Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

And, to the member for Wakefield, the contribution will be short. Thank you for the intro. As I understand it, this bill corrects a technical error in a piece of legislation that we discussed not too long ago in this place. The government’s New Car Plan for a Greener Future committed to providing motor vehicle producers with a smooth transition to the new Automotive Transformation Scheme by providing increased assistance under ACIS in 2010. It was also the government’s decision that this additional assistance be conditional on the enactment of the Automotive Transformation Scheme Act 2009, which occurred on 29 September 2009.

The amendment corrects, as the government has termed it, the unintended consequence arising from the link between the ACIS Administrative Amendment Act 2009 and the commencement of the Automotive Transformation Act 2009. It is a technical amendment that would give formal effect to the legislation already considered in parliament and would honour the original intent of the legislation.

The bill clarifies that the commencement date for the ACIS act is 1 January 2010 and not 1 July 2010. The coalition do not oppose this piece of legislation. We do have some questions, which I will put in Hansard for the consideration of the minister. How was the unintended consequence of the original legislation overlooked? When was the mistake found? Was this due to a lack of consultation with industry? And was it, as we see with so many pieces of Rudd government legislation, a last-minute rush job which resulted in this error? These are issues which, I am sure, the minister will address in his summing up of this bill, which fixes an administrative error.

Obviously, over the 11½ years of the coalition government the car industry received an enormous amount of support, particularly in my home state of South Australia, including Holden, which is located in the member for Wakefield’s electorate and which employs many people who live in the member for Makin’s electorate, and also Mitsubishi, which was in the member for Boothby’s electorate. However, it decided not too long ago to terminate its operations in Australia. I think that highlights a potential issue we will have going forward with this industry as the challenges become greater than they are today. As we said in the debate on the original legislation, this place and the government of the time will need to consider just how much assistance this country is willing to give to this industry. I acknowledge that it is an important industry in certain parts of Australia, but it is also a lot of money that we are paying.

The amendments that we moved in the consideration in detail stage of the original bill provided transparency, and it was a pity that the government did not see the reasons for those amendments. It is something that is worth while considering, because they are large sums of money we are talking about with this industry and there are important considerations for employment in certain areas. There is a very thick set of jobs in certain areas and we are seeing that, with the assistance packages for Holden workers, more are taking them up than was expected.

It will be a challenging time for not only the car industry but also the associated industries and communities. I suspect that this subject is difficult and touchy for many people and it is very difficult to manage. I know that the member for Wakefield is intensely interested in this issue, and we all look forward very much to his contribution to this debate, as we do to the contribution of the member for Makin. On that note, I will conclude my remarks.

See this speech in context