House debates

Monday, 18 June 2007

Committees

Economics, Finance and Public Administration Committee; Report

4:14 pm

Photo of Steven CioboSteven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise today to speak to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, titled Servicing our future: inquiry into the current and future directions of Australia’s services export sector. Like the previous speaker, I was particularly pleased to see such a bipartisan approach to the various issues and challenges that our committee focused on over the past 12 months. All members of the committee—and I am being generous in certain respects—were very focused on ensuring that the very best possible set of recommendations could be put forward. In many respects, I was genuinely pleased to see the bipartisan way in which this was handled. More importantly, I believe that, fundamentally, there were a number of key recommendations put forward by this committee that will bode well for the future of Australia, particularly those focusing on the services industry.

As the member for Moncrieff, representing a city like the Gold Coast, I must say that I have been very focused on the services industry. The Gold Coast is a relatively new and emerging city. It certainly is one that perhaps has more than most when it comes to possible gains that can be made with a particular focus on the services sector. With that in mind, it is exciting to know that the services sector accounts for 75 per cent of output within Australia and 85 per cent of employment and generates 20 per cent of exports, to make it one of the key sectors in the Australian economy, which, perhaps surprisingly for some, is something that is a little-appreciated or known fact. The purpose of this report was to look at ways in which the Australian economy and successive Australian government policies could further drive this output and the export of Australian services and could further increase the take-up of employment in this sector. I was particularly pleased that the Treasurer was able to commission this inquiry by the committee on 3 May last year. In many respects, his ability to recognise the need to continue developing this process is a reflection of the leadership he has shown in this area over the past several years.

As I said, there were a number of recommendations that came out of this inquiry, and I do not intend to discuss all of them. But I would like to touch upon some of the key recommendations that flowed from the report. I will go in numerical order, starting with recommendation No. 2, which was a recommendation that there be created a minister for the services sector. I must say that this is perhaps the single largest overarching recommendation the committee has put forward, which I believe will have ramifications in a very positive sense going forward. Whether it be a Liberal or a Labor government, it is very clear that a minister for the services sector would spearhead efforts to coordinate and bring together the services sector across a whole range of industries that are currently not particularly well coordinated. This has been caused by the effluxion of time and, in some respects, the various policy approaches being adopted in an inconsistent manner. Nonetheless, the creation of a services minister would, I believe, fundamentally alter the landscape going forward. Australians could have confidence that a dedicated and focused minister, who would ensure that there was a disciplined and coordinated approach to the services sector, would see this sector expand its growth beyond that which it has already achieved without this minister.

Recommendation 4, which also deals with the issue of bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations, is also a very good recommendation and one that I am pleased to highlight here. There can be no doubt that in past agreements of a bilateral and multilateral nature there has from time to time been an inability for beneficial services outcomes to be achieved because, in many respects, there has been one particular sector—and more often than not it is agriculture—which has tended to stall in these negotiations. We know that many services exports are not able to reach their true potential because of non-tariff barriers. In this respect I believe that it is very important that any future government closely examines opportunities to enhance the services side of the economy and to enhance services exports by making sure that, when it comes to services, there is a resolute focus on what is the single largest part of the Australian economy. Although media columns and a lot of media focus very much on agricultural products and agricultural exports, the fact remains that we really should do more when it comes to the services side of the economy. I believe this recommendation, in a very pointed way, reinforces the committee’s view on a bipartisan basis that there must be absolute commitment and focus if we are going to continue to drive exports of services and that this can be achieved through both bilateral and multilateral treaties to a greater extent than it has been in the past.

Recommendation 5 is one I was particularly passionate about. Recommendation 5 calls for the creation of a Brand Australia Council. In the United Kingdom, for example, the London Development Agency works on developing a London brand, a brand that applies to any external operations of UK agencies to bring them all under one brand. I have to say that, to me, that makes eminent sense. You do not see, for example, key private sector brands having various brands in various countries. What you tend to see with the Coca-Colas, the McDonald’s and the Nestles of the world is one consistent brand which applies across all of their branding across various countries. Sure, there are liable to be changes and there often are sometimes unique changes to the brand that alter it in a subtle way so that it accords with the local market that that particular brand might be operating in, but fundamentally the brand remains the same.

It seems to me that the establishment of a Brand Australia Council would do a great deal to ensure that Australia is recognised around the world in a consistent and uniform way. This is fundamentally important, because we know that Tourism Australia is out there creating brand awareness of Australia, and that is a positive thing. But we also know that there is a variety of other agencies, such as Austrade, Australia’s investment agency, and other key agencies which should be on the coat-tails of one unique brand for our country, so that internationally all people recognise an Australian brand when they see it and look forward to working with Australians, who, I think it is fair to say, are considered to be fairly lovable rogues around the world. Certainly I would hope so, and I believe that is the approach that Tourism Australia takes.

Recommendation 7 I will touch upon quickly as well in the short time that I have. Recommendation 7 is that an independent inquiry on the future of inbound tourism be established. Inbound tourism generates about $17 billion of exports for Australia, and the tourism industry employs some 550,000 Australians—a key and vital industry for our country. More importantly, from my perspective, it is the single biggest industry in my electorate on the Gold Coast. There is no doubt that tourism is certainly only the tip of the iceberg of our potential generation of wealth from services exports. In that respect an independent inquiry would bring the kind of truth that is required to the industry to highlight both the good aspects and perhaps the negative aspects which historically may not have been dwelt upon. There can be no doubt that, as a result of a number of inquiries over the past couple of decades, we have tended to focus on aspects of the industry that we like. The committee believes it is time that an independent inquiry took stock of exactly where we are, made some tough decisions and actually shone the spotlight on particular parts of the industry which perhaps in the past have not had light shone onto them. In that respect I think a full and frank assessment of the future of the industry would be a very positive and beneficial outcome.

Recommendation 8 is again another critical recommendation that the committee put forward. It deals with the recommendation that there be more emphasis placed on rogue operators and more emphasis placed on the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to really clamp down on rogue operators. The committee heard a lot of evidence from witnesses concerned about the operations of rogue operators. I myself have witnessed firsthand on the Gold Coast rogue operators acting in a way that belittles the Australian tourism industry and does our country no great service whatsoever. The committee, on a bipartisan level again, was disappointed at the lack of action that the ACCC had taken. In this respect I think this recommendation is a very important one.

Recommendations 9 and 11 are the other two recommendations I would like to highlight with respect to climate change and, particularly under recommendation 11, with respect to niche marketing to do with the medical services export sector—no doubt a nascent industry but one that, again, could generate great wealth and income for this country. In the very short time I have left I would like to pay tribute particularly to those who played a key role: to the chairman, who has been a very fine gentleman and member—the member for Cook, Bruce Baird; I thank him for all his work—the deputy chair for his outstanding work, and all members of the committee. I also thank Gold Coast Tourism and the various tourism representatives. (Time expired)

Comments

No comments