Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a document relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the economic review of South Australia and Victoria.

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

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I would like to draw the Senate's attention to the government response to an order for the production of documents which I moved regarding the economic reviews of South Australia and Victoria. I asked that the minister provide copies of the Review of the South Australian Economy and the Victorian Manufacturing Industry Economic Review, and that was agreed to on 20 March. To date, we have the government's response, which consists of a letter—it was not even read to the chamber; it was tabled—which says, 'The review is to be completed by the end of February, with reports to be ready to be released by mid-March. Given Toyota's decision in January to cease manufacturing in Australia by 2017 and Alcoa's decision in February to cease operations in July this year, the scope of the review has been broadened and as such there is an extended period of review.'

I would have thought it would be a simple proposition for the minister to explain that the government is seeking to extend the period of this review rather than trying to drop the letter in such a way that—hopefully—it will not be noticed. I say that in the context that the government has maintained a position that they would have these reviews ready by February. In fact, it was said as late as 19 February that the Prime Minister told the Victorian Premier:

We'll be getting our report on the Victorian economy; we'll be getting it in about 10 days' time, so early in March we'll have some announcement to make …

That was the position just a few weeks ago. But the letter that has been tabled here today suggests there has been a change of plan. Why has there not been an announcement of the change of plan? It strikes me that what we have here is yet again a government that shows contempt for this chamber and, more importantly, contempt for Australian workers.

We know that the situation in manufacturing is critical. We know that, as a direct result of this government's policies to drive the automotive manufacturers out of this country, there are going to be tens of thousands of jobs lost in this industry. We also know that the situation in the north of Melbourne is deteriorating because we have a state government that does not seem to appreciate the urgency of the task any more than the federal government does. People are now at risk and are incredibly anxious. It does not take a political genius to appreciate that, on every single issue on which public expressions of opinion have been stated, the question of jobs is at the foremost of people's consideration.

The government of South Australia, which was seriously at risk politically, has been re-elected. I would say that is as a direct consequence of the concern that has been expressed. I am more than happy to acknowledge there are crises in the health system as a result of the inadequacies of the Commonwealth government, there are the lies and duplicities about education and there are of course the constant references to the reduction in services by this government, but amongst all of those there is concern about the future of quality jobs. We have a government that seems to have no appreciation whatsoever of the urgency of these matters.

An investment fund was established by Labor in response to Ford's decisions, decisions which of course were made on the basis of their view of the future of the automotive industry and which was affected by no small measure, even back then, by the prospect of a coalition government. That fund was announced and applications for assistance for new investment proposals actually closed back in September. What does this government do about that? It chooses not to make any announcements. It made one announcement with regard to Geelong only recently. I understand that it might have made a second one just last week.

What do workers in the north of Melbourne say about this? Can they look to the government for assistance? Can they look to the political system to actually respond to their anxiety? Not this government. The government will not release these reviews because it knows how serious the situation really is. Let us get to the nub of this so-called broadening that we are looking at. The government is trying to find alibis for its failure to deal with the real concerns that working people in this country have about the future of their livelihood.

The government set up the Commission of Audit. We know that is about cuts. We know that the Productivity Commission is really a post-mortem into the automotive industry, because the government had a deliberate policy to destroy that industry. We are told by the minister that the Productivity Commission will now broaden its work to look at components' manufacturers. Yet no instructions or advice were provided to the Productivity Commission to change the scope of its inquiry. This is a government that does nothing other than search for excuses and alibis when it is in fact trying to hide the consequences of its policy, which will actually see the undermining of industrial conditions, wages and people's job security. It is an attempt by this government to walk away from what has been a traditional concern of government—that is, an investment in the future of jobs. That is what the public want to hear. They want to know: has this government got a plan for an investment in the future of jobs, rather than allowing the free marketeers to rape and pillage the Australian economy and allowing the transfer of jobs to other countries.

At the heart of this is the government's absolute obsession with destroying industrialised or organised labour. When you look at all the industries they are seeking to drive out of the country, what do they have in common? Strong unions. The government have a political motive here as well. It has now been expressed so many times by their sycophants in the right wing press. Their political motive is very simple: destroy the unions. They think that if they destroy the unions they will destroy the Labor Party.

What you will not face up to is the fact that you are actually destroying people's lives. You are actually destroying the conditions of life that provide the security of employment and the prosperity that people have a right to expect. This country is not just a country for the rich man; it is supposed to be a country that actually allows for people to prosper at all levels of society. But your policy is about stripping that fundamental assumption away—the so-called removal of the right to 'the age of entitlement'—the entitlement to a decent standard of living and the view that, if you are not rich and powerful, you have a right to expect that the government will actually be there to ensure that the prosperity, the incredible wealth of this country, is shared throughout the nation. So much for broadening your inquiry. What you are trying to do is get past the Western Australian election. That is the broadening of the inquiry. We know that the Productivity Commission brought down its report to try to get past the South Australian election. So the latest stunt that we are now seeing is: how do we get past the Western Australian election, in an effort to try to dupe people about the prospect of this country actually being able to provide the economic security for all its citizens, not just for those who are already in incredibly wealthy and powerful positions.

We have here a clear case of secrecy and a case of broken promises yet again. This is the hallmark of the government—you have to do stuff in the dark; you have to try to hide it from people and you have to tell them, 'We know that it is good for you to take wage reductions, it is good for you to have your penalty rates reduced and it is good for you not to be able to look towards the government to provide the economic security that we have traditionally come to expect.' This is a government that says to working people on average weekly earnings—in the manufacturing industry, the average wage is about $58,000 a year—'You have it too good. You have to take a wage cut, you have to reduce your economic security, and it does not matter if the consequences are adverse for your family, because we're in the business of looking after those who can already look after themselves.'

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, after the breathless and hysterical performance we just saw; after the ranting and raving from the senator for North Korea in this chamber, it is little wonder that those on the other side have such little confidence in him—and that Senator Carr finds himself in and out of the industry portfolio over the years. Many seem to doubt his capacity in this portfolio. Certainly, his tenure as industry minister in the previous government demonstrates a significant lack of capacity, as funds came and went, and were axed and then grown, and then axed again, and the swapping and changing that occurred under the previous government that caused such a crisis of confidence in Australia's industry, especially in the manufacturing industry, in relation to the situation that government had created. Senator Carr tried to create a big deal about the fact that the statement provided was not read to the chamber. Of course, having been a minister off and on in different portfolios in the previous government, he would know full well that these statements are generally tabled, as exactly was the case. There was nothing exceptional about that. Senator Carr was just seeking to make a cheap political point.

Senator Carr wanted to talk about jobs—well, the truth is that if he and the Labor Party cared about jobs, and if they truly cared about creating jobs in this country, they would at present be getting out of the way of the reforms this government is seeking to introduce. If you listen to Senator Carr, all you need to worry about to create jobs is having some kind of comprehensive government industry plan—that is how you create jobs. But that is not the case at all. Yes, industry plans and industry funds are important, of course; but they pale into insignificance when compared with the fundamentals of how we structure the economy, how the government taxes the economy, and how all of the different areas of government regulation impact on the economy. It is not government that creates jobs. It is industry and business that create jobs. Government policies simply have a great capacity to impede the ability of industry and businesses to create jobs. And that certainly is what those opposite are doing at present.

Just last week, we saw them come in here and vote against the government's attempts to repeal the carbon tax, a multibillion dollar annual cost on Australian jobs and on Australian businesses that flows through to all aspects of the Australian economy. We see them continuing to filibuster against the government's attempts to repeal the mining tax, a tax on jobs, once again, in some of our most successful industries. We see their opposition to our attempts to reinstate the Australian Building and Construction Commission—an initiative to make sure that we actually stamp out rorts and union practices that drive up the costs of doing business in Australia and eliminate competitiveness for this country. All of these things that we as a government are seeking to do are fundamental to trying to make Australia a more competitive place in which to do business and trying to establish a lower cost base for all businesses and all industries.

It is not about lower wages, as Senator Carr wants to claim in some type of fearmongering campaign, but about lower costs for businesses to operate under. Lower costs can create more economic activity; lower costs and lower taxes can create more jobs. Senator Carr may not be here to listen to these remarks, but if he was serious in caring about jobs, and if he was serious in caring about growing the Australian economy and creating more high-paid jobs, then he would be supporting the government in our measures to reduce the tax base and increase competitiveness in Australia. He would be supporting our measures to grow free trade, and to establish and finalise free trade agreements with other countries. We have already done so with South Korea, and we are aggressively pursuing opportunities with China and Japan. He would be supporting those things—but no, he carps and complains from the sidelines. If is not fear about wage cuts, it becomes fear about other areas of government spending reductions. Senator Carr rails on about the Commission of Audit and what it might be doing. Never mind the fact that he seems to completely ignore: the reality that the previous government was completely incapable of controlling their spending and completely incapable of managing a budget.—

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

You can sigh all you want there, Senator Bilyk, but you were part of a government that in cumulative terms generated $123 billion worth of budget deficits—

Senator s Bilyk and Moore interjecting—

That is your legacy, Senator Bilyk, and yours, Senator Moore—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please address your comments through the chair, Senator Birmingham.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that is the legacy of Senators Bilyk and Moore as members of a Labor government that generated $123 billion of cumulative budget deficits and racked up gross debt that is spiralling towards $500 billion dollars if it stays on the same trajectory. So of course we have to make changes! If we sat back, that debt would just keep growing, and create an unsustainable burden on future generations. If those opposite care about jobs and if they care about the future of this country; if they care about future generations in that sense, they will support us to bring the budget back under control and to restore competitiveness for business and industry—and people like Senator Carr, who belongs in another era, will be cast to that other era in future, so that we do not have to deal with those who seem to think that the only answer to jobs is more government intervention.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to this debate on the government response to an order for the production of documents. The honourable—well, he's not quite the honourable yet, are you Senator Birmingham? What a display of absolute contempt for his own state of South Australia! Here we have a government that walked away from manufacturing. We have had a contribution from Senator Birmingham in the chamber which was chilling in its lack of empathy for workers. 'They will find other jobs;' he said, 'there will be other jobs'—in this brand-new economic world he is building. He cannot point us to any of those jobs. He cannot tell us where those thousands of manufacturing workers and component suppliers are going to fit into this brand-new world of his. I might practise doing my belt up and putting one hand in my pocket as he does—it might make me look a little bit more politician-like!

His opposition in South Australia took to the electorate very, very clearly the statement: 'We are about business. We want to reduce land tax. We want to reduce the cost of business.' They did not win enough seats to form government. So your message, Senator Birmingham, to those workers in manufacturing and other places—

Senator Birmingham interjecting—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I remind senators that interjections are disorderly.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The message of Senator Birmingham and his cohort to the electors of South Australia was not that well received. In fact, it was not that well understood. They chose to stay with a government that supports manufacturing workers and, in fact, cares for all workers across the South Australian economy.

We have had this group of South Australian senators arguing against the Woomera bill, which is another attempt by a Labor government to get in and supply some opportunities for people in the economy. But, no, Senator Birmingham's model is: 'It is someone else's fault. There is a great big pile of reasons why we cannot do anything about manufacturing jobs. We are going to blame them and hope for a future plan.' But there is no future plan. The Commission of Audit report will come out and inflict more pain on more sectors in the government's grand desire to recreate this new fiscal world that they think we should all live in. I do not know where the place for manufacturing workers is. I do not know where the place is for the 70 per cent of our children who do not go to university. Where is it?

We heard Senator Birmingham say, 'They will go into this new economy we are creating.' Let's articulate a few of those jobs. Where are they? They are not going to be in building cars—we know that. They are not going to be in making car components—we know that. There is an awful doom and gloom hanging over the air warfare destroyer project. There is a work gap there which means that there could well be an exodus of skills. Let's be fair, Senator Birmingham: your predecessors, who were very much more influential in their governments, created a defence environment in South Australia which we sought to continue on. But you did not even get up and articulate the case for your own state in respect of the air warfare destroyers.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What did you add in six years? Name one thing you added.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Birmingham! Interjections are disorderly.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You did not get up and articulate for it. You paint this picture of a great big new world, but you will not tell a worker where he has an opportunity. You will not point to manufacturing and say, 'We have a plan,' because you have your Commission of Audit. Also, you had an inconvenience or two. There was a state election. Oh, my goodness, there is another inconvenience on 5 April—a Senate election. So you are saying: 'Let's not tell anybody in the economy what the plan is seven months after we were elected. Let's just keep blaming the carbon tax and the minerals resource rent tax.' You are blaming everybody but yourselves.

Your message to the South Australian electorate fell on deaf ears. If you cannot win the seats in a parliamentary democracy, you cannot form government.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sure, but don't claim it as an overwhelming endorsement for you.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The fact is that there is a South Australian Labor government as we speak, formulating plans to help out those people who may be dislocated in manufacturing, to continue opportunities in the defence industry and to get together with the federal government to take up the mantle of making sure that South Australia is a good economic place to be. There will be opportunities for all, not simply business.

What is this government trying to hide? Have they a plan or are the 900 pages of the Commission of Audit report so terrifying even to themselves that they cannot release a part of it? Are they going to wait until after the Victorian election in November to give us a look at it? Can they keep blaming Labor for all the ills of the economy right up until the Victorian election? After that they might have a bit of clear space to come out and say what they are doing. I think it is probably about time that people were honest enough to articulate their standing and positions. Our position is that we are on the side of the workers. We are on the side of manufacturing and the small and large businesses that hang off it. We are interested in creating an environment in South Australia, in conjunction with the federal government, which will create opportunities and jobs in areas where people are skilled.

It is very clear that there will be workers moving from automotive manufacturing into all sectors of the South Australian economy. That is right and proper. As that industry winds down, those people will take their skills, wisdom and even investment dollars, perhaps, into all manner of sectors. That will be a challenge, but I have faith that those people will go forward in a good way. But there needs to be a package that is designed to facilitate that to ensure that we get the greatest outcome for these resources that will be deployed elsewhere in our great economy. If we do not have that, we will just have a situation where another zone of Adelaide will have layer upon layer of unemployment. That will be costly to the federal government. So why they did not come out and release a package of support and have it on the table prior to the South Australian election is beyond me.

But it is probably not beyond Senator Birmingham. He probably knows all about that and he will get up and give another dissertation at another point in time and tell us, 'It's all going to be good. I will just pop my jacket on, put one hand in my pocket, wave my magic wand and the whole economy will be hunky-dory. The worries of workers who are facing redundancy and families wondering about where their next dollar will come from will all disappear because we are going to create this bright new future.' I am going to wait in this chamber, Senator Birmingham, while you describe that to me, and then I am going to test where a manufacturing worker would fit in that new scenario of yours. That is because you cannot just wave a magic wand and say, 'Remove land tax, do this for business or do that for business.' It is going to create a whole new future for people and a future they will have for 50 years. It is not going to happen with a wave of your hand, a hand in the pocket and a look around the chamber.

You really have to articulate some fair dinkum stuff here—something real and tangible—that the people in the northern suburbs of Adelaide can listen to and say, 'That fits me. I could probably get into that sector.' Whether it is a hub like the one we developed down at Mitsubishi after its closure. The new hub down there is starting to reach some sort of reasonable activity level. Are we going to have one of those in the north? We are waiting with bated breath, but we cannot be told.

The Special Minister of State, Senator the Hon. Michael Ronaldson told us, 'I can advise that the reviews of the South Australian and Victorian economies are nearing completion.' Nearing completion! He went on to say, 'The government is currently liaising with both of the relevant state governments and two expert panels to finalise reports and we expect to make an announcement in the coming weeks.'

We did hold it up for a fair while. Let us be reasonable. Let us get something on the table for the South Australians who are in the firing line, if you like—the pun is intended—and also for those people in the Victorian economy who are suffering a similar malaise. I implore the government to put aside their partisan views from time to time and actually work in the best interests of those workers who face dislocation in these very important sectors of our national economy.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I only rise to speak in this debate about the reviews of the South Australian and Victorian economies because what I like to see in this chamber is reasonable debate—but I will never ever stand by and listen to hypocrisy and cynicism writ large, such as that which we had from Senator Carr in his contribution to this particular discussion this evening. It was when Senator Carr was the minister—Carr by name and car by nature—that we actually saw visited upon the car manufacturing industry in this country the worst levels of cynicism that, I think, are imaginable.

They were firstly—through you, Senator Mason, because you would remember it well—the imposition of a carbon tax equating to some $400 per vehicle. That is $400 per vehicle, in case Senator Bilyk did not hear it, on an already desperate and desecrated manufacturing industry. I remind the chamber and those listening that there were one million cars sold in this country per annum on average in the last two to three years. The proportion manufactured in this country has declined from 20 per cent down to some 10 per cent.

This is the consumer—to my good colleagues on the other side—making his and her own decisions with regard to the types of vehicles that they want to purchase. Unless, the Labor opposition—supported by the Greens—is thinking about going back to nationalising the car industry or vehicle protection, who can possibly imagine what greater harm you could do to an already failing and fading manufacturing industry than to put a $400 tax on locally manufactured vehicles—but no $400 tax on imported vehicles?

But that was not enough. We hear from Senator Carr—and regrettably from Senator Gallacher, for whom I have far higher regard than I have for Senator Carr—some comments about the role of the coalition in the demise of the car manufacturing industry. I do remind those on the other side that, unless I am mistaken, it might have been under Labor's watch that Mitsubishi actually ceased manufacturing. I am delighted to learn about the hub that has now been created, but it was under the Labor government that Mitsubishi pulled the pin. I believe the Ford company also made its decision to cease manufacturing whilst Labor was in government.

When it comes to Senator Carr accusing the coalition with regard to General Motors, I can report that, whilst I was in the United States in the latter part of last year, I actually heard a question asked to an executive of General Motors in Detroit. When he was asked whether there was going to be a discontinuing of vehicle manufacturing by General Motors in Australia, his retort was, 'Didn't we stop manufacturing Holdens in Australia straight after the global financial crisis?' He did not even know that we still were manufacturing General Motors Holden vehicles in this country as recently as 2013. Let me remind Senator Carr, in case he was not aware or had forgotten, that Detroit recently declared itself bankrupt. They were bankrupted because of the failure of decisions they had made. This coalition government will try to protect the long-term jobs of people in the industry. We will not stand by and see cynicism or hypocrisy from Senator Carr.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for debate has expired. Senator Back, you will be in continuation at some point in the future.