Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Hansard source

When it comes to the Australian Trade Commission Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 we have to ask ourselves a key question. We are dealing with exports, with Australia’s economic future and with the future of Australian manufacturing itself, so what does our manufacturing industry require for the future? What does it say it needs? The Australian Industry Group quotes one Victorian manufacturer as saying:

At a national level we need a business plan. We need a clear set of objectives so we know where we are going, where infrastructure is taken into account and the issues of developing people, getting good leadership, looking at the ways we can be smarter and finding niche markets are taken into account.

This hits the nail on the head and it is to this that the Australian Labor Party is responding in our approach to a future manufacturing policy, plan and strategy for the country. We have no intention of standing idly by while Australian manufacturing sinks quietly below the waves.

Labor has a plan to ensure that the manufacturing sector will be viable beyond the end of the resources boom—a plan to increase skills by abolishing TAFE fees for traditional trades; a plan to increase labour force participation through the provision of more child-care workers; a plan to facilitate exports through a coordinated approach to infrastructure through Infrastructure Australia. We also believe that a new approach is needed to boost Australian exports—an approach which focuses on all industries, not just resource related industries.

Australia needs a new export strategy for the country, one which tackles the productivity challenge head-on across infrastructure, skills, R&D and innovation, one which maximises Australia’s efforts to secure greater global market access through the current WTO round, one which reforms Australia’s approach to export promotion through Austrade and one which implements concrete measures to create a better export culture right across the economy through practical assistance to Australian exporters.

The bill that we debate today does not of itself address Australia’s systemic export problems. It does not of itself address the systemic problems concerning our current account. It does not of itself address the problems that now arise with our staggering half-trillion dollar foreign debt. The opposition, however, will support this bill because it does provide for the administrative transition of the Australian Trade Commission from a statutory authority under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 to a statutory agency which will be part of the Commonwealth, subject to the Public Service Act 1999, and a prescribed agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.

One of the consequences of this bill is that, upon its proclamation, the role of a CEO will be established to replace the Austrade board. The Austrade board was established by the Hawke Labor government in 1985 for the very reason that it would bring the commercial acumen of the private sector into facilitating Austrade’s trade performance. Labor recognise the valuable input that business and industry can provide to policy, and this is particularly important at a time when Australia’s trade position has registered such bad numbers for the economy. We recognise that the legislation allows for the continued involvement of industry through the existing Free Trade Agreement Export Advisory Panel and the Trade Promotion Advisory Committee. Our concern, however, is that there will be no high-level input from business and industry leaders of the type that the current board structure provides. Our view, therefore, is that this question will need to be revisited under a future Labor government. We believe that business input is critical to Austrade’s future success. We are prepared to support this bill because it nonetheless allows Austrade to become a statutory agency. It is for this reason that I now move the second reading amendment that has been circulated in my name:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the bill will do little to correct Australia’s trade balance which:

(a)

has been in deficit for four years (48 months);

(b)

recorded a total deficit of $18.7 billion in 2005;

(c)

is impacting on a record current account deficit of $55.1 billion; and

(d)

is contributing to Australia’s record foreign debt of half a trillion dollars.”

See this speech in context