Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. I plead guilty to being optimistic. As I said: farmer by nature, optimistic by nature. If you go into government, as I know the Labor Party does so regularly, and take a disastrous view of everything, be pessimistic and say it is a catastrophe then what will happen, of course, is what we saw under the previous government—the confidence of the community business community falls, consumer confidence falls, the economy spirals down and then the Labor Party drops back to its old form. There is no problem small enough that the Labor Party cannot throw a huge amount of money at to try and fix with no strategy, no outcomes, no guidelines et cetera. So when the Labor Party sees a problem, the first thing they say is 'throw as much borrowed taxpayers' money as you can possibly get your hands on at it as quickly as possible'. As the member for Dawson said, why do we wonder why we are heading towards $667-billion worth of debt? Why do we wonder why in the six short years that Labor was in government they spent $181 billion more than they earned? In their forward estimates there was a further $123 billion in losses going forward. If they were a company, their shareholders would have shut them down if ASIC had not done it first.

I am asked about the Future Fund and how it will work and what consultations we have had with industry and the unions. As the member quite rightly identified, when it comes to solving the issues in relation to the car industry I am bipartisan in my approach. As he quite rightly said, I invited all those who are interested in being part of a solution to come along and see what we can do. The Premier of South Australia was there, and there were senators from both sides. As the member well knows, there were also trade unions there. I see trade unions as playing an important role in the transition of the car industry. I just hope that their leaders are more optimistic and more helpful than those who sit opposite and bleat and scream and call for us to throw more and more money at a problem.

There will be significant skills programs to assist those workers, and I know that the automotive companies will be involved. I have had extensive discussions with all three companies. I know that the programs that Ford is running, and the associated programs that are running in Geelong and North Melbourne to attract new businesses to those regions, have been very successful. I give the Labor Party its dues: they established that fund and set up a framework for it to work under. We, as a government, have ensured that the framework has been adhered to and that the corporate governance of those schemes has been successful.

We hope that we will have the support of the trade unions and the support of the South Australian government. And—who knows?—perhaps the opposition, when they realise that they are here to help the people they represent and not just whinge, will get behind these programs. I am more than comfortable to have the unions involved in assisting. I know that some of the unions are involved very well. They have been positive. Yes, they have stood up for their members. As an ex-union leader, I know that that is what they should do. But they do need to accept the reality. Unlike those who sit opposite, at times I think the unions do understand. The best thing they can do for the workers in the car industry is to ensure that they transition to new and better jobs.

To answer the member's question, as we put together these programs within these companies I would welcome union involvement. I would welcome the involvement of the local federal members and the state members and senators if they think there are things in those programs, particularly about reskilling people, that we can do better. I would be happy to see them involved.

See this speech in context