4 years ago
SME Export Hub Grants
BRENDAN O’CONNOR MP
BRENDAN O’CONNOR, SHADOW MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT: O'CONNOR: It seems to me every day there is another rort by this government. Today in the front pages of The Age newspaper and the Sydney Morning Herald there was a report that has outlined that the export hub grants process by the government was very dodgy indeed.
Indeed, the first round that was decided three weeks and announced three weeks before the election last year, showed a complete bias towards government electorates. In fact, only 3 per cent of the entire funding of the first round of the SME Exports Hub grant process applications was provided to Labor, 97 per cent to government electorates. That is not acceptable.
The Prime Minister needs to explain, yet again, why he continues to politicise grant applications and dedicate taxpayers' money in his own interests, in the electoral interests of the government. This is the eighth grant - they've had sports rorts one, sports rorts two, there has been one after another and we’ve found yet another process that has clearly been rorted and the government, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Industry, must explain why that is. Because small businesses across the electorate of, well, my electorate and the other 150 electorates of this nation, of course, would want to see a fair system so businesses can access opportunities to provide government support for those businesses.
What has happened here is you've seen almost half the electorates of the country, you've seen small businesses who just happen to reside in non-government seats, not able to access taxpayers' support to provide export opportunities for those businesses. Those small and medium enterprises deserve an explanation by the government as to why the government chose to deprive them of an opportunity to access such support.
Clearly, on the face of it, you would have to conclude that the reason that the government has done this, as I say, just weeks before the federal election last year, was to provide a political benefit to government members in government electorates, including the marginal seat of Boothby, and provide almost no support to any non-government electorate business.
So, if you happen not to live in a government seat, and you're running a business, and you want to create an export hub to provide opportunities to sell your goods, to sell your services, to collaborate with other businesses or just because you don't live in a government electorate, you don't get that access, that support. And the Prime Minister must come clean. It's one rort after another by this government. One application after another.
The Minister for Industry has to explain why she allowed 97 per cent of taxpayers' money in a grant process to be devoted only to government seats, 3 per cent to non-held government seats, just before the 2019 election. It stinks. It's a rort. And the government, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Industry, need to explain themselves and need to explain and apologise to all of the small and medium enterprises in those electorates that were deprived of such support. Happy to take any questions.
JOURNALIST: The government argues that all of the grants were made on the recommendation of the government committee. Do you accept that?
O'CONNOR: That was the defence that they used for the sports rorts scandal. We heard this argument before, blaming the department. The fact is there were eight grants, seven and a half of the grants went into government-held seats, in terms of the money, 97 per cent of the money went into government-held electorates. It beggars belief that this is not another politicisation by Scott Morrison, by the Minister for Industry, of taxpayers’ money just prior to the election.
It is clear they have chosen to act in a base-political way in order to get a political dividend and this needs to be explained. If there's another reason, if there is some other reason as to why this has occurred, yet again, because this is the ninth grant process where there has been questions of honesty, integrity, in relation to these matters, then the Prime Minister should answer those questions, explain himself, not just to the parliament, not just to the people of Australia, but the businesses in all of those non-government electorates who were deprived opportunities to grow their businesses.
JOURNALIST: What do you think the people in your electorate are thinking about those who want to protest this weekend? The Prime Minister said anyone who protests should now be charged. Regionally, what are people thinking?
O'CONNOR: Well, I think, firstly, it is true to say we've done a very good job as a country in dealing with a major health challenge. And I think it's important that people comply with the health advice, which is a little different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, in order for us to maintain the very good outcomes that we've had to date.
As for whether people should be charged for any offence, that's entirely up to, of course, the jurisdictions. Whether there's any crime committed, and that's determined not by-
JOURNALIST: But it would be a crime turning up though to protest, I mean that's backed up by law isn't it?
O'CONNOR: Well, that's to be determined by, not politicians. I'm glad to say there's an independent process here, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the federal and state police make decisions about crimes, not politicians.
But what we've said all along is it is a very passionate issue. The tragedy of Indigenous people dying in custody has been a blight in this nation that we're trying to challenge. The Prime Minister has said so himself. He recently said so himself he would like to see things done. Not much has been done in recent times to bring those numbers down to reduce the tragedies that occur. So obviously it is a very passionate and heart-felt concern.
JOURNALIST: Should they be charged?
O'CONNOR: Firstly, an offence has to have been committed for anyone to be charged.
JOURNALIST: Isn't it an offence to turn up?
O'CONNOR: It is not for me to determine whether people be charged, it is for the Director of Public Prosecutions of each and every jurisdiction. But what I will say is people should be very mindful of the health risks, whether they're going out and not complying in any situation, whether it be protesting or any other form of behaviour they should be maintaining safe arrangements so they don't endanger themselves or others.
Thanks very much
ENDS
Indeed, the first round that was decided three weeks and announced three weeks before the election last year, showed a complete bias towards government electorates. In fact, only 3 per cent of the entire funding of the first round of the SME Exports Hub grant process applications was provided to Labor, 97 per cent to government electorates. That is not acceptable.
The Prime Minister needs to explain, yet again, why he continues to politicise grant applications and dedicate taxpayers' money in his own interests, in the electoral interests of the government. This is the eighth grant - they've had sports rorts one, sports rorts two, there has been one after another and we’ve found yet another process that has clearly been rorted and the government, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Industry, must explain why that is. Because small businesses across the electorate of, well, my electorate and the other 150 electorates of this nation, of course, would want to see a fair system so businesses can access opportunities to provide government support for those businesses.
What has happened here is you've seen almost half the electorates of the country, you've seen small businesses who just happen to reside in non-government seats, not able to access taxpayers' support to provide export opportunities for those businesses. Those small and medium enterprises deserve an explanation by the government as to why the government chose to deprive them of an opportunity to access such support.
Clearly, on the face of it, you would have to conclude that the reason that the government has done this, as I say, just weeks before the federal election last year, was to provide a political benefit to government members in government electorates, including the marginal seat of Boothby, and provide almost no support to any non-government electorate business.
So, if you happen not to live in a government seat, and you're running a business, and you want to create an export hub to provide opportunities to sell your goods, to sell your services, to collaborate with other businesses or just because you don't live in a government electorate, you don't get that access, that support. And the Prime Minister must come clean. It's one rort after another by this government. One application after another.
The Minister for Industry has to explain why she allowed 97 per cent of taxpayers' money in a grant process to be devoted only to government seats, 3 per cent to non-held government seats, just before the 2019 election. It stinks. It's a rort. And the government, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Industry, need to explain themselves and need to explain and apologise to all of the small and medium enterprises in those electorates that were deprived of such support. Happy to take any questions.
JOURNALIST: The government argues that all of the grants were made on the recommendation of the government committee. Do you accept that?
O'CONNOR: That was the defence that they used for the sports rorts scandal. We heard this argument before, blaming the department. The fact is there were eight grants, seven and a half of the grants went into government-held seats, in terms of the money, 97 per cent of the money went into government-held electorates. It beggars belief that this is not another politicisation by Scott Morrison, by the Minister for Industry, of taxpayers’ money just prior to the election.
It is clear they have chosen to act in a base-political way in order to get a political dividend and this needs to be explained. If there's another reason, if there is some other reason as to why this has occurred, yet again, because this is the ninth grant process where there has been questions of honesty, integrity, in relation to these matters, then the Prime Minister should answer those questions, explain himself, not just to the parliament, not just to the people of Australia, but the businesses in all of those non-government electorates who were deprived opportunities to grow their businesses.
JOURNALIST: What do you think the people in your electorate are thinking about those who want to protest this weekend? The Prime Minister said anyone who protests should now be charged. Regionally, what are people thinking?
O'CONNOR: Well, I think, firstly, it is true to say we've done a very good job as a country in dealing with a major health challenge. And I think it's important that people comply with the health advice, which is a little different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, in order for us to maintain the very good outcomes that we've had to date.
As for whether people should be charged for any offence, that's entirely up to, of course, the jurisdictions. Whether there's any crime committed, and that's determined not by-
JOURNALIST: But it would be a crime turning up though to protest, I mean that's backed up by law isn't it?
O'CONNOR: Well, that's to be determined by, not politicians. I'm glad to say there's an independent process here, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the federal and state police make decisions about crimes, not politicians.
But what we've said all along is it is a very passionate issue. The tragedy of Indigenous people dying in custody has been a blight in this nation that we're trying to challenge. The Prime Minister has said so himself. He recently said so himself he would like to see things done. Not much has been done in recent times to bring those numbers down to reduce the tragedies that occur. So obviously it is a very passionate and heart-felt concern.
JOURNALIST: Should they be charged?
O'CONNOR: Firstly, an offence has to have been committed for anyone to be charged.
JOURNALIST: Isn't it an offence to turn up?
O'CONNOR: It is not for me to determine whether people be charged, it is for the Director of Public Prosecutions of each and every jurisdiction. But what I will say is people should be very mindful of the health risks, whether they're going out and not complying in any situation, whether it be protesting or any other form of behaviour they should be maintaining safe arrangements so they don't endanger themselves or others.
Thanks very much
ENDS