Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

History will show that Senator Carr was not prepared to put any of these matters to me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, over the last three days. He scurried in here to make a speech. He has scurried out again. He had three days of opportunities to put these matters to me, and he squibbed it. He squibbed the opportunity to put the matters that he is talking about today to me as the Minister representing the Minister for Industry.

I am going to talk about what this government intends to do. Probably the most sensible contribution Senator Carr made was when he talked about how he is looking for stable policy settings. That is exactly what he is going to get. But from 2007 until the removal of the opposition from government that is exactly what manufacturing did not get. There were no stable policy settings. I have had my staff trawl through Senator Carr's speeches from when he was the industry minister. The only sensible contribution that I agreed with was a ministerial statement on 24 August 2011. Senator Carr said:

Our nation is facing a historic shift, the like of which we have not seen in two generations. That does not mean the change will be easy or swift. These are incredibly challenging times.' In 2011 he said, 'These are incredibly challenging times.

What was Senator Carr's response as minister to this historic shift, the like of which we had not seen in two generations? I will tell you what it was. He was part of a Labor government where, under his watch, one manufacturing job was lost every 19 minutes during their term—200,000 extra jobs were lost over that period. In relation to the motor vehicle industry, honourable senators will be horrified to note that, from 2007 until the removal of the previous government, the number of locally made cars dropped by one-third. One in every four jobs in the industry disappeared. The locally made share of the domestic market dropped by 32 per cent. There were significant falls in R&D, productivity was down, turnover was down, vehicle production was down and exports were down.

It is a bit hard to tell when Senator Carr was or was not industry minister, I have to say. He was in and then he was out, and then he was in and then he was out. But where was Senator Carr when two or three key decisions were made? Where was Senator Carr when the Australian Labor Party in government broke a promise of $1.4 billion in funding commitments as they chopped and changed their car industry policy? That was under the watch of this inapt minister.

The former minister never delivered on his watch the stable policy settings that he was bleating about. Is a stable policy setting changing the rules in relation to FBT? Is that a stable policy decision?

Was there any consultation with industry in relation to the change to these pre-existing FBT rules? What about this minister, this inapt, in-out minister who has the gall to talk about what may or may not have happened in relation to these issues in this government's cabinet? Where was the industry minister when these FBT changes were made? Where was this former minister when a stable policy setting was required? He went missing. All those opposite know what a dramatic impact this proposal had. I will go through some of the commentary. The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, the FCAI, undertook an analysis of the likely impact of the former government's decision, describing it as terrible news for the industry and concluding that it could have a dire effect on Australian car production, including on the manufacturing supply chain—that is the component manufacturers. The very person we have heard bleating and seen crocodile tears from over the last week, the former minister, did not have the intestinal fortitude to ask the Minister representing the Minister for Industry a question over three days. He is lacking intestinal fortitude, and he lacked the ability as a minister to provide the stable policy settings that might just have saved car manufacturing in this country.

But it gets worse. This minister was either rolled in cabinet or supported the decision. We think we know which it was. We think he supported the decision, because he was very quick to come out between his industry minister gigs and attack the former Labor government when he was not sitting on the front bench. When he had been cast to the back bench, where he should have been for the last six years, he got stuck into the Green Car Innovation Fund. He wrote a book on it. He was prepared to bell the cat on that, so presumably if he was not part of the cabinet decision that introduced these FBT changes or we would have heard from him. We didn't. Therefore we quite rightly assumed that he was part of a policy that was predicted to reduce the number of units manufactured in this country by 100,000.

What did this in and out minister, this failed industry minister, go on to do? He tried to mislead the Australian public in his defence of this indefensible policy. On Channel 10's Meet the Press program, the failed minister sought to deflect attention away from this disastrous policy by saying that only a minimum of vehicles being purchased on such grounds are Australian made. He was part of the decision and then went on Meet the Press. He tried deliberately to mislead the Australian community to cover his backside on the back of this outrageous decision about which there was no consultation. Guess what the Australian Salary Packaging Industry Association said about his comments that only a minimum of vehicles purchased on such grounds are Australian made? The leasing and salary packaging industry stated that around 40 per cent of vehicles made locally by Toyota, Holden and Ford during 2012 were in fact employee benefit vehicles. Not a minimum; 40 per cent—100,000 units in a declining domestic market. It is no wonder that it was described as terrible news. It is no wonder that it was described by the FCAI as potentially having a dire effect on Australian car protection, including the manufacturing supply chain.

Stable policy settings: does the introduction and maintenance of a carbon tax sound to you like a stable policy setting?