Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education) Share this | Hansard source

Here we go again. We have the irrational ravings of Senator Kim Carr. I agree with Senator Carr on one thing—when he accused me of being an economic rationalist. After all, what is the alternative? Senator Carr is profoundly irrational on this because the truth is we believe in a competitive car industry in this country. Yesterday I outlined my own family's experience in the automotive sector. To have the confected moral outrage of someone who oversaw some of the most profound damage to the car industry in Australia while he was minister in the last government actually pushes this beyond the pale.

Labor are seeking some sort of political purpose. There was bipartisanship in dealing with the motor industry. It was bipartisanship that started under the late Senator John Button. It was bipartisanship that saw transitional assistance provided to this industry to make it competitive. Yet what we have had over the last few years and today is the Labor Party walking away from that bipartisanship as they desperately seek some sort of political opportunity and as they reverse what occurred in the 1980s when Labor saw the wisdom of letting markets do their work, not because of an ideological commitment but because they work.

The car industry had an effective protection rate of nearly 70 per cent with tariffs at 57.5 per cent. Before the reductions started under the Labor Party, before John Button's car plan, which was a transitional plan, we made some of the worst cars in the world at some of the highest prices. Who paid the price for that? Blue-collar workers. They paid for it because everyone in Australia paid more for a worse car. Yet now we have Senator Carr come in here and throw out that history of bipartisanship and the history of opening up Australia to the world—the very economic reforms overseen by both sides of politics, until the election of the Rudd government, that ensured we survived global economic downturns, the tech wreck, the Asian financial crisis and then the most recent banking crisis in North America and Europe. Contrary to their belief, it was not the Labor Party building school halls that pulled Australia through; amongst other things, such as demand for our minerals from China and Asia, it was the fact that we have an open economy. Now Labor seeks to turn that back. We all know that Senator Carr wishes that never happened.

Senator Carr, as minister and in this place in opposition, has always made promises that cannot be delivered by any government—a promise to protect the jobs. You only have to look at the interviews with former Labor Treasurer and Prime Minister Paul Keating on the ABC in the last few weeks to see what he had to say about that attitude. Yet the modern-day Labor Party walks away from that. So let us not hear confected outrage about the coalition changing its view. The coalition has remained committed to the transitional assistance for the car industry that has been in place since the first Button car plan of, I think, 1991.

Yet what we have here from the Labor Party is the language of 'co-investment'—and it only ever appeared in the lexicon of public policy in this country after it was put up by the head of GM and Senator Carr adopted it. That has never been accepted. It has never been policy. It has never been part of the bipartisan consensus that sought transitional assistance for the car industry, because what Senator Carr and the Labor Party will not say is where you stop. What they will not say is the number they will baulk at. Or are they saying we should make an open-ended, eternal, unlimited financial commitment to one industry because we made a commitment to support the ATS?

What Senator Carr does not tell you is that the money in the ATS could actually be restructured to give extra money to the car industry because the car industry is not taking advantage of all of it as production volumes are down. Let us not go into any conspiracy theory as to why production volumes are down. Australians are simply choosing other cars. Unless the Labor Party are proposing that that choice be taken away from families around Australia, then what are they saying? That this needs to be an open-ended, eternal, bottomless commitment to one sector?

This sector has nowhere near 200,000 workers. Senator Carr misled this place again because in estimates in this place we were told it is under 50,000. The 200,000 people employed in the automotive sector include the people servicing VWs, Mercedeses, Mazdas and Nissans. Everyone knows those jobs are about cars; they are not about locally manufactured cars. Those jobs are just as valid as the jobs of people working at Holden, which are important. I feel for the workers and families, but the Labor Party is trying to promise the undeliverable, which is that the government can protect industries from competition.

Senator Carr made promises when he was the industry minister. With the Green Car Innovation Fund he made all these promises to look after the workers. Some 19 months ago we had Holden here with the industry minister, the Premier of South Australia and the Prime Minister saying it was all sorted out. Yet we are back at this position now. One of the prime reasons for that is what Labor did to this industry. Senator Carr made promises and the money was stripped away. They brought in a carbon tax that hits energy-intensive industries. Their performance betrays their true agenda.

We cannot make a bottomless commitment to any industry in this country unless people are saying that all Australian workers should be taxed to provide an eternal, endless, bottomless amount of money for one sector. Labor need to answer that question. What is their limit? Where will they draw the line about supporting this industry?

The Prime Minister said last week that there is no more money. That could still mean that more money is available to the car sector, because Ford has pulled out and all the money in the budget is not being accessed. But we are told that somehow we have to move from a period of transitional assistance to a so-called public-private partnership or so-called co-investment. The strange thing is: the taxpayer never sees a dividend from that investment, like a shareholder might. It is misleading language. It is a subsidy. Subsidies sometimes have their place. If we have social policy objectives or if we believe something is in the national economic interest, those measures are brought on budget and not supported through hidden mechanisms like tariffs and quotas, where the cost is not transparent. But Labor uses misleading terms like 'co-investment' to somehow imply that the government can make money out of it. No. It is a subsidy.

Let us have a debate about the appropriate design of that program and the appropriate limit to that subsidy, unless Labor are promising a bottomless, endless, eternal program, a program to which there is no limit. Labor are confecting a lot of outrage here, but we have a responsibility to the workers in this sector to not promise what is unpromisable. This is a matter for Holden. It is a matter for Toyota. It is a matter for individual companies. We have a responsibility to the economy. I could go on about the deadweight costs of raising taxation for subsidies. I could go on about diverting resources. I could go on about the flawed economic models that say that people in this sector will never be employed again. But this government has a responsibility to all of Australia. This is why the mob opposite were thrown out.