Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I would like to draw the Senate's attention to the government response to an order for the production of documents which I moved regarding the economic reviews of South Australia and Victoria. I asked that the minister provide copies of the Review of the South Australian Economy and the Victorian Manufacturing Industry Economic Review, and that was agreed to on 20 March. To date, we have the government's response, which consists of a letter—it was not even read to the chamber; it was tabled—which says, 'The review is to be completed by the end of February, with reports to be ready to be released by mid-March. Given Toyota's decision in January to cease manufacturing in Australia by 2017 and Alcoa's decision in February to cease operations in July this year, the scope of the review has been broadened and as such there is an extended period of review.'

I would have thought it would be a simple proposition for the minister to explain that the government is seeking to extend the period of this review rather than trying to drop the letter in such a way that—hopefully—it will not be noticed. I say that in the context that the government has maintained a position that they would have these reviews ready by February. In fact, it was said as late as 19 February that the Prime Minister told the Victorian Premier:

We'll be getting our report on the Victorian economy; we'll be getting it in about 10 days' time, so early in March we'll have some announcement to make …

That was the position just a few weeks ago. But the letter that has been tabled here today suggests there has been a change of plan. Why has there not been an announcement of the change of plan? It strikes me that what we have here is yet again a government that shows contempt for this chamber and, more importantly, contempt for Australian workers.

We know that the situation in manufacturing is critical. We know that, as a direct result of this government's policies to drive the automotive manufacturers out of this country, there are going to be tens of thousands of jobs lost in this industry. We also know that the situation in the north of Melbourne is deteriorating because we have a state government that does not seem to appreciate the urgency of the task any more than the federal government does. People are now at risk and are incredibly anxious. It does not take a political genius to appreciate that, on every single issue on which public expressions of opinion have been stated, the question of jobs is at the foremost of people's consideration.

The government of South Australia, which was seriously at risk politically, has been re-elected. I would say that is as a direct consequence of the concern that has been expressed. I am more than happy to acknowledge there are crises in the health system as a result of the inadequacies of the Commonwealth government, there are the lies and duplicities about education and there are of course the constant references to the reduction in services by this government, but amongst all of those there is concern about the future of quality jobs. We have a government that seems to have no appreciation whatsoever of the urgency of these matters.

An investment fund was established by Labor in response to Ford's decisions, decisions which of course were made on the basis of their view of the future of the automotive industry and which was affected by no small measure, even back then, by the prospect of a coalition government. That fund was announced and applications for assistance for new investment proposals actually closed back in September. What does this government do about that? It chooses not to make any announcements. It made one announcement with regard to Geelong only recently. I understand that it might have made a second one just last week.

What do workers in the north of Melbourne say about this? Can they look to the government for assistance? Can they look to the political system to actually respond to their anxiety? Not this government. The government will not release these reviews because it knows how serious the situation really is. Let us get to the nub of this so-called broadening that we are looking at. The government is trying to find alibis for its failure to deal with the real concerns that working people in this country have about the future of their livelihood.

The government set up the Commission of Audit. We know that is about cuts. We know that the Productivity Commission is really a post-mortem into the automotive industry, because the government had a deliberate policy to destroy that industry. We are told by the minister that the Productivity Commission will now broaden its work to look at components' manufacturers. Yet no instructions or advice were provided to the Productivity Commission to change the scope of its inquiry. This is a government that does nothing other than search for excuses and alibis when it is in fact trying to hide the consequences of its policy, which will actually see the undermining of industrial conditions, wages and people's job security. It is an attempt by this government to walk away from what has been a traditional concern of government—that is, an investment in the future of jobs. That is what the public want to hear. They want to know: has this government got a plan for an investment in the future of jobs, rather than allowing the free marketeers to rape and pillage the Australian economy and allowing the transfer of jobs to other countries.

At the heart of this is the government's absolute obsession with destroying industrialised or organised labour. When you look at all the industries they are seeking to drive out of the country, what do they have in common? Strong unions. The government have a political motive here as well. It has now been expressed so many times by their sycophants in the right wing press. Their political motive is very simple: destroy the unions. They think that if they destroy the unions they will destroy the Labor Party.

What you will not face up to is the fact that you are actually destroying people's lives. You are actually destroying the conditions of life that provide the security of employment and the prosperity that people have a right to expect. This country is not just a country for the rich man; it is supposed to be a country that actually allows for people to prosper at all levels of society. But your policy is about stripping that fundamental assumption away—the so-called removal of the right to 'the age of entitlement'—the entitlement to a decent standard of living and the view that, if you are not rich and powerful, you have a right to expect that the government will actually be there to ensure that the prosperity, the incredible wealth of this country, is shared throughout the nation. So much for broadening your inquiry. What you are trying to do is get past the Western Australian election. That is the broadening of the inquiry. We know that the Productivity Commission brought down its report to try to get past the South Australian election. So the latest stunt that we are now seeing is: how do we get past the Western Australian election, in an effort to try to dupe people about the prospect of this country actually being able to provide the economic security for all its citizens, not just for those who are already in incredibly wealthy and powerful positions.

We have here a clear case of secrecy and a case of broken promises yet again. This is the hallmark of the government—you have to do stuff in the dark; you have to try to hide it from people and you have to tell them, 'We know that it is good for you to take wage reductions, it is good for you to have your penalty rates reduced and it is good for you not to be able to look towards the government to provide the economic security that we have traditionally come to expect.' This is a government that says to working people on average weekly earnings—in the manufacturing industry, the average wage is about $58,000 a year—'You have it too good. You have to take a wage cut, you have to reduce your economic security, and it does not matter if the consequences are adverse for your family, because we're in the business of looking after those who can already look after themselves.'