Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I always love it when a left-wing senator hectors a conservative senator about how the market operates and their understanding of business matters. I would invite the minister to explain in full detail what advice will be provided. You indicated, Minister, that advice would be provided—well, how much? When? Will it be a one-sentence statement in an annual report or will it be more detailed? Let’s not use weasel words and try to fob off the substantive question by throwing the word ‘advice’ in with a whole spray of hyperbole.

In relation to disclosure of R&D tax concessions, if we are to believe that this Labor government now believes that tax concessions are grants then I dare say that Senator Carr believes that anybody that gets a tax concession or a tax deduction is receiving a grant. That is a nonsense, silly argument. I trust you thought of that one all by yourself, Senator Carr—I doubt the department would have provided you with such information. Clearly tax concessions are not straight-out grants. Everybody knows that and everybody knows that the credit system that used to apply for the automotive sector was not a grants scheme. Similarly, on your argument about unemployment benefits, Senator, you went from the sublime, in relation to the R&D tax concessions, to the ridiculous, in relation to unemployment benefits. You cannot make the substantive argument as to why these beneficiaries of taxpayer grants should not be publicly disclosed as per the Senate order.

You must, undoubtedly, have advice from somebody to tell me that the Senate order does not apply. Can I advise the minister and the Senate that I do have advice, which reads: ‘I can see no reason why payments of assistance made under the proposed Automotive Transformation Scheme would not be covered by the terms of that order’—‘that order’, of course, referring to the one passed on 24 June 2008, which I have previously read into the Hansard. I ask the minister to table his advice in relation to that or, if he has none, to tell the Senate on what basis he made that assertion. Methinks it is like the unemployment benefit and R&D tax concession analogies—plucked out of the air in fright, hoping that somehow it might give him a feather to fly with in this debate. There is clearly no substance in his arguments on these matters.

Let me discuss the issue of the sensitivity of R&D, research and development, and the argument that we should not make any of those sorts of grants publicly available because it would disclose business plans. I would believe the minister but for his senior colleague the member for Grayndler, who on 6 July 2009 issued a media release in which he talked not about big multinational companies but about very small businesses in his own electorate, one of which received $38,000:

… to develop a strategic marketing plan and to research and create better operational/financial procedures for the business. This includes mentoring, updating the communications strategy (an overhaul of the website) and business processes.

What an unwarranted disclosure, an outrageous disclosure, of a small business’s business plan for getting money for research and development. How dare the member for Grayndler make such an announcement. You see, Minister Carr, your argument falls flat—out of the mouths of your own Labor ministerial colleagues. In the press release, he went on to talk about a $36,550 grant:

… to consolidate a brand identity—

very important for business—

and develop an e-commerce profile through a new e-business system and website.

He was broadcasting to the world at large how the company were going to change their mode of operation, how they were going to do business differently. Then there was another one, a grant for $47,600:

… to purchase EMS hardware—

very specific—

and software in conjunction with appointing a business coach to assist in scoping, strategy and procedure manual development and to undertake a system evaluation. These activities will result in improved production productivity.

If it is such a sin to announce government grants for R&D to help small businesses become more competitive, more productive and more efficient, why is it that it is only in the automotive sector that we cannot have the details announced? I am one of those old-fashioned people who in general terms believe that, if you have a rule, it is beneficial if at all possible to apply it across the board, and we in the coalition are of the view that all grants should be publicly disclosed. The minister fell back on the hoary argument that under the ACIS we did not do that. We did not, for one good reason: they were not grants; they were a credit scheme, like R&D tax concessions.

In then trying to suggest that the unemployed were somehow akin to a small business, I think the minister had a point, because with their economic management there is going to be a bigger and bigger crossover between small business and the unemployed—due to their mismanagement. But I think that is as far as the analogy goes, and to suggest that unemployment benefit payments are related to these grant schemes is really stretching credulity. What it does disclose without doubt is that the minister does not have any substance to attack these transparency measures.

I repeat: we support the automotive sector and we support the jobs in the manufacturing sector. But I do detect within the economic commentator community as well as the community at large a growing resistance to these huge sums of money being made available to the automotive sector. So as shadow minister I asked myself a pretty fundamental question: how can we best inoculate against that? The best way to inoculate against that is to put as much information as possible out into the marketplace, have transparency and accountability, and show what the taxpayer return is in real terms, in genuine terms, in relation to the economic sustainability of this sector, the environmental sustainability of this sector and also the workplace skill development in this sector.

I would be very interested in hearing, if the minister could advise us, from whom he obtained advice that the Senate standing order that I read out does not apply to the Automotive Transformation Scheme. I trust it was not from the Clerk Assistant, Procedures, in this place.