regulation must be bad; that is what the government says. But it is just not that simple. Every time I meet with small business groups, with farmers, with exporters, with anyone, they do not come to me saying, 'Get rid of stuff.' They say: 'Can you just give us a bit more protection in this area? Can you just give us a bit of a hand here? Can you help us to compete better? Can you protect us? Can you help us?' This is what they say to me about things that are happening to them.

We agree with them, and we agree on both fronts. We should reduce red tape and regulatory burdens and make it as affordable and easy as possible for small businesses to flourish, because they are at the core of creating jobs in this country. Small business is not just the bastion of the Liberal Party or the National Party. We get it. We put programs in place to support and develop small business. There are many things we did. I am going to list them, because there are some people in this place, on the other side, who just happen to think they are the only ones who have ever had an idea. But so far all we are seeing of their ideas is: 'How much can we cut from small business? How much can we take away from small business protections and consumer protections? How much can we make life harder for them? How much direct assistance can we take away from them?' What they will say is, 'We can't afford it.' Well, they can afford the things they like or the things that ideologically suit them. If it is a rolled gold paid parental leave system for some of the wealthiest people in this country, of course, that is fine—$5½ billion or $6 billion. But when it comes to supporting small business with real funds, about $4 billion has just been taken away from them. So I would say to every small business owner: 'Who got the $4 billion that just got taken off you? Who got your money? I will tell you who got your money: the government did. They just want to put it in their coffers. That is who took your money.'

This bill does not cost a lot. It is only $50 million over the forward estimates. It is only $12½ million per year. How generous, and we welcome it. We welcome it because, in government, these were the sorts of things we did, because we wanted to go out there and support small business and support market development, and the EMDGS is a great scheme and a great way to do it. But I can imagine right now—I can almost hear the crescendo of screams from the other side—if we had done this in government in those last days, when we had a bill that would have gotten through but the parliament was prorogued for the election. They would have said: 'We can't afford this. It's just more money, more waste.' The Liberal Party and National Party, every time you spent a dollar, said that it was debt, that it was a debt dollar. Every single dollar that the government has, according to the Liberals and Nationals, is just debt. They forget that you actually have government revenues as well. Which one is debt and which one is revenue? Which one are you taking out of which pile? They just dumb down the debates here. They simplify and dumb them down, thinking that Australians will not be smart enough to get the nuances. They come in here and they go, 'Here is $12½ million per year for a great, revolutionary program.' Well, it is simply not. It is a small, modest increase. But it is absolutely supported, because you would be mad not to.

This will be a cost to the budget, but we are not going to carry on about a cost to the budget on something that is a really good measure, that does good things. You get a return on investment. There are some new words for the Liberal Party: 'return on investment'. You will actually get value back. The more you help small business, the more they will return, through revenues, directly to government. That should be a focus of the Liberal Party—I am not going to talk about the National Party—who say they are the best friend of small business. If you are the best friend of small business and you rip at the heart of small business assistance and take away $4 billion of direct assistance, I would hate to see what you would do if you were their enemy.

Let us just talk about simple facts. What did we do in government—what actually took place and happened?—and what did the Liberal Party do when it got to government? It ain't a great story, let me tell you that. Let us just walk through a couple of the things. I am very proud of Labor's record in government. Labor introduced a Small Business Commissioner for the first time. For the first time, we have got a direct voice, a business voice, directly at the highest level of government, representing small business interests and concerns. I am glad to see that the Small Business Commissioner has survived. I am glad to see we still have the Small Business Commissioner, because it is a good idea and it actually works well for small business. It gives them a focal point. It is a direct link into government. The new government are keeping it. They are keeping Labor's policy

They are keeping Labor's Small Business Commissioner because it is a good idea and we ought to support it. So I thank the government for being so generous.

We also went to the heart of trying to deal with the costs for small business. One of the big costs for small business was business names registration. In the modern world in the 21st century, we had this curious system that was different in every state and territory, that was very expensive and time consuming. If you wanted to register your business nationally, you had to do some online, some by paper, some by visiting an office nine to five. And, if you got there, the cost was usually over $1,000. That was not good enough.

What Labor did in government was say: 'We can fix that. We can reduce your costs.' At the time, we reduced it down from $1,000 down to $30; one system, online. This was a massive undertaking by government, criticised the whole time by the Liberals because they thought somehow this might not benefit small business. Let me tell you, as the years march on, small business will realise and they will look back and think, 'Can you believe we once did it the other way and that it used to cost us that much?' It was Labor that introduced it, and this government will have to keep it—and they will keep it—because small business names registration was a bureaucratic burden for small business. We changed it. We made it easy. We made it seven days a week, 24 hours a day, online, cheap and accessible. That is what governments ought to do.

That is what governments ought to do for small business; real red-tape reduction, not just coming in here and going to some department and saying to the department: 'Look, find us anything, something from 1902 and something from 1910 that no-one even remembers exists, and we will just get rid of those bits of red tape and regulation because it will make it look like we are doing a lot.' But we are not fooled by that. You are doing a lot of nothing.

The areas where they are actually doing something are the areas that involve a little bit of pain. There is a little bit of a sting in the tail, a little bit more cost. You have to remember that this is how it works in this place: every time the government talks about saving, they are talking about saving for them. Every time they talk about saving, it is a cost to you. Everybody listening understands that every time the government says 'We're saving X million dollars', they are actually taking it from you. It is going to cost you. The Liberal Party think it is their money. They think the savings are for them.

Government Member:

A government member interjecting—

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Liberal Party are a bunch of insiders. Let's get this straight. I am getting all sorts of heckling and interjections and I welcome it—please bring more on—because it just reminds me of who these guys are. They are the great insiders in this country. They are the inside men—inside government, inside big business, inside the Liberal Party. These guys are the inside traders of government—

A government member interjecting—

Every dollar they are trying to save, they are charging it back to you, whether it is coming out of your education for your kids, out of your schoolkids bonus, which has disappeared, whether it is coming out of the low-income pockets of people earning less than $37,500 a year. Let's think about this for a minute. Put your hand up in here if you are earning less than $37,500 a year. It is not a lot of money. But, if you were going to get more savings for government, who would you target first? Let me tell you who the Liberals and Nationals target: very low income earners. About two-thirds of those are women, working part time. What this government has done is save themselves $500 measly dollars a year and taken it off them. They have taken it directly out of their back pockets. Even if it was just that measly $500 a year out of your salary, that would be one thing; but it is worse than that, because they are taking it out of their long-term retirement savings future. It is a low-income superannuation contribution. That is where they are taking it from.

Labor introduced the low-income superannuation contribution to do something really specific: to give low-income earners just a little bit of assistance. It is only $500 a year but it goes a long way to ensuring that, when people come to retirement—particularly women, who we all acknowledge in this place have lower superannuation balances and less opportunity to build their super balances because of time out of the workforce for family reasons—why would you target them? Why would you make them the victims of your callous behaviour? Why do they have to bear the brunt of what government wants to save while you charge it to the lowest income earners in this country? That is my question back to the government, to the Liberal Party and the National Party. They come in here full of confidence—

Mr Nikolic interjecting—

I am glad to take whatever interjection is coming.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under standing order 66, you asked a question and I would like to respond to it via an intervention.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Ripoll, would you take an intervention?

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I would rather use the time for myself.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The intervention is denied.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the delay tactic. I think that cost me 15 seconds but 15 seconds in this place is cheap. I do not need the extra 15 seconds to make the points that I am making—whether it comes to export market development grants, whether it comes to supporting small business, whether it comes to how they treat ordinary people and workers in this country—low-income workers—whether it is superannuation. We moved superannuation from nine per cent to 12 per cent and that has been delayed. We all know what a delay is: it is stuck at 9.25 per cent. It is not going to budge.

Here is my challenge to the Liberal Party: move it from 9.25 per cent; move it and move it soon. Move it as soon as you can. But of course who pays? The National Party are the great agrisocialists of Australia. Their version of the world is simple: 'Take the money off this mob and just give it to us. We know what to do with the best—

A government member interjecting—

I am sure that is not the view within the Liberal Party or the government when it comes to the National Party. I love these interjections from these guys. Let me tell you what they have actually done, their record. I would stand on my record any day and I will stand on their record any day. Their record is very short. It would not take me much to get up on top of it. But it is about cutting support for low-income Australians; it is about cutting your schoolkids bonus—cost-of-living pressures. How do you relieve cost-of-living pressures for ordinary families? You help them with schoolkids bonus; you help them with a range of things; you help them with their schools; you actually try to improve their schools; you try to help them with their health costs; you try to help them with small business; you really actually do something about the bureaucracy. That is what Labor did. We are getting to see exactly what the Liberals are doing.

Fiona Scott (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise today in support of the Export Market Development Grants Amendment 2014 introduced by the Minister for Trade and Investment this morning. This amendment delivers on the coalition's pre-election commitment to not only progressively restore funding to the Export Market Development Grants scheme but to also provide an initial $50 million boost. Of course as other speakers have noted, the previous Labor government cut these grants by $25 million per year, resulting in a disastrous effect on small and medium export business across our great nation. For Australia to maintain our international competitiveness, it is essential we find, nurture and support our innovative entrepreneurs, in turn enhancing the nation's export base across agriculture, services and manufacturing, the three economic pillars essential to the future employment of workers across Australia and crucial to the economic viability of the people in Western Sydney who look to such sectors for their future job security. Unfortunately, cuts by the former Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments say much about their lack of understanding in regard to Australia's small and medium businesses. They are clear examples of the misalignment of Labor's priorities and demonstrate their interest in meeting a target rather than supporting these important sectors.

We often hear that small business is the engine room of the Australian economy. In the private sector in Australia, small business employs some 43.3 per cent of workers, and I would like to remind the House that all businesses were once small. In order to secure the economic sustainability of our nation, the Australian economy must diversify. We must find new trade opportunities and ensure our place in new and emerging markets. This scheme works to do just that, thus enhancing Australia's manufacturing, services and agricultural export base. This is the primary goal of the EMDG Scheme and why I rise today to speak in support of this bill. As such, I welcome this $50 million increase to this important scheme.

The Export Market Development Grants Scheme helps potential small and medium Australian exporters develop their export markets to become sustainable exporters by reimbursing up to 50 per cent of eligible marketing expenditure. As someone who had a marketing background before entering this place, I applaud the investment in marketing, because marketing is where we find the potential markets that will buy our goods and services. If we are not proactively looking to find new customers for our goods and services, we do not make products that will find a place overseas.

The scheme is a key Australian government financial assistance program for aspiring and current exporters. Administered by Austrade, the scheme supports a wide range of industry sectors and products, including inbound tourism and the export of intellectual property outside Australia. This legislation gives effect to changes which will make the scheme more accessible to businesses looking to export, and, therefore, I anticipate that the sector will grow in leaps and bounds.

In addition to the increase of $50 million in funding, this amendment also proposes three changes to the way the scheme will be administered. It will increase the number of grants available to be received by an applicant from seven to eight. As a result of this change, it is estimated that an additional 138 exporters will be able to claim an additional allowance each year. This will allow more experienced exporters to claim an additional grant and will allow previously successful recipients to further develop their goods and services in existing markets, re-enter markets that are now commercially viable due to the reduced exchange rate and diversify into new and emerging markets.

This amendment will reduce the minimum expenses threshold required to be incurred by an applicant by $20,000 to $15,000. This will benefit an additional 143 exporters who are projected to be able to make a new claim each year. Essentially, reducing the minimum expenses threshold decreases the marketing budget small exporters are required to invest in their export marketing programs before they can claim an export marketing development grant. This in particular is expected to be well received by the small- and medium-enterprise community as well as industry associations. Finally, it will reduce the current $5,000 deduction from the applicant's provisional grant to $2,500, resulting in all grant recipients receiving an additional $2½ thousand per grant.

In the current difficult international trading conditions, exporters have faced several years of pressure on their marketing budgets from higher exchange rates and weak international markets. The ability to have even a modest increase in marketing funds is expected to be welcomed. This increase in grant funding will be particularly relevant now that many small and medium enterprises are increasingly eyeing their potential for increased international sales as exchange rates ease and international markets increasingly recover.

These three administrative changes are excellent news for Australian small- and medium-sized businesses who want to continue to be competitive and innovative—they want to find the products for tomorrow; find the new iPhones and the new iPads and find the new automotive technology—such as those I see in my electorate.

Before I move on to talk about my electorate and how I see these grants working locally, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the interesting comments made by the members for Sydney and Oxley. There was a pre-election assertion that Labor's proposed bill, which would have decreased grants for exporters in developed markets such as Europe and the USA and would have focused more on development, was a sign that they were recognising the importance of Asia and other exporters. I quote the speech by the honourable member for Sydney where she asserted these claims and then went on to say:

The Labor amendment bill introduced in the last parliament sought to realign the Export Market Development Grants Scheme to support small businesses exporting to East Asian and frontier and emerging markets. It is disappointing to see that the Abbott government has walked away from these proposed changes. I certainly believe that it must be possible to find a way to leverage this public investment to further the nation's strategic objective of a much deeper engagement with our region. Not only has the realignment of the scheme …

The important point to recognise is that small and medium enterprises who export are participating in global supply chains. Exporting to Europe and to the USA may well be of ultimate benefit to end-markets in Asia or in developing markets—for example, exports of fine wool to Italy end up in suits created and sold in Shanghai—so I do not think the opposition have much form in this space. Then we had the member for Rankin say that Labor got rid of red tape to help small business. I would like to remind the House that it was the previous Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government that provided 21,000 new regulations. So I look forward to our first repeal day when we will start rolling back the red tape that has been inflicted on the Australian economy by those opposite.

I move to my electorate of Lindsay. I can appreciate that from a helicopter view these changes may be viewed as technical or as only beneficial to large Australian exporters, which is just simply not true. This is why I am so pleased to note the previous recipients in my electorate of Lindsay, who have used these grants as an opportunity to increase their market share internationally. I am also happy to note that these companies welcomed the coalition government's additional support in this important area of their business. For starters, Concept Paints in St Marys is a business that I know quite well. Not only did my own family's small business get involved with its technology—it is a wonderful technology—but I have also visited its manufacturing plant in St Marys.

This is a medium sized business. It employs a lot of local people out of Western Sydney. It needs to be conscious of how it spends its money. It needs to be thrifty. It needs to weigh up the risks and the opportunities. To export a product overseas is not simply a matter of one or two meetings but rather, as Concept Paints describes it, it is a two-year pipeline of regular meetings, supplying and shipping of samples as well as contracting technicians to support the sale of the product. Because its product is new and innovative, it has to do a lot of work in marketing to explain to emerging markets how its product will improve productivity for people overseas.

It is quite a long process, and any type of process like this comes with costs. The primary competitors for Concept Paints are multinational companies, who have far bigger budgets that can be used to drive sales. Under the Export Market Development Grants scheme, Concept Paints will continue to be competitive. The grants will enable the company to push and promote its products into foreign markets and increase its global footprint, which is great news for Concept Paints and is a real success story about how these grants boost manufacturing, boost Australian products and boost the industry as a whole. Good news for the automotive industry!

GPC Electronics, located on Blaikie Road in Penrith, has also benefited from the Export Market Development Grants scheme. In the previous financial year, it received $150,000 under the scheme. For more than 20 years, GPC Electronics has successfully manufactured complex electronic equipment for leading global organisations, such as Toshiba, Nortel, Alcatel, Siemens and NEC. It is now one of the largest contract manufacturers in Australia, exporting to over 40 countries.

The list goes on: Packwest, in Jamisontown, is yet another local recipient. It is located in my electorate and it has received $10,495 under the export market development scheme. This is a fabulous local organisation that has strong ties with customers and suppliers to develop innovative packaging, products and solutions. There are so many other businesses that have benefited. Australian Natural Health, based in Emu Plains, specialises in pharmaceutical and toiletry goods. It is a wholesale company that has received $19,706. Epitomy Pty Ltd is an electronic equipment manufacturing company, based in St Marys, that received $10,689. Oz Trails, a tourism business, and Sydney Executive Tours, a fantastic travel and tourism company based in Penrith, received $30,000 from the scheme. Spiller Industrial Supplies, located on Batt Street Penrith, is a sole export distributor for Apollo Cleaning Systems. This year, they will receive $15,534. Finally, Sud-Chemie Australia is a fantastic international company which has its Australian offices based, once again, in Penrith. In the previous financial year, it received $18,137 in grants.

The reason that these grants are so important to areas like Western Sydney is that two-thirds of my workforce have to commute every single day for jobs. Grants like these create local jobs, help my local community and are the reason that I stand here today to fight for the people of Western Sydney. I appreciate that this money was administered under the previous government, but I encourage the House to consider how much longer this list will be with the administrative and financial boost introduced by the coalition government today. I encourage the House to consider how much stronger our small and medium sized business export markets will be under these changes. Let us not forget it was the Labor government who continued to make cuts in this important sector, who continued to cut the Export Market Development Grants scheme, who continued to cut into the opportunities that we as a government provide to this vital sector.

I am proud to be part of a government who seeks to support this sector and to continue to give small and medium sized enterprises a hand up. We want to make Australia one of the best places to start and grow a business. We want to be a smart economy. We want smart jobs. We want our local manufacturing, agricultural and service businesses to be exporting internationally. Small business and medium business are the engine room of our economy, and it is time we supported them. They need to be unshackled by this reckless opposition, who in government did all they could to burden them with regulation and more taxation. I commend this bill to the House.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2014, because I understand the importance of export market development grants. The EMDGs provide assistance to aspiring and current exporters. They are a key measure in supporting Australia's small and medium sized businesses who want to develop export markets.

As a former small business owner, I know that these kinds of decisions can be heavy indeed. Deciding to export involves a great deal of risk. The research, promotion and travel required to identify markets and to build relationships to begin exporting are incredibly costly, time-consuming and rewarding. But they involve years of effort. The EMDGs reimburse a significant amount of eligible export promotion expenses, and the financial support available through them is often fundamental in providing business owners with the assurance that they need to begin exporting.

I will single out two fabulous organisations in my electorate who are doing amazing work in exporting overseas. The first is Aspen Medical, which last year won the ACT Exporter of the Year award. Aspen Medical's story is phenomenal. It is quite well-known right throughout Australia because of its extraordinary work. For those who do not know it, like so many successful small businesses it began at a kitchen table with a husband and wife team. And now Aspen Medical delivers world-class health care in remote, challenging and under-resourced environments. In 2012-13 Aspen Medical's exports grew to $44 million—an increase of 16 per cent over 2011-12—and accounted for almost 20 per cent of total turnover. During this time worldwide revenue more than doubled, and its team doubled in size. Growth is expected to continue as Aspen Medical leverages relationships with government departments, the resources sector, Indigenous partners and humanitarian organisations in the US, UK and UAE. They are an extraordinary outfit that I am very proud to have in my electorate. They just keep winning export awards and business awards—award after award. They are an extraordinary organisation.

The other organisation I would like to talk about today is CEA Technologies, which is located in Fyshwick in my electorate—again, an extraordinary outfit. They have been going for many, many years, and they do amazing work in terms of Defence contracts. They export throughout the world in very highly technical and innovative areas, particularly for ships—they do a lot of ICT and other work on ships, and their work is extraordinary. Again, I am very proud to have such an innovative, cutting-edge, world-class organisation in my electorate.

For some businesses, the assurance needed to begin exporting for the very first time comes from the EMDG scheme. For businesses already in the exporting game, EMDGs can provide support to investigate new markets, to maintain visibility in overseas markets and, most importantly, to develop key relationships. Those opposite are often critical of governments providing financial assistance to business, and this is demonstrated not only in their rhetoric but in their actions. But these grants are a wonderful example of how providing financial assistance to organisations can be instrumental in supporting jobs and growth right here in Australia. I am glad that, on this occasion at least, those opposite can see this benefit. Some of the comments that have been made by businesses that have received these grants include: 'The EMDG program has been a huge help for our company, and we have grown in size and credibility'; 'The EMDG has been instrumental in assisting our company's growth'; and 'Since signing on to the EMDG program our employment numbers have grown from 19 to 40 people, and we have had 10 years of double digit growth', which is an extraordinary achievement.

Many aspects of the amendments we are debating here today are good. They will help simplify the EMDGs and make the program more efficient. Labor is pleased that the government has adopted several of the measures contained in the amendment bill that we introduced last year. These include increasing the maximum number of grants per applicant to eight, preventing the payment of grants to applicants engaging an EMDG consultant who is assessed as not being a fit and proper person, and enabling grants to be paid more quickly where a grant is determined before 1 July following the balance distribution.

However, there are other amendments that Labor would have liked to see included in this amendment bill. Key amongst them is Labor's previously proposed incentive to export to Asia—to our region—especially in light of proposed new FTAs in the Asian region that have the potential to open up markets for existing and new export businesses. The government has abandoned these incentives, as it has so many other aspects of Labor's Australia in the Asian century white paper. When the then Prime Minister released the Australia in the Asian century white paper on 28 October 2012, I, like many Australians, was excited. I was excited about the many prospects and opportunities the Asian century offered Australians. I was excited that we were making a strategic and forward-thinking decision to make the most of those opportunities. And I was excited on behalf of the young boys and girls in my electorate who will grow up being Asia-literate, who will be fully engaged in our region, who will have multiple opportunities to study, to live and to work in Asia.

And here I want to talk about a couple of schools in my electorate that are already very Asia-literate. Mawson Primary has next to it an early childhood centre where children from basically one year old right through to school age are learning Chinese at the same time as they learn English. It is a fantastic program. I have been to a number of concerts at the school—all sung in Chinese, with everyone dressed up in little outfits; they are gorgeous. I have also been to a number of their working bees as well as their celebrations of other events. So, we have a fantastic program right here in Canberra—in Mawson, in my electorate—where children from the age of one are learning to be bilingual. It is an incredibly impressive program, and I applaud the work they are doing there. I know the staff are incredibly committed, as are the parents. It is not just a case of these children becoming bilingual; as a result of these small children learning Chinese from a very young age, the parents are encouraged to then go and study Chinese themselves. I have tried to learn Mandarin in the past, as I have tried to learn Arabic and a number of other languages.

An honourable member: Your English isn't too bad!

My English is not too bad, no—I won't go there! But I know that Mandarin is incredibly challenging, and so I take my hat off to the parents who do make that effort—although there is no way they are going to keep pace with their children—to try to converse with their children in Mandarin as they learn to become completely bilingual from a very young age.

There is also a school in Farrer in my electorate that has a very impressive Japanese language program, and there are a number of other schools in my electorate where the students are learning Indonesian—that is, across Catholic schools, public schools and independent schools. So I would like to think that Canberra is at the cutting edge of bilingualism when it comes to Asian languages, and I know that it is going to set these children up for life in terms of being able to converse freely. The beauty of learning another language—and, as I said, I am not fully conversant in any language—is that, when you are learning another language you gain a good understanding of the culture. So it is not just a case of learning a language and being able to converse with people in the street or with people in business environments; it also gives you an insight into the culture and the history of a country. It gives you a richness that you simply cannot get from just having a visit there or even going to some business meetings there. It gives you, in a way, a window to the soul of the country. That is why I applaud the range of schools in my electorate who are doing amazing work in Bahasa, in Mandarin, in Korean, in Japanese, and in Hindi—my Hindi is not too bad after living in India, but with the others, it was a bad attempt. However, I do fear that as a result of the shift in this bill, that these opportunities will be lost under an Abbott government—in terms of engagement with and a focus on the Asia-Pacific region.

Labor recognises that Australia's future prosperity will be underpinned by our engagement with our region, and I wonder about those opposite. Before I entered parliament I had my own public relations outfit, and I had a particular interest in looking at how Australia promoted itself in the region. In 1989 I was awarded a Royce Fellowship to study northern Asian perceptions of Australia's strengths as a manufacturing nation. This provided me with a fantastic opportunity. I was with Austrade for about four or five months, just looking at what they were doing here in Canberra. Then I travelled up to northern Asia: to Japan, to Korea, to Taiwan, to China, and to Hong Kong. I spent time meeting with Austrade officials there, with Australian embassy officials, with Asian business people, with journalists, with universities and with think tanks, getting an understanding of what they thought of Australia as a manufacturing nation.

The reason I wanted to study this particular area, as some in this hall might remember, was because of a study Ross Garnaut did, Australia and the Northeast Asian Ascendancy, which looked at trying to boost Australia's presence in the region in terms of manufacturing—to both elaborately and simply transform manufacturers. After I read that study I thought, 'that may be the case, and it is a great aspiration', but I was particularly keen to look at what the actual perceptions of Australia as a manufacturing nation were. At that stage the perception in northern Asia was that we were essentially a quarry and a farm. We wanted to broaden that perception. So, I just wanted to get a baseline of what the perception was among those opinion makers, business people, journalists, think tanks, and academics.

I continued with my interest in this particular area when I worked with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and was posted to India, in 1996. That year we had a major promotion, right throughout India, that was incredibly complex. We were showcasing Australia as a sophisticated, modern, manufacturing nation that produced significant technological work and major innovation. It was designed to show that we were more than just a quarry and a farm, and to broaden the perception that the Indian community had of Australia. It was designed to deepen the perception and understanding that the Indian community had of Australia, and it was highly successful in changing attitudes. That year-long program, which was very extensive and comprehensive, built on a program we ran in Indonesia in 1994 that I had also participated in. It was also designed to showcase the modern, innovative and technologically advanced Australia—the Australia that was producing world class research, technology and products. That program also worked very well in broadening and deepening the understanding of Indonesians about what Australia was, beyond just being a quarry and a farm.

Those years of my career in DFAT, and working on the Royce study, have highlighted to me how important it is to help out our exporters in the region. That is why this EMDG is so important. Those years also highlighted to me the significant and beneficial role that Austrade does, not just in researching potential markets for exporters, but also in getting a sense of where they will succeed. Trying to export requires a significant investment, so you need to know that your product is going to succeed before you make that big leap of faith, because it is a high risk operation. I take my hat off to those Austrade officials, here in Australia and around the world, who are providing significant support to our exporters, and I thank them for their work. I know that they are incredibly committed to broadening, deepening and growing Australia's export base.

Labor supports this bill, we support these amendments, and we support the EMDGs, because we believe there is a role for government to contribute to Australia's successful engagement with the world—through exporting the remarkable skills and innovation, and the goods of our hardworking men and women. However, we do not support the government's indifference to our region. Ignoring the incentives to focus on our region is a mistake. The Asian century is here, it cannot be sent to the archives, and we need to be ready.

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

It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2014. This bill is another coalition promise delivered, and delivered in full. Before the election we promised that we would reinstate an extra $50 million to this export development grants scheme, and that is what we are delivering in the parliament today. I have been very pleased to sit here and listen to the contributions from the member for Sydney, the member for Canberra, and the member for Oxley, all saying how they support this scheme, how wonderful it is, and how it assists our exports. They are 100 per cent correct. However, it is worth contrasting how the coalition is delivering their promise to increase funding under this scheme with what the members of the Labor party did when they were in government.

Now let us go back to the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2013, which the member for Canberra actually voted for. What this bill proposed to do was cut $25 million from the export development grants for one year. They wanted to take away $25 million worth of funding. We here in the government are doing the exact opposite. We are putting $50 million back in over the forward estimates. We also should note the comments from our Minister for Trade and Investment in which he noted that our commitment was not only to make this one $50 million hit but that we would progressively restore the funding to the export market development schemes. This was a scheme that, under the Labor government, they completely ignored. In fact, if we go back to 2006-07, in the last years of the Howard government, this scheme was funded to the tune of $154.4 million. But in the export development grants bill of 2013, which the Labor government members all voted for, by then they wanted to cut it from $150 million. So in their six years of government they had not even put one extra cent in—it was still at the same level—and they wanted to rip $25 million away. This is the complete nonsense that we hear from that side.

It is worthwhile mentioning the absolute nonsense from the opposition in this debate. The other thing that they tried to do was to reduce the number of grant years under the previous scheme for exports to the USA, Canada and the European Union. Previously, the Export Market Development Grants Scheme allowed an exporter to apply for grants on a seven-year basis. In their last proposal for the scheme, the previous Labor government, who said that this was such a wonderful scheme, actually knocked out year 6 and year 7 for exporters exporting to the USA, Canada and the European Union and made a tokenistic one-year increase of an eighth year to Asia. They have a terrible record—a shameful record—of neglect of the scheme. This is in complete contrast to the coalition.

What this bill does, firstly, is commit an extra $50 million over the forward estimates period that will be paid to our small exporters that engage in export development. Secondly, and most importantly, it lowers the threshold. Previously, there was a threshold of $15,000 for an exporter's eligible expenditure that was not accounted. What we have done is reduce that to $5,000. That incentivises our small businesses—even down to our microbusinesses. In just one example, a business that had spent $15,000 on export promotion under the previous Labor government would have received a duck egg—zero; nothing. By the change that we are making to this scheme, that exporter would get back $5,000. Again, we are realigning this more to small businesses.

The second thing we are doing in the change to this scheme is increasing the number of grant years from seven to eight, irrespective of what market you export to. That is a very important step. I would hope in years to come, as the economy improves and our financial situation allows it, that we could increase that to extra years. That is important because exporters do not have just one product or one market that they export to. Over a period of five, six, seven or eight years, the market changes. The market that was eight years ago, compared to the market that exists today for exporters, is a completely different world. Exporters have to have new products; they have to go and seek new markets. Markets fall away and markets come back. That it should be knocked out after a certain number of years is not good for the scheme. The fact that we have been able to increase this from seven years to eight years is a very positive step in the right direction.

As I said, this bill is all about backing small business. We are sending the message to our small business community out there: 'Go out and have a go in the export market,' because 99 per cent of the world's economy lies beyond our shores. So we are sending a message to those small businesses in Australia: 'Get out there; have a go in the export market; if you take that risk, the government is there and the government will back you up.' That is what we need to drive this economy. We need to encourage those entrepreneurs, those creative innovators in this country, to go out there, put their own money on the line and take a risk, because that is what drives the growth, drives the employment and creates the prosperity in our nation. That is what exactly this bill encourages.

Export markets are tricky and they are complicated. I know for myself. Before I entered this parliament I sat around in boardrooms in New York, in Singapore, in Dubai and in the UK, trying to sell things from small Australian companies into those markets. One thing I found was that, no matter what part of the world that I travelled, when they knew that I was from Australia they gave me a fair hearing. That is the message that I would like to send to every potential exporter in the country—'Get out there and have a go.' That is what this bill assists.

I would like to touch on one thing quickly. For our exporters, one thing that is important to them is to be able to transport their goods to those export markets. In this parliament there is a lot of debate about our airline industry. We need a strong Qantas, but we also need a strong and expanding number of international flights in and out of this country, because those passenger aircrafts do not only move passengers. In the belly of the aircraft they move export air freight. That is so important to our nation because so many of the products that we have a competitive advantage in are perishable goods that need to be exported quickly by air to their markets. So the more air traffic we have—the greater the number of planes flying into Australia from international destinations—the more that opens up the volume, allows greater capacity and keeps the price down for our air freight exports. So we need to be very careful when we have the opposition not supporting the government and blocking changes to the Qantas Sale Act that would enable Qantas to compete on a more level playing field. The opposition are not only harming Qantas; they risk harming the thousands and thousands of Australian exporters and the tens if not hundreds of thousands of jobs that rely on the export of goods into South-East Asia through airfreight.

I am also very, very concerned about some of the statements by opposition members during this debate. It would appear that either they have not read the legislation or they do not understand the legislation. There is nothing that we are doing that adversely affects our exports to Asia. Previously, there was an eight-year allowance: you could claim a grant for eight consecutive years. What we have done is extend that eight years to Europe, the USA and UK markets. The great concern I have when I read the speech by the member for Sydney in this debate, where she criticised the reform, is that she thought the government should somehow come in and say, 'This export market is more important than this export market and therefore you should have different schemes.' This is what we see, unfortunately, from the Labor opposition. They have a complete desire and tendency to want to micromanage everything, to centralise planning. We should leave it to the exporters to decide where they believe they have the greatest chance of making export sales. It should not be up to members of the bureaucracy or members of the government to say, 'Isn't it wonderful, all this expansion to Asia is wonderful—that's where exporters should go.' Exporters understand that; they know that.

There is a scene from The Lego Movie, which is being released in the coming weeks in Sydney, that I want to mention here. In that movie the evil robots are called the 'micro-managers'. What the micro managers try and do is ensure that everyone in Bricksville adheres to the government's plan about what should be done. In the final scene the micro-managers go to war against what are called the 'master builders', the creative ones, the entrepreneurs. I bet when members of the opposition are sitting there watching that movie and see that final scene they will be cheering for the micro-managers, because that is what we see from their comments about this legislation.

The other concern we have about the government trying to decide which export market it would be best for marketers to sell to, rather than leaving it to the exporters, is that we need to be careful about the idea of giving Asia some priority. Yes, everyone exporter in the nation understands that there are many opportunities in Asia, just like there are many opportunities elsewhere around the world. But we have to be careful that we do not overrely on any one region in the world for our exports to go to. We have the example of the Woolworths and Coles effect on many small businesses, where they find that their market share of the potential customers they can sell to is one customer having 40, 50 or more per cent of their business, so they simply become hostage to that customer. That is what we have to be very careful about with our exports.

We currently have a situation where more than 25 per cent of our nation's exports go to one country. That exposes our nation to external risks. If something ever happens with that market, or some centralised control in that market decides they no longer like Australia goods for some reason, we have put ourselves at risk. What the opposition propose is to have greater emphasis, with some centralised plan, on encouraging exporters to go to Asia. Not only is that a flawed idea; it could have many adverse, unintended consequences. So I am very pleased that this bill wipes that out. It levels the playing field. Under these coalition amendments, it will not matter where you export to the world, you get that eight years.

There are some very successful exporters in my electorate of Hughes who received export development grants over the last financial year. I would like to mention them, congratulate them and thank them for the wonderful work that they do to drive prosperity, to create jobs and wealth in our nation. They are: Abel Metal Services of Moorebank, Beverly Hills Trading of Revesby, Control Systems Technology of Revesby, D V Import & Export Pty Ltd of Illawong, Deb Australia of Chipping Norton, Destination Consulting of Alfords Point, Orion Art of Engadine, Sphere Healthcare of Moorebank and W & S Plastics of Moorebank. I hope that I can stand in this parliament in 12 months time and be able to add a great number of companies in my electorate to that list. That is what we all should do as members of parliament. We should all be out talking about this amendment, talking it up in our electorates, saying, 'We as the government support you to go out and have a crack in the export market.' Every member of parliament should be doing this because that is what is going to drive prosperity. We need those small businesses out there taking the risks. That is exactly what this bill does. I commend it wholeheartedly to the House.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too support the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2014. These changes will support manufacturers and producers in the Bendigo electorate and central Victoria. This scheme—which, I might add, was introduced by the Labor government many, many years ago, under Gough Whitlam—will not only offer financial assistance for aspiring exporters, it will offer support for current exporters. In my region, central Victoria, it has helped many over the years. The Export Market Development Grants Scheme encourages small and medium Australian businesses to develop their export markets. In the current period of economic transition it is critical that we continue to support these businesses, manufacturers and producers, in creating new opportunities to export their goods overseas.

Bendigo, as I have said, is an area where we have a number of these small to medium enterprises. One of the strengths of our local manufacturing and producing community is its diversity, yet they come together to work well together under such organisations as the Bendigo Manufacturing Group. In Bendigo we are one of the major contributors to the Loddon-Mallee south region, with regional product estimated to be worth about $5 billion. Some of the big exporters are from the manufacturing sector in our region as well as food, financial and insurance services. We are in the Asian century, and Australia's future—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order no 43. The debate may resume at a later hour and the honourable will have leave to continue her remarks when the debate is resumed.