Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received letters from the honourable member for Throsby and the honourable member for Menzies proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46, I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Throsby, namely:

The urgent need to maintain support and co-investment in Australia's car manufacturing industry to ensure it, and the hundreds of thousands of people whose jobs depend on it, have a secure future.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Over the last hour, this House has been treated to a remarkable spectacle—the opposition drawing upon the learned authorities of Cromwell and Jerry Seinfeld to move a gag motion at question time. The reason they have drawn upon the learned authorities of Cromwell and Jerry Seinfeld to try to gag question time is that they did not want to talk about the economy. They did not want to talk about the economy and they did not want to talk about jobs, because it does not suit them to recognise that today the ABS announced an increase in employment and a decrease in unemployment and that, as the Leader of the House observed, today there are more Australians in jobs than at any other time in our nation's history.

I am very proud to come in here day after day and sit alongside MPs who understand the importance of manufacturing. I am very proud to come in here day after day and sit alongside MPs on this side of the House who understand and support the automotive industry. When I sit alongside my colleagues on this side of the House—people who understand and support the importance of the manufacturing industry and the car industry—I look across the chamber and I see an opposition which wants to close down the car industry. We on this side of the House support the car industry because we understand that it is absolutely critical to an advanced economy. If it is true that a country that makes stuff knows stuff, it is equally true that a country which makes cars has access to the engineering know-how which is at the heart of a modern economy. That is why we on this side of the House know that the car industry matters.

Australia is one of only 13 countries in the world which have the capacity to fully manufacture, end to end, an automobile. On this side of the House we want to ensure that Australia stays in that group of 13, as opposed to those on that side of the House, who have policy settings which are designed to close down the car industry. We want to be one of the 13 countries because we know that the car industry directly employs over 46,000 Australians and supports their families. On that side of the House they have a lot to say about families, but there are 46,000 families they cannot look in the eye—because they want to do them out of a job. It is not only those 46,000 workers they cannot look in the eye; it is the 200,000 workers in downstream supply chains reliant upon the automotive industry for their livelihood.

I am very pleased to see the member for Cunningham in the chamber today, because jointly we represent a region which relies very heavily on the steel industry, BlueScope and OneSteel in particular. We—the member for Cunningham and I—know that the car industry, and the continued viability of the car industry and the car components industry, is critical to the steel industry. That is just one example of the importance of the car industry to the overall economy. We know that over $1.4 billion worth of domestic steel is purchased by the automotive sector each and every year, $1.4 billion worth of steel the sale of which is vital to the economies of regions which rely on our steel industry—the Illawarra is just one example. It is not only steel; it is the polymer industry—over $44 million annually is purchased in polymers by the automotive sector—and research and development. You talk about wanting to be a smart country. Well, the automotive sector is the largest contributing sector to research and development within the manufacturing sector, and the manufacturing sector boxes well above its weight when it comes to its contribution to research and development in this country.

So, when you stack all of that up, it is easy to see why these facts are very well understood by each and every member on this side of the House. We understand that the automotive industry is important not only to those 46,000 people who are directly employed in it and the 200,000 workers working downstream but also to the fabric of our country and who we are as Australians. This is not knowledge that is shared by those who sit on the opposition benches. I was very interested to read an article in today's Courier Mail by renowned press gallery journalist Steven Scott, where he is quoting comments by Queensland Liberal Party Senator Boyce. He says:

Queensland Liberal Senator Sue Boyce has called for more cuts to taxpayer handouts for the car industry, even if this meant no cars were manufactured in Australia.

He directly quotes from Senator Boyce's newsletter, where she said:

I've never understood what it is about the car manufacturing industry that makes it so, so special in terms of government subsidies—

That says it in a nutshell. They do not understand what it is about the car industry that makes it so special. Of course, it is not just the senator from Queensland who shares those thoughts. There is the well-known columnist, the man who obviously did not get the memo from Ms Peaton that was sent around. He often writes very learned op-eds. I quote from the Australian of 13 October 2011, which quotes the member for Mayo as describing it—this is word for word; I am not making this up, Deputy Speaker.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They think it is funny on that side of the House. They think it is very funny.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The members for Indi and Casey!

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They think it is funny because they do not support the car industry. They want to close it down. The member for Mayo nailed it when he said:

There is a role for government to assist industries to adapt to changing environments, but taxpayers funding a romantic attachment to a bygone era is not a position the Australian economy can afford or sustain.

That is what they think on that side of the House—that it is a romantic bygone era. On this side of the House we totally reject that view. When that is your starting point you are simply incapable of crafting a positive policy which will support not only the automotive sector but also the manufacturing sector in general.

We know, because of the commitments, the backflips and the flip-flops they have made, that they are in all sorts of fiscal strife. They have tied themselves in knots, and we know that they have a $70 billion black hole to fill. What is unfortunate is the length they are going to to attempt to fill that black hole. We on this side of the House have committed ourselves to supporting the automotive sector through co-investment and other strategies. However, I quote from a joint press conference the Leader of the Opposition gave in Canberra on 8 February 2011:

We are cutting $500 million worth of automotive assistance. This takes the level of automotive assistance back to the level that the Howard government thought necessary in 2007 and it removes the additional assistance to the motor industry that the Labor government provided.

There you have it. That is what they think. They think that any assistance to the automotive sector is a romantic attachment to a bygone era. That is their starting point, and they are putting that into practice by ripping $500 million worth of automotive assistance from the Automotive Transformation Scheme.

But they do not stop there, because it is not just families who are employed in the automotive industry that they want to do in the eye; it is the families employed in the steel sector as well. When asked whether they would support $300 million worth of assistance to help the transformation of our steel sector, they made it quite clear that they would not. They are quite happy to run around, whack on a hard hat and an orange vest and pose alongside some workers to get a photo opportunity, but when it comes to doing the hard yards of putting a policy in place they run the other way. We saw how they voted. They had the opportunity in this House to vote in favour of the Steel Industry Transformation Plan and they did not. What we know is that BlueScope and OneSteel are in the process of restructuring, making long-term investments and trying to re-equip and retool their plants to meet the challenges of a highly competitive industry. Unless they have certainty about government policy in this area, they simply will not invest.

So there is a challenge from those on the other side, and that is to revisit their policy of ripping $300 million out of the steel transformation plan, Because as things stand—and what is obvious to all of us on this side of the House—is that the coalition plan is to fill their $70 billion black hole with the jobs of auto industry workers and steel industry workers. They want to fill their $70 billion black hole with the jobs of auto industry workers and manufacturing industry workers, particularly those in the steel industry. We on this side of the House think that is an absolute disgrace.

Contrast that with the policy of the Labor Party, which is to give $3.4 billion worth of assistance to the Automotive Transformation Scheme, which is supporting the production of motor vehicles and engines, research and development, and plant and equipment. That is focused on innovation, because we know that to compete in a very competitive industry, in a very competitive market, we have to have a modern automotive sector with the best technology, the best research and development and the most highly skilled workforce.

It is not just the automotive industry that we are helping transform. As I said, there is $300 million of assistance to the steel industry for its Steel Transformation Plan. We on this side of the House think that a capacity to manufacture steel, to retain that heavy manufacturing capacity, is critical to our national economy and our national interests. That is why on this side of the House we are investing in clean technology for the future. I was very pleased that the Minister for Climate Change and Industry was able to announce today the first draft of funds available through the Clean Technology Investment Program. We know this will be very well subscribed—we heard today that there are over 3,000 expressions of interest for funds under that program. There is $1 billion to assist manufacturing improve energy efficiency and pollution.

These are the policy settings of a government which manages the economy in the interests of the manufacturing sector and in the interests of working families. We are investing in infrastructure, including filling the $100 billion deficit in infrastructure investment that we inherited. This deficit occurred when the economy was raining gold bars, yet they come into this place and champion the fact that they were able to deliver surplus after surplus—as our rail network was falling to bits, as our ports were being clogged and as our hospitals were becoming a national disgrace. Suburb after suburb after suburb, throughout Australia, could not get access to the essential technology of the future, and that is fast, reliable, high-speed broadband. We are reversing that, and we are doing that while managing the economy in the interests of working families. If you are going to manage the economy in the interests of working families, particularly those who are mortgage holders, you have to adopt policy settings which are keeping interest rates low.

Those on the other side of the House like to talk about interest rates but one thing they will not tell you is that interest rates are lower today than they were when we took office in November 2007. In fact, they would have to increase 10 times to reach the level they were when we took office. We are adopting policy settings which are keeping interest rates low, and unemployment is low. We are very proud of the fact that 700,000 jobs have been created since we took office. We are proud of our job creation record because on this side of the House that is what it is all about. We come here week after week to craft policies and advocate programs which are in the interests of ordinary working people, which are supporting the manufacturing sector, and we stare across the chamber at those on the other side of the table who have this new romantic attachment to the manufacturing sector but when you look at their policy cupboard it is bare. All they want is to fill their $70 billion black hole with the jobs of automotive industry workers. (Time expired)

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How wrong the member for Throsby is. He did not seem to talk much about cars. I would have thought he would get some speaking notes from the Minister for Industry and Innovation—and where is the industry minister, by the way? This is such an important issue for a matter of public importance, but where is the industry minister? Where are the industry minister's speaking notes for the member for Throsby? His contribution was woeful and embarrassing. All we saw from him was a stunt. He always prefers jawboning in parliament rather than jawboning his senior colleagues and telling them to get rid of the carbon tax, telling them to adopt a coherent and visionary industry policy.

I remind the member for Throsby that it was only a few months ago that Mike Devereux, the Chairman and Managing Director of GM Holden and the President of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, said when referring to a deal he made with the Prime Minister in 2008:

We cut a deal with the prime minister and then midway through ... the rules of the game changed ... it certainly worries a multinational parent when sovereign risk begins to be something that is bandied about in terms of doing business in Australia.

Who would have thought this great developed economy of ours would be described as a country with sovereign risk. It is the first time that any of us can remember the car industry specifically raising the issue of sovereign risk in Australia—and that is entirely the Labor Party's own doing. It is because of their own incompetence and untruths. They promised the earth, the moon and the stars to the industry during an election campaign to get elected, knowing they could not deliver on those promises and would be cutting them afterwards.

Although people might be drawn to laugh at the member for Throsby's MPI and his lack of knowledge about the car industry, it actually makes you want to cry. He talks in his MPI about a secure future. Surely that is the height of irony. No government in Australian history has left the industry more uncertain about its future than this miserable administration. Under no government in Australian history has there been a greater crisis in Australian manufacturing. Under no government in Australian history has there been a worse rate of manufacturing job losses. Already 130,000 have gone since the middle of 2008, and I am afraid to say more job losses are forecast, particularly if the government persist with their job-destroying policies and the carbon tax. And is it any wonder in such circumstances? In the wake of removal of responsibility in the recent reshuffle, manufacturing policy, for the first time in living memory, was taken out of cabinet. And even Ian Jones, the National Divisional Secretary of the AMWU Vehicle Division—member for Throsby, I hope you are hearing this—said, 'The Prime Minister'—that is, Ms Gillard—'does not understand manufacturing's importance to the economy.' Straight out of the mouth of the AMWU.

Those on the other side do not understand the importance of manufacturing. Why would they, Marcel Marceau like, remain silent when the Prime Minister forged ahead with the carbon tax? We see it every day: Alcoa, the cement industry, food processing, the Furnishing Industry Association—anyone you turn to. I cannot hear any industry association saying, 'Horray! Thank you, Prime Minister. You've given us the carbon tax. That's going to secure our future.' They are saying the exact opposite. Let us hear from a recent report, only a few days ago, from the Federation of Automotive Products Manufacturers Chief Executive, Richard Reilly, who said: 'We are going to be impacted by a carbon tax and our competitors won't.' That is pretty simple; that is pretty straightforward. Even someone who only speaks one language, be it English, should be able to understand that. The automotive products manufacturers employ 46,000 Victorians in my home town. This is what they said to warn the government that the industry is in a fragile position: 'Many manufacturers are operating on very narrow profit margins if any at all.' Let us face it: you do not introduce compensation if you do not injure someone. This government is saying, 'Gee, we are going to create all these green jobs.' They cannot tell us how many. 'We will destroy jobs in the meantime. We will impose a $460 million carbon cost on the auto industry, but we will give you compensation.' That is, if you are eligible for it. As we have seen with aluminium today, even if you are eligible, it probably will not cover the full cost of your injury in the first place.

Those on the other side ravenously feed on vulnerable Australians' anxiety about job losses. They have got form on this. Let us remember the desperate scare campaign that the likes of the member for Corangamite and the abysmally incompetent so-called minister for manufacturing have been running in communities like Geelong. Let me remind the House what happened during the last election when the member for Corangamite specifically made a claim about a proposed $278 million cut that we had announced. We were being upfront and honest with the industry; we were going to cut the Green Car Innovation Fund by $278 million. And do you know what the member for Corangamite said? 'It is going to destroy Geelong.' The entire city of Geelong was going to be destroyed. But the same member—the very same man—was silent, was mute, when the Labor Party proceeded to smash the $885 million fund only months after the 2010 election. Fancy that.

I watched the member for Corangamite and he was again silent, mute, when Labor kept on breaking their promises, and they all add up. And being a diligent shadow minister I had to make sure I added them up so that my colleagues and those on the other side of the House and the Australian public could be aware of the gross extent of the misinformation and broken promises of the Labor Party. They have broken $1.4 billion in promises to the car industry. They have hiked up the luxury car tax and made changes to the fringe benefits tax, and what happens from the other side? Not a word.

Labor members must also surely have the tinniest of tin ears to seriously bring this motion on today of all days, after the humiliation and pounding that their colleague Senator Carr took in estimates yesterday, as the whole policy of the car industry was taken apart piece by piece before his eyes. Maybe members on the other side were not following that part of estimates very carefully, but let me inform you what happened.

The Automotive Transformation Scheme, the ATS, is the biggest fund from which assistance is given to the auto industry and it is a retrospective scheme. Certain parameters need to be achieved: production outcomes, investment in R&D, investment in plant and equipment. Guess what we found out in estimates yesterday? Unilaterally, without a public announcement, the government has now said: 'It's okay. You don't have to comply with any of these requirements for funding. If there is money left over in the fund, well, it is up to us—if you're nice to us we might give it to you.' That breaks every rule of responsible, transparent government. If you were to extend that logic, you would go to every single government grant and say: 'Oh, gee, there is money left over in this fund. Why don't we just give it to you anyway. Let's go to every single other portfolio.' That is no way to behave, particularly when the government is borrowing $100 million a day and indebting the future generations of this country.

What happened at estimates was interesting. Senator Carr was asked, 'Well, when did this all change?' He said, 'Oh, there were parameter changes.' He told us that he thought it was in about November last year in a speech. So I went and took out the speech. It was an address to the Federation of Automotive Products Manufacturers. I had a look. He talks about parameters. He says:

I have always emphasised that the New Car Plan is not a set and forget policy.

The Plan sets the parameters—

blah blah blah. There is no description. There is no explanation that the ATS has changed and now, instead of the department at arms length assessing an application, the government can decide who gets what money out of the ATS.

What does that tell components manufacturers who are drafting their application? How do they know what they need to comply with? The minister in Senate estimates could not point to a single criterion on which this funding was based. That is an absolute disgrace. I suggest that members on the opposite side read the Hansard from yesterday's Senate Economics Legislation Committee hearing, specifically the questions asked by Senator Ryan.

There is one word missing from this MPI, and that is the word 'effective'. The approach of this coalition to car industry funding has always been, just as it continues to be, that such funding must be accountable and sustainable and deliver long-term benefits to the industry and, equally as important, to the Australian taxpayer. We do not think that taking Australian taxpayers' money and throwing it around just to buy time is the responsible thing to do.

Governments do not have any of their own money. It belongs to the Australian people. Where it is given in grants, where an industry or a business has the privilege of receiving a grant, there is a corresponding responsibility to use that money wisely. And the responsibility also falls on the government to ensure that they have the guidelines and parameters to ensure that that money is used wisely.

We have heard over the years the Leader of the House mock various rural programs, businesses that have gone under and the rest of it. He uses it all the time. Where is he? Where is he defending transparency in the now ripped apart, debunked ATS?

We have provided generous support to the car industry and we do want to see a viable auto industry, but we are going to do it with set parameters and guidelines through a transparent system. We had a plan, devised by John Howard, which was to go from 2002 to 2015, with a Productivity Commission review in 2008. Mr Rudd ripped all of that and in his usual shambolic way went on to make the promises and rip $1.4 billion out of the industry. But it is not just us, it is not just components manufacturers and it is not just the car industry saying that the carbon tax is going to affect them or criticising the manner in which this government throws money, whether it is cheques to dead people, overpriced school halls or pink batts. Last month, from Mr Weatherill's office—this is leaking from state Labor—it was leaked that they said 'Carr was just ready to hand the money over' in grant discussions with Holden and did not care about anything other than that it would tide them over for a while. So as long as Senator Carr can buy a bit of time, perhaps featherbed and line those who are on his side, he is in his element.

Well, we will not go down that path. We will have transparency. We want a viable, sustainable industry and that is what we will fight for against this shambolic, disgraceful government. (Time expired)

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A funny thing happened the other day. Some of my constituents came up here to Canberra. They work at Holden's. They are just ordinary fellas. They came up here to find out what the government's policy is and they came up here to find out what the opposition's policy is. They had a meeting with the member for Indi and they walked away—like the people in the gallery will walk away and like the public who are listening to this speech will walk away—absolutely clueless about what the alternative government would do to the car industry if they were to be elected to government.

We did not hear a single thing from the opposition in that entire speech about their actual policy. We did not hear a single thing. That is the member for Indi's approach: to simply spend 15 minutes bagging the government and not put anything about their alternative approach in there—very, very little policy. That is what they do when they meet with delegates from Holden's; that is what they will tell the people in the gallery and the people listening. They basically think, 'We don't have to reveal our policy about this very important industry which employs 46,000 people and which a further 200,000 jobs rely on.' They do not think they have to come clean with the Australian people; all they have to do is be negative about the government. That is their main approach.

We know from the member for Throsby about the attitudes on the Liberal Party back bench. There is the member for Mayo, and I saw the member for Bradfield in here before interjecting about what a tragedy it was to be spending taxpayers' money supporting this important industry. The real face of the Liberal Party can be seen on the back bench. That is where their real policy generators are. Their frontbench are just basically focused on the political task of throwing mud at the government and not revealing their own policies.

The reason they do not want to reveal their own policies is that it is going to be a very simple choice at the next election. You can either vote Labor and back Australian jobs, Australian industry and Australian choice for Australian consumers—that is the Labor way—or back the Liberals. The Liberals' way is to undermine Australian jobs, undermine Australian industries and undermine the ability of Australian consumers to buy an Australian car. That is their policy.

You can already see their plan in action. They have sent their pointy-headed economists and their troglodytes out there to get stuck into Holden workers getting a pay rise: 'How terrible! Holden's workers are getting a pay rise. What an outrage!' You see them getting stuck into the provision of assistance to this important industry. You see them out there on all the talk shows bagging the car industry.

It is all part of a coordinated conservative plan to undermine Australian confidence in this very important industry, to obscure the real facts, to spread lies and misinformation, just as we have seen lies and misinformation in the carbon debate and so many other areas. We know that that is their approach: get out there and use the conservative organs, the newspapers and the like, to undermine people's confidence in this very important industry. The truth is that their plan is to offshore the Australian car industry. They are going to close it down and send 46,000 jobs and more overseas. Their plan is to have all of them driving around in BMWs and the rest of the country driving around in some foreign made, unsafe rubbish. That is their policy. People should be well aware of that. People should understand that the reason the member for Indi does not reveal their policy is that if Australians knew it they would not be voting Liberal at the next election. The conservative position is to offshore the Australian car industry. It is a disgrace.

We have to understand the importance of this industry. It is an important industry, and we have to defend it and secure it. It is important that we acknowledge the facts of this matter. Every time the Liberal Party talks about subsidies, the public should be aware of this: in Australia, we provide assistance of $17; in Germany, it is $60; in America, it is $264.

A government member: How much?

It is $264. We do not operate in a perfect world. We do not operate in some magical world. We operate in a world where other countries subsidise their auto industries. Other countries manipulate their currencies, and it gives them an advantage. We constantly hear from the opposition backbenchers—that is the honest ones like the member for Mayo—about how terrible it is to provide subsidies, but you do not hear them talking about the subsidy originated by the Howard government and provided to the terribly inefficient private health insurers. You do not ever hear about that subsidy—that is a good subsidy! You do not hear about the $549 million provided to mining, or the $700 million provided to the grain, beef and sheep industries, or the $1.46 billion provided to other primary producers in assistance. You do not hear anything about those subsidies, because those industries support the Liberal Party. They are conservative constituencies, so they are all right—that is all okay then. But, if the car industry gets assistance, suddenly it is a terrible blight on the Australian taxpayer. It is just ridiculous. Their whining about assistance is just a mechanism to undermine Australian confidence in this very important industry.

The choice is going to be pretty clear at the next election. Vote Labor and have a car industry and a choice for Australian consumers or vote Liberal and offshore it. I do not think that my state in particular can afford to offshore this industry. The member for Indi was talking about the South Australian government. The South Australian government has a report from the head of the University of Adelaide Business School, Associate Professor Barry Burgan, saying that Holden's Elizabeth plant is worth $1.5 billion to the South Australian economy and that its loss would result in the loss of 16,000 jobs in my state. That is not just people who are directly employed by Holden—people who live in my electorate—but people in retail, hospitality, building, construction, transport and other very important industries. The Liberal Party policy would devastate not just the suburb I was born in but the entire state economy. It would king-hit the entire South Australian economy. That is why it is so surprising to find the member for Mayo being a cheer squad for those who want to outsource the Australian car industry and send those jobs overseas to China, India and Thailand. I think it is disgraceful and it should be opposed.

Thankfully, there are sane voices in Australia. Ziggy Switkowski, a prominent and sensible Australian, wrote in the Australian on 9 February 2012:

… car manufacturing is special and is an industry where Australia has a hundred years of experience and global connections to build upon. We should be very careful about withdrawing from this industry and I don't think we should.

Those are the sentiments of the Australian people. If you go out there and talk to communities—I do not care if that is in South Australia, outback Queensland, Brisbane, Perth or anywhere else—Australians want an Australian choice. They want to be able buy the Cruze. They want to be able to buy the Commodore. They want to be able to buy the Toyota Camry. They want to be able to buy the Falcon. They want to be able to go to Bathurst and watch the Commodore and Falcon battle it out on Mount Panorama. Make no mistake: the Liberal Party policy is about an assault not just on our car industry but—

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What! Are you going to Bathurst now in a Commodore?

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right. How else are we going to get up the hill? Are we going to get up there in Tatas or a Great Wall?

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will be a billycart!

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or a billycart—something like that. The problem with the Liberal Party is that they want to offshore this industry but they do not want to be honest about it. They were not honest with workers who came up from my electorate and saw them in good faith, and they are not going to be honest with the public. People are entitled not to give them the benefit of the doubt and to understand the devastating impact that their policy will have on this industry.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we have seen today is a cruel hoax by the tactics committee of the government. This MPI moved on the car manufacturing industry has had two speakers opposite who, with a combined speaking time of nearly half an hour, have not once mentioned the carbon tax. As the member for Indi outlined, it is those opposite who will tax at every opportunity. It is those opposite who will tax the car industry and the carbon tax is a crystal clear example of that. The automotive companies in Australia know it. Not only that but the consumers who buy cars know it, because your track record speaks volumes. What you are about to do—what you have voted for in defiance of your personal pledges before the last election—is to impose a carbon tax. I put it to those opposite who have just spoken: you were elected on a lie and you are going to impose a carbon tax—

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member will withdraw the term 'lie'.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. Prior to the last election, you pledged not to introduce a carbon tax and you were going to introduce a carbon tax that would put the price of a car by $400, that would add $46 million to the cost of car producers every single year.

Mr Champion interjecting—

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Wakefield might well be sent out for an hour.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is what those opposite have chosen. The reason they do not mention it is that they are embarrassed. You ought to go back to your electorates and stand in front of those car workers and say, 'At the last election I was not honest.'

Debate interrupted.