Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

One thing that the minister in his long parliamentary career has still not learnt is that hyperbole is no substitute for substance. There is no doubt that we on this side support the automotive sector. We have said we support the legislation. The only issue at stake here is the issue of accountability and transparency. I say to the minister and I say with great respect to the auto sector at large: you are not showing long-term leadership for the benefit of this sector if you think that you can keep on getting away with doing deals behind the scenes without the sort of transparency that the Australian people have come to expect. You are making short-term gain but for long-term pain for this sector. There is out there in the community what I have described previously as ‘auto fatigue’. The Australian people are starting to question more and more how it is that we as a nation are borrowing huge sums of money and then giving $6.2 billion over the next decade or so to the automotive sector.

Do you know the answer to the question: why it is a good investment? It is a good investment if you have transparency and if you require the minister to provide to this parliament on an annual basis the economic benefits, the environmental benefits and the workplace skills benefits that come from that taxpayer investment. But if you do not want to make it known to the Australian people it shows that you cannot really sustain and make the argument.

Turning quickly to the sector, let me say that the FCAI and FAPM are well served by their representatives in Mr McKellar and Mr Reilly. They do a fantastic job for their sector. But guess what? If grants are at stake and you do not have to disclose the grants, what do you expect those particular people might say? They might actually say, ‘We in fact do not want disclosure.’ I can understand that that is their argument and I say to them with the great respect that I hold them in: this is not a good long-term position for the sector. Whilst they might get short-term gain today, it will add to their ongoing long-term pain. I read in the media just this morning, I think, that Mr McKellar—for whom I have a great regard—said:

I could point to a range of circumstances (in other subsidised industries) where confidentiality is respected.

I sought in the second reading debate to get from the minister an indication as to where else that applied. No examples were given. Instead of all the hyperbole this morning, I would have expected the minister to come up with concrete examples of where government grants are not disclosed. He has not given us examples in any way, shape or form. The reason? There is none; there is no example.

What is more, my office then rang Mr McKellar saying, ‘If you can point to a range of circumstances, please name them.’ I am sorry to say to this place—and I do not need any hyperbole for this—that unfortunately Mr McKellar could point to none, other than a Victorian Labor government scheme. This is the way state Labor does business. State Labor has come to Canberra and that is the way it now does business in this place. A minister in the Victorian Labor government appointed former Labor Premier Steve Bracks at $550 a day for a review of the automotive sector. Guess what that former Labor Premier decided in that review? He decided that we needed an automotive ombudsman. Guess who got that job? It was none other than the former Labor Premier Mr Steve Bracks. This time round he is going to be paid $1,100 per day, if my maths is correct. Wait for the ombudsman’s recommendation for another position—which he will undoubtedly get as well—at $2,200 a day. This is the dovetailing of interests of state Labor and the automotive sector. It is not good for transparency, especially in circumstances where the Australian taxpayer is asking more and more whether this investment is really paying dividends. I would like to think that this investment is paying dividends, and that is why I have no difficulty in saying: disclose to the public who is getting the grants and on what basis.

You can go through textiles, clothing and footwear—a similar sector—and all the grants are publicly announced. When I was minister for fisheries and forestry all grants were publicly announced. The trade minister under Export Market Development Grants had all grants publicly announced. So you have got to ask the question: why hide it in this sector? We have not been given a reason. The industry body could not provide one. Mr Reilly, who represents the FAPM, said that the opposition amendment was unworkable. Unfortunately, that is the sort of hyperbole you expect. When you then ask, ‘Why would it be unworkable?’ there is nothing further in the statement that tells us why it would be unworkable. I say again and put on the record that both Mr Reilly and Mr McKellar are good representatives of their sector, and they have argued well for their sector. But I am not sure that it is in the long-term interests of their sector for them to say that the automotive industry is so different that it is worthy of $6.2 billion of taxpayer funding but that the grants should not be announced publicly.

I also indicate that when the minister had a $35 million plan for Toyota to assemble a hybrid vehicle in Australia to announce—a huge and substantial business plan—there was no confidentiality required. Indeed, the minister flew himself all the way to Japan and made a huge announcement: ‘What a great fellow I am! We have partnered with Toyota to assemble a hybrid vehicle in Australia.’ Where was the business disadvantage there? There was none; it was a good media opportunity. The $149 million given to General Motors was also announced with a lot of fanfare. It was a huge business plan announced in relation to the Delta platform. There was no difficulty there. Changing the format of their manufacturing in Australia is a substantial change in business plan. It was publicly disclosed that the taxpayer was going to make $149 million available to it. So there is a lack of consistency in the minister’s approach. Of course, that is what we have come to expect from this minister.

He then tells us that the former government did not disclose the grants that were made to the sector. That is wrong. Grants were made known. But it was previously under a credit scheme, which is completely and substantially different to a grant scheme, as the minister well knows. Those sort of credit schemes have not been publicly disclosed, but the automotive sector and the government, for whatever reason, said it would be better to move from a credit system to a grants system. I accept that. That is their judgement and we are happy to accept that judgement call. But, having made that judgement call, they have got to take the whole package and with every single grant there has to be disclosure.

In the time remaining in this committee stage, I ask the minister whether the disclosure that he says he will provide will show the division between capped and uncapped schemes. He says the answer to that is yes.