George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

We have this clown over here going on about fossil fuel subsidies. I say: what about those subsidies we give to green groups? We should cut them too—they get tax deductibility status to destroy jobs in the mining sector. There is no such thing as these fossil fuel subsidies they carry on about. The fact is, the diesel fuel rebate is given to them because the fuel they use is for off-road purposes, when the diesel fuel tax was brought in for on-road usage of that product. Let us stop the nonsense; we could do that by simply not listening to the Greens so much.

You can imagine the response if the federal government suddenly handed over a large cheque to a group like BMA. That suggestion would be laughable and it would not be considered. Why? Once again, it comes down to economic realities rather than romantic notions. The time of the Labor free lunch is past. The government is dealing with the debt and deficit disaster we were left with and getting the country back on track. Even the car companies involved understand those economic realities. GM Holden boss Mike Devereux said in December last year:

As painful as it is to say, building cars in this country is just not sustainable.

Ford president, Bob Graziano, said:

Our costs are double that of Europe and nearly four times Ford in Asia. The business case simply did not stack up, leading us to the conclusion [that] manufacturing is not viable for Ford in Australia in the long-term.

Toyota Australia president and chief executive officer Max Yasuda said:

We did everything that we could to transform our business, but the reality is that there are too many factors beyond our control that make it unviable to build cars in Australia. Although the company has made profits in the past, our manufacturing operations have continued to be loss-making despite our best efforts.

The heads of those companies—GM Holden, Ford Australia and Toyota Australia—also made public statements that the level of government assistance did not influence their decision to close. There are voices raised by those opposite to oppose these saving measures. There might even be claims that cutting this scheme from $2.5 billion to $1.6 billion over the next three years will hasten the demise of the car industry. It would be absolutely reckless of any individual in this place to spend an extra dollar of that $900 million we are trying to pull back when these companies have publicly announced they are leaving this country. We would essentially be piping taxpayer dollars out of the pockets of mums and dads around this country into the coffers of foreign multinationals for no long-term gain whatsoever. That is what the Labor Party want us to do today. Shame on them for wanting to rip taxpayer dollars out of the pockets of mums and dads and put it into foreign multinational coffer; shame on them.

There is still assistance available to assist workers and businesses through the transformation of the car industry. There is $700 million assistance in the Automotive Transformation Scheme available to the industry over the next four years. Other measures which will assist those who will be affected by the end of automotive manufacturing in this country are included in the $155 million growth fund announced by the Prime Minister and the industry minister on 30 April last year. The assistance is there as the transition takes place.

The economic reality is that this transition away from automotive manufacturing in this country must take place. It does not spell the end of manufacturing in this country. There are other areas of opportunity: food and agribusiness; mining technology and services, particularly in my area of Dawson in North Queensland; and there are the opportunities highlighted in the recent green paper on developing northern Australia. It is a decision that has been made by economic realists in this room that will deliver $900 million back to the budget bottom line. I support this bill.

See this speech in context