Senate debates

Wednesday, 13 February 2008

Questions without Notice

Automotive Industry

2:09 pm

Photo of Kim CarrKim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the shadow minister for his question and I look forward to dealing with him on a number of these issues for some years to come. The point that he has asked me about relates to a review of the automotive industry, which is something we are publicly committed to. I have stated on numerous occasions that we will establish a review into the whole industry and its sustainability. We indicated last year that a review would be established which would go beyond the statutory review required under the ACIS legislation, and it would look at all aspects affecting the competitiveness of the industry.

This is a review that is long overdue. The fact of the matter is this: there have been 7,000 jobs lost in this industry since 2002. This industry is facing acute challenges. But what we saw from the previous government was a government essentially on automatic pilot. Despite the fact that the fundamental premise that underpinned the structural assistance programs had changed dramatically, the previous government chose not to change the policy settings. We had a government that essentially thought that the manufacturing industry in this country should be put on palliative care. Despite the fact that it employed over 60,000 Australians and was strategically vital to a wide-ranging number of industries from the ICT sector right through to aluminium, to plastics, to textiles and to every component of the manufacturing sector, the previous government chose to sit on its hands as these challenges grew.

We are about to announce the details of the review. We are about to announce the personnel associated with that review. I would advise the shadow minister that, unlike the reviews that he undertook into the Bureau of Meteorology, where the sorts of figures that he has used were in fact paid to the reviewers, the figures he has quoted are wrong.

Comments

No comments