Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Hansard source

The opposition will be supporting the ACIS Administration Amendment (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 2007, which is designed to uphold the original intent of the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme, known as ACIS. The bill is designed to ensure that only activity that is eligible for support under the scheme actually receives support. It is a pretty basic premise of government programs that people have to meet the funding criteria, so of course Labor supports making it crystal clear in legislation. It is also important that programs are able to be administered as simply as possible and with minimum delay to business.

The bill will enable the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources to continue to make payments at the end of each quarter without having to wade through an audit process for each firm each time. Unearned credit liabilities will be able to be issued once the audit has been done and it is found that a company has been claiming credits for ineligible activities. It is a straightforward proposition which Labor supports; however, it is important in the context of this bill to say a few things about the different attitudes to industry policy adopted by the government and the opposition, especially with regard to the plight of the car industry in this country at this time.

The opposition has put to the government that it is prepared to discuss with the government a bipartisan approach for the reform of ACIS. This has come about as a result of the fact that the car industry is facing a crisis in this country. The ACIS program, established as it was in 2002, has seen significant investment from the public purse in support of what is a strategically vital industry to Australia, not just in economic terms but also in social terms. This industry employs over 60,000 Australians and provides a skills base of great significance to a range of ancillary industries. It is a major exporter for Australia and of course it is very important, particularly to the south-east corner of Australia and especially to my state of South Australia.

It is important to acknowledge that 7,000 jobs in the industry have been lost since the ACIS program was established. I will go through them: General Motors Holden, 1,400 jobs; Mitsubishi, 1,397 jobs; and Ford, 850 jobs—that is, 3,647 jobs lost directly from vehicle manufacturers. I will go through the component manufacturers: Aunde Trim, 80 jobs; Calsonic, in Victoria, 195 jobs; PBR, in Victoria, 184 jobs; GUD, 60 jobs; Johnson Controls, 75 jobs; Tristar, 40 jobs; Air International, 250 jobs—and another 120 jobs, because the losses are from two different branches; Ion, in South Australia, some 600 jobs and, in New South Wales, some 800 jobs; Silcraft, in Victoria, 280 jobs; Trico, 350 jobs; Autoliv, 302 jobs; VOA Webco, 65 jobs; Dana, 79 jobs; Australian Arrow, six jobs; Pilkington, 20 jobs; Spicer Axle, 200 jobs; Kemalex, in Victoria, 85 jobs and a further 80 jobs in South Australia; TI Automotives, 70 jobs; Cooper Standard, 40 jobs; Tenneco, 156 jobs; Exacto, 60 jobs; Bridgestone, 40 jobs, Irons Engineering, 41 jobs; and Hendersons, 25 jobs. That is a further 3,488 jobs lost, bringing the total to 7,135 jobs lost.

We know that the CEOs of the major manufacturers have now met the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources on three occasions and have put their views to him about the need for significant reform of the ACIS program. We know that requests have been made in terms of future investment in ACIS and for a position to be taken on the tariff issue. Under this government, ACIS arrangements require tariff reviews to be undertaken and plans have already been made for the further phase-down of tariffs in 2010.

We had the extraordinary situation of Senator Minchin being reported in the Age on 19 February under the headline ‘Brakes may go on car tariff cuts’. The article says:

Finance Minister Nick Minchin has signalled he will fight for the car industry, if a review before a planned tariff cut in 2010 finds the sector cannot cope with a loss of protection in tough trading conditions.

We know that the government’s industry statement is finished and ready to be launched, so it is appropriate for the government to come forward and explain what it is prepared to do with regard to the future of the car industry and to address the legitimate concerns that are being expressed by tens of thousands of Australians about the future of their families with regard to this industry, particularly given its significance to our economy and to our society.

What is quite apparent is that major pressures are bearing down and moving at a much greater rate than anyone could have anticipated in recent years as a result of changes to the depreciation of the Australian dollar and the pressures that have been brought on by other factors in the industry. It is time for the government to come forward and explain its position with regard to the car industry. It is time for the minister to come forward and explain what exactly the government is prepared to do in the face of widespread representations that are being made about the need for significant reform of industry assistance.

It is also appropriate for this government to be clear as to where it stands more generally on support for aspects of industry policy. Senator Cory Bernardi recently made a speech on the government’s approach to industry policy which demonstrated just how little bipartisan support there is on these questions. I would have thought, given the serious problems facing the automotive industry in South Australia—it contributes some 2½ per cent of GDP and employs some 13,500 people—that this government would be more serious about its commitments to this industry. I would have thought that the government would be prepared to talk to the opposition about what steps could be taken to secure the future of this industry.

It is unfortunate that, from time to time, one’s illusions are shattered—shattered by a government that is quite clearly uncaring and that has no sense of its responsibilities. It was recently brought to my attention that a speech was delivered by Senator Cory Bernardi of South Australia to a Liberal Party meeting in his state. In this rather schizophrenic diatribe, Senator Bernardi claimed that a Rudd Labor government, with me as industry minister, would mean:

... no car (manufacturing) for South Australia.

He further suggested that this demise would come about as the result of policies which he claimed involved advocating for Australia’s interests internationally. He said that addressing market failures which prevent businesses from being able to operate efficiently and maintaining a stable macroeconomic environment would be to blame. It is an extraordinary proposition. Senator Bernardi thinks that the government has no role to play in maintaining a stable macroeconomic environment. Perhaps he should knock on the Prime Minister’s door next time the government claims credit for supposedly low interest rates. Perhaps he should put that view to the minister for industry, in light of the position we have now when interest rates are the second highest in the developed world, and explain this theory that he is advancing.

Senator Bernardi also thinks that the government has no role in establishing policies to address market failure. So he is advocating the abolition of all government support for tertiary education and skills training, which are critical to the automotive industry because they provide skilled workers. After all, if the government has no role in addressing market failure, why should we worry about the positive externalities arising from education and training—the fact that society benefits as well as the individual? We should not worry about the fact that young people will not be able to borrow money in an open market to fund their studies because we have outlawed indentured servitude. This is the proposition that is being advanced in the claims that are being made about the opposition’s statement.

Senator Bernardi particularly objects to comments that I made about thumping the tables in the boardrooms of foreign companies. I confess that I have been known to use colourful language from time to time.