Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I was waiting to see the member for Kennedy cheekily rising to speak. I am sure he is going to make a very fine contribution, because he, like members of the opposition, has grave concerns about this bill. If enacted, the Automotive Transformation Scheme Amendment Bill 2014 will see the acceleration of the death of the car industry and will have a terrible impact on automotive components companies, which, of course, rely upon the car industry. We believe, firstly, that, even with the decisions made by the major car manufacturers, there is a future in this country for this sector of our economy, but that will made be all the harder if we allow what would be $900 million, but over the forward estimates $500 million, to be taken from this sector of our economy, which is the central purpose of the proposed legislation. This would see many, many companies that, I think, can do well—not only survive but thrive—suffer and, indeed, hit the wall.

The concern I have is shared by other members—the member for Wakefield, the member for Hotham, who just made a very fine contribution, the member for Isaacs, the members for Ballarat and Bendigo and others who have contributed to this debate. The concern we have is that this government has no regard for a sector that employs so many Australians. What is most galling about the government's position is the way in which the Prime Minister chose to stand before manufacturing workers all through the last parliamentary term in putting his position on carbon pricing. As we can all recall, the Prime Minister stood in these manufacturing companies, sometimes making comments about a range of public policy matters, using as a backdrop these workers, and talked about how he was going to protect their jobs. He was going to stand up for those workers and their jobs—and he made these statements on countless occasions throughout the entire previous parliamentary term, when he was Leader of the Opposition.

Yet, upon election, the Prime Minister, aided and abetted by the Treasurer of this country, turned his back on the manufacturing sector in such a stark and brutal way. Other members who have contributed to this debate have already referred to this. First, we saw the Treasurer, at the dispatch box in December, effectively goad Holden to leave Australia. If you think that such decisions are based on a variety of factors, not least of all whether the government of the nation wants you actually to be in this country, wouldn't you think that such a comment by such a senior politician as the Treasurer would weigh into the decision making of that company? We saw the Treasurer in December goad Holden to leave, and the next day Holden decided to leave our shores for good—an iconic company employing thousands of Australians and, indeed, as a result of its existence in this country, creating employment in other companies. It was an awful demonstration of arrogance and indifference towards so many workers in many parts of this country. That certainly led me to conclude that all of the comments—all of the statements by the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition visiting workplaces—were utterly hollow, disingenuous and a fraud perpetrated upon those workers. We are seeing that now writ large in legislation proposed in this House.

This legislation will remove the support required for an industry. There is nothing new in governments in other countries providing support for their manufacturing sectors, particularly developed economies. In fact, every other country that makes cars provides support for that sector of the economy. In fact, if you look at the amount of support we provide per car, it is far less than that of other countries that are prepared to stand by their workers, their industry and their companies. However, we have a government that has chosen instead to do otherwise.

It is not just the opposition who have concerns with this; it is not just the member for Kennedy; it is not just unions representing those workers that have raised concerns, though indeed they have raised some very compelling arguments against the removal of such support. The industry itself and employer bodies representing employers in the industry have attacked the government. Firstly, the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, in a release on 24 September, said:

Reducing the Automotive Transformation Scheme (ATS) will have serious consequences for the 45,000 workers directly employed, and the more than 100,000 workers indirectly employed in the automotive sector …

I think they are conservative in those figures, but they make it very clear that they can see a decision, if determined, to allow this legislation to proceed contributing to adverse consequences for the employers they represent. They, therefore, called on the parliament to reject this bill and have quite rightly, I think, raised concerns publicly about the decision of the government.

Other employer bodies have also raised concerns about this. The Federation of Automotive Products Manufacturers, FAPM, representing Australian automotive component manufacturers:

… remain steadfastly opposed to the federal government's intention to cut $500 million of funding from the Automotive Transformation Scheme over the next three years and the proposed early closure of the scheme.

They go on to say, 'Reducing funding of the ATS by 66 percent in 2015 and by a further $150 million each year in 2016 and 2017 will have serious implications for the continued operations of many firms within the automotive supply chain.' These are statements made by employer bodies representing employers who are foreshadowing the closure of companies in this sector of our economy.

We have an unemployment rate in excess of six per cent. In fact, the Prime Minister presides over the highest unemployment rate in 12 years.

See this speech in context