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

You understand what it means, do you? That is a big discovery. The Federation of Automotive Products Manufacturers have explained that the Liberal amendments ‘would require sensitive information to be made public, thereby undermining the commercial decision-making processes and the investment decisions’. On Monday night Senator Abetz grappled at length with the fact that companies are willing to make public some details about their operations but not others. He seemed to detect some sort of conspiracy operating on this matter. Senator Abetz might know more about conspiracies than the average senator, but in this instance he is either betraying his ignorance of how business works or being completely disingenuous. Every company makes information public. They shout some things from the rooftops, but they keep some things confidential. Even when he was a suburban lawyer, there were some things about his business he made public and some things he did not. This is an elementary fact of market life.

The automotive industry is highly integrated, and making public sensitive information about industry assistance has the potential to compromise commercial negotiations and decisions about where and when to invest. Remember: this is an industry in Australia that is doing much better than everywhere else in the world but is highly international. So we are not talking just about domestic competition; we are talking about international competition. What Senator Abetz is asking this government to do is betray trade secrets to competitors and companies further along the supply chain. This would have a particularly detrimental effect on small Australian based component manufacturers who are naturally weaker in their bargaining positions.

The Greens complained that the government is offering assistance to international car makers, but that did not stop them voting for the amendment that would give car makers an undue advantage in their negotiations with local suppliers. Their interest in domestic companies seems to wane when it comes to providing assistance to international companies in those negotiations.

Regulations to be made under this bill will give the minister discretion, just as under the old bill, to publish details of the assistance received by individual companies should the need arise. A similar provision, I repeat, was in the ASIS legislation but never, ever used. I have already said it once: we used that provision already in the case of Mitsubishi, and we will do it again in the public interest.

Senator Abetz tried to rationalise the Liberal Party’s latest backflip in terms of their appreciation of how this industry actually works by saying, ‘While certain things were done under the Howard government, we do look afresh at things in opposition.’ Having had a fresh look, what does the opposition really see? This is its chance this morning to have a fresh look at the position it has argued. Does it see that it can put thousands of jobs and massive investment at risk with impunity? Does it see that it can turn a vital industry into a political plaything and never face the consequences? Or does it see that it can jeopardise people’s livelihoods and leave others to pick up the pieces? The Liberal Party may be relishing its newfound sense of irresponsibility, but the government is focusing on the ideas, on the jobs and on the industries of the future. That is why the Automotive Transformation Scheme has been developed. That is what it is all about. And that is why we are calling on this Senate to pass this bill in a carefully considered manner, now that it has come back to us from the House of Representatives.