Matt Williams (Hindmarsh, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the motion relating to the South Australian economy in the terms in which it appears on the Notice Paper:

That this House notes:

(1)   with concern that unemployment in South Australia is higher than the national average;

(2)   that South Australia has a talented workforce that deserves a government determined to:

     (a)   reduce taxes and regulation;

     (b)   grow the state’s economy, and

     (c)   liberate the people of South Australia to realise their destiny; and

(3)   that the Australian Government has a plan to build a stronger South Australian economy so that everyone can get ahead through abolishing the carbon tax, ending the waste, stopping the boats, and building the roads of the 21st century.

South Australia is my home. I have spent most of my life in South Australia and I am passionate about my state. Colonel William Light and the new settlers built the framework for a wonderful city surrounded by some of the best parklands and gardens. Everything about South Australia had a plan and a purpose. But not now.

In the postwar period South Australia, like pretty much all of Australia, was privileged to have a large influx of migrants—the '£10 Poms', the Greeks, the Italians and others from all over the globe. They came to South Australia to make a new start to escape the ravages of war-torn Europe. They came to our shores to live in an exciting new world that Tom Playford and others were creating. Former Liberal Premier of South Australia Tom Playford had a plan to invest in infrastructure, just as our current Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, has.

Up until the early 1980s, South Australia was larger than Western Australia as an economy. Adelaide was a thriving city that continued to be the home to many creative talents and commerce. We had many and several companies in the ASX 100 that had headquarters in South Australia, but now there are two. So what is the state Labor government doing, or what has it done, to fix the exodus of the South Australian companies or their failure to grow as quickly as other companies around Australia? It has decided that the best thing it can do is to give the businesses in South Australia the highest-taxing jurisdiction in the nation. I see no jobs plan in that.

South Australia needs and deserves a better government, a government that will reduce taxes. We are the highest-taxed state, and the state Labor government has been addicted to payroll tax, levies, the car park tax and high work cover. Just on the weekend, the members opposite would have seen in TheAdvertiser the Australian Industry Group, which looks after the manufacturing sector, say that the cost of doing business in South Australia is a significant issue. It wants to have a lower payroll tax and lower WorkCover levies.

Not surprisingly, since Labor got into power 12 years ago, manufacturing has declined and taxes have increased. There is a direct correlation there, and the members opposite know it. And they know that business creates jobs.

This is something that the state Liberal leader, Steven Marshall, has a great appreciation of, having worked in many businesses in South Australia. He knows how important it is to create an entrepreneurial culture and have a greater focus on exports. Steven Marshall has the drive and the energy to give South Australia a better future. State Liberals will reduce payroll tax. They will remove the car park tax and give businesses a better chance of employing people: more jobs and more incomes for families.

But the state Labor government has no ideas on how to tackle jobs and the jobs crisis engulfing South Australia. Over the last eight months, 25,000 full-time jobs have been lost. South Australia has the highest jobless rate in mainland Australia and the highest unemployment for 12 years. The only thing that Weatherill can do is control debt—or not control debt. And we have record levels of debt: debt, debt and more debt. The Premier and part-time Treasurer, Jay Weatherill, like the member for Lilley and the member for McMahon, has never delivered a surplus. It is just spend, spend, spend. It is the South Australian children who will have to cover the future payments on interest, the $2 million every single day that is going out of our economy—$2 million that could be spent on social infrastructure like schools, education and community projects. At a federal level, $10 billion a year could go to the same causes.

But Labor never consider this in the equation. They just like to spend, increase the interest repayments and get into more debt and more interest repayments. In South Australia, $2 million a day can go a long way to providing infrastructure. I thank the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, who is here, for joining the debate. He knows how important infrastructure is in South Australia to help our growing sectors of mining, resources and agriculture.

South Australia has had some great innovative companies over the years. It has had electronics companies at the high end, like Redarc and Codan, and food companies like San Remo pasta, Haigh's and Robern Menz. In the high-end section of creative industries we have Rising Sun Pictures, which does visual effects for Hollywood blockbusters. Philmac, in my electorate, is a leader in pipe fittings for the irrigation sector; and there is ASC, one of the largest defence projects in Australia, with the AWDs.

South Australians are a patriotic people and rallied behind Spring Gully when their business was threatened last year. This is a great example of how the power of the consumer can have a real, positive impact on a product. This is the message that I have been encouraging government, industry and residents in my electorate to keep in mind, and some people in the media in South Australia have got behind it as well. Leon Byner on FIVEaa, and The Advertiser, have been very active in promoting the benefits of supporting our local produce. But there are not enough companies and not enough employees, and many of our talented workforce have gone either interstate or overseas—30,000 during Labor's reign; a 30,000-person brain drain; 30,000 talented people interstate.

It is also the senior management of our larger corporates who are moving interstate: Hill's Holdings, Harris Scarfe and Adelaide Brighton. Our small business sector, which the member for Makin acknowledged when he spoke last week, was ignored—yes, it was ignored; ignored by the state Labor government and the federal Labor government. There were higher taxes and tougher conditions in doing business. This is what people said to me before the election, that they were facing some of the toughest conditions ever and that Labor and their taxes were not helping. People knew that, and the member for Makin knows that.

South Australia can recover; we need a change of government to give our economic future the best chance. Many regions, both locally and overseas—whether that be in the UK with the closure of coalmines or Germany in the Ruhr area—have faced similar challenges over many years. Newcastle and the Hunter Valley in New South faced a similar situation when the BHP steelworks closed in 1999, with more than 5,000 manufacturing jobs lost. In the 1990s their unemployment was above 10 per cent and reached 16 per cent at one stage.

But what did they do? They diversified their economy. They went into services and they looked at other areas. Like Adelaide, Newcastle has benefited from large defence contracts—most recently the Air Warfare Destroyer Program. This was announced in 2004 by the Howard Liberal government, the total value being over $8 billion. ASC Shipbuilding at Osborne was awarded the tender, and has Adelaide as its headquarters. It lists more than 25,000 people with the AWD alliance as part of that exciting project: high-end engineers and high-end manufacturing—a future for South Australia.

But now, our defence industry enters the potential 'valley of death' scenario. Why? Because the Howard government's commitment to AWDs was the last real investment decision made in shipbuilding by an Australian government. Labor talked the big talk, and Kevin Rudd committed to building submarines prior to the 2007 election. But six years later there have been no contracts and no definite plans. We are working as quickly as possible to rectify these problems from Labor's inaction, and to give certainty to South Australia's defence companies.

The coalition government has a plan to build a stronger economy, the new infrastructure that Jamie Briggs is working so hard to deliver: the North-South Corridor and $500 million committed for Darlington. I have been talking regularly to my federal colleagues about fast tracking the Torrens-to-Torrens project. Our commitments are part of billions of dollars nationally. We are reducing $1 billion in regulatory costs; the freighters, the industry groups, the resources and Business SA have all spoken to me about cutting red tape. I note in today's Advertiser that Liberal leader Steven Marshall committed to reducing red tape, saving $100 million a year. Another area in which we are helping small businesses—not ignoring them, helping them.

We are removing taxes, like the carbon tax and the mining tax, and I just want to touch on the minerals resource rent tax. It applies to iron ore, something that the Premier, Jay Weatherill, does not acknowledge. There are currently three operational iron ore mines in South Australia, with a further three approved under construction and 11 developing projects. The mining tax is not good for South Australia, and Weatherill needs to stand up to his Labor mates in Canberra and tell them to adhere to the wishes of the people at the last election and get rid of the mining tax.

The mining tax is a $1 billion hit on manufacturing. The carbon tax is a $4 billion hit on electricity. As stated by the South Australian Chamber of Mining and Energy last year:

SACOME welcomes the introduction of legislation to repeal the Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT), in line with the Liberal party's election commitment to abolish the damaging tax.

They go on to say:

The MRRT is an unfair tax, and discriminates against South Australia in particular due to our vast amounts of magnetite iron ore, …

The Premier just conveniently missed this. (Time expired)

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not at all surprised that this motion has come before the House two weeks before the South Australian state election, because the South Australian Liberal opposition leader needs all the help he can get and the members here in the federal parliament are trying to do just that. Can I say in respect of the member for Hindmarsh's address that he has just presented to the House that it is full of political rhetoric and full of bland statements and aspirations but very light on facts.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to this motion, because I am happy to bring some facts to this debate. During Labor's first decade in office, between 2002 and 2010-11, the South Australian economy grew by 22.4 per cent. It did so at a time of great difficulty and it did so because we had a state Labor government that was focused on the state and focused on the things that were going to improve productivity in South Australia—and the things that it invested in are doing exactly that. I refer to things like the new medical health and research centre that was opened only last month, a magnificent facility that will not only create jobs but will be the focus of medical research not just for Australia but for many parts of the world, something that we can indeed be proud of. The new Royal Adelaide Hospital, which is currently underway, is also a sign of a government that is looking to the future, not the past, because the South Australian government understands the importance of a good health system to the everyday lives of the people of South Australia. More importantly, it is also about efficiencies, because if you operate from an old, tired and run-down facility, the medical costs to the consumers and to the state are much higher than if you have a better facility.

The extensions to the convention centre are already underway. I spoke to the manager of the convention centre in recent weeks, and the centre is booked out for months and months in advance. It is very important to bringing people to South Australia. The South Australian Labor government totally understands that, and that is why it is investing in expanding the facility to accommodate the growing demands for the use of it. We have seen the Adelaide Oval redeveloped. Again, not only will that bring more people into South Australia but it becomes an asset and a showpiece for local and international sporting events. It enables the South Australian government to boost the economic activity of the state, because it can attract international events, which you could not otherwise do.

I heard the member for Hindmarsh talking about South Road. It was the state Labor government that put on the agenda the improvements of the South Road from the Torrens Road to the River Torrens, opposed by those in this place and opposed by the Liberals in South Australia. They would have preferred to spend the money down south at Darlington, which they think it is more important, against the advice of the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure in South Australia. The people who know best have advised that the money should have been spent in the Torrens Road to River Torrens area, but, no, these folks knew better. What they knew better was where to spend money to hold seats that they were desperately in need of holding at the last federal election.

The state Labor government has also invested in the Northern Expressway and the new Superway, at the northern end of South Road—new roadworks which will improve productivity because they will save transport times. It is about having in place a government that understands what is needed if you want to improve efficiencies and productivity, enabling industries to operate much more viably and not only attracting new industries but keeping the ones that you have.

I want to talk a little bit about the issue of jobs. Just after the September election, Minister for Industry Macfarlane came out to visit GM Holden, because there was the discussion about its future. The member for Hindmarsh willingly came out, visited the plant, put on his fluoro vest and walked through the plant as though he was there to save Holden, along with Minister Macfarlane. What happened immediately after that visit? The Abbott government decided that it would turn its back on Holden. It did so by not only cutting $500 million of funding from the auto industry but also by saying to GMH and car makers in this country, 'There will be no further funding beyond 2017, and we're not going to make any decisions; we're going to handball the issue on to the Productivity Commission.' When they did that, where was the member for Hindmarsh? He became invisible. The fluoro vests suddenly disappeared. At least the member for Murray had the decency to come in and stand up for her community and her electorate.

The member for Hindmarsh went missing. He was happy to be seen when the cameras were there, but he was not prepared to stand up for GMH workers when the decisions were made. And he talks about jobs, yet the jobs that will be lost to South Australia as a result GMH not continuing in South Australia beyond 2017 will run into the thousands. There will be several hundred small businesses and their employees who will also be affected—because their futures and their livelihoods, depend on GMH. Nobody knows that better than the member for Wakefield—who is going to speak in a moment—and myself. We have been part of that community for decades. And can I say to the member for Hindmarsh: in terms of the unemployment figures, the northern parts of Adelaide needed GMH to continue if they were going to increase and sustain employment down there.

This does not stop with GMH. Before the election, members of the Liberal Party happily wore, 'I love the Murray' T-shirts and paraded themselves in front of this Parliament House. In South Australia, those opposite were happy to campaign on the fact that they were going to save the Murray River. But as soon as the election was over, where were they? They have turned their backs on $600 million of water buybacks which were critical to South Australia. They have turned their backs on the 450 gigalitres of additional water to put back into the river Murray, that we fought tooth and nail for. We did that because we understood the importance of restoring the flows to the Riverland fruit growers in South Australia, who had been doing it tough for a decade under drought and needed every drop of water they could get. If those growers are denied the water they desperately need, what does the member for Hindmarsh think that will do to productivity and to jobs in South Australia?

Those people are struggling to survive now—improving their productivity would mean jobs for the Riverland area and it would mean jobs for South Australia, because their produce goes to small-business people, wineries and the like. Yet members opposite were happy to campaign saying, 'We are going to save the Murray if you elect us', but then turn their backs on that as soon as they were elected. And—of all people—the member for Hindmarsh, who brings this motion into the House, has not said a word about the water buybacks or the 450 gigalitres of extra water that he knows we fought tooth and nail for. Premier Jay Weatherill led the charge in respect of ensuring that we got that additional 450 gigalitres.

Mr Briggs interjecting—

I would just like to finish on this point: the member for Hindmarsh comes in here and talks about a government that is going to grow the economy and all the rest. Let me quote to him the headline of an article only this Friday on the front page of The Australiannot a paper that is supportive generally of Labor politics in this country. The headline says: 'Investment spending will fall: Worst slump in 20 years'. This is what they predict under the new Abbott government—the worst slump in 20 years. And you cannot keep blaming what has happened in the past for what is projected to occur in the future—that view is based on the policies of the government of the day and the policies it is espousing for the future. Investors make decisions based on those things. And what they expect is the worst slump in 20 years—that is what people in this country have to look forward to under an Abbott government, and that is what they will have to look forward to in South Australia under the Liberals—if they are lucky enough to win the next state election. That worries me, because there will be further jobs lost in the manufacturing sector and in the mining sector. According to the same article, manufacturing is already down by 20 per cent, and mining is expected to fall by another 25 per cent. Both industries are critical to the future of South Australia—as they have been critical to South Australia for the last three or four decades. We need to support our mining. We need to support our manufacturing. We are not going to support them by implementing policies that are already scaring investors away from South Australia.

This motion is nothing more than a political stunt. The South Australian government is doing the right thing: preparing for the future, investing in the future, and ensuring that South Australia has a viable future— (Time expired)

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am disappointed to hear the member for Makin indicate that discussion about disturbingly high unemployment rates in South Australia is nothing more than political point-scoring. That is not the case. High unemployment rates in South Australia are a matter of grave concern.

I am a passionate South Australian: I hope I have made as much clear in the first short while of being in this place. I think, effectively, my priorities are: No. 1, South Australia; No. 2, South Australia; No. 3, South Australia. In fact I feel so much about my state that despite being a passionate advocate and supporter of the Essendon Football Club, deep down when Port Adelaide and the Crows are playing a part of me hopes that they do well. But I am embarrassed by the state of the South Australian economy and I am ashamed by the South Australian government.

In speaking to this, I thought I would get together a list of South Australian Labor state government's greatest hits. I am a fan of the greatest hits albums so I thought I would go through the list. I am grateful that we have the member for Wakefield and the member for Makin here to hear some of these. To be truthful, I am surprised that we have got northern suburb MPs arguing this case on behalf of 'Jay for SA'. I do note that there is a particularly nice ring to 'Don for later on'! When I first heard Jay for SA, I was in support of it because I thought it was Jay for South Africa and I was waiting in the departure lounge.

But let us get back to the greatest hits. Small and medium businesses in South Australia have surely the worst business conditions in mainland Australia. Payroll tax is off the charts. Maybe the member for Wakefield could listen to this: the youth unemployment rate in the northern suburbs in Adelaide is at 45 per cent. Regional South Australia, thankfully, has an unemployment rate of eight per cent.

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

What is it in Murray Bridge then? Tell us what it is in Murray Bridge. What's the youth unemployment in Murray Bridge?

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Member for Wakefield, you will have your turn shortly.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Kick him out! It would be cause for great acclamation! What about some of these other greatest hits? I am pleased to say that in my region unemployment on average in regional South Australia is at about eight per cent and in the south-east, 6½ per cent.

The jobless rate is of great concern. But Labor had a plan for this. The South Australian Strategic Plan proudly boasted that 100,000 jobs would be created in South Australia. What happened? Instead of creating 4,200 jobs a month, we lost 4,600 jobs a month. That sounds pretty important: you promise one thing but deliver another—and I am referring here perhaps to the carbon tax. But effectively, what has happened in South Australia is that we have transitioned 30,000 private-sector jobs to 20,000 public-sector jobs. That is the difficulty we enjoy in South Australia. We have a centralist state government that does not understand that it is private industry, private businesses, that create and support jobs.

It is not a surprise that we are losing these private-sector jobs. Economic conditions for running businesses in South Australia are the most difficult in the nation. Over a period of 12 years where CPI increased by 39 per cent, state taxes increased by—wait for it—92 per cent, gas bills by 136 per cent, electricity bills by 140 per cent and, not to be outdone, water bills by 227 per cent! Little wonder that businesses in South Australia, facing these imposts, are finding it difficult to create employment. I will not even go to the WorkCover rate, which is twice the national average.

What then? That is the bad news, but the darkest hour is of course always just before the dawn. The people of South Australia have an opportunity on 15 March to right the wrongs of the last 12 years and do what the Australian people did on 7 September and pass judgement on those that have delivered these greatest hits. South Australians want a South Australian government that understands that only a business-led recovery will deliver outcomes for South Australia. Steven Marshall and his team have a plan for that growth—lower taxes and less regulation. In my home town of Mount Gambier, I am pleased to say that Troy Bell from Mount Gambier will deliver that seat and help Steven Marshall deliver government.

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

The member for Hindmarsh brings this motion to the House. It is always very interesting to see—the last time I saw the member for Hindmarsh roaming around this sort of rhetoric was down at Holden. He came through like a little meerkat, following the minister on his tour through Holden. Of course, we know what happened there. He toured the factory, disappeared for a while and then we never heard anything more until we saw Joe Hockey's daring of GM to leave.

The South Australians opposite talk a good game about the South Australian economy, but on that critical issue of Holden they all came down—Minister MacFarlane, the member for Hindmarsh and all these other people—and toured the factory, posed for pictures—

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You wrote to them!

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

My friend knows that if there were a Labor government, Holden would have continued producing cars in South Australia.

But what happened was that the minister came down and toured the factory with a sort of crowd behind him—Liberal senators and the member for Hindmarsh—all touring the place. Then what did we get? 'Hockey dares GM to leave.' We know the subsequent chaos that was caused in the car industry and the automotive components industry with 50,000 jobs lost. That is what we are looking down the barrel of.

I notice that the language in part (c) of this motion says, in rather glorious terms:

(c) liberate the people of South Australia to realise their destiny; and …

'Liberate' them—in this case, as the deputy leader says, 'Liberate them from their jobs.'

We know that that is what the Liberal Party plans to do because Tony Abbott, when he announced the $100 million plan to help Holden's closure—that has now been stretched to Geelong, Altona and to the whole economy of western Melbourne—said:

Prime Minister Tony Abbott says many Holden workers will be "liberated" by the loss of their jobs at the carmaker.

So we see the same language used—quite extraordinary language, that you might be 'liberated' by losing your job.

We know that around the world there is a debate going on: growth versus austerity—whether we grow the economy or whether we cut it back. That is the great debate around the world. The rest of the world tried austerity first and now they are clinging to growth. In this country we grew. We decided to grow the economy and the Liberals now want to rescue us from that growth by cutting—by austerity. That is the debate around the world, but the Liberal Party are going to get it back to front. They are going to save us from a growing economy. Only in this sort of strange, weird world that the Liberal Party and the member for Hindmarsh create are workers liberated by losing their jobs or liberated by factory closures. Only in this world does cutting taxes produce more revenue and balanced budgets. Only in this weird world; it is sort of voodoo economics.

We know what the Liberal Party plan is for South Australia. It is the same plan they had in New South Wales and it is the same plan that they had in Queensland. It is the same plan they have for the nation, which is a secret commission for cuts. They do not have the courage to tell the South Australian people about the cuts. We had the member for Barker talking about 20,000 public sector jobs but not having the courage to use the figures of the former SA opposition leader, Isobel Redmond, and in a wave of honesty admit they were going to cut 20,000 public sector jobs. That is what he wants to do; that is what he is intimating. That is what the secret commission of cuts will do.

We know that they will hold back on infrastructure. Whatever they say, Torrens to Torrens is ready to go; instead they will hold back. We know that they will wreck our shipbuilding industry, and they will not go ahead with the Collins class submarine. You can see them slowly getting around it. They have a US Navy general in charge of reviewing current shipbuilding. We can see them backing away from the Collins class. And so the questions before the South Australian people are, 'Do you want to continue with a growing economy, with cranes over the horizon of Adelaide? With growth? Or do you want to see cutbacks? Do you want to see austerity? Do you want to see job losses? Do you want to see the resulting economic damage?' You only have to look to Queensland and you only have to look to this parliament to see their plans in action: jobs lost and economic growth collapsing.

Debate adjourned.