Report to the Senate
Introduction
1. On 30 March 2006, the Senate referred to the
Committee for examination and report
by Tuesday 2 May 2006, the provisions of the Export
Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 2006.
2. The Bill proposes to amend the Export Market Development Grants Act 1997 (the Act) to:
-
continue the Export Market Development Grants
(EMDG) scheme to the end of the 2010–11 grant year and provide for a review of
the scheme, with a report to the Minister for Trade by 30 June 2010;
-
increase the overseas visit allowance from $200
to $300 per day;
-
allow Austrade to deem certain applicants
eligible when they do not technically meet the Act’s current ‘principal status’
requirements;
-
modify the scheme’s Australian origin rules so
that (1) goods coming into their final form in Australia must be ‘made in
Australia’ to be eligible and (2) for other goods to be eligible, Austrade must
be satisfied that Australia will derive a significant net benefit from the sale
of those goods outside Australia;
-
make applicants’ expenses eligible when they are
incurred to increase the return on the disposal of intellectual property and
know–how to a related company;
-
separate the claimable expense categories for
overseas representatives and marketing consultants, cap expense claims for
overseas representatives at $200 000 per claim and for marketing
consultants at $50 000 per claim;
-
revise the rule covering changes in business
ownership to make it clearer for applicants and easier to administer;
-
allow Austrade to grant special approval status,
including approved body status, for five years rather than three;
-
provide that the eligibility of cash payments
made by applicants is limited to $10 000 per claim;
-
ensure that the scheme’s rules clearly set out
Austrade’s power to disregard any unsubstantiated, unreasonable, uncommercial
or non–bona fide expense claim;
-
remove the export performance test from the EMDG
scheme;
-
ensure that, as intended, commission payments
remain ineligible for the scheme;[1]
-
correct minor errors in the Act;
-
repeal the Export
Expansion Grants Act 1978.[2]
Background
3. The Export Market Development Grants scheme is the
Australian government's principal financial assistance program for Australian
exporters. Established in 1974, the scheme focuses on small and medium–sized enterprises
and provides grants to reimburse up to 50 per cent of designated
export promotion and marketing expenses.
4. The EMDG scheme is administered by Austrade, which also
undertakes export promotion activities, such as providing business information
and advice, and administers other export programs.[3]
5. From 1997 to 2002, funding for the EMDG scheme was capped
at $150 million a year in the 2004–2005 budget, the Australian government
announced an additional $30 million for the scheme, to be provided for
2005–2006 and 2006–2007.[4]
6. In 2004–2005, total funding for Austrade's export
promotion activities, the EMDG scheme and related export programs was around
$280 million. In this period the scheme assisted 3277 eligible Australian
businesses to enter into export and develop sustainable export markets. Seventy–seven per cent
of these were small businesses with annual incomes of $5 million or less.[5]
Review of the Export Market Development Grants Scheme
7. Under section 106A if the Export Market Development Grants
Act 1997, Austrade is required to review the EMDG scheme and to make
recommendations to the Minister for Trade on whether the scheme should be
continued beyond the 2005–2006 grant year.
8. On 23 June 2004, the Hon Mark Vaile MP,
Minister for Trade, announced the review and provided Austrade with the terms
of reference. The Centre for International Economics (CIE) was commissioned to
assess the scheme's effects on export activity and also its economy–wide
effects.
9. The review report stated that:
Austrade took a consultative approach during the review and
sought input from EMDG scheme recipients and other exporters, the business
sector, industry associations, the community and other government departments
and agencies.
Austrade advertised for public submission; engaged a review
facilitator to collect the views of exporters and other stakeholders; drew on a
survey of recent EMDG recipients and analysis carried out by an independent
research company; and took into account its own experience as the administrator
of the scheme.
The independent survey of recent EMDG scheme recipients and
analysis of the results, carried out by the Centre for International Economics,
indicated that the scheme induces export promotion, boosts exports, improves
the sustainability of small and medium enterprises, and has a positive impact
on export culture. The impact of the scheme was shown to be greatest in the
presence of finance constraints and smaller firm size.[6]
10. Austrade, as administrator, reviewed
the extent to which the current scheme is simple and accountable and concluded
that:
....while greater simplicity remains a desirable goal—the current
balance between simplicity ain scheme rules and accountability in the
expenditure of public monies remains appropriate.[7]
11. Austrade examined all proposals
submitted during the review in regard to the scheme's provisions, such as:
eligibility of businesses, products and expenses, for calculating grant
amounts, and for applying for and paying grants. It concluded that most current
scheme parameters and rules remain appropriate, but that a number of options
for enhancing the scheme's performance could be considered.
12. The review explored the following options
for the improved performance of the scheme:
-
increasing the incentive for small and medium
enterprises to internationalise by visiting overseas markets
-
updating the scheme to better support new and
emerging export sectors and practices
-
reducing risk and administration costs, and
-
improving the certainty of payment.[8]
13. The review's finding was that:
... the scheme is effective in increasing the number of SMEs that
develop into new exporters, in increasing the number of SMEs that achieve
sustainability in export markets, in generating additional exports, and in
further developing an export culture in Australia.
14. It went on to say...
Extending the scheme indefinitely would offer greatest certainty
to industry. However, a five year extension, with a review before the end of
that period, would ensure accountability and give business, industry,
governments and the broader community an opportunity to again review the
program's performance. A five–year extension would balance the need for
certainty with the need for accountability and transparency.[9]
15. Austrade recommended
that the Export Market Development Grants scheme continue for a minimum of five
years until the end of 2010–11. It further recommended that there should be a
legislative requirement to review the scheme, with a report provided to the
Minister for Trade by 30 June 2010.
Explanatory memorandum
16. The
explanatory memorandum for this bill is a detailed document which analyses the
14 amendments to the bill. It outlines the purpose of the bill, its financial
impact and describes a regulation impact statement (IRS).
17. The
IRS 'explores the merits of continuing, ceasing or replacing' the EMDG scheme,
with following options:
- continue the EMDG
scheme
- allow
the EMDG scheme to lapse on 30 June 2006
- introduce tax deductions for eligible
export promotion expenditure
- introduce a
discretionary grants scheme, or
- introduce a loans
scheme for eligible exporters.
18. The regulation impact statement found that:
Overall, the evidence suggests that the EMDG scheme is effective
in supporting current and aspiring exporters. It is therefore recommended that
the scheme continue until the end of 2010–11, and that there be a legislative
requirement to review the scheme, with a report to the Minister for Trade by 30 June 2010.[10]
Submissions
19. The Committee called for submissions from
Austrade, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and a range of stakeholders
in the export industry. It received five submissions (see appendix 1).
20. The views expressed in the submissions were generally
positive about the scheme. All submitters endorsed the proposed changes and
supported the continuation of the scheme.[11]
There were, however, a few suggested amendments to the proposed provisions.[12]
Grants available for approved bodies
21. The Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (Inc)
(WAFIC) was concerned about the status of 'approved bodies'[13] within the scheme. It was of the view
that there are inefficiencies built into the current rules that 'severely'
limit the effectiveness of approved bodies in assisting small and regional
enterprises to expand into export markets.[14]
In its submission, it made several recommendations for the more efficient and effective
use of approved bodies in promoting very small businesses to export.
22. WAFIC noted that Approved Bodies represent the most
efficient vehicle for new and small and medium business enterprises to enter
export markets. Approved Bodies can 'organise events and or provide expertise
that is frequently beyond the capacity of individual exporters, particularly
for new exporters and those from remote regional areas.' In this way, according
to WAFIC, they effectively 'reduce the numbers of often very small claims made
to Austrade, and thus the burden of administration and audit.
23. Based on this argument, WAFIC suggested that the grant to
Approved Bodies be increased from a ceiling of $150,000 to $400,000. It contended
that 'by increasing the grant allowance to approved bodies, Austrade would
encourage more very small businesses and regional businesses to enter export
marketing in a most cost effective and accountable manner'.[15]
24. It further noted that the amounts of money involved are
relatively small:
If every one of the 22 active Approved Bodies was eligible for a
full grant as proposed ($400,000 pa) the total payment would be just $8.8
million, less than 65 of the total available for EMGD. This would be offset by
a reduction in the number of small grants paid to smaller businesses, and apply
the grants to the areas where they are most effective ie to new and small
regional businesses.[16]
25. This recommendation to raise the ceiling to $400,000 was put
forward by only one submitter. The committee draws attention to this
recommendation.
Renewal process for approved body status
26. Under the current EMDG Act, Austrade may allow 'Approved
Bodies' to apply for grants. The grants may be approved for periods of three
years and, at Austrade's discretion, renewed for further three-year-periods.
The proposed amendment would allow Austrade to grant special approval status
for five years rather than three, for both initial approval and for renewals.[17] According to Austrade, this measure
would reduce administration and increase industry certainty.[18]
27. WAFIC criticised the requirement for Approved Bodies to
submit a new application to retain their status every three years. In its view,
the requirement created unnecessary work for both the applicant and Austrade.
It suggested:
Instead of requiring an application for status every three years
Austrade should simply review the export performance of each Approved Body by
analysis of the outcomes of its market activities and its claim record.
As a safeguard Austrade would have the ability to require that
an Approved Body that did not undertake eligible export activity, say over
three consecutive years, to show cause why the status should not be removed.
Austrade would also, as now, be able to cancel an Approved Body Status in the
event of a serious breach of the conditions of approval.[19]
28. The Australian Cotton Shippers Association endorsed the
extension of the scheme for a further five years. With regard to approved
bodies, it suggested that the Act 'provide for approved body organisations to
retain their eligibility for participation through ongoing generic export
market promotion by waiving the onerous and costly requirements of the three
year re–application procedure'.[20]
29. The committee notes that under the proposed amendment to the
bill, Austrade may grant special approval status for five years rather than
three, both for initial approval and for renewals. Even so, the committee
suggests that the government consider the alternatives proposed by WAFIC and
the Australian Cotton Shippers Association with a view to further simplifying
and reducing the costs of maintaining or extending Approved Body status.
Conclusions
30. The Committee notes the Government's intention to conduct a
review of the scheme with a report to the Minister for Trade by 30 June 2010. While the Committee supports this review, it is
concerned that the operation of the scheme, which involves substantial sums of
money, is not subject to scrutiny by independent and experienced analysts. The
Committee, therefore, makes the following recommendation.
Recommendation 1
31. The Committee recommends
that the Australian government requests the Auditor–General to conduct a
performance audit of the scheme two years after the proposed legislation comes
into effect.
32. Overall, the provisions of the bill attracted little or no
comment and the submissions to the inquiry strongly supported the continuation
of the scheme.
Recommendation 2
33. The
Committee recommends
that the Bill be passed.
David Johnston
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page