Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased, as always, to speak in the parliament on a piece of legislation being promoted by the Howard government—the Australian Trade Commission Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. I have also had the opportunity to hear the member for Wills speak on this matter—another occasion where I have heard a great deal of diatribe from the member for Wills. I have had the opportunity of following him in the parliament on a couple of occasions and it never ceases to amaze me the extent to which the shadow minister, the member for Wills, engages in remarkable muckraking. I am not sure if he is self-appointed or whether he has been appointed by the opposition as the opposition’s muckraker, but little of what he had to say was of substance or about the bill.

All those in the parliament who know the member for Gwydir will be horrified at the remarks of the member for Wills and his attacks on the integrity and the probity of one of the most decent men who has given of his time to the national interest of the parliament. I repudiate the attacks that the member for Wills has engaged in today and on previous occasions against the member for Gwydir, the former Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anderson.

As a member of parliament and a member of the Howard government—I am in my second term in office, sharing in the victories of the Howard government—I am pleased to speak on this important bill. It is important because it makes significant changes to the government’s structure of the Australian Trade Commission, or Austrade. It brings about some key reforms to the management structure of Austrade that will make that important government agency more efficient and more productive in the overall architecture of the Howard government’s trade policies.

As a statutory authority under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, Austrade is governed by a board whose members are drawn from business and government. It reports directly to the Minister for Trade. The current bill intends to transition Austrade from a statutory authority under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 to a statutory agency subject to the Public Service Act 1999 and the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. This transition comes through as part of the government’s response to the Review of Corporate Governance of Statutory Authorities and Office Holders—also known as the Uhrig review, after John Uhrig AC.

The Uhrig review recommended that two templates be applied to ensure good governance of statutory authorities. Agencies should be managed either by a chief executive officer or by a board structure. Both templates detail measures for ensuring the boundaries of responsibilities are better understood and the relationship between Australian government authorities, ministers and portfolio departments are made clear. The Uhrig report recommended that the selection of the management template and financial frameworks to be applied should be based on the governance characteristics of a statutory authority. In general, agencies that exclusively manage Commonwealth appropriations should be represented and governed by a CEO. A board structure is favoured if there is a strong commercial focus to the organisation or if the agency is intergovernmental.

Austrade is currently governed by a board and is subject to the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. Under the amendments proposed in the bill, the Austrade board will be replaced by a CEO, who will be appointed by the minister. The governing act will change from the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 to the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, and staff will be employed under the Public Service Act 1999. In short, this change comes about essentially because the government has concluded that an executive management template is more suitable to Austrade’s role as the Australian government’s premier trade facilitation agency.

Members of the House will be aware that Austrade is the Australian government’s statutory authority, responsible for helping Australian businesses to succeed in exports and the international business arena. It does this through the provision of advice, market intelligence and ongoing support to Australian businesses preparing, commencing and undertaking export activity. Austrade maintains 17 offices and 52 TradeStart offices across Australia and a network across the globe that includes some 130 offices in more than 60 countries.

Its most fundamental role is to act as a bridge between the Australian exporter and a potential international partner. As part of this role, Austrade provides mentoring, information seminars and training in export related activity. Austrade officials have a fine reputation for identifying export opportunities and potential partners, and provide in-country advice and support from advocacy and research to facilitation and translation services. Austrade also administers the Export Market Development Grants Scheme, the EMDG Scheme, which provides partial reimbursement of approved marketing expenses in export activity.

Another unheralded role that Austrade fulfil is the role of fostering and encouraging a culture of exporting and trade in the Australian business community. For this reason alone, I am a big fan of Austrade. For their overall contribution to Australian exporters and the Australian export industry, I put on record my very strong support and encouragement for our Austrade officials both in Australia and throughout the world. In today’s very competitive world it is vital that Australia develops the business culture of looking abroad for commercial opportunities. We have a history of innovation and entrepreneurship in this country that quite frankly is second to none. We must do all we can as a government to support and encourage greater innovation and entrepreneurship on the back of what we already have. Clearly Austrade has a critical role to play in how Australia promotes trade in goods and services to the world.

We all know that the Australian economy today is experiencing remarkable activity, growth and strength. A few weeks ago the Treasurer delivered his 9th budget surplus out of 11 budgets, and there will be a cash surplus of some $10.8 billion. Unlike the state Labor governments, all of which are likely to be delivering budget deficits in the weeks ahead, the Commonwealth has no foreign debt. The Commonwealth government does not have any debt whatsoever. I have heard previous speakers in the parliament, particularly the shadow minister for foreign affairs, the member for Griffith, talk about the half a trillion dollar debt. Quite frankly, he should know better. He should know that that is private sector debt. It is not debt owed by the Commonwealth.

This economy is a trillion dollar economy. It is a trillion dollar economy because of the strong leadership of the Howard government and the strong stewardship that the Treasurer has demonstrated in his role in the past 10 years. The furphy that the opposition keep putting out that the government somehow has its hands in debt needs to be addressed and addressed very quickly by members of the government, because quite frankly they are again trying to mislead the Australian public.

I want to say again that whatever debt there is in the country is private sector debt; it is not debt owed by the government of Australia. This confusion from members of the opposition is unwarranted in the eyes of the Australian community, and I think they will be held to account. More members of the opposition should come clean on that. I notice that it is only one or two of them who go down the path of misleading the Australian community about the so-called half a trillion dollar debt. The $28 billion that Qantas is expending on aircraft purchases is an example I can give the parliament and those who may be listening of a private company buying overseas made products. That is separate from any expenditure that the Australian government might engage in. That is a very good example of how the opposition is wrong when it talks about a half a trillion dollar government debt.

In the 10 years during which the Howard government has been in office the Australian economy has grown by an average of 3.5 per cent. By comparison, Japan has had four recessions, Singapore has had three recessions, Hong Kong has had three recessions, Taiwan has had two recessions, Korea has had a recession, and the United States went into recession in 2001. At the time of the Asian financial crisis in 1996-97, when this government came into office, we were very strong in helping the Asian economies when they needed a friend. Australia can be very proud of the contribution it made to the economies of Asia when they were desperately in need of a good neighbour. It certainly makes a mockery of the description attributed to the former Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, that Australia was in danger of becoming so-called ‘poor white trash’. Notwithstanding our good relations and good friendship with Singapore, I think today’s economy stands in stark contrast to the sentiments behind that unfortunate comment.

In relation to Australia’s trade figures, I have heard members of the opposition again try to confuse and mislead the Australian public. The Australian trade figures represent just how healthy the Australian economy really is. Australia’s total trade in goods and services continued to grow steadily last year, rising to $373 billion, representing a 12 per cent increase in total exports. The latest official publication from DFAT has some very good news for Australian exporters and indeed for all Australians who have a strong interest in our prosperity and our growth. The report tells us that in 2005 our 30,000-plus exporters achieved their best-ever year in sales. The value of exports of goods and services rose some 15 per cent in 2005, to $177 billion. Japan remains our largest merchandise export market, accounting for 20 per cent of exports, which are valued at some $28.4 billion. China remains our second largest export market, accounting for $16.1 billion. South Korea is our third largest export market, at some $10.9 billion.

If anyone needs to be persuaded of the importance of trade to this country, let me give a very compelling reason. We are of course a trading nation. Trade affects our standard of living. Trade affects our job market. One in five jobs in this country rest on the success and prosperity of our exporting companies. In rural Australia, one in four jobs depends upon the stability, continuity and growth of our exports. I remind anybody who thinks that trade is not important to this economy of those very important figures—that is, one in five jobs in this country depends upon successful exporters, and in rural and regional parts of Australia that figure is one in four. In the last 10 years 1.7 million jobs have been created in Australia. Our unemployment level is at a three-decade low of five per cent.

Many of my fellow Australians will not need reminding that under the Keating Labor government unemployment levels were into double digit figures. I am sure many of them will remember the horror days of being unable to find a job, being unable to secure employment, because of the shocking economic management of this country by the Keating Labor government. If anyone thinks that the economy today is in good shape simply due to good chance or good luck then they ought to reconsider. These sorts of things do not happen by good luck or goodwill. They happen through very strong policies of the government of the day. This government can be very proud of the policies that it has implemented to bring about job growth and a strong economy.

The business of government, as I like to remind small businesses of the Ryan electorate, which I have the great privilege of representing, is to try and create the environment and the climate in which businesses can get on with doing what they are best at doing—that is, finding purchasers for their products, finding customers for their products and creating jobs for their local communities. The business of government is to get out of the way of businesses, to allow businesses to do what they do best. They do not want the heavy hand of any government. They want minimal intervention, minimal interference by governments, and that is how they are able to prosper in the community. This is the Howard government’s view. This is the policy of the government and this is our practice. It is little wonder that the Howard government are seen as the best friend of the workers of Australia. The last four elections are evidence of that. I think it is important that we remind the Australian community that there was a time when unemployment in this country was at double digit levels.

While I am on my feet talking about the strength of Australian businesses and the Australian economy, I think it is important also to make some general remarks about the international economy. Of course, Australian businesses in this country cannot conduct their operations in isolation of what takes place in other parts of the world. Whether we like it or not—whether Australian businesses like it or not and whether the government likes it or not—we do operate and exist in an international environment, where the policies of other governments and other companies can have a significant impact on the viability of our own businesses. We live in such an integrated, interdependent and interconnected world that we cannot pretend that external forces and external dynamics are not relevant to the success of Australian enterprises and Australian companies.

This state of affairs, of very strong economic integration, interdependence and interconnectedness, is often referred to as globalisation. One of the most powerful reasons for this deep integration, interconnectedness and interdependence—or the so-called globalised world—is the depth and the nature of technology. Technology really has transformed our world in the last few decades, particularly in the last 15 or 20 years. Some people would have us believe that globalisation is a relatively new thing and that it is also an evil thing. Those who hold this view are wrong on both counts. Globalisation is neither a new phenomenon nor an evil thing. The world was globalised in ancient times when the Romans and the Greeks sailed beyond their shores to conquer new lands. The world is globalised today in the same way. The only difference is in the characteristics of that globalisation.

The world may think it can escape globalisation; it cannot. What is intrinsically different today is how that globalisation is manifested. Globalisation today is characterised not so much by sailboats but by jet planes and supercomputers. The instantaneous nature of transactions and the flow of funds and services that connect our world in such an unprecedented fashion are the hallmarks of today’s global economy. No longer does the international exchange of goods or services take weeks or months, as it did in previous decades or centuries. Now it takes only moments—or not even moments but split milliseconds. That is the defining characteristic of our modern, 21st century world.

The other things that the critics would have us believe about globalisation is that it is a terrible thing and that it is evil. I strongly disagree with that. Perhaps it could even be said that there is not enough globalisation in the world today. The problem is not that there is too much globalisation but that there is far too little globalisation. I say that because I am a very firm believer that globalisation is the vehicle by which prosperity and trade can reach people who are actually outside the international economy. Globalisation brings these people back into the economy. It gives them a chance to get a job. It gives them a chance of hope and of employment that they would not otherwise have.

One feature of our global world is the increasing number international trade agreements that are being concluded. I want to end my remarks by very quickly talking about the free trade agreements that we have with Singapore, Thailand and the US. We are also in the process of negotiating free trade agreements with the United Arab Emirates and China. When completed, both of these agreements will open up to Australian businesses greater markets in all kinds of areas. Our UAE agreement will give us a unique platform into the increasingly significant, prosperous and growing Middle East market. The other, with China, will aim to provide us with access previously off limits to the most populous nation on earth and the third largest economy in the world. China’s entry into the WTO in December 2001 and its re-emergence in the international global trading regime will continue to have a profound impact on the fabric of international economics.

I am pleased, as a member of the Howard government, to strongly support our respective negotiators in trying to bring about an agreement that will advance the cause of Australian exporters and Australian businesses. I want to also end my remarks by continuing to encourage those involved in the Doha Round of negotiations to stick at it, to persevere. Nothing could be more fundamentally important to aiding the developing world than concluding the Doha Round and opening up the agriculture sectors of the European economies and the European nations, and those of some of our Asian friends, to the trade that the developing countries so desperately need. A cow in the European Union typically receives a government subsidy of $US2.20 a day. This is untenable. (Time expired)

See this speech in context