Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (7:32 PM) —I rise this evening to oppose the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2003. I do not oppose the bill for the reasons the member for Mitchell has raised. In fact, the member for Mitchell has protested a little too much about the concerns the Labor Party has had. He knows, for example, as indicated earlier by the member for Rankin, that this bill had its origin in 1974. He also knows that there was a great deal more money spent under the last Labor government.

Mr Cadman —So, to get more money, you're going to cut it off.

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR —The fact is that the last Labor government provided over $200 million to this scheme—and the member for Mitchell is now leaving, having put his 2c in and not wanting to listen to the debate—whereas only $150 million is now available for businesses wanting to gain some support in the export industry. Clearly the member for Mitchell has his facts wrong or is not clear on the actual notion of the bill. Whatever brief he was provided by the minister, either he has not read it or it is not correct. Like many things in this House, unfortunately, the government has the policy wrong in terms of a critical area of our economy. This is a government—in recent times, at least, and, I daresay, prior to the last election—that wants to have the attention of the Australian public on international matters. There are events that have transpired internationally which are tragic and which needed a response, and we could debate them forever. But what this government does not need to do is to avoid any domestic matter that is critical to this economy under the guise of focusing on international pursuits. The fact is that this government has failed in this area of policy. It attempts to distract the public by diverting its attention to international concerns.

Indeed, the government also attempts to divert the media's attention to all sorts of things that do not really matter, and some in the media fall for it. Hopefully, they will eventually come to their senses. Of course, some in the media get a little obsessed with the inner machinations of political parties, all sorts of rumours they might hear and snippets of information that they pick up over a cup of coffee. But I think that once the media pursues its primary role in the political dimension at least—that is, it focuses on getting this government to represent the people in the proper sense of the word—then clearly the media will start picking up that this is a government devoid of domestic plans. `Agenda' is too comprehensive a word for this government. Not a plan does this government have, and this bill exhibits the deficiency in the plan—or the failure to have a plan in this critical area of the economy.

If you look at this bill you will see that there are some critical problems that the government has failed to address. The bill itself, as I indicated, is one that is supposed to provide assistance for small businesses—and I can say that there are at least some businesses in my electorate of Burke that have sought and received support. The area of bipartisanship with respect to this issue is that no-one, I would hope, would suggest in this place that grants of this kind are not necessary for small to medium companies providing very important export dollars to this nation.

Where we disagree is that I do not think it is correct that there be a significant cut, as there has been, in the overall budget in this area. In arguing that there will be greater access and that this bill has been refined to focus on those businesses with incomes of under $30 million, I think the government is attempting to not only distract the applicants—particularly those with incomes between the $30 million and $50 million mark, as there are going to be some difficulties there—but also argue that this refinement has somehow produced a greater wherewithal for the exporters of this country. Of course, that is not the case.

The Treasurer at question time today seemed to like to use metaphors, and he made comments about magic puddings. He clearly has a cupboard full of magic puddings of his own, because you cannot argue that you are providing greater resources to the export businesses of this country when in the last seven years you have cut the aggregate amount of money provided to those businesses. The Treasurer has it wrong with respect to that; indeed, the minister responsible for this bill has it wrong. Despite the comments of members opposite lauding the minister and his abilities, I would have to respectfully disagree.

As I say, the Treasurer has not focused his energies on pursuing what is in the best interests of the export businesses of this country. He should turn his mind to those things. He now has to reconsider what his future has in store for him and, instead of trying to focus on how many numbers he can gather in his party room, perhaps he should work out what he can do for the small businesses in the electorates. As many people know, the Treasurer likes to model himself on former Treasurer Paul Keating. Unlike that Treasurer, the Treasurer of today does not have the wherewithal—the guts—to ultimately challenge the Prime Minister. That would be fine as far as I am concerned if he focused on the substantive issues in his portfolio. Those issues go to the ticking over of this economy, and the export industry is critical.

We have seen a significant rise in the dollar in recent times. Whilst the rise is good in some ways, and I welcome it in some ways, it will compound some of the problems of the export industry of this country. The Treasurer and the minister responsible for this bill have not taken that into account but have slashed the budget in this area. Since the election of the Howard government in 1996, they have cut the research and development tax concessions. This government has shown an inability to focus on those things that are required of a government that wants to involve itself in assisting companies—that is, in helping companies to help themselves in a very competitive market. As I say, I do not think anyone in this place would be against support for businesses. However, there has been some sleight of hand in the way the government pretends it has refined this area of policy to supply more money for exporters when in fact it has supplied less.

When we are looking at this in the context of the whole debate about the economy, particularly given that the Treasurer likes to boast when he answers every dorothy dixer he gets in this place, it is important to note that there are a number of national records that the Treasurer and this government should acknowledge as having broken. They should be acknowledged by a government that has now broken the national record for presiding over 17 successive trade deficits. That is not a bad record for a government; unfortunately it is not a good record for the country, but it is a record all the same. It is something that this government has failed to properly address and it is something it has to attend to. As the member for Rankin said earlier, it is perhaps all right to cope with a number of successive trade deficits but to actually preside over 17 successive trade deficits and not attend to that problem spells problems for this nation. It is something that the government must address.

It is important to go through a few other areas of policy where this government has clearly failed. The government has presided over a record current account deficit and delivered to this country a record foreign debt of $354 billion. That is a significant debt. Indeed, in my own electorate, and certainly in the community of Sunbury, we had the debt truck out, driving around. Remember that the Treasurer likes to talk about debt. However, he likes to talk about some figures but not others. He likes to talk about selling public assets to get rid of some debt, but he ignores entirely the foreign debt of this country—a debt that is escalating and a debt that has not been redressed by this government or its policies.

Interestingly, before our debt truck highlighted the foreign debt of this country, most people around the community I spoke to said, `Well, it might not actually resonate in the community; they're concerned about domestic costs, shopping bills and so on.' You would be surprised by how many people are concerned about the debt that is growing astronomically in this country—debt that the Treasurer when in opposition liked to make a big thing about but now wants to forget, even though he has managed to double it. But the community will not forget about it. They will not forget about 17 successive trade deficits and they will not forget about the escalating foreign debt.

These are the things that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have to focus on. The Prime Minister wants to talk about international matters and the Treasurer is pining for the Lodge, but it is about time they focused on those things that really matter. The government should stop blaming everyone and everything for those failures. It blames SARS, terrorism, the drought and every other factor. Although these factors may have a bearing, so does the way in which the government runs this country. If the government cannot acknowledge that its policy failures are causing problems for our economy, then it is not only failing as a government but it is also failing to recognise its own deficiencies. From that point, it will never be able to redress the problems that I have raised tonight.

It is critical that we get the economy ticking over and ensure that we are providing proper employment for our citizens. The member for Rankin raised the concern that the economy seems to be returning to the farm and the quarry. Primary industries are critical to this nation—no-one would argue against that—but you cannot rely on primary industry alone. There are clear signs that there are major problems with our manufacturing base. If we fail to properly address the matters that go to exports, our manufacturing industries and the new economies will suffer.

I have been looking at a recent survey on the outlook for job hunters. It would appear that the outlook is getting worse. It is much harder these days to find decent employment. The Australian Industry Group-PricewaterhouseCoopers survey of Australian manufacturing, and the ACCI-Westpac survey of industrial trends, both released today, identified worsening employment prospects in the second half of this year. The AIG-PricewaterhouseCoopers survey found that the pace of growth in the jobs market slowed in the June quarter, from 10 per cent in June 2002 to four per cent this year. Just five sectors reported job growth, compared with 10 in the March quarter. Although the ACCI-Westpac survey predicted employment growth would remain firm, it found that the expectations for job growth over the next three months had sharply declined from the last quarter. So, clearly, there are some major problems in our job market, and it is softer than one would have anticipated only six months ago. Further to that, many of the jobs that have been created are temporary, casual and part-time jobs.

The ministers on the other side boast about employment growth, but they never delineate between permanent full-time jobs and casual, temporary and part-time jobs. Rarely do you get from this government an acknowledgment of there being a difference between a four-hour a week job and a 38-hour a week job. These are mean and tricky sorts of records. The government throws out a few statistics, avoids most and does not acknowledge that growth in employment has been dropping in recent times. The market is softer and it is very difficult to find permanent jobs out there.

Part-time jobs are preferable for many people, and those jobs will hopefully exist in any market so there is flexibility and choice for working people and employers who need to fill those sorts of positions. However, whilst casual jobs are very important for many people, it is important that there are enough permanent jobs, with proper income for ordinary working families. You do not have temporary families, and you do not have part-time mortgages; you have full-time, permanent families and full-time mortgages. You need jobs to pay for things like mortgages and to look after your family. This government has failed to delineate between permanent full-time work and casual, temporary and part-time work. It is something that has to be looked at.

This country will not create those jobs without a successful export market. Our service industry is, in some ways, successful. There are issues that have caused problems for the market that should be acknowledged, but the government also has to take some responsibility for its failings in this regard, which it does not. Until it does, we cannot properly redress those particular problems that I have addressed this evening.

To conclude, Labor opposes the bill on certain grounds. Labor is not against the Export Market Development Grants Scheme; indeed, it was a Labor government that introduced the scheme. It was a Labor government that had it at its highest amount, and it was the Howard government that cut that amount by more than one-third over the years. Indeed, $150 million has been set nominally, and therefore it is dropping in real terms as every quarter, every year, goes by. Clearly this side of the House wants decent export assistance. Labor wants export assistance given so those businesses can be successful in the marketplace. If those businesses are successful, they will create jobs in the community—not only part-time and casual jobs but, let us hope, permanent full-time jobs for families who need that guarantee of a permanent, consistent income so they can look after their families, feed them, educate them and have a decent quality of life.