Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Employment (Senator Abetz) and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Ronaldson) to questions without notice asked by Senators Wong, Carr and Singh today relating to the automotive industry and the transfer of Department of Human Services positions from Hobart, Tasmania.

Today, Mr Deputy President, the government had an opportunity to demonstrate that they are serious about supporting jobs, that they are serious about supporting Australia's car industry. We saw today not only ministers refusing to support jobs in South Australia and Victoria, and of course around the country particularly in the supply chain, but also the extraordinary spectacle of government senators from South Australia not asking questions, not advocating for the car industry, choosing instead to ask questions about other matters because, frankly, they have given up inside the government when it comes to South Australian jobs in the auto sector. That is what they are given up on.

There are a lot of slogans from the other side. They talk about job-destroying, well I will tell you what is job-destroying. What is job-destroying is the cheer squad for closure. Ministers on that side of the chamber are cheering on the closure of Holden, unbelievably trying to pressure General Motors through the media to make a decision to close their Australian operations. This is a government that said they were open for business. Do know what they are open for? There are open for bullying a company and trying to get them to close down because it suits their political interests.

The Leader of the Government in the Senate professed complete innocence—he somehow has not seen this. Let us recap what we have seen. In an extraordinary display not only of a lack of discipline in cabinet but also of economic recklessness, we have senior ministers backgrounding the media, trying to get jobs destroyed and trying to get Holden to close. I think this story broke on Thursday. It was reported on the ABC on television late Thursday that there had been senior ministers who had advised, or had backgrounded, that Holden had made a decision to pull out of Australia. That report was then updated again the following day. It said:

Holden has made the decision to pull out of Australia as early as 2016, according to senior Government ministers.

Not according to GMH, not according to the company, but according to some senior government ministers who think it is a good idea as ministers of the Crown to background reputable journalists that a company has decided to close. You are not in opposition; you are ministers of the Crown. It is completely inappropriate and utterly irresponsible and economically reckless to be playing these sorts of political games with people's jobs and the Australian economy through backgrounding of media.

This went on and on. In fact it led on Friday to Mr Macfarlane saying that the senior government ministers should be named. What was interesting is that they have not told people who they are—and I will come to that shortly. This continued on Friday and again on the weekend with ministers giving background briefings. We heard today, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald:

Ministers continue to give anonymous briefings to journalists to say Holden has decided to leave.

If the government does not believe that these reports are correct, if the government does not believe that the Sydney Morning Herald, the ABC, the Australian and various other news outlets are reporting the truth, let them come in here and say that. Let them say that in question time. But they did not today. They chose not to.

Perhaps one of the most interesting points was the fact that Senator Abetz, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, at no point has denied that senior economic ministers, including the Treasurer, have been part of the cheer squad for closing Holden. He has not denied that in here and he has not denied it once. Even more interestingly, we asked a direct question of the Minister for Finance, whether he was one of the people involved in backgrounding the media and he ducked the answer. He refused to say, 'I did not.' I think that Australians did not elect this government in order to see senior economic ministers championing the destruction of Australian jobs. They did not elect this government to destroy Australian jobs, they did not elect this government to background the media anonymously. (Time expired)

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I recall on the members opposite on a number of occasions advising the then opposition not to write their questions based on what was written in their newspapers, and it is obvious that they have forgotten their own advice.

Senator Wong is right, the Australian people did not elect a government to endanger Australian jobs—they got rid of a government that was endangering Australian jobs, particularly in the manufacturing sector. Over the term of the previous government, the manufacturing sector—including car manufacturing—spat out something in the order of 135,000-140,000 jobs. So much for the opposition's record on manufacturing and car manufacturing. In fact, under the government's watch, we saw Mitsubishi close its operations and Ford announced that it was going to close its operations. The former minister, Senator Carr, is not in the chamber to defend his record, which is quite surprising.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Colbeck, you have the call.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If he is so passionate about it, Senator, he ought to be here. He is making all the racket. If he is so passionate about it he ought to line up—

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are being a hypocrite.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The senator might like to withdraw that comment across the chamber.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you are!

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not appreciate being called a hypocrite, Mr Deputy President.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I said you were being hypocritical.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you did not.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Colbeck, just resume your seat for a moment. Senator Collins, if there was any unparliamentary debate across the chamber—and I might add it is disorderly—it would be more simple if you did withdraw. I did not hear the comment.

Senator Farrell interjecting—

Order, Senator Farrell. I am just asking Senator Collins if she considers that a course of action.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order. Mr Deputy President, if you did not hear it can hardly be unparliamentary.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Farrell. That is why I was asking the senator for her consideration.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the light of allowing proceedings to continue, I am happy to indicate that I had no intention to make any unparliamentary remark and I withdraw.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the senator's withdrawal and I thank her for that. If you look at the Labor Party's record in respect of the car industry when in government—

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was terrific.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Horrific. I think you have got a pronunciation problem, Senator Farrell—it was horrific. Look at, for example, the cash for clunkers scheme. If you want to call that a terrific policy, Senator Farrell, be my guest. Cash for clunkers did not even see the light of day. The money for that program was withdrawn before the scheme even started—it was that bad. In fact, there was an edict issued from the ministry that the term 'cash for clunkers', which was being used in the ministry, should never be uttered again. Talk about a classic policy that was so bad that it was withdrawn before the government even started expending money on it.

Give us a break. The coalition's policy on the car industry has been in place and well-known by the car industry for a considerable period of time. It has been clearly enunciated over recent years. There has been no change to our policy. Yet we saw the green car fund. How many times did the government go back to the well of the green car fund to withdraw funds? Somewhere in the order of $1.2 billion, from recollection, withdrawn from the green car fund by the Labor Party when in government over the last three years—that is hardly consistent policy. How is industry supposed to make decisions based on that sort of policy?

So we had the green car fund that came and went and was consistently tapped from the well by the former government, the cash for clunkers scheme and then, in the lead up to the election, we had the fringe benefits tax changes that cost the car industry $1.8 billion. The opposition has the nerve to come here and lecture the government on consistency of policy and yet, after taking billions of dollars out of the car industry themselves, they are saying that they were going to save it.

Then, of course, we come to the carbon tax—$400 for every car to be manufactured in this country. The opposition claims that the government is not consistent in policy, and yet our policy has been on the table for a considerable period of time.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have an inquiry.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our policy in respect of the inquiry and in respect of funding has been on the table for a considerable period of time, and yet the previous government came and went with money. I cannot help but repeat the cash for clunkers—it did not even see the light of day. How could you have any credibility as a government? It is obvious why the Australian people tossed them out. (Time expired)

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 7 September, the Australian people elected the Abbott government. I heard Tony Abbott on that night—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I heard the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, say that Australia was open for business. I thought that meant all of Australia was open for business, but what we find out now is that that does not include South Australia—and, in particular, it does not include that terrific Australian company Holden. What we have seen is that since the global financial crisis and the troubles that many parts of the world had—in particular the American manufacturing and car manufacturing sector—there has been a whole lot of action.

Senator Edwards interjecting—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Edwards, I would love you to interject like this on those people on your own side, like Christopher Pyne. Where is Christopher Pyne on the issue of Holden?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senators on both sides, cease interjecting. Senator Farrell, address your remarks to the chair, not directly to senators across the chamber.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I would like to see from Senator Edwards is him being as forceful and articulate—yes, it was a hard word to get out—with Mr Pyne as he is here today interjecting in this debate.

We have seen lots of people in Australia come to the defence of Holden. We have seen the manufacturing workers take significant cuts in wages and conditions to ensure that Holden survives. We have seen Minister Macfarlane go out on the ledge to say he wants to see Holden saved in this country. Where is Minister Pyne? Why isn't Senator Edwards—

Government senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you yell loud enough, Senator Edwards, he can hear you from over there. I even understand that in circles in the Liberal Party there is a new word for spineless and it is 'Pyneless'. I do not know—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Farrell, just be very careful about reflecting on members of another place.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I want to see and what all South Australians want to see is those senators on the other side from South Australia, who claim to have the interests of South Australia at heart, starting to put pressure on Minister Pyne. We know pressure works. I can tell you this, reading from a story by Paul Kelly. Do not leave, Senator Edwards, please. Stay and listen to this. This is what Paul Kelly, a very authoritative journalist, had to say about Christopher Pyne last week:

Christopher Pyne was personally given a letter by Tony Abbott that embodied the ERC's deliberations. He was given a tough job but he mishandled it, causing deep agitation within the PM's office.

Christopher Pyne got done over twice over the Gonski reforms: once by cabinet, because he was instructed to find the savings, and once by the Prime Minister, when he was told that he had to reverse those decisions.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. We have been fairly accommodating, but nowhere in the ministers' answers did I hear anything in relation to the Gonski education reforms. I think the senator may be straying a little further than the auto industry.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Collins, I can rule fairly simply in your favour on this. There is no point of order, but I will remind Senator Farrell of the topic before the chair.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was only making the point about Gonski because it is an indication that, given sufficient pressure, Minister Pyne will cave in. What we need from the South Australian MPs, both the senators and those in the other house, is for them to put pressure on Minister Pyne. We have only one representative from South Australia in the federal cabinet. We need to put the pressure on him to ensure that he backs up Minister Macfarlane. Minister Macfarlane wants to save this company and it is not just about the 1,700 workers at Holden. It is not just about the tens of thousands of people who rely on and supply this company. It is not just about the benefit to the rest of South Australia. It is about the benefit to the whole of this country. We have to save Holden. We have to continue to make cars in this country— (Time expired)

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you are a South Australian, you can find no comfort whatsoever in the Labor Party opposition's defence of the Australian car industry or, by extension, the workers in South Australia. Let us be very clear. The effort by the Australian Labor Party to talk about the car industry is really an effort to disguise their carbon tax position. We heard from Senator Colbeck that the carbon tax imposes a $400 production cost on Australian cars. The carbon tax does not discriminate; it applies everywhere across the country, so it is just as important for South Australians to eliminate the carbon tax as it is for Western Australians in my home state. So let us be very clear. The Labor Party's effort to talk about cars is really an effort to hide from the carbon tax.

Why would the Labor Party today want to hide from the carbon tax? Let us just think about what the Labor Party said recently about its carbon tax position. Wayne Swan, on 15 August 2010, said:

No it's not possible that we're bringing in the carbon tax, that is a hysterically inaccurate claim being made by the Coalition.

What did we see under the previous, Labor government? A carbon tax. What did former Prime Minister Julia Gillard say? She said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Just in case you thought that that was a historical position, let us look at what the Labor Party was saying in this month of this year about the carbon tax. Let us go to the South Australian House of Representatives member Mr Butler:

It is all well and good to say that you want to terminate the carbon tax, the relatively high price on carbon immediately. On that we agree.

Who said that? The South Australian opposition spokesman Mark Butler. Let us look at what the House of Representatives member Richard Marles said—oh, there is silence on the opposition side. Let me speak clearly so you can all hear. Mr Marles said:

We do need to acknowledge the fact that Tony Abbott won the election and we lost, and we need to face that reality and questions of mandate are issues that we need to consider and where I completely agree with Nick Champion is that we do need to be choosing our battles very carefully when we are in opposition.

What did Nick Champion say, you ask me?

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I didn't.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much. Nick Champion said:

I think we should abstain in the Senate, allow the Abbott Government to implement its policies in their entirety in terms of carbon, that is Direct Action and the repeal of the carbon price and that would basically make him responsible for climate policy in Australia.

That is absolutely correct. By making him responsible for climate policy, we will reduce the costs on Australian manufacturers. You would think that was simple.

Let me be clear. The Australian government has a position. If you go to the internet, you can see it as well. On 30 October it was made very, very clear. The media statement reads:

The Coalition Government has been clear since day one. We will take a careful and methodical approach to considering the future of the Australian automotive industry, and that response will be based on the Productivity Commission review of the sector.

The media statement goes on:

The only way to give this industry and its future the detailed consideration it deserves is to put the politics aside. This is still my—

that is, Mr Macfarlane's—

intention. It's up to Premier Weatherill—

the South Australian premier—

to decide if it's his intention also.

There is no mistaking that government senators from South Australia support the Australian car industry and support the car industry in their own state.

If I had more time, I would share what happened under the previous government when it came to the Australian car industry. Let me be quick. Vehicle production in Australia was over 335,000 units a year. When Labor left office, it was down to 221,000. There were 200 businesses in the automotive supply chain; now there are fewer than 150. That is a 25 per cent reduction.

Let's be clear again. What did Labor cut? They cut the Green Car Innovation Fund twice, by $200 million each time. Then they abandoned it altogether, reducing support to the automotive industry by a further $800 million. (Time expired)

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the same matter, Senator Smith has been very entertaining, but, as the debate and discussion in question time today highlighted, climate change as an issue will not shield the Abbott government for long. They continue to parade question after question to try to place attention elsewhere, but there are serious issues of the day that need to be addressed. One of them this week most certainly—due to the behaviour, it seems, of their own senior ministers—is the automotive industry. It is a very important issue for Australian manufacturing and, indeed, the workers in that sector as well.

What is clear from today's discussion also is that the government are not serious about jobs in the automotive industry and have no plan. They have no plan other than a Productivity Commission report and a cut of $500 million in industry assistance. Why do they have no plan? Apart from the general laziness of their opposition years and, as we saw over the weekend, inquiry after inquiry now, they have no serious commitment to manufacturing in Australia.

Let's look at some of the context around the importance of the automotive industry. The Australian automotive industry is central to our capacity as a manufacturing nation—50,000 direct jobs, over half of them in Victoria, depend on it and another 200,000 jobs depend on it indirectly. But it is not only the issue of those direct and indirect jobs. Governments around the world support their automotive industries because of the jobs they provide and the broader manufacturing capabilities they nurture. Thirteen countries only in the world have the capacity to design and manufacture motor vehicles, and Australia's is also the most open and competitive market in the world. But, if we want to preserve an important industry that helps us protect a broader manufacturing base, our industry needs to be able to compete, with international investment. Long-term certainty is needed to attract that investment. Long-term certainty requires mature governance.

This is where Senator Wong should have perhaps added Senator Cormann's question time responses to this take note debate, because he first said—and then Senator Smith repeated it—this line about being 'calm and considered'. The question of today in the Fin Review was, 'Where, pray, did "calm and considered" go?'

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was 'careful and methodical'.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Smith. I should have said you used the word 'methodical'. That is the other one in the script. We have 'methodical', 'careful', 'cautious', 'responsible', 'There will be no surprises', 'The adults are in control' and 'Labor is being juvenile'. I think I have about trotted out the whole lot of phrases that this new government is putting forward rather than consistent policy. It is consistency that we as a nation need, just as much as children need consistency. That is what we are not seeing from this government.

Senator Farrell raised the Gonski issue. It was very relevant to the discussion today, for the same reason the Fin Review picked it up this morning. It is one of four key areas where this government is struggling to show discipline and consistency. Gonski is a big one. For Mr Pyne, Gonski demonstrated again the laziness of opposition that this government chose to exercise in years past. He did not understand the importance of school education. He did not understand the Gonski model. He did not properly inform his colleagues in cabinet. So what did we see? Flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop—as we are now seeing in this government's approach to industry policy.

Industry policy is very important to Australia's future. But we see inconsistent positions around GrainCorp, Qantas and now Holden. What is even worse about what we see with respect to Holden is that it appears that we have senior ministers in this government trying to drive Holden out. This is ideological recklessness of the greatest degree. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.