Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I have the pleasure to make a ministerial statement to announce the release of an independent report into Australia’s export policies and programs, the Mortimer report, conducted by Mr David Mortimer AO and Dr John Edwards. A key part of this review was the Export Market Development Grants scheme, the EMDG scheme. I present the Review of the Export Market Development Grants scheme.

The Mortimer report provides a basis for the government’s future trade policies. I will use its recommendations to continue our commitment to refocus Australian trade policy and to help lay the foundations for our future prosperity. The report notes with concern our persistent trade deficits in recent years and that they have contributed to the increase in the net foreign liabilities. The report makes the point that an increase in exports will be necessary to stabilise net foreign liabilities and to avoid a potentially painful adjustment process in the future.

Whilst the report does not actually set a target for improving our export performance, I think we do need to set ourselves a goal. There are differences of opinion as to what measure is best. But we must take steps to ensure that our net exports make a consistently positive contribution to economic growth. For that, we need to set ambitious objectives. We have got to be ambitious if we are to turn around the failures of the previous government on trade policy. We have got to be ambitious if we are to respond to the changing nature of trade, and we have got to be ambitious if we are to boost our international competitiveness.

We have already achieved significant outcomes that will improve our trade performance and made significant down payments on which we can now build. Our first budget made significant commitments to invest in the drivers of economic growth—in particular, to invest in infrastructure, skills formation and innovation. The government commissioned this report because Australia needed a comprehensive review into our trade performance due to the previous government’s failure to address this critical contributor to our economy.

The previous government in fact had no policy on trade, and it showed. Under their watch, despite the resources boom, net exports made a positive contribution to economic growth in just two out of their 11 years in office. This stands in stark contrast to Labor’s performance when it was last in government, when net exports made a positive contribution to growth in 10 of our 13 years in office. That is the difference: two out of 11 from the other side; 10 out of 13 when we took a comprehensive approach and understood the importance of lifting our trade performance.

I have spoken before in this place on a number of occasions about the record 72 consecutive trade deficits that we inherited from the previous government. No other government in our history has presided over such a disastrous run. Worse, the Mortimer report tells us that much of the deterioration under the previous government was in the last five years, when we had the benefit of a major resources boom and very favourable terms of trade.

Not only was their trade negotiation strategy not productive, they failed on two other important fronts. First, they failed to invest in the key drivers of economic growth and competitiveness. Second, they failed to understand the changing nature of trade and investment. In the previous response to the Treasurer’s ministerial statement, I noticed that the new shadow Treasurer talked about the legacy of the previous government. Well, the legacy of the previous government was an appalling one when it came to trade performance.

The shadow Treasurer also made mention of the fact that under them there had been a diversification of our export base. The truth is that that diversification did not happen. The services economy is 80 per cent of our domestic economy, yet it is only responsible for 23 per cent of our exports. That is not a diversification. The previous government’s failure to understand the opportunities in the services economy and the importance of investment is part of the reason we had such an appalling trade performance under them. The previous government just rode the resources boom and hoped that strong demand for Australian resources would boost our exports. They did not think about how we would meet that demand and they did not think about the long term.

The Mortimer report finds that critical parts of Australia’s infrastructure have failed to cope with the current demands and that this has substantially limited export volumes and competitiveness. Mortimer also received considerable input on the extent to which shortages of labour, both skilled and unskilled, have emerged as a constraint on Australia’s export and investment capacity. No wonder our export performance under the previous government has been so poor.

This review confirms the need for the Rudd government to implement its new trade and investment strategy to lift Australia’s trade performance. We will seek to ensure net exports once again make a positive contribution to economic growth, because this is what boosts our economic prosperity. This is what lifts our standard of living. This is what creates jobs—higher paying, more skilled and more sustainable jobs. And, Mr Deputy Speaker, we know it can be done.

The last Labor government—of which I was proud to be part—did it. Net exports made a positive contribution, as I said earlier, in 10 out of our 13 years in office. In the Hawke-Keating years we laid the groundwork for successful export performance by:

• investing in the drivers of economic growth
• opening up the economy through broad structural reform and
• broadening the export base.

And we reaped a positive trade dividend as a consequence. The Rudd government has already, in its very first budget, laid the basis for doing this again. The Mortimer report strongly endorses the government’s view that, as important as market access is, trade policy must also focus on broader economic and trade reform in order to capitalise on that access. It’s what we in government have continually referred to as the twin pillars approach to our trade policy. That is, trade reform at the border, to increase our market access, and trade reform behind the border, to improve our international competitiveness. There is no point improving market access if we as a nation are not competitive enough and productive enough to take advantage of the opportunities.

Consistent with the report’s recommendations, we have already made a significant down payment on improving our trade performance. And the completion of the Mortimer review marks the fulfilment of another key election commitment.

On the first pillar—the market access pillar—the Mortimer report provides a comprehensive set of recommendations on how we can better respond to the market access priorities of Australian business. It calls for the conclusion of the WTO Doha round of negotiations as the most effective basis for enhancing trade liberalisation. Given the trend towards bilateral free trade agreements, the Mortimer report strongly advocates engaging our approach to the free trade agreements in a way that reinforces the gains we make at the WTO—in other words, free trade agreements that are complementary and enhancing of multilateralism, not detractors of it.

While we are keen to develop this strategy further, we have not waited for the Mortimer report to get on with the job of opening markets for Australian business. We have already recalibrated our trade negotiating policy under the first pillar. We are 80 per cent there on the WTO Doha round of trade negotiations. And we are absolutely committed to resolving the outstanding issues.

But not only have we seen significant progress in the multilateral negotiations, we have also achieved greater market access bilaterally and regionally. In our first 10 months, we have concluded two important FTAs. First with Chile—a model FTA in terms of its coverage and its comprehensiveness and one that is an enhancer of the multilateral system—and, most recently, Australia’s first region-wide FTA, with New Zealand and the ASEAN group of countries—our largest trading partner. This has given Australian exporters significantly better access to rapidly growing market—the first pillar of our trade policy.

We have unfrozen the China FTA negotiations. We have advanced negotiations on the Japan FTA. We have brought the India FTA study forward. We have agreed to preparatory talks on a Korea FTA. We have also established new coordination structures at the whole-of-government level and the whole-of-governments level through COAG. We have signalled a broadening of our export base with a strong focus on services and investment. We have integrated trade and investment promotion functions into one organisation, Austrade, reflecting the changing nature of trade and the needs of Australian firms. We have taken steps to modernise and strengthen the EMDG Scheme and in our first budget we added $50 million to fund commitments in 2009-10.

Given the importance of trade to our economic prosperity, it will be critical that our domestic policies and spending are seen through the prism of enhancing our international competitiveness. This, in essence, is the second pillar of our trade policy approach. We have to ensure that Australia is productive enough and competitive enough to take advantage of our market access gains.

In this regard, we have also made a significant down payment on the second pillar, ie structural reform behind the border. We have invested heavily in the drivers of economic growth and competitiveness. In its first budget, the Rudd government established Infrastructure Australia, Skills Australia, the Education Investment Fund and the Building Australia Fund. Consistent with our rationale for commissioning the Mortimer review, and the conclusions in his report, we have already laid the foundations for a transformation.

The review also recommends concerted efforts to strengthen coordination and delivery of trade policies and services, and a strong voice for business in developing trade and investment priorities and programs. The government has already established for the very first time a COAG council to coordinate efforts to improve our trade performance. I chaired the inaugural meeting of the COAG Ministerial Council on International Trade in August.

At that meeting, all Australian governments—federal and state—developed an ambitious and forward looking work agenda, which includes an assessment of the infrastructure and skills needed to improve Australia’s trade performance, as well as cooperation on exports and investment promotion, and the development of options for Brand Australia. This Mortimer report will also shape that council’s ongoing agenda and I look forward to working with my colleagues in responding to Mortimer’s recommendations.

More generally, the review reported on the declining proportion of Commonwealth government assistance directed to trade and investment facilitation, relative to other forms of business assistance. From 2000-01 to 2006-07, the proportion declined from a total of 42 per cent down to a mere 13 per cent; again, all under the previous government’s watch. This is another example of the Howard government’s neglect—and it is imperative that this government turns things around.

Austrade is our trade facilitation arm and the review endorses it as the central focus for all export and investment facilitation activities. It provides a vital link between policy and implementation. The need for more strategic cooperation between DFAT and Austrade is critical. Austrade also provides the link between government and the Australian business community. Whereas the previous government abolished the Austrade board, the Mortimer report reinforces the need for re-engagement with business and we have taken steps in this direction.

The review provides a solid basis for further strengthening Austrade. It welcomes the down payment made by this government starting with the integration of the former Invest Australia and Global Opportunities programs into Austrade. It recommends the organisation move beyond the delivery of services to individual firms and to develop and implement more strategic, sectoral based market development strategies. It flags the need for some new services for Australian exporters, reflecting the changing nature of global trade.

We also need to rebuild an international business culture in this country, and to enhance the capability of Australian firms to engage internationally. This requires a strengthened and more contemporary approach to trade development and facilitation. Mortimer reports that the most significant impediments to Australian firms going global are access to finance and inadequate knowledge of overseas markets. Recognising this, revitalising the Export Market Development Grants Scheme is an important part of Labor’s whole-of-government approach to improving Australia’s export performance.

The EMDG Scheme is integral in the current mix of export policies and programs and the reason we brought forward the EMDG review by two years. The review, the report of which I tabled earlier, concludes that the EMDG Scheme is effective and recommends its continuation. Independent econometric analysis conducted in the course of the review concluded that each dollar of EMDG generates an additional $13.50 to $27 of exports. The analysis also confirmed that the scheme has a positive impact on the economy as a whole. This analysis will also be published today.

Despite these conclusions, the review highlights the impact that lack of funding certainty has on applicants. Mortimer states that the uncertainty has ‘unnecessarily diminished its value and public repute’. EMDG funding has effectively been cut in real terms since 1995-96 by the failure of the Howard government to top up funding for the scheme. Decisions by the Howard government in 2006 to make the scheme, on the face of it, more available combined with the failure to provide additional funding to cover the impact of those decisions will continue to affect grant payments paid this year—that is, 2008-09—for expenditure undertaken by firms in the 2007-08 financial year. This is the unfortunate legacy of squandered opportunities inherited by the Rudd Labor government. In contrast, in this year’s budget Labor has allocated an additional $50 million in 2009-10 to respond to commitments made by firms in this financial year. This is a significant down payment on our expansion of the EMDG Scheme.

The review identifies options both for addressing the funding of the scheme and for further modernising the scheme. In considering the broader question of access to finance the review goes further and identifies a number of other potential areas of market failure experienced by Australian firms seeking to grow global businesses. This is timely given both the changing nature of trade and investment and the opportunities for Australian companies to seize strategic benefit from new market access gains.

A classic example is the FTA with our 10 ASEAN neighbours. As a group they are our largest trading partner. Larger than China. Larger than Japan. And larger than the United States. We are developing a commercial strategy to take advantage of new opportunities in ASEAN as trade barriers fall. The Mortimer report reinforces this point and argues that Australia’s market and investment development efforts should be focused on rapidly growing and prospective markets and industry sectors. In particular, the report supports initiatives that actively maximise the internationalisation of traditional Australian industry sectors—like mining technology and agricultural services or automotive products and services—where this will reinforce the long-term competitive position of those sectors.

The report also highlights the need to take advantage of growing opportunities in international markets for newer, knowledge intensive services such as the financial services sector (particularly funds management), telecommunications and logistics, as well as to develop the export capacity and performance of areas of emerging capability including clean energy technology and water. We will need to strengthen export and investment development efforts through new services to support outwards investment and new efforts to build international business skills and culture. We will also need to strengthen efforts to raise international awareness of Australia’s commercial capabilities and look at a national approach to ‘branding’.

Conclusion

I would like to thank Mr David Mortimer and Dr John Edwards for their insightful analysis and forward-looking recommendations in this report. Our region has become the economic powerhouse of the global economy. Our vision is for Australia to make much more of this opportunity. The challenge is not only to take advantage of the opportunities but also to help secure that economic growth in a sustainable way for ourselves and our region.

That not only means that we have to continue to take the lead in the trade liberalisation agenda but, fundamentally, it also means that we have to diversify our trade base to harness much more of the huge potential this nation has. It means doing more with our resources and agriculture base, and it means going significantly beyond it and expanding our opportunities. It means a much bigger focus on services and investment and understanding the importance of ensuring the necessary reforms to support that drive forward.

If we get this right, we will set up this nation for sustained prosperity beyond the resources boom. We showed the way when we were last in government. And now the Rudd government has picked up where we left off—with a new era of economic reform. In the first 10 months, we have already made a huge down payment on our commitment to turning around Australia’s trade performance, and there are indications already that we are turning the corner. I look forward to keeping the House informed of my response to Mr Mortimer’s report and our progress.

I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Groom to speak for 23½ minutes.

Leave granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Macfarlane speaking for a period not exceeding 23½ minutes.

Question agreed to.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with some sadness that I rise in the House today to give a response to I do not know how many lots of big words and long statements that achieve nothing that have come from the Minister for Trade, who sits opposite.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s not even your portfolio.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This portfolio is going to be taken over by the member for Wide Bay, and I am sure that he will be more than a match for those who sit opposite.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where is he?

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No appearance, Your Worship?

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a tradition in this House that, when someone takes leave for a medical reason, it is not raised. But we have already realised from the minister that he does not want to behave in a bipartisan way. I have asked repeatedly for briefings from his office and never had them. I have asked how I can make statements in relation to Australia’s trade policy when I am overseas and I have never received a response. I take a bipartisan approach to trade. I have written to the minister on a number of occasions—and all of those letters have been on file—and have never been responded to. So I take some exception to the interjection.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Crean interjecting

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I accept the apology. The Minister for Trade, whenever he stands at this dispatch box, always talks about doing more and doing something and all of that. Well, the time for talking about doing more is over.

Whilst it is a little difficult to comment on a report that has only just been presented—a report that has been long-awaited by those on this side of the House—we do welcome the tabling of the Mortimer report. I assure the minister that I will take the time to read it, as my passion for trade—which goes back to my days in agriculture when he and I first crossed tracks and had a far more bipartisan approach to achieving things than we do now—that I have held for 30 years will continue.

The report may bring some clarity and direction to what has been a haphazard and chaotic approach by this minister, including the direction he has taken on everything from the EMDG Scheme to trade policy in general. I hope that this report may prompt the minister to stop floundering and actually accept the fact that he has a responsibility, because he is in government, he is on the Treasury benches, and he is in a position to do something about it. It may be in vain, but I hope this report might also spark the minister into actually considering the interests of exporters and investors—so far, the missing link in Labor’s trade policy. I can only wonder what sort of reception they might get in light of the fact that, when it comes to trade policy, the minister has adopted such a closed door approach to those who wish to work with him, including those on this side of the chamber who have looked for a bipartisan approach.

The minister did discuss the EMDG aspect of the report. That is certainly one of the most important aspects of trade policy, and it was one of the most important pieces of support infrastructure for exporters under the previous coalition government. Clearly, after 10 months in office, with no trade policy action, the minister figured, ‘What difference will a few more weeks take?’ I hope that, having released the report—after having sat on it for three weeks—he does not take weeks or months to define his response. The drip-feed approach that we have seen from the Labor Party has been to the detriment of Australia’s trade sector. On top of the DNA that exists within the Labor Party to govern by committee after committee, the core DNA of the trade minister has been a haphazard drip-feed approach to trade policy.

The government’s record so far on the EMDG Scheme has been nothing short of dismal. No amount of self-righteous carry-on from the minister will dispel the fact that it has been a woeful performance. Labor acknowledged the popularity of the EMDG Scheme when the coalition were in government. Despite the promises it has made and despite all the musing and illusion that it attempted to create—that it would fund extra money into the EMDG Scheme when it came into government—it has refused to allocate funding to a sufficient level in 2007-08, 2008-09, the current year, 2010-11 and 2011-12. This policy paralysis has left Australian exporters, who went about their business in good faith, tens of thousands of dollars short.

We have already seen the first payment in the current payment year, under this government’s budget, cut from $70,000 to $40,000. And the trade minister knew from the time he came into government that that was going to be the case. He knew that there were going to be shortfalls in the EMDG scheme and he did nothing about it. If he did do something about it, it certainly cannot be seen. So, either he did nothing or—as we suspect—he went to the ERC, the expenditure review committee, and got comprehensively rolled. He got no money for this year, $50 million for next year, nothing for the year after and nothing for the year after that.

I note that in the minister’s statement he said that they were making a down payment for exporters in the EMDG scheme. I hope that means that in the time ahead he will be able to change those forward estimates. It will be too late for this year. He could go into cabinet, as previous ministers on this side have done, and argue for extra money, but I assume he will not. But he may have the courage to argue to change the out years. I hope he does, because people involved in trade and exports in Australia need a minister who can get results out of the ERC. They need a minister who does not pass the buck, who accepts that he is in government, who understands that it is his job to do something and who, instead of being more interested in ‘blamestorming’, actually gets in there and does some brainstorming about how to get the money for the exporters.

The Rudd Labor government has played a cruel hoax on Australia’s exporters by claiming to extend the EMDG scheme, broadening the parameters and making the scheme wider, while at the same time not addressing the shortfalls in three of the four forward years. Their one-off allocation of $50 million in grants in 2009-10, which will relate to expenses incurred in the current financial year, is leaving exporters out in the cold. Of greater concern is Labor’s attempted deception of exporters by failing to allocate extra money for the scheme after its initial $50 million in next year’s funding budget.

I hope the minister succeeds on this front but I can assure him that we will be holding his feet to the fire on it. He needs to stiffen up a little bit. He needs the parliamentary secretary to stay in Australia a little bit more. I am very pleased to see the parliamentary secretary here this week. I do not think that was planned, but it is good to see him here, because the Minister for Trade needs all the help he can get. This minister and his parliamentary secretary need to stop throwing the blame back on the previous government, because this minister has responsibility. He has to actually start doing things.

The damage Labor has done to the trade sector extends further than just the EMDG scheme. The minister had the audacity to stand at the dispatch box and talk about how he had improved the operations of Invest Australia by moving it into Austrade. That move in itself may or may not be a positive. I can see some positives in it. But the 100 people who lost their jobs in that transition would be wondering how you will do with 50 people a job that used to take 150 people. How will you do it when you have sacked two-thirds of your departmental staff?

In terms of the Global Opportunities Program that the previous government set up, they have moved that across to the trade portfolio. That, again, may be a good move, except that they ditched a couple of hundred million dollars in the process—ripped it out of that program to promote exports overseas and left that section, I understand, with less than $10 million. We have also heard from the minister about the amazing achievements in bilateral trade negotiations. I assume he includes in that statement the China and Japan free trade agreements—we know the budgets for the negotiations for those were cut in the budget.

One of the great distortions that we get from a Labor Party government is their attempt to rewrite history. They pay no credit, unlike this coalition when we were in government. We gave them credit for the work they did on the New Zealand agreement. We acknowledged that work. Then we set about beginning the processes on things like the Chile FTA. But they have given no acknowledgement of the work that was done on Chile by the previous government. This minister takes a myopic approach, with no bipartisanship, no grace and no diplomacy in what he does. I say to him: change your ways. If you attempt to rewrite history then history is going to catch you out. What we want to see is some real action; we do not want to see this continuous talk about what they are going to do.

Every time the Minister for Trade stands at the dispatch box, he talks about previous trade deficits, and in doing so exposes just how little they on that side understand about how an economy works. Of course, he is also trying to gloss over the cracks; he is trying to gloss over the fact that, when Labor left government, they left a $96 billion deficit. They left us with an unemployment problem that had to be resolved. They also left a legacy of businesses broken by the high interest rates that existed during their government.

What the previous government had to do was restore the economic confidence of businesses to invest, to employ, to spend money, to rebuild the economy and to put in place the factories, the processes and the innovation. We had to make the decisions that would see Australia grow strong in the long term. In doing that, we saw business investment reach record levels in areas such as R&D for processing. We saw exports of processed goods in Australia reach record levels. That takes time, and it takes a lot of investment. It means you have to update your machinery. You have to retrain your personnel to do their jobs better so that everyone shares in the prosperity. You have to make the investment in innovation.

The Minister for Trade—who is no longer in the House; perhaps he is off on a flight somewhere; who knows?—fails to acknowledge that that was a time of economic rebuilding after the shattering days of the previous Labor government. As a farmer, I faced—and I am sure other farmers here such as the member for Gray also faced—interest rates in excess of 21 per cent. From those shattering days, when small businesses were destroyed by interest rates and inflation, we had to rebuild the economic climate to ensure that investment could be made.

The minister also talked about ASEAN. We certainly support the push for an ASEAN free trade agreement. We certainly support the efforts of the minister, even though we know not what they are. The minister will not give me a briefing on what he has done, and I suspect he will not give the new shadow minister a briefing either. We support whatever the minister has done to improve the trade relationship between Australia, New Zealand and ASEAN. It is a crucial part of our trade strategy going forward; it is no more and no less crucial than Doha. It is a partnership. You have to do both. You have to cover your bets at Doha by pushing forward with FTAs.

However, I have one of those uneasy feelings that you get when you have been farmer and you are about to get a storm: you can see the storm clouds building on the horizon but the storm is full of hail not rain. I want to know what is in that ASEAN agreement before it is signed and finally ratified. Industry in Australia wants to know what is in that free trade agreement. When we were in government, we were given assurances that certain things would happen with access to markets after the Thai FTA. That did not eventuate, even though tariff reform did. The actuals behind the border reforms have not occurred. There are reasons for that, but we cannot go forward with an ASEAN free trade agreement and expose industries such as the car industry to the result of our failure to get the governments of countries that we are going negotiate with to hold to their commitments of giving us access.

In this instance, we need to look at how we will get motor vehicles into the ASEAN area. We need to look at how we will export Ford Territories out of Victoria into countries like Thailand and large six-cylinder vehicles, which are among the best in the world in their class, into some of the export markets. Australians continue to make the choice of vehicles that come out of Thailand, for instance. It is worth noting that Thai imports into Australia have doubled in dollar terms in the last two years. It is also worth noting that we need to ensure that whatever is in the Australian, New Zealand ASEAN free trade agreement gives us the access that we need. That will be a challenge. Were we in government, I accept that that would be a challenge. But it is a challenge that has to be met. The car industry in Australia is facing a crisis. I have not yet seen the figures that would have been released today, but I assume they will show that the downward trend continues in the larger vehicle segment of vehicles made in Australia.

We need to give that industry some confidence. When I was the minister for industry, I worked very hard on the car industry to begin exports and to grow their exports. So we have a situation now where, out of the vehicles Toyota make here, more vehicles are exported than sold here. Holden is heading towards the 50 per cent mark. We have to get trade markets for Ford. We have to be able to see those vehicles exported, and that will come through things such as the ASEAN FTA. But we need to know what is in there.

I look forward to seeing what is in the agreement. I know the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade looks forward to seeing what is in it. I know that JSCOT also looks forward to seeing what is in it. But, most importantly, industry in Australia looks forward to seeing what is in it. So, I beseech the minister to take a bipartisan approach and to take the member for Wide Bay into his confidence. Only he needs to know what is in the agreement for now. This would give us some confidence that the minister knows what he is doing in regard to the future of Australian industry. After a series of speeches in this House, we have seen absolutely nothing to date but talk. We need to see some action.

In conclusion, I also thank Mr David Mortimer and Dr John Edwards for their work. I will, as I said, take the opportunity to look at their report. I am sure based on just the credentials of those two gentlemen that it will be a fine report. It will identify opportunities for Australian exporters. It will identify opportunities for the government to put in place policies that give exporters the confidence they need—and they will need that confidence. But it would also give the government confidence that they have put money into those programs that they have not put money into to date. Instead of cutting negotiating budgets, they should be adding to them. Instead of cutting programs that were put in place by the previous government, they should be making sure that those programs run. They were in the forward estimates. They have been taken out of the forward estimates to fund programs that the Labor Party thought were more important. What is more important than trade? Very little.

In his absence, I thank the minister for the opportunity to respond to his ministerial statement. I hope that the efforts of Mr Mortimer and Dr Edwards are not wasted and that this government actually takes a swift and firm response to the report and gives the confidence to exporters that they need.