Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his answer. I apologise for saying that he looked bored—I think I do need some long-distance glasses in this cavernous chamber. The minister says there are an infinity of ideas and suggestions—it sounds like a Buzz Lightyear response: 'To infinity … and beyond!' When I received a briefing from senior officials of the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science yesterday, facilitated by Minister Hunt, they had a list of programs where firms received assistance, usually on the basis of a government grant, but the private company itself has to kick in at least 50 per cent and in many cases two-thirds and three-quarters of their own money, as their own investment, with the idea being that it creates jobs and it creates economic activity and there is a net economic benefit. Does the minister acknowledge that there can be a formula where sometimes if you have targeted government assistance alone, assisting a company to build its export markets for instance, there is a dividend back in the sense that it increases economic activity and there is a net economic benefit from that activity? Is there a mechanism for measuring that?

For instance, I think the minister may be interested in what they do in Germany—the Fraunhofer model—in terms of targeted industry partnerships between government and industry in that country. In Germany, 22 per cent of the GDP of that nation is based on manufacturing, compared to six per cent in this country—down from 12 per cent a decade ago.

So that we can put each other out of our misery on this particular line of questioning, all that I ask is: does the minister concede that there is a process, that there is a mechanism, to determine when you put government money into a particular program that you can measure in a quantifiable manner the net economic benefit in terms of jobs created, economic activity, tax receipts—including PAYE and corporate tax—and the broader multiplier effect on the economy than if that targeted assistance were not provided? And, if that is the case, surely that is something that should be considered in the balancing act of whether we have a tax cut of this magnitude or whether we have some additional targeted government assistance that can be quantified?