Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the amendment be disagreed to.

The government earlier amended the Automotive Transformation Scheme Bill 2009 in the House of Representatives to address concerns over the transparency and accountability of the scheme. This government’s amendment strikes an appropriate balance between transparency and openness for the taxpayer and the protection of commercially sensitive information for the automotive industry.

The Senate amendment does not adequately consider the detrimental effect that disclosing individual payments would have on the entire automotive industry. The Australian automotive industry is highly integrated. The Senate amendment has the potential to distort commercial negotiations and to compromise future investment decisions. The Senate amendment could disadvantage smaller Australian based component manufacturers.

The industry advises that the Senate amendment could compromise the decision-making process within parent companies with respect to future investment and research and development activities within Australia. It could disadvantage the ability of Australian vehicle manufacturers to compete for large-scale projects with other subsidiaries located all over the globe. The Senate amendment may also have the unintended consequence of discouraging investment and innovation, especially within the supply chain.

The Rudd government is committed to openness and transparency, and that is why the ATS regulations will allow the publication of individual assistance, subject to the minister’s discretion. This will replicate the reporting provision currently in section 115A of the ACIS Administration Act 1999. The Senate amendment also requires the tabling of a separate report on the details of assistance provided under the scheme. The department’s annual report is the appropriate mechanism for disclosing the total amount of capped and uncapped assistance under the ATS and the industry’s progress in meeting the object of the bill.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Having listened to the Minister representing the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, I am none the wiser as to why the government will not accept the amendment moved in the Senate. I have not had the opportunity to be briefed by the department on this matter, but, to my way of understanding, the level of transparency being requested by this amendment is no different to that which already exists in other government schemes and other government grants as they are applied. By way of example, the export market development grants have provision for the release of this information; the textile, clothing and footwear grants also have provision for total transparency in terms of the grants provided; and the commercial ready grants—over $1 billion in innovation grants, which of course those who sit opposite put the axe through in their last budget—also had full transparency provisions. I am therefore unconvinced of the government’s opposition to and argument for opposing this amendment.

It seems only fair to me that, if $3 billion worth of taxpayers’ money is being provided, there be some level of transparency—not at the minister’s discretion, because we have seen with Building the Education Revolution the enormous waste of money that is going on there. One point seven billion dollars, more than half of this scheme, has just been wasted in a cost overrun. The government needs to be brought to account, not at its discretion. Through the Automotive Transformation Scheme Bill 2009 there should be a requirement for transparency. It is only fair and reasonable to request that. We do not know what the government is trying to hide. It is always prepared to announce grants of any description that it makes to the automotive industry. At times, even when those grants are questionable, they go out with much fanfare and celebration. So we believe, as does the Senate in its amendment, that there should be transparency in this legislation and full disclosure.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will try, though it may be in vain, to convince the shadow minister as to the wisdom of the government’s position on this matter and point out that the provisions that are in the legislation that went to the Senate actually replicate the reporting provisions currently in section 115A of the ACIS Administration Act 1999.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The world does move on.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, who was in government in 1999? I would remind members of the House that the coalition was in government in 1999. It is fascinating that the coalition regarded this as a perfectly reasonable position in 1999 but in opposition, opportunistically, they are seeking another course of action. It is again a situation where they did not practise what they now preach. I just want to share with the minister a statement—

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Shadow minister.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The shadow minister; thank you—of the Federation of Automotive Products Manufacturers. I preface this statement with these remarks, and that is that we do not have to accept the advice of every industry association—

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A fine industry association.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The shadow minister has confirmed that they are a fine industry association. Their view on this matter is headed in these terms: ‘Opposition urged not to obstruct vital automotive legislation.’ From this fine industry association, as the shadow minister has indicated, comes a plea: please do not obstruct this legislation. It says:

The Federation of Automotive Product Manufacturers calls on the Federal Opposition to pass without delay the Automotive Transformation Scheme legislation so that component manufacturers can move forward with confidence in implementing the key elements of the Federal Government New Car Plan for a Greener Future.

It goes on to say that the amendments proposed by the federal opposition are unworkable. It says they would require commercially sensitive information from motor vehicle producers, the component sector, the tooling sector and service providers to be made public and therefore restrict vital innovation and R&D. It says:

Now is not the time to be undermining commercial decision-making processes and investment decisions. The Senate must not hold to ransom the thousands of jobs in the automotive component sector.

That is from, in the shadow minister’s own words, a fine industry association. On this occasion I would urge the shadow minister, if he is not interested in the advice of the government on this matter, to consider very carefully the advice of the industry association, which he describes as a very fine one. So, in the absence of the shadow minister seeking to make a further contribution on this—

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am quite happy to facilitate the fact that he now seems to have been inspired, so let the inspiration flow. You never know your luck in the big city: we might actually hear from him that they have changed their mind. But I am not holding my breath.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was only going to speak once on this but I do like things that are said in this House to be correct. It is part of what we are here for. There is a fundamental difference between this scheme as it applies now and as it applied in 1999. You need to be careful, Minister, when you draw those comparisons that you draw them accurately. It was a duty concession scheme in 1999. It is now an outright grant scheme, and there is a fundamental difference. The opposition has every right to ask for these amendments to be carried.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can assure the shadow minister that as a former shadow minister for innovation, industry, trade and tourism I do well understand the ACIS arrangements that were put in place by the previous government. The transparency provisions in this bill are the same as those that were in the legislation that was brought forward by the previous coalition government. My faint hope having been dashed by the shadow minister’s comments that he has indeed not changed his mind, it is obvious that we are heading for a division.

Question put:

That the motion (Dr Emerson’s) be agreed to.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to the Senate amendment and I move:

That the reasons be adopted.

Question agreed to.