Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I take this opportunity to speak about the ACIS Administration Amendment (Application) Bill 2009. I note with interest that the three speakers on this amending legislation are all from South Australia, which I suspect indicates, at least, the level of support for the automotive industry via the South Australian representatives in this chamber. That is certainly the case in respect of the member for Wakefield, who is in the chamber, and me because there is no question that we believe the automotive industry is absolutely vital to the long-term future prosperity of South Australia and, in particular, to those families which are employed and which, in many cases, have been for a long time, at the GM plant at Elizabeth.

The bill corrects an anomaly that would have resulted in automotive manufacturers receiving a lower amount of money than was intended under the Australia Competitiveness and Investment Scheme during the transition period until the Automotive Transformation Scheme came into effect. This was an unintended consequence. The Automotive Transformation Scheme was implemented and during the transition phase it became obvious that automotive manufacturers would have in fact been paid less than they would otherwise have expected under the old ACIS. The importance of those payments should not be understated at all. By way of background, the automotive industry in Australia directly employs some 63,000 people across the country and there would be around another 100,000 employed in the supply chain and support industries to the automotive manufacturers. The industry contributes $7.7 billion a year to the Australian economy, and we still have automotive plants in Victoria and South Australia—manufacturing Toyotas and Fords in Victoria and manufacturing Holdens in South Australia.

What is just as important in respect of the automotive industry is that certainly in South Australia, and I expect it is the case in Victoria, it underpins invaluable research, design, innovation and engineering right across the manufacturing sector. Without a viable automotive sector, many of those smaller industries involved, whether it is in research, design, innovation or engineering, would simply not be able to survive. In fact, if we lost the automotive industry the result would undoubtedly be an undermining of the ability and capacity of Australia to continue to manufacture goods. To its credit, the Howard government recognised this and, in 2001, introduced the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme. After being in place for only one year, the scheme was extended for a further 10 years and was due to continue to 2015. This, quite rightly, highlighted the importance of the automotive sector to the Australian economy.

When the Rudd government came to office, time had moved on. We had seen tariffs reduced in 2005, from 15 per cent to 10 per cent, which in turn had some impact on the industry. The Rudd government commissioned the Bracks inquiry, which resulted in A New Car Plan for a Greener Future for Australia. The Rudd government committed $6.2 billion towards ensuring that the plan can be implemented over the next decade, and within that funding is, of course, the $3.4 billion associated with the Automotive Transformation Scheme.

We all know that the global financial crisis has literally decimated the automotive industry across the world, particularly in the Western countries. When you combine that with the competition that automotive manufacturers in the Western world are now experiencing from new car plants in developing countries, you can understand why this is an industrial sector that has some real challenges ahead. Schemes such as the Automotive Transformation Scheme and the ACIS scheme are vital to the survival of the automotive industry in Australia and will be even more so when tariffs are reduced from 10 per cent to five per cent from 1 January 2010.

The GM plant in the northern region of Adelaide—and I note that the member for Wakefield is in the chamber and I am sure he will speak in a similar vein in a moment on this matter—has been there since the mid-1940s. I cannot recall the exact date but it has been there for around 60 years. For the last 60 years it has been the critical industry that has sustained that region. Whilst over the years that region has expanded and many other industries have also been established there, the fact is that they were all drawn to the region because of the presence of the GM operations in Elizabeth.

Only yesterday, when I was speaking on the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Amendment Bill 2009, I referred to the case of the Bridgestone plant in Salisbury, which opened in 1964 but, sadly, is planned to close in April next year, with the loss of some 600 jobs. Only recently the member for Wakefield, the member for Port Adelaide, the Minister for Employment Participation, Senator the Hon. Mark Arbib, representatives of the ETU, the AMWU and the LHMU and I attended the Bridgestone plant to ensure that the employees there are being provided with the necessary support as part of transitioning to other employment and in respect of any redundancy payments due. I reiterate what I said yesterday: I compliment the work of all those unions and, in particular, David Di Troia, the secretary of the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, who along with his team has been working diligently to ensure that all of the people at that plant, the majority of whom are members of his union, are given their rightful entitlements. In that respect, I also acknowledge the contribution made by the federal and state governments of $5.7 million—over $4 million of which came from the federal government—to support those workers. That is a classic case of the importance of the GM operations to that region. I have no doubt that it was a result of the downturn in production at the GM plant that contributed to the closure of the Bridgestone plant. So you do not have to go very far to understand the importance of the automotive manufacturers to the regions, wherever they are established in Australia.

On a positive note, I was pleased to read that the GM operation at Elizabeth has begun to increase its production of motor vehicles. I understand that production has in fact now risen from 310 vehicles per day to 340. That is encouraging. But none of that would have been possible had GMH not been supported by the federal government over the last decade. Again, the previous government needs to be recognised for that, and certainly the Rudd government’s $6.2 billion automotive restructuring plan will ensure that we continue to have a viable automotive industry.

There is, of course, another element to ensuring that we continue to have a viable automotive industry. The proposal we are looking at, A New Car Plan for a Greener Future—and the title quite rightly says, ‘a greener future’—is all about designing and building cars that create lower emissions. That goes hand in glove with the very issue we are confronted with in Australia and across the world in reducing carbon emissions—a matter that is the subject of debate before this parliament right now and which will be debated in Copenhagen next month. As the Prime Minister has said time and time again, it is a matter that is in the national interest. If we can support car manufacturers in this country, it will ensure not only that there is some economic benefit but also that, simultaneously, there will be the benefit of producing lower emission vehicles than are currently being produced. Unless they do that, the reality is that they will find themselves coming under increased competition from overseas manufacturers and designers who are doing exactly that and who are perhaps gradually increasing their market share in Australia because they are manufacturing cars that produce lower emissions.

I represent an electorate where many of the families who work at the GM operations at Elizabeth live. They are very much dependent on the future survival of that plant. This amendment bill, as I said, corrects an anomaly in the legislation that was introduced into this House earlier. In so doing it will enable the GM operations, particularly at this point in time when they have some very serious challenges ahead of them, to continue their operations.

I support the amendment. The member for Mayo talked about whether this amendment arises because of a lack of consultation at the time that the original legislation was introduced. Can I say, as someone who has taken the trouble to read this legislation in detail and to look at exactly the way in which the New Car Plan for a Greener Future and the Automotive Transformation Scheme are structured, that this is a very complex matter. It is not surprising and it is not unusual that unintended consequences are highlighted once a piece of legislation is brought into the House. That is exactly what has happened here. The fact of the matter is that the legislation will correct that anomaly. It will correct it in time, before the Automotive Transformation Scheme payments come into effect. Therefore, there has been no detriment to the automotive industry at all. The very fact that it has been brought into this House at this point of time shows that the government is on the ball with this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context