Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Milne says it is mediocre technology or a mediocre approach. I am not suggesting in any way that the technology is itself mediocre—I am not suggesting that at all. But what I am suggesting is that there are legitimate questions to ask as to why South Australia did not have an opportunity to build the Volt electric vehicle, which I saw at the Sydney Motor Show last year, which seems to be the way forward in terms of the future of automotive manufacturing industry in this country. I made that statement. It was not critical of the state government, but the Deputy Premier of South Australia, the Hon. Kevin Foley, lashed out. He saw red. I know Mr Foley quite well. I think I have a good working relationship with him, but the vitriol was just unbelievable, suggesting that I wanted workers at General Motors Holden to basically lose their jobs and I wanted them to have a bleak Christmas. This was absolute nonsense. All I was saying—and I maintain it to this day—was that this is about ensuring long-term viability for the industry and the best way to ensure that is by having access to the best and latest technology. General Motors in the United States is producing a hybrid electric vehicle, the Volt, which has tremendous potential. The question I asked was: why aren’t we accessing the latest and best technology from the United States so that we can manufacture it here rather than a fuel-efficient, four-cylinder, all-petrol engine?

I think it is quite reasonable to ask that question and ask the question of the government: with this significant assistance package that we as Australian taxpayers are ensuring, what guarantees are there that our local manufacturers are getting access to the latest and best technology from their overseas owners? I think that is a reasonable question to ask in terms of our return for taxpayers’ dollars. I want the workers at General Motors Holden in South Australia, and indeed manufacturing workers in the automotive industry across the nation, to have a bright, long-term future. Senator Milne does have a very valid point in saying that we need to look at the technology of the future in relation to this. My question to the government is: what guarantees will there be that the taxpayer assistance will ensure that we have access to that technology, the best technology available from overseas, and that we are not getting the scraps—that we are not getting second-rate technology that has been superseded by technological advances by the head offices overseas? And that is a key question.

In relation to Senator Milne’s second reading amendment, with reluctance, I will not be supporting it, for this reason: the industry makes the point that they say they need this assistance now. They say that in the absence of this assistance they need certainty, and they need this certainty immediately rather than waiting for the regulations. It is a finely balanced argument. I am swayed by the arguments of those in the industry and, given what has happened in the United States, I do not want this industry to go into freefall.

But the point made by Senator Milne is a valid one. We have a situation where there seems to be a trend by this government to have what I think Senator Abetz refers to as ‘coathanger legislation’—you just have the bare frame and you have to wait for the regulations to be put in place to add to the legislation to see what its final shape will be. That is clearly a regrettable trend. The government is justifying it because it says that it is urgent and that we need to move on this. But it does disturb me and, if the government does not do the right thing in terms of regulations, I, and I hope the coalition, will take the view—the Greens already have this view—not to support legislation in future where it relies so heavily on regulations in the absence of seeing the substance of those regulations before this level of taxpayer assistance is provided.

There is no question that we want a good outcome for the Australian automotive industry. I certainly want it for my home state of South Australia. But on issues such as procurement policy, that Senator Milne raised, I would like a response from the government as to what the government will do about those issues. The government is a huge purchaser of vehicles in this country. It could play a very powerful role in shifting the market in providing that critical mass for the fuel-efficient vehicles, for the smaller vehicles, the vehicles that will move us away from the big gas guzzlers. The big gas guzzlers have really set this industry back. We have seen what has happened over the years to the impact that smaller vehicles have had on the marketplace, because there is a trend. People want smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles for a whole range of reasons, the most important being fuel efficiency, and we now know that smaller vehicles can be as safe with airbags and other safety features as bigger vehicles in terms of five-star safety ratings. They are the sorts of things that the government needs to respond to. This is a huge assistance package and I want to ensure that this package will mean that this industry has long-term viability.

The other issue relates to the amendment to be moved by Senator Abetz on behalf of the opposition. As to giving details of the amount of capped and uncapped assistance, I have received some very strong submissions from the industry saying that this could be unfair if there is disaggregation. To quote Richard Riley, the CEO of the Federation of Automotive Product Manufacturers:

Any disaggregation of the ATS assistance received by individual companies in the department’s annual report would entail revealing company-sensitive commercial-in-confidence information that would prove detrimental to an automotive supplier company when conducting purchasing and pricing negotiations with original equipment manufacturers—OEMs—and companies within supply chain. The highly integrated nature of the Australian automotive industry between OEMs, the supply chain, tooling makers and service providers means that the public disclosure of individual company assistance from the Federal Government could compromise decision-making processes and investment decisions.

Whilst I understand and respect the argument put forward by industry, I am not convinced of that approach. I will hear from the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Carr, on this, but the first principle for me is that there ought to be transparency where public funding is involved. That ought to be the first principle. This is no different from the reporting required for other industries such as textile, clothing and footwear with SIP grants, Innovation Australia data on R&D grant recipients and Austrade data on export market development grant recipients.

The suggestion that a bigger player may cannibalise or use that against other players has not been proven. I think that if there is an issue of that sort of market behaviour then it raises other issues about providing appropriate protection through other legislative mechanisms, whether that is through the Trade Practices Act or other legislative avenues. I just do not accept that it will have the effect that the industry says it will. I do not know what my colleague Senator Milne or the Greens will be doing on that, but I think there is some considerable merit in what Senator Abetz is requiring for a greater degree of transparency. The second part of the amendment refers to providing details of:

… the progress of the Australian automotive industry towards achieving economic sustainability, environmental outcomes and workforce skills development.

I support that principle. The only reservation I have about Senator Abetz’s amendment is that it is a report to be prepared by the secretary to give to the minister. It will be tabled. My preference would have been to have perhaps an independent reporting mechanism, but I certainly believe that this amendment of Senator Abetz’s, on behalf of the coalition, is preferable to not having any reporting mechanism at all. I think it is important, particularly for the environmental outcomes that Senator Milne has quite rightly referred to, that we have that relentless focus on making sure we have the best environmental outcomes for Australian made vehicles. That is where the future of the industry is—to have those cleaner and greener vehicles.

Those are the issues that I am concerned about. I support this bill, but I just want to make one final comment. Earlier today this place was noting the contents of an AQIS report dealing with proposed cuts to the 40 per cent rebate for the horticultural and other industries. It is a very important issue. It is being put to me by irrigators in the Murray-Darling Basin that there seems to be one standard for the automotive industry. I do not begrudge that standard at all, because I think it is important that we provide that level of assistance, and I commend all the very hard and good work that Senator Carr has done. I think it is fair to say he is a tireless champion for the automotive manufacturing sector in this country. However, through a whole range of factors, such as climate change, drought, overallocation and poor policies by the states over many years, we are now facing a situation where the horticultural industry in the Murray-Darling Basin is facing significant and severe pressures. What irrigators have said to me, not just in South Australia but in other states, is that they would like to see the same sort of focus and effort that they have seen for the automotive industry by the government put in to ensure the survival of horticulture and the food-producing bowl of this nation, the Murray-Darling Basin. I think that that is a fair comment. A comparative and a bang-for-your-buck approach for taxpayers’ dollars would stack up very well when you consider the importance of modernising to ensure greater water efficiencies and to ensure that we have an integrated approach to the Murray-Darling Basin with the sort of urgency that the government has taken with the automotive industry. I would like to see sooner rather than later, because we are running out of time, the same sort of approach to the Murray-Darling Basin—the food bowl of this country—that we see with this bill, which I support.