Mr STEPHEN SMITH(9.31 p.m.) —The member for Cunningham (Mr Martin) has pointed out quite clearly that this seeks to implement a coalition election promise. In the coalition's policy on tourism entitled Destination Australia "A national priority" released by Senator Warwick Parer, who was then the shadow minister for tourism, and dated 13 February 1996—which was in the midst of the election campaign—the coalition committed itself under the heading `Export market development grants' to this:

.   Tourism operators will be eligible to receive the full grant under the EMDG scheme.

.   The Coalition will change the EMDG legislation to extend the scheme to cover the cost of bringing buyers to the product, and allowing joint venture applications.

What the amendment proposed by the member for Cunningham will do will be to implement that express promise contained in the coalition's tourism document. Tourism operators will be eligible to receive the full grant under the EMDG scheme. At page 11 of that document, in bold type—because it was a bold commitment—the coalition asserts this:

The Coalition will end Labor's discrimination by removing the provision that discounts applications by Tourism operators to give them equity with all other EMDG applicants from all other industries.

It was not just the tourism document itself. In the policy costings statement released in the last couple of weeks of the campaign by the then shadow Treasurer, now Treasurer, (Mr Costello), the `Meeting our Commitments' document refers to extending full EMDG to single service tourist operators. So it was an election promise expressly made by the coalition, and it was an election promise which was costed.

In addition, it was not as if those opposite, members of the government, did not have the opportunity of pursuing this particular approach and line in the previous parliament. In committee stage in the Senate in the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1995 Senator Parer, who in the last parliament was the opposition shadow spokesman, had this to say about an amendment that he moved:

The purpose of this amendment is to allow tourism operators exactly the same facilities as are available to every other exporter in this country. It is worth pointing out that in 1993 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology unanimously concluded that not only was it inequitable to have one sector of industry eligible for assistance through the export market development scheme and others not but it was inequitable that exporters of manufactured goods and other services were eligible for assistance while certain exporters were not.

The report to which Senator Parer referred went on to recommend that tourism be given full access to the scheme. A subsequent report of a House of Representatives committee, the august Standing Committee on Banking, Finance and Public Administration—

Mr Martin —One of the greatest committees this parliament has ever seen.

Mr STEPHEN SMITH —One of the very special committees of this House—which has previously been chaired by the member for Cunningham and one which I was very pleased to be a member of in my first term—recommended precisely the same terms in the previous parliament. Senator Parer, as the opposition spokesperson on tourism, went on to say this in the course of his contribution on that bill on 21 June 1995:

The availability of export market development grants of 50 per cent to any other industry but not to tourism is inequitable. It flies in the face of what this government says it is trying to do. It flies in the face of really tackling our foreign debt. It flies in the face of tackling our current account deficit. As I have indicated at other times in this debate, this is an industry which is tied up with promotion: if you do not promote the industry, it will not survive.

Members opposite have the perfect opportunity. There we have it from their spokesperson in the last parliament. But, much more importantly, handcuffed to every member opposite in the course of the campaign—a commitment to extend the EMDG scheme to the tourism industry. It was not just a little policy document slipped out by a shadow minister but it was an important policy document slipped out by a shadow minister, backed up expressly by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and expressly included in the policy costings document released by the shadow Treasurer. This is the opportunity for those opposite to show that they will meet this promise and they will not break yet another election commitment.