Mr MARTIN(11.58 a.m.) —There is no doubt that the legislation that is before the parliament today, the Industry Research and Development Amendment Bill, is worthy of thorough and in-depth consideration. I would like to respond to a couple of the comments that my friend the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) made in respect of R&D, particularly about apprentices and training and how, regrettably, in Australian manufacturing we have seen almost an absolute tap turn-off in the training of apprentices. I agree with him. I represent the great industrial heartland of the Illawarra. We have had a concern for a number of years now that, regrettably, the major players in the heavy industry environment of the Illawarra have not seen fit, for a variety of reasons, to train apprentices in the numbers which they clearly need.

To take the example of big business and BHP, when we came into government in 1983, after a period of some seven years out of government, the Illawarra was faced with a very hard decision. BHP seriously contemplated shutting down steel industry production in this country. It is a well-known fact that they were seriously talking about getting out of steel and just being in minerals, energy, oil, gas and so on. It was the former Hawke government which actually stitched up in 100 days the steel industry plan that saw the steel industry in this country saved. Not only was the steel industry saved: the plan has meant that productivity has increased and we are now world competitive. BHP itself has expended billions of dollars on modernising its plants around Australia, particularly at Port Kembla. We have seen pollution levels dramatically reduced in cities like Wollongong in the Illawarra as a result of this expenditure.

We have also seen a reduction in the number of employees directly employed by companies such as BHP. In 1983, 26,000 people were employed by BHP in Wollongong. Today that figure is closer to 6,500. You can imagine the effect that that had in the Illawarra over that period. I have said something about that in speeches in this place in the past. As part of putting in place improved technology, as part of that process of there being an industrial revolution impact on the Illawarra, we have seen the number of people employed drop off dramatically. Regrettably, we have also seen the number of people who were trained as apprentices and who were taking advantage of the R&D programs that might be there to assist drop away.

BHP took decisions in the middle and late 1980s that they needed to downsize their operation, and they offered voluntary retrenchment schemes to people. The people who took those voluntary retrenchments were the skilled craftspeople, those who had been trained as boilermakers and so on—the people the member for Kalgoorlie mentioned. What we did not see happen was training to replace those sorts of people. Of course, BHP suddenly realised that they needed to do something about it, and we have seen them actively revisiting those programs.

Sadly, there is no doubt that R&D in this country has not led to some of the major benefits that we would like to see. On previous occasions I have heard the member for Kalgoorlie and others in this place talk about the lead time between when somebody invents something—taking advantage of R&D products that might be around or programs that are in place—and when you see something manufactured. There is a view within the manufacturing sector in Australia that unless you see a return on investment within a period of 12 months people are not going to take the risk. Australian business people are not prepared to have long vision. They are not prepared to look at the far horizon in terms of the time they carry out R&D; the time when the process has been finetuned, the time when the process is put in place; and the time when they start getting a return for capital investment.

That is one of the sad things about this country. I think it says something about the so-called entrepreneurial class in Australia that they are not prepared to look at the long-term horizon, as they do perhaps in the United States, and as they certainly do in Japan and Korea. People in those countries know that you do not get instant recognition. They know that you do not get an instant return for the capital that you invest. They are prepared to wait to see those processes that are developed through R&D programs come to fruition. As I said, in Australia, regrettably, that simply is not the case.

One of the things which is part of this whole area of R&D and which needs to be considered is access to capital for the manufacturing process once R&D has been completed. For the many companies which are prepared to expend funds on R&D processes and the individuals who dream up a brilliant idea in the shower one day and then go about trying to work out how it should be put in place, the next phase is trying to get capital so that the idea goes from R&D to facilitation to manufacture. Regrettably, financial institutions in this country have been very backward in coming forward to give support to Australian industry for that process. This is a simple fact of life.

Going back a few years ago to the depths of the recession in the 1980s, our caucus looked at the available opportunities to provide access to capital for manufacturers. I am pleased that the Minister for Finance (Mr Fahey) is here, because this goes to his area of responsibility. We suggested that those massive amounts of capital which existed in superannuation funds be directed towards industrial production. When R&D was completed and small and medium sized businesses—which the member for Kalgoorlie also referred to—needed to get access to capital, they simply could not get it. The banks were not there, the financial institutions and the financial intermediaries were not there. They were not prepared to take a punt. They were not prepared to give some comfort to industry in the development of those processes and in taking it from the R&D phase through to manufacturing.

It is something which our side of the House chose not to pursue when we were in government. I honestly think we should have. I was a member of the caucus committee that looked at this. I said at the time that we should look at ways in which superannuation funds could be forced to provide some funds for the manufacturing process after R&D had been completed.

I will conclude my brief contribution here this afternoon on this very important subject. I am now surrounded by a number of speakers on our side of the House who want to get a turn, and they have prepared speeches. I will just say that this is an area of great significance, particularly to a manufacturing region like the Illawarra. R&D is an area where people think up important and innovative ways in which manufacturing processes particularly might be extended, and it needs support. What they do not need is a government coming along and cutting out funding for R&D programs. They do not want to hear a government saying, `Industry will look after industry.' I am sorry to have to say to the government that that simply is not the case: industry will not look after industry. These are often people in small and medium sized operations who need access to and the support of government funding.

I simply commend to this government that they revisit this issue. I think it is part of their overall budget strategy. It is something which may come back to affect them in the future. Our industrial and manufacturing bases are slipping—there is no question of that. If we are to build on the concept of being the clever country and if we are to revitalise our industrial and manufacturing bases, people need to know that there will be funding and support from the government of the day—irrespective of political persuasion—to give support to their endeavours. I ask the government to give consideration to that fact.