Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I do not question Senator Carr's commitment to see a strong automotive sector in this country and I do not question his prognosis either that there is a bright future still there for the automotive sector in this country. I do, however, take some issue with Senator Carr's proposed remedy because he is proposing to continue doing what we have been doing for years. Colours of both political sides have, for years, been investing in this sector through the Strategic Investment Program, through the Automotive Transformation Scheme but, of course, none of that investment has been able to maintain the commitments of major international car manufacturers like Ford, Holden or Toyota to this nation. Indeed, Senator Carr likes to mention General Motors Holden but he also likes to ignore the fact that Ford made a decision to leave this nation under the former Labor government.

I do not attribute blame to a particular government for that decision. Those decisions have been made due to trends affecting the entire globe. But to think that more investment, more government money, more spending on this industry is going to massively transform the underlying economics simply defies the history here because that is what the history has been over the last decade. It cannot stop that transition. What we need to do is support our automotive sector into a different type of manufacturing. I agree with Senator Carr that there is a bright future for those manufacturers who can do that. It will be a different industry than what we had in the past, but it is a different world today from what it was in the past.

That is why the government is continuing to support the automotive supply chain through the Automotive Diversification Program. I note this committee has suggested that there needs to be more support for automotive manufacturers to diversify and find new markets. The government already has a program for that. It has already announced $12.4 million in funding for that. I am keen to ensure that that program continues and keen to monitor it over time if there is a need for more investment in that way, but we should let that program work first.

Of course, not all areas of the automotive supply chain will stay in that business. That is why we have a $60 million Next Generation Manufacturing Investment Program—to provide some leverage or some support for those manufacturers, those businesses that would seek to diversify into non-automotive manufacturing sectors. Again, already 11 Victorian companies have shared in $27.4 million of support, which is expected to leverage $75 million in total investment. In South Australia, 15 businesses have received $28.3 million in government support—hoping to end up with a total private and public sector investment of $72.5 million.

Of course, the government has also signed three new free-trade agreements and, recently, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, which will provide greater access for our component manufacturing sector, in particular, to overseas markets. Those agreements will play an integral role in seeing a brighter future for our automotive sector, because that future probably will not involve the end-to-end manufacture of complete vehicles. But there certainly can be a role for our sector to be part of supply chains in our region and to be part of those supply chains they need market access.

I also note the report makes some comment on the vibrancy of our truck manufacturing sector, a sector which, traditionally, has not received substantial government support, which confirms coalition senators' overall view on these matters—that we do not need a government teat to help wean a strong automotive sector in this country. We have a strong automotive sector in truck manufacturing. It has not received substantial government support but it has done that by being competitive, by being innovative and by serving domestic needs in a very professional way.

I note that the committee's majority report has recommended that there be some changes to the fuel tax credit system for trucks manufactured before 1996. The report recommends that older trucks no longer be able to claim fuel tax credits. We disagree with that particular recommendation. We feel it would be particularly harmful to owner-operators in our country, who often rely on using older trucks—my father-in-law being one—and we do not see any real policy rationale for denying fuel tax credits to certain operators simply because of the age of their truck. Obviously, trucks—