Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Manufacturing, Senator Carr. I refer the minister to the Prime Minister's claims that her pre-Christmas reshuffle of ministerial portfolios and responsibilities was in the national interest. Was the minister's demotion from cabinet to the outer ministry and his loss of the innovation portfolio in the national interest?

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That question is not in order. I am not ruling on anything. From what I have heard from the questioner, the question is not in compliance with the standing orders. Does the questioner wish to rephrase the question? I have given questioners the opportunity—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I may, Mr President, this minister accepted a ministry from the Prime Minister, that of manufacturing, which was outside of cabinet—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, I do not think you are on the air.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is this a point of order?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it is a point of order inviting the President to reconsider his ruling. It is clearly within the minister's province to answer a question relating to a ministry that he personally accepted at the Prime Minister's request. The Prime Minister requested him to take the position of manufacturing minister, a position outside of cabinet. She has asserted that that was in the national interest. We are asking the minister whether or not he shares the Prime Minister's view, having accepted the ministry. He takes responsibility for having accepted the ministry; he has to be able to answer whether his acceptance of that is in the national interest.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Mr President, the question clearly went to the actions and the views of the Prime Minister in an attempt to try and score some sort of cheap political point. If he wanted to ask about the actions of the Prime Minister then the question should have been directed to me as the minister representing the Prime Minister.

Mr President, you have been very generous in allowing the senator the chance to rephrase the question that the tactics committee handed him. I am surprised that he used it given how poor the question was and how low the motives behind it are. The appropriate point is, if you have been that generous then Senator Colbeck ought to rephrase the question if he is genuinely interested in manufacturing policy.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The standing orders state quite clearly in 73(1):

The following rules shall apply to questions:

I will skip down the list:

questions shall not ask:

(h) for an expression of opinion;

And that is the only thing that I can see arising out of this question. I have given Senator Colbeck the opportunity to rephrase the question so that it can comply with the standing orders. I have always been very generous in giving some of the questioners in this place, on all sides of parliament, an opportunity.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the minister believe that the deliberate downgrading of the manufacturing portfolio is in the national interest?

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is in order.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think this is an opportu­nity for me to express my views to the Senate on the value of manufacturing, surely a subject which all in this chamber would support. I have no doubt of that because of the overwhelming strength of public opinion for the policies that this government is pursuing with regard to the defence of the living standards of the one million Australians who work in manufacturing. Of course I take the view that it is an honour to serve those one million Australians, to ensure their prosperity and to ensure that they get a fair cut of the action in this society and get real opportunities not just for themselves but for their kids. I will maintain that commitment, as I have throughout my entire length of service in this Senate.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given the importance that the minister claims he places on manufacturing, is it not a fact that under his watch around 130,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since mid-2008; that the green car innovation scream—sorry, scheme, but that is about all it put up; it hardly even put up a scream—was scrapped without notice to the car industry; and that the cash for clunkers scheme that he so passionately talked about was scrapped before it even started? Does the minister accept responsibility for any of these disasters in the Australian manufactur­ing industry?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Colbeck for yet another dorothy. The government's position is that we are standing shoulder to shoulder with manufacturing workers right across this country. We are in a situation where we have seen, as a direct result of the unprecedented rise in the value of the Australian dollar and the unprecedented level of competition from cheap imports, that working people in manufacturing are facing acute pressure. I would have thought that this Senate would come together to defend their interests, but unfortunately that is not the case. Your position in regard to the auto­motive industry, for instance, is to see the destruction of that industry and to see the destruction of 200,000 jobs for Australians that work in that industry and industries associated with it. That is a position that I reject, and it is a position that this govern­ment rejects. We have maintained our commitment to ensuring that working people in this country get a fair go, and we will do all we can to ensure that that happens. (Time expired)

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I note that the only sector of manufacturing that this minister wants to talk about is the automotive sector. There are a lot of other people who work in other manufacturing sectors. Is it not a fact that this is the first time in 40 years that direct ministerial responsibility for manufacturing has not been in cabinet? How does that demonstrate the government's commitment to the manufacturing sector?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Manufacturing employ­ment was at 953,500 people in the December quarter of 2011, which is actually a net increase of 7,900 people. I will introduce one moment of fact there.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You asked the question about the automotive industry and I respond­ed. What I will always say in response to you is that we remain undaunted in our efforts to actually work to ensure the prosperity of the Australian people, and we remain committed to that task. We are unashamed in efforts that we have taken to defend working people, and it is a pity you did not show more interest in the prosperity of the people of this country.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.