Question Time

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr SIBBONS (Mitchell) (14:13): My question is to the Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade. Can the minister inform the house on steps to secure the future of the automotive sector in South Australia, a central element of our advanced manufacturing industry? What reaction has there been to this action, and what is the government's response?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will be heard in silence.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Small Business) (14:14): I haven't said a word yet and they are very excited, ma'am. I thank the member for his important and timely question and his longstanding support for manufacturing workers in this state. This government unequivocally supports the long-term future of the automotive industry in this state—no ifs, no buts.

That is why, together with the Minister for Manufacturing, Kim Carr, our new Premier travelled to Detroit to meet key decision-makers and argue the case for South Australia having a firm place in General Motors' future global plans.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The future of Holden and its component suppliers in Australia involves both building on our world-class local industry that is entrenched in the global automotive business and pushing forward on our ambition to create a more vibrant advanced manufacturing sector in South Australia. The agreement we have negotiated with General Motors involves co-investment by the South Australian, Victorian and federal governments to create a much closer working relationship between General Motors Holden and component suppliers within Australia. Progress is continuing in these negotiations and I am hopeful that a mutually beneficial agreement can be completed in the coming weeks. That is where we stand: united behind one purpose. The position of the other side is much harder to discern.

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The minister is now debating the answer, which is against standing orders.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, member for MacKillop. The minister is answering the question the way he chooses, but I will listen carefully to his words.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: When the problems at General Motors first came up, the opposition leader threw in the towel immediately, querying whether there was a future in this country for car makers, and I quote—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order: the minister is now debating the answer to the question.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, member for MacKillop, but there was so much noise coming from your side I could not hear what the minister was saying. Minister, I refer you back to the question.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The alternative premier of South Australia says this about manufacturing:

When you look at a map of the world, if you wanted to produce something very heavy and transport it around the world, this probably wouldn't be the place you would choose.

What a ringing endorsement of manufacturing in South Australia—the manufacturing opposition leader. Even before the delegation went to Detroit and had set foot in the United States, the opposition leader questioned whether any actual assurance for the future—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order, member for MacKillop.

Mr WILLIAMS: The question was about what the government was doing to support Holden's and did not invite the minister to enter debate.

The SPEAKER: I will point out that part of the question was 'what reaction has there been to this action and what was the government's response', so I think it is within the bounds, but I will—

Mr WILLIAMS: Exactly, Madam Speaker, that was the question: what was the government's response?

The SPEAKER: I would ask the minister to respond to the question.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, ma'am, I will, to the letter of the standing orders, as I always do. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said. She questioned whether any actual assurance for the future commitment of GM would be achieved by going over there, and counselled that better time and effort would be spent within the state. Then, of course, she promptly went on holiday—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —and spent time better off elsewhere—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —and left the running to her shadow ministers.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for MacKillop, point of order.

Mr WILLIAMS: This has got nothing to do with the question. The reality is, if we want to have a debate on it, I invite the minister to call it on in government business and we will clearly make the point that the Victorian government did not send anybody to Detroit.

The SPEAKER: Thank you. I think you were debating the question also then, member for MacKillop. As I said, the question does say, 'What reaction has there been to this action?' and it is within the realms, and I have consulted with the Clerk on this.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It gets better, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Minister, I ask you not to be provocative.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I try my very best, ma'am. Blessed are the peacemakers. Her loyal deputy had another view. Apparently—

An honourable member: Is that lipstick on your lapel?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, it wasn't me. I wasn't busy last night. It was the member for Norwood.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What did they have to say; what did her deputy leader have to say, who supported the privatisation of our state's ports? He suggested that, instead of spending money on our automotive industry, it would be better spent on a deep-sea port. Apparently—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: These are your own words.

Mr WILLIAMS: Not only is the minister debating, he is misleading the house. I never ever said that and the minister knows full well that I didn't. He is misleading.

The SPEAKER: Then the member will have an opportunity afterwards for a personal explanation if he feels he has been maligned. The member for—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Quiet! Will you please be quiet. I cannot hear what is going on in this place. Somebody else will go out today. Member for Croydon.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The deputy leader has accused the minister of misleading the house and I ask you to order him to withdraw it, because it is an allegation that may only be made by substantive motion.

The SPEAKER: I've given the member for MacKillop an opportunity after question time, if he believes that he's been maligned, to rise and to then question it. We will continue with question time at this stage.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Apparently we should provide taxpayers' money to an industry that is booming off the back of global demand for our resources and ignore the manufacturing industry as it painstakingly takes—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: On a point of order: standing order 98 clearly states that the minister must not enter into debate whilst answering a question. The minister is clearly debating the answer when saying 'apparently we should be doing this and doing that'. It is clearly debate.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I have already pointed out that the wording of the question was fairly wide—'reaction to the action', etc.—so I think the minister is within his realms at this stage but, minister, I would ask you to please come to a conclusion with your answer.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs REDMOND: I seek clarification of that ruling. You're saying that the minister isn't debating and yet he is using words like 'apparently' and then suggesting an interpretation of things that have been said. How is that not debate, and how does it come within the wording of the question, even on your reading of it, which refers to reactions? He is interpreting statements not dealing with reactions, even on your ruling.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Point of order, madam.

The SPEAKER: We haven't dealt with the first one first. However, with the Leader of the Opposition's point of order, I think it is a matter of opinion how this is interpreted. In my opinion, the minister is within his realms and I won't allow the point of order. Minister for Transport, did you have a further point of order?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I make the point of order that if the Leader of the Opposition wishes to—

Mr Williams: What number?

The SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! If we continue in this vein, we will call question time to a close and I will leave the chamber.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I warn the Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to contest your ruling, she needs to do it by the standing orders and move dissent in your ruling. She cannot have two bob each way.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, Minister for Transport. Minister for trade, can you please conclude your answer.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Manufacturing is, of course, struggling under a high exchange rate which is making it very difficult for Australian manufacturers. The federal opposition entered into a discussion about co-investment in the automotive industry. My favourite member of the opposition, the member for Norwood, had something very interesting to say about opposition policy. This is what he said. He was asked on 19 January whether he supported Tony Abbott's automotive industry policy. He said, 'There is no difference whatsoever between us and Tony Abbott.' But then he said to the reporter, 'Oh, but I haven't read the policy.' Honestly, this guy is a gift voucher, he keeps on giving. He keeps on giving, this guy, it's amazing. But that's not it.

Mr Marshall: Make up your own line.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What did you say?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: Madam Speaker, could you please clarify in what way the minister interpreting any statements by people on this side is not debate?

The SPEAKER: The minister is responding to what reactions have been to this action, so, in my opinion, there is no issue. However, minister, once again, I would ask you to conclude your answer. This is obviously upsetting the opposition.

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order: I seek clarification of your ruling. Are you saying that if a member of the government backbench asks a minister to enter into debate, it is then within the standing orders for the minister to enter into debate? Is that your ruling?

The SPEAKER: No, that is not my ruling. I am saying that, the question is such, it is a wide open question, and it asked for a reaction to—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: It would not be the first time there has been debate offered in questions in this place, from both sides of the chamber.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: It's out of order.

Mr WILLIAMS: It is out of order. The opposition is constrained by standing order 97 and the government is constrained by standing order 98, which is what makes question time work. We ask questions and we get factual answers to the questions. That is how question time is supposed to work, but what we have got here is ministers tying the opposition's hands behind their backs and having a red-hot go by debating when we have no opportunity to respond. That is why question time breaks down, Madam Speaker. I ask you to reflect on what the new Premier said on his first day.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, member for MacKillop. To stop any of this issue, to solve the problem, I would ask the minister to sit down. I think you have concluded your answer. We will move on to the next question. The Leader of the Opposition.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition.