Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution in the adjournment debate tonight in respect of a number of very important issues to the great state of South Australia. A lot of the rhetoric that has gone on since the awful budget was handed down in May of last year and decisions made immediately prior to that, I believe, need to be placed firmly on the record.

In respect to manufacturing, and in particular car manufacturing, according to the Australian Workplace Innovation and Social Research Centre's recently published report, written by Bianca Barbaro and John Spoehr and the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research, Australia is set to lose 200,000 jobs in the next four years after the closure of motor vehicle manufacturing. South Australia is set to lose 24,000 jobs at a cost to the South Australian economy of $3.7 billion. The job impact in local government areas is identified in this report—4,385 jobs will be lost in the City of Playford, in the main suburbs of Playford and Elizabeth and surrounding areas; 2,772 jobs will be lost in the Adelaide City Council area; 2,447 jobs will be lost in the Salisbury council area; 2,352 jobs will be lost in the Port Adelaide-Enfield council area. These are suburbs, as you well know, Mr Acting Deputy President, that already suffer from the highest rates of youth unemployment possibly in the whole of Australia. Certainly pockets of the areas have amongst the highest rates of youth unemployment.

We are now transitioning to many more thousands of people being thrown out of productive well-paid jobs. The southern suburbs of Adelaide will also be impacted with the loss of 2,042 jobs in Onkaparinga; Charles Sturt will lose 1,881 jobs; West Torrens will lose 1,554 jobs; Marion 1,554; Norwood, Payneham and St Peters 629; and Tea Tree Gully 563. The economic rationalist put it up there and said: 'We've got to do something about the debt. We've got to do something about the budget.' These decisions are impacting on decent, hard-working Australians and decent, hard-working South Australians.

If we move slightly away from what is happening to what potentially could happen if we do not get some sense into the debate on submarines, according to the Australian Industry and Defence Network submission to the inquiry into the future of Australia's naval shipbuilding industry, 6,000 people directly and nearly 15,000 people indirectly are employed in that area. According to the South Australian state government there are 3,000 jobs in South Australia in shipbuilding and submarines. If the submarines are built in Australia the economic flow-on will benefit the economy by $21 billion. In South Australia the gross domestic product will be better off by approximately $13 billion. If submarines are built locally, Australia will be better off by 3,000 jobs per year for 40 years, and South Australia will be a great participant by being better off by 2,416 jobs over the next 40 years.

So, what do we have here? A decision has been made that is crippling employment opportunities in a vast number of suburbs in Adelaide. We have a potential for that situation to be exacerbated and doubled. If that were not enough, under the National Partnership Agreement on Certain Concessions for Pensioner Concession Card and Seniors Card Holders approximately 160,000 pensioners in South Australia will cop it. They will lose their concession of $190, or $100 for self-funded retirees. These things, which are compounding on the small state of South Australia, are catastrophic. Let's hope that they are catastrophic for these people—the Hon. Christopher Pyne, the Hon. Jamie Briggs, Andrew Southcott, Rowan Ramsey, Tony Pasin, Matt Williams, Senator Cory Bernardi, Senator Birmingham, Senator Sean Edwards, Senator David Fawcett and Senator Ruston—because I have not heard them advocating for their state.

For me, South Australia is first, second, third, fourth and fifth. I do not care who I have to advocate for or argue against. Whether it is in my own party, in the opposition or in the government ranks, I will be putting South Australia first, I will be putting South Australian jobs first, South Australian economic opportunities first, and South Australian small businesses first. Let's hope that those members of this place who are not advocating internally, externally and as publicly as they can for a better deal for South Australia face some sort of penalty. We know that, from the by-election in Fisher and the by-election in Devonport, there is a mood of continuing anger about the consequences that are applying to South Australia.

To add insult to injury, the supplementary road funding, which only applied in South Australia, has been cut. South Australia's local government manages 11 per cent of the nation's roadwork and has around 7.2 per cent of the nation's population. In 2006 the Commonwealth Grants Commission recommended that South Australia receive 8.9 per cent of road funding, and it has been cut. In order to maintain a fair level of funding, the federal government introduced the supplementary road funding scheme, which brought it up to around 7.9 per cent. That was John Howard's government. In South Australia we are now facing a cut of around $18 million for the 2014-15 financial year. We are at risk of losing $78 million by 2018. What this actually means is that either rates will go up or roads will not be repaired.

In the recent Senate estimates the Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, Mr Mrdak, stated that in some situations governments have found it more efficient and economical to allow the paving to go back to gravel rather than maintain a seal. It would be extremely disappointing if local governments were forced to make considerations like that. Therein lies my question. We have members of the executive from South Australia who are in this coalition government. The Hon. Jamie Briggs has not been able to protect the funding for his own state that was brought in by the Howard government; it has not been protected. There are councils like Elliston, which may have 1,300-odd ratepayers but thousands of kilometres of roads to maintain. How are they going to do it without this supplementary funding? We will have increased risk of road accidents, increased risk of injuries and increased risk of deaths, without properly maintained roads. It is an absolute disgrace. South Australia enjoys having an assistant minister in the Hon. Jamie Briggs, but he has proved incapable of defending his own patch. If we cap their argument off, we will lose car manufacturing and we will lose lots of jobs. We will compound unemployment, the underprivileged and high youth employment. There is no opportunity in the northern suburbs. If the same happens with the submarines, we will double the effect.

Where are the South Australians in this federal government advocating for a fair and honest deal for South Australia? Are they simply advocating for their own promotion within their government? Are they simply more interested, as the Hon. Peter Costello said, in their own promotion than in the promotion of the people who sent them here? It is a serious question and it needs to be answered by the South Australian members of the Liberal Party. It really is a question of whether they have the backbone to stand up for their state, as they should do. This is a states house at the end of the day. I will always advocate to anybody that South Australia gets a pre-eminent position in all of this.