Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Hansard source

As I flagged before, I am told that the general time line is weeks or months, not years. On the specific case you highlighted before with the suggestion that there was someone outstanding since 2009, that is not the understanding of the department. I do not believe there is a problem here of delayed justice being denied justice, as such. I equally do not believe that there is a problem of excessive use of these powers or provisions in relation to how they have applied historically. Obviously the data I gave before indicates that they have been used very discreetly by officials.

You indicated in earlier remarks that, 'If people do the wrong thing, the government has the recourse of legal proceedings that would apply to people who might be defrauding the Commonwealth.' That is true. But what we seek to do with provisions like this is prevent those problems happening in the first place and thereby eliminate the costs that would accrue to government in having to investigate, pursue, recover and prosecute for misdeeds or wrongdoing.

Ultimately, we need to remember that we are talking about a government grants scheme. It is a scheme that provides people with financial assistance to market their export activities overseas. It is a gift from the taxpayer to certain businesses and individuals, because there is a general acceptance that that gift provides overall economic benefits to the entire country. But it is important that, where the taxpayers' funds are being given, we have confidence that it is occurring with the highest standard and nature.

As I highlighted in my earlier remarks, in a sense it is not possible for Austrade to go through extensive scrutiny of every single application in terms of its complete compliance. Obviously, they do an outstanding job and are doing the best they can in ensuring that everything is above board and compliant. But it is important that we have faith that the records and applications are sound. It has been a 10-year accepted principle that Austrade should have the right to make determinations on the nature of an applicant and whether they are a fit and proper person. With around 60 per cent of applicants utilising the services of a contractor to act on their behalf, it does seem inherently logical to extend that same test with similar provisions to those contractors.

You indicated that support for the principle that I have just enunciated is strong. I am pleased with that and I welcome that. If there are particular concerns about the way provisions as outlined and drafted will be applied then I would be happy to do my best, based on the advice of officials, to work through those concerns and see if we can provide satisfactory comfort to those with concerns to make sure that they are satisfied that the application of this test will meet the intention of the government, which is that it not be used as an impediment to consultants.

We recognise the value of the consultants' work in assisting applicants. We recognise that they have developed skills in ensuring the compliance of applicants with the scheme and making it easier for applicants to access it. So we want to make sure they have continued involvement in supporting as many small businesses and medium-sized enterprises as possible to access this scheme. We need to make sure that it works properly. If there are particular provisions that they have concerns about, which we can try to provide some comfort on during this debate, then I would be happy to deal with them.