Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The fact of the matter is that the sovereign risk environment in which international businesses found themselves in Australia is the fundamental reason, we believe, and I certainly believe, that the confidence businesses had to proceed was such that they did not proceed. We can talk about whether or not it was exactly the minerals resource rent tax—and I point out that I did acknowledge that that was not specifically the reason, that the minerals resource rent tax did not necessarily apply to it, before I was interjected on. But the fact of the matter is that it creates a sovereign risk environment that makes it very difficult for international businesses to invest in Australia—because the reasons just do not stack up—when they have opportunities to invest elsewhere.

Then there is the carbon tax. One can hardly stand here without mentioning the carbon tax. There has been a 0.3 per cent decrease in carbon emissions since the carbon tax was introduced at a cost of $7 billion to the Australian economy. Now, nobody can tell me on the basis of that result that the introduction of a carbon tax to our economy has been successful. That is $7 billion to achieve very little and $7 billion taken out of the economy. It does not stack up that it is going to be good for jobs. So let us be realistic about why these things are happening.

The topic of the moment is of course the car industry and the decisions by Holden and, more recently, Toyota to close their doors, which I assume is the reason why we have this MPI today. The fact of the matter is that, for every car, there was an increase in the cost of production by $400 completely and utterly as a direct result of the introduction of the carbon tax. Whilst $400 might not have been the straw that broke the camel's back, it certainly would not have helped, because it was just another cost burden added to the business when they are trying to be competitive in the global market that is the car industry.

I think it is totally ridiculous to blame the Abbott government for the potential loss of jobs in this industry and for car manufacturing moving offshore from Australia in the near future, particularly when, in an article in The Australian, the head of GM's international operations is quoted as saying:

It is impossible to build cars in Australia competitively and no amount of government incentives could have saved Holden …

That really does suggest to me that Mr Stefan Jacoby was not of the belief that the Abbott government had in any way influenced their decision to leave Australia. He went on to say:

'I initiated this decision as the leader of these markets and it was driven purely by business rationale, and not by any direction this government or any future government would give for their auto industry in Australia,' …

The funds could not add up regardless of the level of public funds involved, he said.

So, quite obviously, Mr Jacoby and Holden did not believe that the Abbott government was to blame for the loss of any jobs in the car industry.

The promises made by previous governments in funding the automotive industry were that the funding was going to increase jobs. We have seen so much money poured into the automotive industry and we have not seen an increase in jobs. So I think to suggest that the decisions made by the Abbott government have in any way affected the decision of Holden, or Toyota for that matter, is completely ridiculous.

By way of an example of the cost of doing business in Australia and the overregulated and overburdened market that businesses find themselves in, a company I was talking to today said that it cost them $2 million annually just to comply with the ACCC. There are certain requirements with the ACCC which no-one would ever suggest that they do not need to comply with, but a $2 million burden on a business is an awful lot of money straight off the bottom line. So I would suggest that the best thing we can do as a government to ensure the long-term sustainability of business and industry and that everybody in Australia who can have a job does have a job is to actually get out of their way. Subsidies, protection, regulation and interference in the marketplace are not the answer, because the fact of the matter is that the market is the best and most efficient mechanism there is to deliver an outcome.

The Abbott government promised the people that we would do a number of things to assist business. We promised to repeal the carbon tax, we promised to repeal the minerals resource rent tax and we promised to reduce the regulatory burden by having dedicated days of repeal in this place. The problem is that those opposite have yet to accept the fact that on 7 September 2013 the Australian people elected an Abbott government, believing that an Abbott government would do these things. The Abbott government wants to do these thing but those opposite seem to have forgotten about the fact that they did not win the election and that the current government has a mandate to do these things. I think it is time that those opposite realised that the people of Australia actually have the right to expect that the things that they voted for are carried out in this place.

The public of Australia elected us all to get on with the job of governing this country, and stupid and spurious comments such as 'the Abbott government has caused the loss of 50,000 jobs in the past five months' do nothing to increase the level of confidence that the Australian public have in us and in this place. The best thing that we can do is to let business get on with the job of running the economy. Guess what. They do a much better job of running business than we do, or can ever hope to do. We should be constructive and helpful and stop wasting everybody's time with these baseless and silly statements. We should get on with growing the economy so that everybody in Australia can have a job.