Senate debates

Thursday, 13 February 2014

Motions

Australian Jobs

4:57 pm

Photo of Nick XenophonNick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I think it is worth mentioning that this motion is partly about having a comprehensive industry policy and a policy of innovation and that it expresses concern about jobs that have been lost. This motion is clearly meant to make a political point. I do not begrudge the Australian Labor Party's doing so—it is their job—but I would like to come at the debate from a slightly different perspective.

I think it is worth quoting what Donald Horne said in his iconic Australian book The Lucky Country, which I think is 50 years old this year. He used the phrase 'the lucky country' ironically. Everyone talks about Australia being the lucky country, and in many ways it is. But Donald Horne said:

Australia is a lucky country, run mainly by second-rate people who share its luck.

That is what he said 50 years ago, and you wonder whether it has held true over the last 50 years. There are some major challenges facing the economy. I do not think there is a simple solution, but let us look at what some of the challenges are. It is worth referring to a very good piece written by Emeritus Professor Richard Blandy, whom I regard as a very good friend and have a lot of respect for. He called it the way it was a number of years ago, when the South Australian Liberal government was seeking to privatise—and eventually did privatise—the state's electricity assets. Professor Blandy was a truth-teller who cautioned against the manner of their privatisation. Professor Blandy, in a piece he wrote for the Australian at the end of 2012, made reference to the International Monetary Fund's world Economic Outlook Database, which showed that Australians back then were:

… only the 13th richest people in the world, a decline of six places from the heyday of the 1990s.

He goes on to make reference to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the US Department of Labor, which looks at issues of productivity and unit labour cost, and he says that that very comprehensive study found that:

Australian productivity growth is the third lowest among the 10 countries, just nosing Spain into second-last spot. South Korea's rate of productivity growth has been 3.5 times Australia's—

350 per cent higher than Australia's—

across the past 20 years. Finland and Sweden's rate of productivity growth—

and no-one can accuse those countries of being low-wage countries—

has been about double Australia's, and that of the US about 70 per cent faster.

So this is a real challenge that, as a nation, we must deal with, because, if we do not, in this globalised world—and I will get to the issue of some of these free trade agreements that we have signed up to—we are going to be in real strife.

We saw the shocking unemployment figures that came out today. And presumably that was before the most recent job losses that have been announced which will be impacting this economy in the months to come. I dare say that, in the lead up to the 2016 election, because of the announced shutdowns, we will be seeing factory after factory, industrial premises after industrial premises, closing down and people being given their redundancy slips—and that is absolutely tragic—in the many thousands, particularly in my home state of South Australia and in the state of Victoria. But it will have a national impact.

So we have seen this blame game, with both sides throwing mud at each other. There is an issue about the role of unions. We see reports on that, and I note Phillip Coorey's report in the Australian Financial Review just yesterday in which he reported that Toyota blamed the unions in discussions with the government and raised issues about the lack of flexibility in trying to change conditions and not being able to allow workers to vote on that, and that the federal government, through Senator Abetz, indicated there would be intervention. I have great sympathy with what Senator Abetz said. If it is true that Toyota did say that this was an issue and if it is true that the company could not get a ballot of workers to modify some conditions to allow some greater flexibility and productivity then I think that is wrong, and I think there is validity in criticism of that.

Having said that, let us put this in perspective. Of the cost of a motor vehicle, the labour costs involved are estimated to be between 13 per cent and 16 per cent. So if there were some flexibility then sure it would make a difference but it probably would not make a difference of more than one per cent in the cost of a motor vehicle.

I need to say, about the AMWU in my home state of South Australia, that John Camillo, the head of the union there, cannot, under any reasonable criteria, be regarded as a radical or militant union leader. He is someone who has been respected by both employers and of course the workers he represents alike. He really desperately wanted General Motors Holden to stay on in South Australia, and I see him as someone who has been quite moderate and reasonable to deal with.

As a result of the closure of Toyota, we have now seen the final domino falling. The members of the federal government say: 'What did the ALP do when Mitsubishi and then Ford closed? That happened under their watch.' And that is true. But the duty of care, I think, was greater on this government because there were only two manufacturers still standing—General Motors Holden and Toyota. Behind them, though, there is a very important supply chain of automotive component manufacturers. So there is a greater duty of care on this government in terms of the way that was dealt with, because once you lost Holden it was almost inevitable that Toyota would go and with it this massive supply chain with tens of thousands of jobs—up to 40,000 direct jobs in the component manufacturing sector.

That is where this government made a number of fundamental mistakes. I think it was a mistake for the Treasurer, Joe Hockey—as capable and as competent as he is—to have basically taunted General Motors Holden, saying, 'Will you stay or will you go?' That sort of bravado was completely unnecessary and, I believe, completely counterproductive. It needs to be pointed out that, just 24 hours earlier, Mike Devereux, the outgoing Managing Director of General Motors in Australia, said to the Productivity Commission, 'We want to keep making cars here.' Then there was that extraordinary statement by the Treasurer, basically saying: 'Hurry up and make up your mind. Stay or go. Hurry up and tell us.'

Comments

No comments