Senate debates

Monday, 9 December 2013

Matters of Public Importance

Automotive Industry

4:55 pm

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

In moving this motion today I would like to express to the Senate my very deep concern about the welfare of up to 200,000 workers. I am very concerned about the 50,000 workers who are directly employed in the automotive industry and those who are dependent upon the automotive industry. The recent speculation that has been generated by senior ministers in the government about the future of General Motors Holden is nothing short of extraordinary. In the 20 or so years that I have been in this parliament I cannot recall a circumstance—certainly in my understanding of political history in this country—where, in the first three months of a government's life, the government has had to dip into the money barrel to buy their way out of trouble—as is the case with schools—and where, in the situation regarding the automotive industry, senior members of the government are backgrounding against a cabinet colleague—the industry minister—in a deliberate and calculating way. In the first three months of a government this is truly a remarkable set of events.

As I understand the situation, the essence of this matter is the proposition that General Motors has already decided to cease manufacturing in Australia. That is the claim that has been made and repeatedly asserted. Both the industry minister and I can say to the chamber that, as far as I know, this is untrue. There has been no formal decision made by General Motors to depart from manufacturing in Australia. I can say that there is an attempt being made by sections of the government to establish an alibi for the failure of the government to meet its responsibilities to the future of the automotive industry.

These deep divisions inside the government over car industry assistance have been demonstrated through numerous media outlets, in particular the ABC. Yesterday, we saw on the ABC Eliza Borrello and Chris Uhlmann's story, which said that the brawling within the coalition was sparked in the early weeks of the new government. The story stated:

The ABC can now reveal an internal brawl was sparked in the early weeks of the new Government when, in an interview with News Corp, Mr Macfarlane flagged "arm wrestling" the Treasurer over more money for the industry.

The story went on to quote Mr Macfarlane as saying:

"I've won a few, I've lost a few. Let's have that arm wrestle, I'm happy to do it. I'm sure Joe (Hockey) will be clean," …

The report indicates that this statement by the industry minister:

… outraged cabinet colleagues who said he had turned the heat off Holden and back on the Government.

So here we have senior ministers backgrounding against the industry minister and outlining the strategy of the government to deal with what is an incredibly serious situation within this country—namely, a social and economic catastrophe which, in my view, could be so easily avoided.

What we do know is that there has been a cynical attempt by the government to try to avoid dealing with the policy of the automotive industry. There has been an enormous amount of energy paid to the politics of the industry but very little attention paid to the policy of the industry. I know from my direct experience and from the advice provided to me by the Department of Industry—the same officials that now advise the current minister—that $300 million per annum for the whole industry would be sufficient to keep it going. That was the basis of our new car plan for the 2020s. That was a plan developed in close consultation with the industry and, I say, direct consultation between the department and the industry throughout the months of June and July and announced by the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd during the election campaign.

In that was a figure considerably less than $150 million for General Motors Holden which would be sufficient to secure the $1 billion investment needed for the new models—the new generation Cruzes and the new generation Commodores as they come. Of course, what we have discovered in the report in The Sydney Morning Herald today is this quote:

A senior Liberal source with close links to the industry, said he understood the $300 million figure was correct, and would keep Holden, Toyota and more than 160 parts suppliers in Australia.

It is not me saying this; this is a senior Liberal source identified here. It goes on to say:

If the government wanted to secure the industry until 2025, it would need to restore the $500 million it cut from the assistance fund and commit to $300 million a year from 2016, the source said.

So what we have is a very clear understanding that the collapse of this industry is not inevitable and does not need to happen. But what you have is a group of ministers—a faction within the Liberal Party—seeking to prepare an alibi, a scapegoat, for the loss of this vital industry; for the loss, in Victoria's case, of what could be 33,000 jobs. And what, of course, we see in South Australia is devastation as a consequence of that.

What we have is the proposition where the Prime Minister himself says that he would like to talk about the two-finger salutes being given to Australians. We know that for the automotive industry that is exactly what was given last Friday when the Prime Minister said there would be no more money. Of course, that follows on from repeated statements by Mr Hockey and other members of the government. This is despite the fact that the Productivity Commission had been set up to make the claim that they would be evaluating the need for more money and that no assistance could be given to General Motors until the Productivity Commission had reported. No matter what you think about the Productivity Commission's predetermined attitude on this—and we have noticed that a number of Productivity commissioners have spoken out in the hearings, giving their personal views—what we do know is that clearly the Prime Minister has now pre-empted the Productivity Commission process and made a complete farce of that arrangement.

What we also know is that as far as this industry is concerned, this is a government that has walked away from its responsibilities. I notice many of the Liberal Party members from Victoria have been less than enthusiastic in their support for the automotive industry. I know the Victorian government is at its wits end, trying to get an understanding of what the federal government's real position is. I think it is very, very clear that they do not want to support the industry.

Premier Napthine is now, of course, at a loss to know how to respond. I know that in Victoria there is a great deal of attention paid by the Liberal Party to the opinions expressed in the Herald-Sun, which is a paper that is known to pay particular attention to the welfare of the Liberal Party. So it is interesting that I read in today's Herald-Sun editorial:

HOLDEN car workers will spend the weeks before Christmas worrying about losing their jobs as the economic argument about the car industry's future in Australia turns political.

It goes on to say:

This is not a test of who has the most testosterone. It is about the livelihood of many thousands of Australians. Unlike cars, these workers should not be switched on and off at the whim of those responsible for the industry.

If Mr Abbott wants people to think of him as being in the driving seat as Prime Minister, he needs to be more assertive than just wishing Holden would clarify its intentions.

Mr Abbott is no longer an opposition leader and needs to stop acting like one. Get both hands on the wheel, Mr Abbott.

That is the position that is expressed in Melbourne this morning, and one would think that perhaps some in the Liberal Party will take notice of it.

We do know that the speculation about the future of General Motors has been generated by the government itself, a truly extraordinary proposition. We are told, 'Why should money go to the automotive industry?' Well, governments make choices all the time. They make choices about economic priorities and about which industries should come and go. What we do know is that in terms of budgetary assistance and tax concessions there is actually more money given to sheep, to beef cattle, to dairy cattle, to livestock and to pigs than there is to the automotive industry—$685 million a year.

What we do know is that mining gets $700 million a year. What we do know is that electricity, gas and water get $1 billion a year— (Time expired)

Comments

No comments