GM HOLDEN

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Minister for State Development) (15:20): I move:

That this house—

1. Recognises—

(a) the significant economic benefits General Motors-Holden makes to the state's economy through highly skilled jobs, innovation, economic activity and research and development;

(b) that the closure of Holden's vehicle assembly operations would have a devastating impact on the state's manufacturing sector and would risk the loss of up to 16,000 jobs and $1.5 billion from our gross state product;

(c) a strong and sustainable future for manufacturing in South Australia needs a continuing foundation in car manufacturing;

(d) the importance car manufacturing plays in driving productivity, innovation and in developing an advanced manufacturing sector for the state; and

2. Acknowledges—

(a) that the 13 nations who have the capacity to design and build automobiles provide some form of support to keep this capacity in their country through tariffs, direct support, or co-investment;

(b) co-investment plays a vital role in allowing the automotive industry to diversify and strengthen their manufacturing base as well as supporting innovative automotive parts suppliers, attracting investment and securing jobs; and therefore supports state and federal government efforts to secure the long-term future of General Motors-Holden vehicle assembly operations in South Australia.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (15:21): I move, without notice:

That standing orders be and remain so far suspended as to enable that the time limit for debate on the motion be limited to 10 minutes for each speaker, including the mover, principal speaker in opposition and mover in reply.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will withdraw it if the Leader of the Opposition believes that she needs more.

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen—Leader of the Opposition) (15:22): Can I simply inform the house that the information that we were given was that the amount of time would be unlimited for the mover and for—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Madam Speaker, I have withdrawn it.

The SPEAKER: Motion withdrawn. We can get on with the job. Premier.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Minister for State Development) (15:22): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This debate fundamentally is about confidence in our state's future; having the confidence to take control of South Australia's future rather than somebody determine our future for us. That is what we are seeking to do here in relation to this investment. There is a fundamental difference between the approach that we have taken here in South Australia and the one that has been urged upon us by those opposite.

We have been clear from the start about the need to have a strong automotive industry in South Australia—driving, as it does, and being a basis, as it is, for a strong, advanced manufacturing sector in this state. We arrive at that view because it is part of the history of the development of this state and it is part of the future of this state.

We have at all times indicated our support for the future of Holden's. What we have seen from those opposite over the last few days is the talking-down of this company at the same time as we are seeking to secure a future for Holden's—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order.

Mrs REDMOND: My understanding is that the Premier is meant to be addressing the substance of his motion, that he has just moved, not putting words into the mouths of the opposition—which they have never uttered and have certainly never supported.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: You get to answer. That is what a debate is about; you get to answer.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: What we have seen for days now has been the undermining of the confidence of the South Australian community, and indeed those Holden workers—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —in their sense of security in their future, Madam Speaker. That is what we have been seeking to build up and that is what those opposite have been seeking to tear down.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: What we find today, after days and days of undermining the confidence of Holden workers in their future, is the opposition spokesperson for the Treasury sneak out at lunchtime and say these words:

The opposition will be supporting the motion today, supporting the state's contributions to Holden. The reality is we have not seen the intimate detail of funding arrangements, the clawback arrangements—all those sorts of details Holden's said were commercially in confidence.

I could not have said it better myself. He sneaks out at lunchtime, after seeking to undermine this proposition for three days, and quietly tells the media we were right after all and that we are actually standing here as the government supporting Holden's and supporting the future of these jobs in the northern suburbs around the whole of the state. They did not have the courage to come out and say that during the week. They snuck around, asking questions, seeking to damage and undermine confidence in the future of this car manufacturing plant and the confidence that those workers and their families have in their own futures.

I have distributed to the house some material which summarises the nature of the information that has been provided in the public sphere and also the information that those opposite would have had the opportunity to gain from Holden's in the briefing that I arranged for them. We have at all stages been transparent in the way in which we have negotiated this arrangement. At the earliest time, as soon as it was possible to share this with the community, we shared all the details that were available. On 20 March in Detroit a decision was made, on 21 March we received written confirmation. On 22 March we made this information available to the Australian community and we have come into this parliament at the earliest opportunity to debate this motion to allow this parliament to express its opinion about the future of Holden's and this investment package.

We have done that before we have settled the funding agreements, before we have settled the legal funding agreements, on the basis of the exchange of correspondence we have, because we wanted to be as open as we could be with the South Australian community. I might say, you are doing a whole lot better here than they are in Victoria. The poor old Premier over there will not even tell his community how much he has contributed. We have at all times given as much information and put as much information in the public sphere as we possibly could, consistent with the commercial sensitivities and securing a future for Holden's.

This has a fundamental philosophical basis. It is about ensuring that we have an active role in protecting South Australian industry. We are not free market adherents as those opposite are. The truth about their position is the undermining that went on in the last few days. What they have done at the final hurdle is they have felt that they had to support this motion because they would be embarrassed if they did not. The truth of their position is contained in the questions they have been asking about this funding package and in fact the public remarks that they made in the lead-up to this.

Remember the Leader of the Opposition speculating out loud about why I was even in Detroit? What would I be trying to achieve there? The next thing she seeks to propose is that somehow we really have to query whether we should be a car manufacturing state because they are really heavy and you do not want to move them around the place. These are the speculations out loud. Then we get the nonsense from the member for Norwood about something to do with the carbon tax. Absolutely ruled out by Holden's themselves as being a basis for this investment.

What they say absolutely, categorically is that the carbon tax does not affect their decision or otherwise to make this co-investment. With or without the carbon tax there would be a need for co-investment. With or without the carbon tax there would be a need for the state government's contribution. With or without the carbon tax they were independently considering their decision about investing $1 billion. There is an air of unreality about this. The options this company have around the world were always going to be to invest somewhere in the world where there was going to be a carbon-constrained future. They are making decisions—international decisions—where they have to weigh up the regulatory regimes in each of those states, territories and countries, and they understand that they will always have to grapple with the local market conditions, which is going to include a constraint on carbon. It is manifestly a distraction from the—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Order! I would like the Premier to be heard in silence. There are interjections on both sides. We will not tolerate that. Premier.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Mr Acting Speaker, it is manifestly a distraction, because their true position is that they do not support the package, it is just that they do not have the courage to tell you so—they do not have the courage to tell this parliament and the South Australian community.

Mr Acting Speaker, at its heart this is a philosophical issue as well. It is about whether you support the role of government, and what we have seen in, I think, a very persuasive report from Professor Göran Roos is that there is a very powerful case for believing that the old-fashioned views of neoclassical economic principles, which have dominated economic growth policy in recent decades, are simply not adequate to deal with the complexities of a modern economy that needs an advanced manufacturing sector.

Professor Roos lays out the case very powerfully for the role of government—especially in small economies—in ensuring that the skills and capabilities which are essential for the future of our state are supported by sophisticated industry procurement policy—a policy that drives innovation; a policy that works in close collaboration with our industry partners to ensure a future for our industries.

The alternative view here is about the change that we are proposing and the things that we fought very hard for, and we were advised by Professor Roos about the nature of the involvement we should have in this negotiation. He made it very clear to us that it was vital that we made sure that we secured the future of this industry, because, as he says in his report, if we allow the shift away from manufacturing and allow this car manufacturing plant to close, the wellbeing of this country would be seriously affected, because it takes much longer, is much more complex and, indeed costly, to build a competitive manufacturing sector than it is to allow one to die.

If we were seeking to try to erect out of the ashes of Holden's an advanced manufacturing sector which we have decided is crucial for the future of this state, we would never be able to achieve it, or we would have to achieve at enormous cost, a cost that would far outweigh the $50 million that we are being asked to contribute. Can I say that that is the approach that guided us. Professor Roos guided us in a our approach.

We were concerned that our assistance was specifically time limited. We were specifically concerned to ensure that our assistance extracted commitments—important commitments—about working with Holden's and the future of our car manufacturing industries, and in addition to the commitments about security at this plant, the two new platforms, until 2022. In addition to those matters we secured a very important commitment, that is, the working party to seek to integrate the operations of Holden's into the global operations of General Motors.

This is crucial because we know that a unique industry here in Australia is not going to survive the stresses and strains that exist in the global competitive environment. We know that we have to be a part of something bigger if we are to survive in the competitive world we find ourselves in. We also know that our component suppliers need to be critically linked into the global supply chain, and this is where the cooperation of General Motors is absolutely vital—their cooperation to joint venture with some of their other component suppliers, their cooperation to migrate some of their existing component suppliers into other manufacturing works so that they are diversified and can withstand and are resilient to the pressures of a global competitive environment.

We also know that that will be supported in large measure by a fund (which has not received as much attention as it should have), a $35 million fund for automotive new markets for our component suppliers which we will co-administer and which is an essential part of the agreement we have been able to reach with the commonwealth.

These package of measures, which go to securing the future beyond 2022, are vital components of the agreement, and they were South Australian initiatives in the national negotiations and South Australian initiatives in the international negotiations. So if you ask me what I was doing in Detroit, that is what I was doing—representing South Australia, fighting for South Australia, securing jobs for South Australia. I was not back here talking down the Premier in his role seeking to represent the interests of this state overseas.

Can I say that the alternative view is the view of the opposition—the opposition whose principal response to any of the big public policy challenges in this state is just to sit back and watch and let the cards fall where they may. They want, essentially, to have the market dictate what should be future industry policy. They do not see a role for government. They might have been embarrassed into supporting this motion but they do not see a role for government.

That is why we had the abject policy confusion of those opposite when they were asked to comment on this:

1. Why are you in Detroit?

2. Should we be car manufacturing?

3. We need to have a cost-benefit analysis.

It is all here for all to see, $50 million leveraging $1 billion, plus $225 million from those other governments, and a commitment to 2022—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —and avoidance of the loss of up to 16,000 jobs, and $1.5 billion being ripped out of our state economy being avoided. That is the cost-benefit analysis. What part of that do you not understand?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Point of order, Mr Acting Speaker: this is an unlimited debate. They have an opportunity to respond if they have the gumption. They could wait till then.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): I support the point of order taken by the minister. I have asked before that the Premier be heard in silence, and I will be offering, and asking for, the same to the Leader of the Opposition. Premier.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. Then, of course, we have the magnificent contribution from the federal Liberal Party. We have Mr Hockey, of course, speculating out loud about whether we should be providing $275 million of support to this industry. We have the Abbott policy, which was to rip $500 million out of the car assistance package, which would undermine the whole proposition that we are seeking to advance here. Of course, there was not a squeak from those opposite about that, no criticism of their federal colleagues, no joining with the state government in the state interests. They are more interested in advancing the Liberal Party's interests than the interests of South Australia.

What is at the heart of this attitude of those opposite? Fundamentally, it is a policy laziness, an inability to come up with a policy concerning the car manufacturing industry. I would have thought that in South Australia any political party that is worth the name would have to have a policy in relation to car manufacturing, but they have so many positions because they are unable to do the public policy work to settle on a policy—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —concerning car manufacturing. This is at the heart of the difficulties that are faced by those opposite. It is essentially the laziness of the policy development process that means they can come up with four different positions in the space of a few weeks on this position. It is the reason we believe the greatest risk that would exist to the future prosperity of this state would be to have those opposite making these decisions.

We have seen an extraordinary week when this debate over the particular commitments that were given by Holden's have been used as a distraction from the real proposition, and that is their settling their position in relation to Holden's. They have done everything. They have been torn asunder in relation to this issue in arriving at a position. Finally, it looks like—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Order, the Leader of the Opposition!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Finally, it looks like the member for Waite might have had his way. It looks like he has prevailed in the party room because, right at the start, some months ago, he said that there should be a bipartisan position in relation to the support of the car manufacturing industry. That is the position that should have been taken from day one; it is the position that should have been taken throughout the whole of this exercise; but those opposite decided that they would play politics with this, and that they would seek to undermine the nature of this support for Holden's in South Australia.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): The Leader of the Opposition will stop interjecting.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We have made absolutely clear in all of our public pronouncements that the objective of this is to grow Holden's. Of course, we are not in control of this global competitive environment, and it may well be that there is a smaller car manufacturing industry in the future in this state. But we will be fighting for every job in relation to Holden's, and one of the ways in which we can maximise the number of jobs that exist here in this state is to ensure that this global company invests a billion dollars here in South Australia. It beggars belief to imagine what more could be done to secure the future of Holden's than to make the co-investment that was necessary and to seek the necessary commitments to work with Holden's to secure our future here in South Australia. That is the commitment that we have; that is what we have decided to promote; and we would urge the house to support this resolution.

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen—Leader of the Opposition) (15:41): In rising to support the motion moved by the Premier, let me make it very clear from the outset that we on this side support, and have always supported, Holden and the retention of its manufacturing base in South Australia. What we do not support is spin from this government.

Let us look at the facts. In 2008, this government, jointly with the federal government, announced a $180 million assistance package for Holden, which the Premier said would 'guarantee a future for the plant, a future for the workers and also a future for the car industry'. That is what we were told in December 2008 was guaranteed, and it turned out to be spin. Fast forward to 2012 and we have a further package, this time from the federal, state and Victorian governments, totalling $275 million. Again, we are told that this is to guarantee jobs, only this time it is not called a bailout or even an assistance package, this time it is called a 'co-investment'—and, again, the spin.

Indeed, the Minister for Industry and Trade, minister Koutsantonis, assured the workers, the media and the public that the agreement that they had reached guaranteed no forced redundancies. His exact words were:

The guarantees we've got are no forced redundancies...they've promised no forced redundancies.

That was clearly more government spin, because even the Premier has had to admit—indeed, even minister Koutsantonis has had to admit—that there is no such guarantee. Yesterday we had yet more spin in this place when the Premier said:

We've had the opportunity to communicate with Holden...and they confirmed that they have not told the opposition that they (meaning GMH) told the government the number of job losses at the Elizabeth plant.

But, today, a Holden spokeswoman told The Australian online that:

...the Premier had indeed been provided with worst-case scenario job loss predictions but that it was commercial-in-confidence.

Yesterday the Premier wanted us to believe that he had not been told the figure but today, even in this place, he has had to admit that he was, indeed, told the figure.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: Yes, you did. This is a quote from The Australian:

Asked if that commercial-in-confidence information had been passed onto Mr Weatherill, the spokeswoman said: 'Yes...we have to state what was the minimum guarantee we could look at in terms of workforce size and production volume.'

The Premier tried to make out in this chamber yesterday that my questions suggesting that he had been told what potential job losses there could be, and that there was a figure of job losses which would trigger the clawback of some of this funding (or bailout, or co-investment, whatever it is) were not true. That is directly contradicted by a Holden's spokeswoman today.

This is a tricky, deceptive government. They have, of course, learnt from a master. They know that they can go out and say one thing in the media and to the public, but when they are in this place, where they can be held to account for their statements, they will not say things at all, or they shy away from putting what they said on the record so that we can test it. Remember the Murray-Darling Basin plan? The day it came out the Premier went out and said, '4,000 gigalitres, not a litre less, and a High Court challenge,' but when we asked him about that in this place he would not say a word about either of those things.

What about last week? Just last week we had the accusation out in the public from the Premier that Woolworths and Coles were behind this campaign—members of the MTA. Would he put that on the record in here when we challenged it? No, because he knew that it was not true.

Of course, the government wants to paint itself as the hero in this whole exercise, that it has come to the rescue of the motor industry in this state. It is interesting to note that this $50 million package is not going to be payable until $25 million gets paid in 2016-17 and another $25 million in 2017-18. In other words, the money will not need to be found until after the next election. And guess what?

Mr Pederick: We'll have to find it.

Mrs REDMOND: We will have to find it, but they want to sell it as though they are the great saviours of the industry in this state—more spin by this government. As I said at the outset, we support Holden, we support providing necessary assistance, and we support the Premier's motion. However, given that the payments, which this government is signing up for, could well be payments that we have to make as the government in 2016 and 2017, we do not think it is unreasonable—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Order!

Mrs REDMOND: —that we at least know the details: what is the business case? We know and understand that we make good cars in this country, that it is one of the few places in the world where the whole process, from design and engineering, development and manufacture, can be undertaken to produce a product of exceptional quality that is highly regarded right around the world. We know and understand that.

We also know and understand that the rate of exchange, with our dollar being so high, has a dramatic impact on the sale of all sorts of exports including cars, but not just cars. And, we know and understand that, with a couple of exceptions for high-end vehicles everywhere in the world—the 13 places around the world where cars are manufactured—those products are protected either by high tariffs or by some sort of government support. We know that.

Indeed, some months ago, when the Premier first dashed off to Detroit, I went to the bother of arranging to speak with very senior people in the motor industry, people with international experience who specifically were not from Holden. I am convinced that the car industry in this state is worth supporting.

We also know, of course, that it is not just the direct jobs at the manufacturing plant that will be secured. It is thousands of businesses that stand to lose out if the plant should close, and they are all worth protecting. We are agreed on all that, but the government's proposition seems to be that, having said that, it is then unreasonable of the opposition to seek any further details of this deal, details such as how many jobs are actually to be secured? For what period of time? What guarantees are there? At what point of job losses would any obligation to repay any of the money kick in?

When he returned from Detroit, the Premier told us that the deal he had been negotiating would lead to—again, I quote his phrase—'a smaller but more secure industry' here, but he will not tell us how much smaller. Industry minister Tom Koutsantonis told the media that there would be 2,000 jobs; that is 400 fewer than there are at present. So, let us just backtrack for a moment.

The support package of $180 million, announced at the end of 2008 to guarantee the future, has since seen 470 jobs go. The co-investment package of $275 million now being announced could see more jobs go, only the government does not want to tell us how many. All we know is that, in spite of minister Koutsantonis' initial assertions, there is no guarantee of no forced redundancies and certainly no guarantee of no job losses.

The Premier stood in this place yesterday and said that there would be an increase in the workforce, but not only can he not guarantee that, he cannot even guarantee there would not be job losses. I simply do not think that we are asking too much as the opposition, particularly the opposition which would have to find the funds to make the actual payments, to be let in on the secret. Why is it that you are allowed to know but not us?

All we seek to understand is the business case. What will the investment of $50 million by this state actually secure for the taxpayers whose money you are spending? Bear in mind, Premier, that, in fact, the taxpayers of this state are putting in more than $50 million because there is the $50 million coming from the state coffers, but we are equally taxpayers at a federal level and we will be putting in a proportion of the $215 million, which I calculate to be at least another $15 million coming out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this state.

Bear in mind too, Premier, that we have an obligation to ask these questions on behalf of the many businesses out there that are struggling but are not getting any help from the government. They are struggling under the burden of being in the highest taxed state in the country—the highest tax regime in the whole country. This has been imposed by this government. Those businesses want to know why they are ignored and left to sink or swim, yet a large multinational company, which returned a very handsome profit last year, gets funded by the state to the tune of millions of dollars.

Let us remember that this is all before the carbon tax—a tax introduced by a Labor government—which will start impacting from 1 July this year, and which even Mike Devereux, the head of Holden, acknowledges will, at the price the government intends, cost the industry at least $40 million to $50 million a year.

In closing, may I say once more very clearly: yes, we support Holden. Yes, we support the motor industry in this state. Yes, we support the motion moved by the Premier, but we would be failing in our obligations as the opposition if we did not say that it is simply unreasonable of the government to expect us to ask no questions, seek no clarification of commitments or guarantees and simply say to the government, 'Yes, sure; whatever you think is a fair thing,' especially when, clearly, this government, over its 10 years in office, has so badly managed the economy of this state that, where we should have savings, we instead have a debt which is already costing the taxpayers of this state $2 million a day in interest.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (15:51): What is distressing about this debate is that it is absolutely plain that the opposition in South Australia has no understanding of our current need, has no vision for the future and has no sense of the past in this state. What is further distressing is the utter lack of candour just displayed by the Leader of the Opposition, who got up, accused us of spin and went on to say that she has always supported Holden's, always would—all of that sort of thing. But of course, in her own words on 10 January:

I think for us to have a future in this country generally in cars, when you look at a map of the world, if you wanted to produce something very heavy and transport it around the world, this would probably not be the place you'd choose.

And to what extent do you justify paying money to a vast international private company as a mechanism to run a government?

We're all hopeful Holden can stay here, but the reality is we've already put a considerable amount of money...

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Order! The minister will be heard in silence.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: They have always supported Holden, but can I tell you, with support like that, Holden does not need enemies. It does not need enemies with support like that. She has clearly put in question whether we should have a car industry at all. If she says her words do not mean that then she is dissembling. That is exactly what she said.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Order! The minister will be heard in silence.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: They have always supported Holden's. They have a sense of its need, a sense of the future; but yet, the Leader of the Opposition, I think on 15 or 16 March—two years to the next election; the turning point to the next election—gave her speech on the future of this state to the Press Club. So many words she used and, of course, she always supported Holden's. I have looked through to see what she said about Holden's. There was not a mention, not a word, not a care—consistent with her earlier statement that maybe we do not need a car industry in this state because that is what her words meant.

I ask her to consider the history of this state and the history of Australia and what occurred with so many people. I am incredibly grateful to have come to this country. So many people who have come to this country since World War II worked at Holden's and got their start there.

In the eighties, the Hawke and Keating governments entered into a period of the greatest economic reform the nation has seen, a period that the nation still benefits from. However, it had major problems for protected manufacturing in this country. They put the blowtorch of the international market on the Australian economy, made it stronger, and some fell behind. South Australia lost a lot of protected manufacturing. It did not lose Holden's because it is a good company; it survived that.

What it has suffered in recent times is an extremely high dollar (because Australia is one of the most successful economies in the world) and the worst series of global financial crises since the Great Depression. Those are not ordinary things, and it is in those circumstances that this government looked at a company that had made such a contribution to so many lives in South Australia and said, 'Well, you've got through some hard times in the past, you got through the eighties, you got through all of that. We want to see if you can get through this,' and the Premier flew to Detroit. Again, that great supporter of Holden on the other side did not think that was necessary—cars shmars, who needs a car industry? She did not like that idea. A deal has been done where the state will invest $50 million.

The complaint from the Leader of the Opposition is that we do not have to pay the money for a while. What a complaint that is. She would prefer we paid it upfront. I have got to say that I do struggle with that. The truth is, having considered what I have said—the contribution of this company to our state, the future it gave so many South Australians and those up to 16,000 jobs; to this very day we rely on that company—that a contribution of $50 million delayed from this state has leveraged a billion dollars of investment from that company, two new cars and an intelligent plan to embed ourselves in the international car industry in a way that we have not done before, which is going to be the really sustainable piece of this arrangement.

This is intelligence stuff. This is stuff that goes to the fabric of our state. This is stuff that goes to those jobs of 16,000 people who will go to bed tonight knowing that they have a future. It is not simply a handout; it is a plan to make Holden more sustainable in a difficult world environment, and it is a good thing to do.

Whatever the Leader of the Opposition says she now says, what I can say is this: until she was dragged in to this debate today, she actually spent more words writing a letter to the editor complaining about a journalist who wrote an article stating that she might be replaced as the Leader of the Opposition by some ring-in. There were more words in her letter to the editor than we got on Holden's until that point, which just shows that she is far more interested in her job than she is in those 16,000 people who rely on Holden's in this state. The truth of the matter is—as the Premier said—that this is an opposition utterly devoid of policies and ideas. I read—

Mr Marshall: You can't even address the substance of your own motion.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I'm sorry? Are you going to say something? I have an interjection from the member for Norwood. I am told that the member for Norwood is the future of the Liberal Party. Nothing reassures me more about our future than knowing that he is the future of theirs. I find nothing more comforting. I do look forward to your contribution to the debate. I do remind you though that Liberals do tend to be oncers in that seat, so I am trying not to get attached to you, as fond of you as I am. I am trying not to get attached. You never cuddle a mug; they die in your arms.

I will return to the point. I looked through the speech of the Leader of the Opposition to find what policies she has for the future. She did set out some priorities. She talked about how bad we were, of course, and how good their government would be, but in all of those pages this is the one thing that she actually said that she would do: 'A Redmond Liberal government will do this by cutting government waste and reining in spending.' Well, aren't we all assured then? The future is secure. The truth is that, since the ideas of the former leader (Martin Hamilton-Smith) ran out, there has not been an idea on that side. I will give him credit: at least he has ideas, but they have run out, and, since they have run out, there has not been one more. We turn towards this election and they come in here basking in the glory of a Queensland result. Bask all you like—

Mr Marshall: It was a beauty!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It was a beauty, he says. You would probably have a brighter future there, member for Norwood, than you do here. You do tend to be oncers here. Let me say this: as we turn towards the next election, as people in South Australia consider a future and consider a government that has acted swiftly and intelligently to underwrite the future of one of the most important companies in this state, they will consider that against an opposition that has no policy, has not an idea and has not contributed in a public debate with a single substantial idea and whose attitude towards the car industry is, 'Do we really need one?'

The Leader of the Opposition can squirm on this all she likes but her words were, 'Do we really need it?' They meant, 'Do we really need a car industry in this state?' She may not believe that but there are 16,000 people and their families in the northern suburbs who believe that we need Holden's. I hope that the opposition debates this properly because I think—

Mrs Redmond: Why aren't you debating it?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Why aren't I debating? The truth is that those 16,000 jobs are not only incredibly important now to those people, but in a state that has a big future in the mining industry and a deliberate plan by this government to have a manufacturing base in that mining industry we need those manufacturing skills preserved.

It is not what we say; it is what Göran Roos says; it is what the intelligent people say; it is what the response to this in many think-tanks around the country has been. The only people poo-pooing this idea have been the opposition here and the opposition in Canberra. We stand for those workers. We stand for a manufacturing future. We stand for value-adding to a very bright future in this state. The Leader of the Opposition should spend less time writing letters to the editor about her own job and consider the jobs of those at Holden's.

Mr MARSHALL (Norwood) (16:02): I rise to support my leader and to support this motion which has been proposed by the Premier. I follow a very interesting and entertaining speaker who virtually failed to address the substance of this motion and, by doing that, he really belittles the importance of the manufacturing sector in South Australia. It is a serious debate and it deserves some serious attention.

Unfortunately, the previous speaker used most of his time basically trying to attack the opposition—a very poor use of his time—but it is emblematic of their entire time in government. It is all about attacking their opposition and their competition rather than addressing the salient points regarding industry and trade in South Australia.

Naturally, the Liberal Party supports Holden. We support the automotive sector and we support manufacturing here in South Australia. That goes without saying. It has been the long-held position of our party to support manufacturing in South Australia. May I say that we are absolutely delighted that the Labor Party, the government of South Australia, has finally come around to this way of thinking.

Do not forget that this is the government which has basically denigrated our manufacturing history in South Australia for their entire 10 years in parliament. They are always referring to the past of South Australia as this rust-bucket economy, having a go at manufacturing. They have seen the new light on the hill—defence and mining—and we support those two important sectors but unlike the government we have never turned our back on the importance of the manufacturing sector and the importance of the automotive sector in South Australia. They should hang their heads in shame.

This government's support for manufacturing has been shameful. Let me tell you about one of their very first decisions in government: to close the South Australian Centre for Manufacturing. The South Australian Centre for Manufacturing was, of course, set up by the former Liberal government. It was set up at the former Woodville plant of Holden, a plant that I know particularly well with my father being apprenticed as a fitter and turner and achieving his trade status at that plant, so I know about that organisation and I know about the South Australian Centre for Manufacturing. It was a leader. It was linked to the Fraunhofer Institute in Germany and it was seen and recognised throughout Australia, throughout the world as a leading think tank in helping manufacturing make that transition, that all-important transition.

In fact, it is important to note and put on the record that the Queensland Manufacturing Institute, the pre-eminent manufacturing institute in Australia at the moment, was modelled on the very institute that this government decided to get rid of when they got to government. It is an absolute disgrace! But as I said, they have finally seen the light. All of a sudden, in the last couple of weeks, we have seen press release after press release on the importance of the manufacturing sector. Congratulations! We congratulate you. It has taken 10 years, but we congratulate you for finally coming around to this way of thinking.

Let's have a look at some of the announcements that they have made. One of my favourites, of course, was the setting up of the ministerial task force into advanced manufacturing in South Australia. Let me tell you who is on that task force: we have minister Portolesi, we have minister Kenyon, we have the Treasurer, and we have minister Koutsantonis. I doubt whether there is one single solitary day of manufacturing experience amongst the lot. Did they put Mr Sibbons, the member for Mitchell, on that? He has considerable expertise in manufacturing, in particular in automotive manufacturing. Did they put Mr Sibbons on? No! They put a whole pile of people on there with no background in manufacturing, because this was all about spin. All about spin, because that is all they stand for.

Let me tell you about some of their other announcements. They decided to set up an advanced manufacturing council. I thought this was absolutely fantastic. Again, this government now understands the importance of the manufacturing council. We did wonder what this was going to do to the Manufacturing Consultative Committee. What was going to be the difference between their approaches? In the Budget and Finance Committee, a select committee of this parliament, it was all revealed. It was all revealed by their department executives—the Manufacturing Consultative Committee is going. So this is just another rename, another press release, another lack of substance by this government, not wanting to support the manufacturing sector, just wanting to support themselves, with their spin machine trying to tell us about what they are doing for the sector. What a lot of rubbish!

I do congratulate the government on supporting the application of the industry—and this is important—to establish a thinker in residence in manufacturing. This is a fantastic initiative, but again it is not actually the initiative of the government. The government does have a thinker in residence program. It is a pity they do not have a few more resident thinkers, but anyway they have a thinker in residence program and the industry decided, because of the parlous state that manufacturing is in in South Australia because of the neglect of this government over 10 years, that they would sponsor an eminent thinker to come out to South Australia and help us out of this mire.

They put in in excess of $100,000 of their own money, industry's money, industry not saying, 'Give us a handout,' industry basically saying, 'We want to put in to bring out this thinker.' They selected Professor Göran Roos, who is based at Warwick University in the UK, and he is undoubtedly an expert in this particular field. His report is excellent; it is excellent. It is an outstanding report and it addresses the decline that has existed in manufacturing over the last 10 years.

Do not forget that when this government came to power we had between 85,000 and 86,000 people directly employed in manufacturing. We have lost 10,000 jobs in this important sector over the life of this government. It is fine that the minister wants to stand up and tell us about their great interest in the manufacturing sector, but let me tell you it has been left to wither on the vine under their stewardship.

I had a meeting with Professor Göran Roos. In fact, I attended the very first lecture that he gave when he came to Adelaide. It was given at the Adelaide University and it was an excellent speech, outlining some of the real challenges that face our sector moving forward. I was very fortunate to have a meeting with Professor Göran Roos recently. Of course this meeting was not set up by the government. The government wanted basically to keep the opposition in the dark. It was set up and insisted upon by the industry, and what was the first thing that Professor Roos said to me? He said to me, 'Mr Marshall, one of the most important things that we can do for manufacturing and for jobs in South Australia is to work in a bipartisan way.' Well, I thought that he had been reading Liberal Party policy. I thought it was a naive comment, given the minister and the Premier who are responsible for this deal at the moment.

He made the point that there are things that governments can actually argue about. We can argue about health policy and education policy and law and order, but there are certain things which go beyond an electoral cycle. Economic development is a crucial component to our long-term productivity, viability and success as a state, and he suggested that what we should do is work on a bipartisan basis; so let me just put a few things on the record about how this deal with Holden occurred.

First of all, we found out that the Premier was flying out to Detroit. Now, that begs a question. In this new era of bipartisanship, did he provide the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow minister or anyone in the Liberal Party with a briefing on why he was flying out to Detroit? The answer to that is no. He did not give anything. The second thing is that he goes and calls a press conference over there because he knows it is going to have maximum impact. So he calls a press conference and he says, 'Holden is in imminent danger of closing,' so we have the drama. Again, was there any briefing to the opposition? No.

When he comes back we asked a very simple question, respectfully, 'Premier, you've come back. You've announced that we are in imminent danger. You're calling for a bipartisan approach to this. Can we have a briefing?' The answer is no. He still does not want to give us a briefing. He refuses to do a cost-benefit analysis from day one, which one would sort of think that, when we are looking at spending this sum of money, a cost benefit analysis might be something that would be expected. Let me tell you: no-one in Holden's put up some half-baked idea without there being a cost-benefit analysis to their shareholders. No. But the taxpayers of South Australia have to just basically go blindly on your say-so. Well, it is an absolute outrage.

So then what does the Premier do? When he is absolutely punished in the paper about not providing a cost-benefit analysis, what does he do? He goes to the Adelaide University and gets Barry Bergen to do a report; so he uses state taxpayer funds to actually commission a report to tell us something that we already know, that we are in this house to actually agree on. We know the importance of the auto sector in South Australia. We know what the multiplier is all about. We know that it is crucially important.

We are hear to support his motion today. We are here in this house to support the motion, yet he spends more taxpayer money telling us something that we already knew. It is a disgrace. It is a waste of money. So what is the solution, because a lot of people are critical of opposition when we get up and criticise? What would we do differently? We have stated repeatedly that we would be using the Industry Development Committee (IDC) of the economic and finance standing committee of this parliament to actually look at long-range investments in our grants programs and to support strategically identified sectors of our economy. We would be using that. It has operated extremely well from 2002 up until about 2005 in this parliament.

There were no leaks. The meeting is held in camera. At any opportunity the Premier can now call upon the IDC and to provide that information to the IDC so that opposition members who represent the people in their electorates and the people of South Australia can have some assurance that this is a good deal for South Australia hitherto undeclared by this government. So, what have we actually got here? I will tell you what we have not got is very much detail. The deal as I see it is a $50 million contribution from the taxpayers of South Australia.

Now let me tell you about this contribution because a lot of people are saying, 'Well, look, this is a lot of money from the taxpayer funds.' Let me tell you in case any of you have not read the budget papers: we do not have any taxpayer funds. There are no taxpayer funds. There is no bank account sitting there from which we are going draw out money and pay over to Holden. That does not exist. What we are being asked to do here is to take out a loan. We are being asked to take out a loan to pay to this company. That is why it brings it into sharp focus. We do not even have this money to give: we are being asked to take out a loan to give to this company. We need to know what is in the deal and what its components are.

We also know that the commonwealth government is paying $215 million into this deal and, interestingly, the Victorians are putting just $10 million into this deal. We know that the commonwealth, in addition to this, are paying to the automotive sector, via the ATS, some $1.5 billion between now and 2015, so the vast majority of this, of course, is going to the three major car manufacturers and their supply chains which exist in Australia. That $1.5 billion is completely over and above that amount.

We also know, and I do not think this has been articulated in the media particularly clearly to date, that South Australia used $31 million of taxpayer funds last financial year to pay to Holden. We paid almost $31 million last year and this year we are back negotiating a new rescue package. It begs the question: when will they be back again? That is a decent and legitimate question because the government has failed to address the fundamentals that affect the viability of this sector.

When I talk about the viabilities, I am not one of those members of this parliament who wants to blame everything on the other side of parliament. The simple fact of the matter is the automotive and manufacturing sector is facing unique changes at the moment. The high Australian dollar is a barrier to the sector and the global financial crisis is a barrier to that sector. Those are things which, quite rightly, the state government cannot solve, but there are things that are completely and utterly within the control of the state and federal governments and they are the things we wish the government to be addressing.

Let us take a look at them. I think it goes without saying—everybody accepts this: the government even accepts this—that we are the highest taxed state in Australia. We are the highest business-taxed state in Australia. The Premier wants to sit over there in denial. He also does not want to accept that we are technically in recession. He is a great denier, because he wants to talk. In fact, when we had question time today and it was all going to be about Holden's, the first question that he gets asked is a Dorothy Dixer from his own side about the swimming carnival. This is a guy who really wants to talk about Holden but the first question he gets is a Dorothy Dixer on the swimming carnival. Then, one question after another, he completely avoided anything to do with Holden's. The simple fact of the matter is we are the highest business-taxed state in Australia and that is completely and utterly within the control of this government. What have they done about it? Absolutely nothing.

In addition to that, the ongoing incredible regulation burden which is put on manufacturing in South Australia is completely and utterly out of control. This happens both at a state level and at a federal level. But, probably the most heinous thing that this government does to attack the manufacturing sector and its future viability is, unequivocally, its support for the federal government's toxic carbon tax.

Every single company in Australia knows that this is a bad tax. It is a tax on jobs and it is a tax on the viability of our manufacturing sector, yet our Premier chooses to support it. In fact, he is now the only premier of any mainland state in Australia who wants to stand by that toxic carbon tax. He, of course, does not want to accept that that may be one of the deciding factors for the electors in Queensland on the weekend. It is wrong, and he should move away from it immediately. Make no mistake: this carbon tax will cost jobs and it will cost companies, and the sooner he moves away from it and distances himself from the federal government, the better off we will all be.

I want to address in my remaining moments some of the points that the Premier made with respect to establishing a working party on integration of the Holden Australian business with their global supply chain. Let me tell members what my fear here is. In about 95 days' time we are going to have a carbon tax imposed upon that supply chain. It is great that the government has entered into an agreement with Holden, but it has not entered into an agreement with the rest of the supply chain. So, as the costs of that supply chain go up, and now we are integrated into the global supply chain, I have real reservations about those other 14,000 people that the Premier is repeatedly referring to in the automotive sector in South Australia. What is the security of their jobs? Let me tell you, there is nothing whatsoever in this agreement regarding the protection of jobs within the supply chain, and I know that because I asked that question when we met with a Holden executive earlier this week, and I thank Holden for that briefing, although there was very little they could tell us, they did the best that they possibly could.

At the end of the day, there is no component which protects the suppliers in the broader auto sector. We heard today that there is no protection for the workers in terms of unforced redundancies in this project, and there has been little regard from the government in terms of what clawbacks might exist in this contract and when they might be brought into action.

I must put on the record that I am very glad that Holden has made a commitment to the ongoing manufacturing of their product here in South Australia. This is an absolutely fantastic decision for South Australia, for future employees, and for the economy in general. Of course, we do not know the details of this; we have been given very few details. The government has had a perfect opportunity in the parliament today to provide us with more details—nothing. They have a perfect opportunity when the Economic and Finance Committee meets tomorrow for them to move this to the IDC so that we can have a transparent look at this. We wait with bated breath for that meeting which is going to be held tomorrow.

So, we have fixed up the concerns of one company through to 2022. The real challenge now for the Premier, and the real challenge now for the government is what are they going to do for the other 200,000 businesses in South Australia who are going to be hit with this carbon tax? What are they going to do for the other 200,000 businesses in South Australia which are hit with their unusually high rates of business tax in Australia? It is a big challenge for this government. Personally I do not think they are up to it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Small Business) (16:22): The member for Norwood talked about being bipartisan and then went on to attack four ministers and their ability immediately. He then went on to contradict Liberal Party policy saying he supported the Thinkers in Residence program. He then attacked the membership of the Advanced Manufacturing Council—although Göran Roos is the chair, and Steve Myatt is on it, but, of course, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

The Liberals support this, other than Alexander Downer, other than Joe Hockey, other than Mitch Williams who would rather put this money into a port, other than the Leader of the Opposition who thinks that manufacturing cars is too heavy for South Australia. Jamie Briggs, the Liberal member for Mayo has said that this is a mistake. Alexander Downer went as far as to say that Holden is building cars we don't want. That is just not true.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Holden building cars? Anyway, I will talk about you in a minute, don't worry, be patient.

Mr Marshall: I've got a meeting at 4.30, bring it to the front.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: And that's the arrogance, isn't it? That's the arrogance. I always said that the devil's favourite sin is pride. I will get to your grant in a moment, but we will talk more about how the Liberal Party goes out and tries to have a bob each way on this. They have their commentators. Ian Smith—who is a very prominent supporter of the Liberal Party and, I understand, a fundraiser for the Liberal Party, and someone who works with Alexander Downer, Hon. Nick Bolkus, and now the former deputy and treasurer, Kevin Foley, in Bespoke Approach—said:

Perhaps Adelaide once needed Holden but does it need it now? The answer must be no, particularly if we are to shrug off the mendicant state tag.

Joe Hockey said:

I have deep, deep reservations about handing to one company over a quarter of a billion dollars of taxpayers' money...that company is nearly 50 per cent owned by foreign governments...

He is, of course, talking about the United States government and the TARP bailouts. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that perhaps, maybe, we would be better off putting this money into ports rather than into Holden and manufacturing in the state.

The Leader of the Opposition criticised the Premier for going to Detroit, criticised the idea of manufacturing cars here in this state, but now is voting for this motion. I think, ultimately, they are all a bit confused, but I think the person who is most confused about this is the shadow manufacturing minister, the shadow minister for industry and trade. He claims that this is all about the carbon tax. He claims this is all about the carbon tax and nothing else, that the reason that Holden needs $50 million from the state government, $10 million from the Victorian government, and the remainder from the commonwealth government is because of the carbon tax.

This is the shadow environment spokesperson who says that the carbon tax is toxic. This is the shadow environment minister who runs around on radio saying, 'We've got to adapt to living in a carbon-constrained world.' Well, how are you going to have a carbon-constrained world if you oppose a carbon tax? The idea of a carbon tax—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The idea of a carbon tax is that you put a price on pollution. You do not believe carbon is pollution, and you are the environment spokesperson. I think you should go around the streets of Norwood and tell your constituents the truth. I think you should go to those constituents in Norwood and say to them, 'I am the Liberal Party's industry spokesperson and environment spokesperson and I think like Tony Abbott that climate change is crap.' That is what you should go around and say, but you will not, because what you do is you use one piece of language here in the parliament and another piece of language out there in the community. On the ABC he talks about a carbon-constrained world. On FIVEaa the carbon tax is toxic. There is a word for that, Mr Acting Speaker, and it is a Greek word, and it starts with an H: it is called hypocrisy.

Mr Marshall: What's H?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Hypocrisy.

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order: speakers have previously ruled that the use of the word hypocrisy is unparliamentary.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): I would ask the minister to withdraw that comment.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I withdraw.

Mr Williams: I'm not wrong, Tom.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, you are, but, you know, on the constitution. The truth is that every car driven on South Australia's roads today has a form of government subsidy, whether it is tariff protection—

Mr Pisoni: And a speed limit.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It does have a speed limit, and I will talk more about that in a moment as well. The truth is that all those vehicles on South Australian roads have a form of government protection, whether it be a tariff protection, whether it be a government subsidy, or whether it be a form of government intervention. Government intervention is very important. It is important in Sweden, the United States, France, Canada, Germany, almost every Asian country, and, of course, Russia is always producing vast numbers of vehicles.

Back to my point about Alexander Downer saying that these car companies are making cars we do not want. The truth is that the Commodore was number two nationally last year and the Cruze was number five nationally, selling over 73,000 combined vehicles last year. That is a good effort with a good brand from good company, a good Australian company. Maintaining that strategic ability to design, manufacture and sell Australian-made cars is a very important function that we want to maintain in this state.

I think the important thing to remember as well about Holden, because there have been a lot of attacks on the brand for members opposite, is that sales of Holden's locally manufactured vehicles are up 24.9 per cent from last year—they are up on the previous year. I think these are good things. The important thing about our investment is that we are leveraging a relatively small amount of money in comparison to the very large amount of money of private capital. Like the Treasurer asked the shadow treasurer: what has the Liberal Party got against private capital? Do we really need to go through this debate—

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: When the Liberal Party goes out and attacks the brand Holden, or attacks manufacturing in this state, but then comes here and votes for a measure, it shows really what they are trying to do. They do not really want to be attacked on their true belief on manufacturing, which is that, quite frankly, when it comes to automation and manufacturing the market should rule. They believe that they should be able to buy any vehicle they want from other countries rather than having to support locally made manufacturers because they think it is more expensive.

It is not more expensive. In fact, if you look at some of the research done by Sapere, you will find that in comparison, and these are US figures: Sweden subsidise their car industry by, on average, I am advised, $334 per worker; the United States, $264 per worker; France, $147 per worker; Canada, $96 per worker; Germany—which makes Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Opel and other cars—$90 per worker; the United Kingdom, $28 per worker; and Australia, about $17 to $18. I have to say that is a good deal. That is a very good deal, and what we have to realise is that no car that is mass produced for sale can survive without a form of subsidy. That subsidy is important, whether it is in terms of the co-investment or a tariff protection.

We have made a decision in this government that we are not going to support increasing tariff protection. What we are going to increase, of course, is our support for a co-investment. What does that co-investment guarantee this state? It guarantees us manufacturing until 2022. It guarantees us an investment to manufacture two platforms in this state for the next decade.

Who does that guarantee employment for? The workers at Elizabeth—people who, through no fault of their own, are involved in an industry that is highly competitive, that fluctuates with the high Australian dollar and has forces at work that make it difficult for them to compete where no-one has any control over it.

The truth is they can manufacture vehicles a lot cheaper in Russia, Thailand and other parts of Asia such as India, but the most important thing we have with our $50 million is $1 billion of private capital being invested in this country to support local manufacturing; that is a good thing. It should be welcomed by both sides of parliament. Quite frankly, I do not understand why there is so much angst about this.

In terms of supporting workers at Holden, I think it is important that we send out one message to those workers, and that is that the government and the Parliament of South Australia are right behind you. I know, and it came up, I think, during the by-election campaigns, that a lot of people were confused about the mixed messages coming out from Canberra—that is, the opposition and the state opposition here—about the importance of manufacturing in this state.

We heard the shadow minister wax lyrical about how important manufacturing is, but I have never heard him once condemn Jamie Briggs. I have never heard him once say a contrary word to what Jamie Briggs said. I have never heard him once get up and say, 'Jamie Briggs was wrong and does not speak for the Liberal Party of South Australia'—not once.

What does he do? After calling for bipartisan support, he attacks us; that is what he does. I think this is a little bit unusual, given that the member for Norwood is a beneficiary of taxpayers' largesse, more than, I think, anyone else in this room. I do not think there is a member of parliament in here who has ever received a $50,000 grant from the commonwealth government to improve IT operations at the family business, which he then sold, of course. He sold it a few years later to a foreign company, I am advised.

Mr Pisoni: You don't like free enterprise?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am all for free enterprise. How is a government subsidy free enterprise?

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Okay. All of a sudden, when it is for one of his mates, a government subsidy is free enterprise. When you subsidise workers at Holden, it is socialism. There is a difference, is there? Okay, there is a difference from the member for Unley. When you subsidise your mates, it is okay.

Let me give you a hypothetical. What would happen if I gave a grant to one of my sub-branch members for $50,000 to upgrade their IT works and then they sold that company, after a $50,000 grant, and the work went offshore? What would happen? What would the Liberal Party say about that? They would be calling for ICACs, they would be calling for my resignation, they would be calling for the money to be paid back.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): You have a point of order?

Mr MARSHALL: I do: imputing improper motives. Perhaps the minister would like to clarify his example there.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): There is no point of order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will clarify it for him. I am the Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade. There are grant lines that I administer. I wonder what the member for Norwood would say if I gave a grant to a member of the Australian Labor Party. The member for Norwood used his factory, his premises, to launch a commonwealth government grant scheme, I am advised.

Mr Marshall: Which one?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You did not? Okay, I will read it out to you: 'In 1999, Marshall Furniture received a $50,000—'

Mr Marshall: 1999?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: $50,000—what is that in today's money?

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Order!

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: And how many people does it employ now, after your $50,000 grant?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: How many does it employ now?

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Order! The member for Norwood, please. Are you taking a point of order, otherwise you are not allowed to speak? Minister.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think the member for Norwood, as I read in The Advertiser yesterday, has—

Mr PISONI: Point of order: I believe that the minister is imputing improper motives on the member for Norwood, suggesting that he was a member of the Liberal Party while receiving a grant.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): I will listen carefully to the minister. It has been a wide-ranging debate.

Mr PISONI: The member for Norwood was not a member of the Liberal Party when Marshall Furniture received a grant. Clearly, the minister accused the member for Norwood of receiving a grant, with the only qualification being that he was a member of the Liberal Party.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): There is no point of order.

Mr PISONI: The minister said that he was a member of the Liberal Party receiving a government grant.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): There is no point of order and I ask you to sit down, please.

Mr PISONI: He is wrong and I ask—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): I have made a ruling and I ask you to sit down. Minister.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am pleased to learn that he was not a member of the Liberal Party. I understand that he is a member of the Liberal Party now. I am sure that if I check your returns on the parliament website, you would have declared your membership with the Liberal Party. I am sure you have. I will double-check that. So, after receiving the $50,000 grant aimed at assisting furniture companies to adjust to import competition, Mr Marshall said that he saw the writing on the wall and the Marshall family decided to sell the business to a global industrial complex listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange.

An honourable member: So what?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The connection I am making—

Mr Pisoni: He saved all those jobs.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: He saved all those jobs, did he?

Mr Marshall: Yes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Those jobs are still here today, are they?

Mr Marshall: Well, I sold the company.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Okay. That is the point: when it is a subsidy for working-class people, they get outraged and they say, 'They're making cars we don't want,' but when they get a subsidy for $50,000, it is okay.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): The member for Norwood will remain quiet.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think the important thing here is that we are saving jobs. I think the opposition should be clear. If they really support Holden and this investment, why will they not speak to Jamie Briggs? Why will they not bring Jamie Briggs into line? Do you know why they won't? Because they secretly believe what he says. They really like what he has got to say. They enjoy him being out there because he is the one who can speak the truth for them. He is the one they really support. They are happy to accept government grants for themselves but not for working people. Working people do not deserve to have government assistance—

Mr Marshall: Working people.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, working people. No-one at Holden inherited a job. Not one person inherited a job at Holden—not one. They all got it through their own hard labour.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Member for Norwood, please refrain from what you are doing. You were heard in silence, so the minister deserves to be heard in silence.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: He was heard in silence, sir. It was very difficult, but he was heard in silence. I think Holden is an iconic brand that deserves to be supported. The important thing about supporting Holden is the private investment—

Mr Marshall: It's on the record.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That you received $50,000 of government grants? No problem. It is public.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Member for Norwood, come to order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, not at all, I am just going to harass you, no-one else.

Mr Marshall: This is all on the record.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That's right, absolutely. Guess what? You are in Parliament House and we have Hansard. Well done. Congratulations; you are a genius.

Mr Pisoni: You are obsessed with the member for Norwood.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, he is my shadow minister. What do you want me to do, ignore him?

Mr Hamilton-Smith: Yes, that's what ministers usually do.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will be listening to your contribution in a moment. The important thing to remember about this investment in Holden is the private capital we are getting. The private capital we are getting is the best story and that story has been missed. It is not that the government has to prop up Holden on its own; it is not that government has to go in and guarantee all these jobs; it is not that government has to guarantee the two new platforms: it is that we are standing by a private company that is putting a vast amount of the money into the platforms. They are the ones taking most of the risk, they are the ones who are investing the most in Holden and they are the ones we are standing by.

I think that message has been lost a little bit because members of the opposition try to make it sound as if it is just the government money that is guaranteeing the two new platforms, not Holden's investment, not GM's investment and not GM's faith in the Australian economy. I think that the Australian economy, through a high Australian dollar, is doing very well under very difficult circumstances.

Unfortunately, manufacturers are doing it tough—very, very hard—and they need government help whether it is through policies or co-investment. What they do not need is rhetoric. We only found out today at lunchtime through the shadow treasurer that they were supporting this motion. They did not have the decency on the day to say that they supported the workers at Holden. They waited and waited—all day. We did not find out their final position until the last moment. Why? Because they are embarrassed about their position. They do not really believe it; they do not really want to support Holden; they do not really want to support those workers. With those few comments, I commend the motion to the house.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (16:40): The Minister for Manufacturing would have to be joking. He comes in here and tries to put words in the opposition's mouth that we do not support manufacturing and we do not support Holden's. Let me tell the Minister for Manufacturing a bit of history. The first female South Australian in the federal parliament was a member of the Holden family, a Liberal, so do not come in here and say that the Liberal Party has a long history of not supporting the manufacturing industry—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Tell Jamie Briggs; tell Joe Hockey; tell Alexander Downer.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: You go tell them! Alexander Downer does not speak for the Liberal Party. Let's run the argument of the Minister for Manufacturing down the logical track. I am outraged that the Premier Jay Weatherill supports the abolition of a billion dollars' worth of funding to the ABC. I am appalled that the Premier does that. I am appalled that the Minister for Manufacturing supports the abolition of a billion dollars to the ABC. How do I know that? Because Kevin Foley said so in the Sunday Mail.

If we are going to wear Alexander Downer's comments when he has not been a member of parliament for five years, three years, or whatever, you can wear Kevin Foley's comments from the weekend when he has been out of parliament for three months. It is a stupid argument. It is ridiculous. The Liberal Party has a long history of manufacturing. Let's go through it: Holden's, started by a Liberal family; Clipsal, started by a Liberal family; Haigh's, started by a Liberal family. Let's roll it out—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Order!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Let's roll out those great Labor manufacturing families that create the employment. It is a fake, false, phoney argument from the government and it is all about government spin, and we are not going to wear it. I have been in government. I have been the minister for industry and trade, and I have gone all over the world on behalf of the manufacturing industry, trying to make it secure—all over the world. In 1998-99 I went to Detroit to visit Holden. I visited their chief economist to talk to them about how we can grow the automotive industry in South Australia. I went and talked to many component manufacturers. I went to other foundries to try to increase the foundry industry because we all know that industry is the base industry in manufacturing. Without foundries you do not have manufacturing.

Do not come in here and lecture us about the value of manufacturing. Go back to the comments we made back in the middle of January when this first came up and as shadow treasurer I said we supported it—back in the middle of January. Does anyone really expect us as an opposition to accept the fact that the government is going to hand over $50 million at a state level and $215 million at the federal level and not ask a question? Do you really think that the taxpayers would accept an opposition that would let the government gift $50 million to a company and not ask a question? Then, of course, when we asked the question, the government turned around and said, 'You're anti, you're anti.'

It is not true; what we are talking about is accountability. What we are talking about is value for money. What we are talking about is how we best protect the taxpayers' investment. They are legitimate reasons, legitimate questions to ask a government on this particular project, or indeed on any project. Let us contrast the two styles, because the Premier is a great one to talk about style. The last treasurer approached the opposition two weeks before the debate on the BHP legislation. In fact, BHP had been negotiating with the opposition about its issues on a confidential basis for nearly two years. Did it leak? No. The government acknowledges that. The opposition acted in a professional way. We asked questions, but we did it in a professional way.

Here is a commitment that the government, by its own admission, says is going to be met in the next term of government. There is a chance that we will be the government in the next term. We might not get there; we might get there. So it is legitimate, is it not, for the government to bring in the opposition and embrace us in the briefing? No, not under this Premier, not under this Treasurer. Wang Wang I may be, but I notice a different style between the two treasurers.

The reality is they did not bring us in. The minister for manufacturing gets up and says how outrageous it is that we do not race out and declare our support for the workers. By supporting this motion, supporting Holden's as we did on 17 January (that was my first comment supporting it), back three months ago, by doing that we automatically support the workers. We were briefed by Holden's on Monday night. The Premier, in Rannesque style, called a press conference and said he was going to let us be briefed. How generous of the Premier to let us be briefed!

The day before he wanted to debate the motion, and in his letter he clearly said if we needed more time we could delay it, but in question time today there was a bit of an inference that somehow we delayed it for whatever reason. The reality is, the briefing we got on Monday night fell into three categories. The first category was, 'That matter is confidential.' The other category was, 'We can't tell you, the contract is not signed.' The third category answer was, 'I will refer you to the public statements, the media releases.' In other words, what we were being briefed on is nothing more than what was already made public, but the Premier wanted to spin it, in Rannesque style, that somehow he had generously allowed us to be briefed, that we were generously going to get more information. That is the reality.

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: You have had your turn, Premier. The reality is, let us not have this fake, phoney and false contribution from the government that somehow the opposition is opposed to the manufacturing sector. We went out and supported it, but we are not going to sit here and not ask questions. It is not our fault when the government cannot answer the questions or indeed get their lines wrong in their press conferences. To go through the minister for manufacturing's line is laughable. He said, not at one press conference but at two press conferences, that the reality was they had guaranteed no forced redundancies and there would be clawback provisions—two different press conferences.

We all know the government has had their ministers out getting media training and that was a planned line; that was a planned line. When it was discovered that there was no guarantee in the proposed agreement regarding no forced redundancies, the minister then corrected his statement, saying that he understood it was Holden's policy. That was what he was referring to. I am sorry, minister, I do not believe that explanation, and let me explain why. You actually said twice at two different press conferences that there would be no forced redundancies and there would be claw-back provisions. If it is Holden's policy and it is not in the agreement, how can you have claw-back provisions?

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Exactly. So the reality is that the minister for industry and trade had a prepared line, in my view, and used the prepared line to send the message. Now we have exposed that today for what it is. We have exposed it over the last week for what it is. It is a pitch.

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Well, the government—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Okay, well, let's put it this way: as a result of a question yesterday, which the minister would not answer directly, and as a result of the ABC question today about the Premier's comments, the Minister for Industry and Trade corrected the record. It just goes to show the level of spin that this is all about.

Mr Acting Speaker, I just want to make these points: Holden knows that the opposition supports it. We have had people who have been in government before who supported it when in government, and they know that they can rely on our word and they can trust us. We have had experience with Holden's over many, many years.

The reality is that when the government signs this contract, the opposition will honour the contract, and Holden's should be aware of that. Just as we are going to honour the BHP deal we will honour this contract—unlike the government, I might say, who went to the Casino and tried to overturn the Casino agreement in relation to tax matters, and we raised that in the parliament here. They were threatening to go to court and as a result that was cut off at the pass; but it was not the opposition that sought to break the contract, it was the Labor government that sought to break the contract.

I am going to make this crystal clear to Holden's and crystal clear to the house. When the government signs the deal, we will honour it. It is really interesting. The government is running around saying, 'Will you support the deal? Will you support deal?' We have always indicated the in-principle support. The reality is that we will not know the detail of the deal because of commercial confidentiality. The Premier has told us that, the minister has told us that and Holden have indicated that.

The motion itself to which I speak sets out none of the details of the deal. It sets out the principles of support for Holden and the manufacturing industry, which we naturally support. The reality is that the Liberal Party has had a long association with Holden's. The reality is that it was one of the great Liberal families that started it. It was there when it was started, and to go out and say that the party whose family started it—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No, no, no. Read your own words. You are in here saying that the Liberal Party—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Your faction.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Really?

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Order!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The reality is that the minister said that the Liberal Party deep down do not like manufacturing. What a lot of drivel. Go through them: Haigh's, not a bad manufacturer; Clipsal, not a bad manufacturer; Coopers, not a bad manufacturer. All those have been clearly identified with the Liberal Party over the years, so don't come in here and say that the Liberal Party does not support manufacturing. We do; we absolutely do support manufacturing. The reality is that we support manufacturing.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The poor old minister.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Order!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The state Liberal Party has made its position absolutely crystal clear. The state Liberal Party, if we win government, will ultimately be writing out the cheque. This motion is all about the government hoping that the opposition would not support it, even though we have been saying for three months we were supporting it. They wanted to go out and say the Liberal Party did not support Holden's and manufacturing, and the reality is that we do. And every time—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No, go back to our earliest comments. We supported it in principle.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Absolutely, and nothing has changed. On 17 January—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Order!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: This guy is unbelievable, Mr Acting Speaker. He is seriously asking the state Liberal Party about its commitment to the state commitment. He keeps interjecting about his federal colleagues. He is just a fool. The reality is that we said back on 17 January that we supported it in principle, that the manufacturing and car industry should be supported but it all came down to the amount and what we get for it. Today, we know the amount, and what we get for it and we are not 100 per cent sure. The reality is that we have always supported a strong manufacturing industry in South Australia.

I can remember Mr Neagle, I think in my first or second week as minister, taking me down to show me the centre for manufacturing on Woodville Road and all the high-tech equipment that was available to small manufacturers who could not capitalise themselves to buy the equipment. They had a sharing arrangement with the equipment and that gave them access to the market. It was not the Liberal Party that closed that: it was the Labor Party that closed that.

The reality is this. I have a very simple view. Holden's has a very important role to play in South Australia, as does the manufacturing industry. After 10 years of this government, the unemployment rate in Elizabeth is 17, 18 and 19 per cent. Read Barry Burgan's report that the government tabled in the house, its own document. I accept that with an unemployment rate in Elizabeth in the heart of the government's electorates, 10 years after it was elected, we need to keep as many employment options open as possible. I have never argued any differently. Don't come in here and lecture me about supporting manufacturing or Holden's.

I give the government this big tip. The Minister for Infrastructure said that Keating opened up the economy and Holden's was a good company because they survived, which is an inference about some other companies. But you cannot continually burden the saddle of business with the highest taxes, the worst workers compensation scheme and cost, a complex OH&S system and new public holidays, and think that other businesses that are not going to get the level of support of Holden's are going to survive. There were 150 jobs lost at Clipsal in Strathalbyn last week—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: That's not true.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: One hundred and fifty jobs.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: You just make things up.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I'm sorry, I thought I read in my local paper there was 130 to—

The Hon. M.F. O'Brien interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Okay, I'll move on to a different topic.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Order! Can members on my right refrain from interjecting?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: If I am incorrect on that matter, I apologise, but I will make this point. There are lots of other businesses that have lost significant numbers of employees over the last 10 years and you have to ask yourself: where was the government program to try to get them to grow or survive? I do not underestimate the value of Holden's, but Holden's started out as a very small business and grew, and what the state needs is more entrepreneurs and more small businesses, and you are not going to get them with the current regime in place. This government has simply burdened the small business community too much with their taxes and red tape. That is the constant feedback from the community. Mr Acting Speaker, I strongly support the motion.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN (Napier—Minister for Finance, Minister for the Public Sector) (16:59): I took great interest in the shadow treasurer's comments on the historic connection of the Liberal Party, or conservative parties, to Holden in particular in South Australia. I think it really contrasted with the statement of the Leader of the Opposition's on FIVEaa on 10 January in which she said, 'If you want to produce something heavy and transport it around the world, this probably would not be the place you would choose.' This is in stark contrast to the position that premier Butler took to attract General Motors to invest in South Australia. He realised that we were some distance from the eastern seaboard, so he went to Melbourne—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Things haven't changed; they were all put on boats, and went around to Brisbane and Perth.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: She giggles.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Order!

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Premier Butler went to the United States, spoke with General Motors and said 'Yes, we have an issue getting heavy products'—and the Leader of the Opposition is correct, cars are heavy—out of Adelaide to other places in Australia and New Zealand. But what we will do, a conservative government in South Australia, we will not let the tyranny of distance stop us from industrialising. We will drive down our wharfage charges so we can actually get these heavy products out of South Australia.'

We then go to the Playford era when General Motors were reconsidering their ongoing presence in South Australia, and they indicated that they did not believe that we had sufficient electricity in South Australia to run a large manufacturing plant. So, what did Playford do? He opened up the Leigh Creek coalfield, he built a power station at Port Augusta, he put in place the Housing Trust to drive down the cost of wages, to get our wage structure competitive, and he hopped in a car and drove to Elizabeth and negotiated the deal for the purchase of the Holden site. He went there without a driver, without any cabinet colleagues and negotiated the sale of that land.

We contrast Butler and Playford with what a Redmond government would be. It would be a do-nothing, cannot-do government. It would not have the fire in its belly or the perseverance of either a Butler or a Playford. She said it in this statement to FIVEaa, that this is not the place where you manufacture automobiles. Butler did not believe it, Playford did not believe it; she believes it. If you, for some unknown reason, are granted the opportunity to govern in South Australia with your current leadership, you will let the state down in a way that is unimaginable. You do not carry the legacy of Thomas Playford, in particular. You are a do-nothing opposition. You have no vision. You do not carry the mantle of Butler or Playford.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (17:03): I want to welcome this motion if it was intended by the government to be a substantial debate about an important policy issue because I think the matters raised in the motion are very important. But if, as I suspect, it was primarily brought before the house for a political purpose, to try to wrongly characterise those on this side of the house as being anti-manufacturing or anti-Holden then I am saddened, because I want to focus my comments on the substance of the motion as I think there are some very important issues within it.

As has been eloquently outlined by the Leader of the Opposition and previous speakers on this side, the motion is supported by our side and we look forward to a long and vibrant future for Holden in this state, and we recognise that—as when we were in government—from time to time government needs to partner up with industries, and I will talk about that in a moment. Unless we face up to some of the issues that are addressed in this motion, the state faces a very bleak future indeed. In fact, if we are not careful, South Australia will become nothing more than a mine, a farm and a tourist destination, to be perfectly frank, and we need to be far more than that. The people who will make it far more than that will not be the government: it will be the private sector.

For a start, we need to add value to our primary products. We know that, and we are doing it successfully in the wine industry by adding value to a range of food products. We are doing well in meat, sheepskins, we are doing well in a range of products—aquaculture, etc. We need to go further; we need to move up the value chain. Food is going to be one of the most important pillars of our economy for generations to come.

Secondly, we need to make more of mining. I have got to say that I think we could do better—and this has been part of a national debate—in extracting manufacturing benefits from the mining sector. I am on the record in the house as expressing some disappointment in the agreement we reached with BHP that there was not more in the way of contracts and manufacturing opportunities emanating from that agreement.

Sadly, BHP in my view is pretty much free to do what it chooses in the years ahead instead of being required to deliver better outcomes here for local manufacturers. I think we need to ensure—and this is an issue that has been raised in WA, it has been raised in the eastern states—that mining actually delivers to manufacturers, whether they are steel fabricators, whether they are car manufacturers, whether they are electronics companies' contracts, rather than rush off and spend those contracts in overseas markets.

I think that is very important and it does require to some degree a little bit of market intervention. If you leave the big miners free they will go to the cheapest destination to let their contracts. And what do we find when we get there? Those destinations, particularly in Asia, are heavily subsidised by their own governments and they then undercut our own people. I will come back to that point because it is relevant to the motor car debate.

The third pillar of our economy going forward, if we are truly to have some vision, has to be the services sector. We are getting results on education. As a former tourism minister, I can tell you it is an underutilised industry. There is so much opportunity there in tourism, we have not even begun to tap it. And, we have a lot of smart people with a lot of smart services to offer, and they can be turned into vibrant exports.

The fourth pillar of a vision going forward has to be manufacturing, and it is that that brings me back to the substance of the motion before us. Without a manufacturing sector we have little indeed. I make the point that our electronics base, which is highly connected to manufacturing, is one of the most vibrant in the country. I make the point that we have an active biotechnology sector, an active defence sector, and that we are achieving results in manufacturing across the board.

Where are we being most successful in manufacturing? We are being most successful in those areas where we have moved up the value chain, where we have used science and innovation and technology and the smart people we have here combined with the resources that we have to move up the value chain so that we can sell high value-added products and, therefore, pay higher wages to and our workers, comply with occupational health and safety requirements, meet environmental constraints, and do all the things that we have to do and like to do in this country that other countries, particularly in emerging economies, either do not do, do not want to do or cannot afford to do. We will only get there by moving up the value chain.

This relates very much to this motion and to the problem facing Holden's and which brought Mitsubishi to its knees and before that Chrysler's. How do we move up the value chain? It may not be lost on members in the house that the dominant nations in the car manufacturing business are actually the two that lost World War II: Germany and Japan. It is an irony, isn't it? It is an ultimate irony that our grandfathers, as they fought on the Kokoda track and through North Africa and in Europe, fought for a future where the defeated would dominate the motor vehicle industry.

To their great credit, having been crushed during the war, those two nations sat down very thoughtfully and set out a strategy in regard to how they would rebuild manufacturing. Admittedly, they were literally coming off a low base—in fact, a level base—but they understood a simple paradigm: you had to be competing in the motor car industry on quality, science and innovation. It is no mistake that the Germans are producing Audis, Porsches and Mercedes, and that the Japanese are producing Lexus, Toyotas, Nissans and Subarus and that they have taken over the motorbike industry from the UK and Europe, based on science and technology, and that their products are absolutely superb.

Is it not an irony that the country that was probably most suitable to dominate the four-wheel drive all-road vehicle SUV market—Australia, because of our terrain, our climate and our industrial base post World War II—finished up buying those products from Japan, which is the dominant producer of those vehicles? Japan is a tiny country with no four-wheel drive terrain to speak of but, by being smart, they have dominated the four-wheel drive industry.

I point back to some strategic mistakes that were made after World War II. My honourable friend, the Minister for Finance, mentioned earlier the Playford period and the Butler period. One thing we could have done better was set out to ensure that our car industry was based around science, innovation and quality instead of mass produced 'me too' products. Sweden did it with Volvo and Saab, with a small economy not much bigger than ours—in fact, smaller than ours at the time.

We made a mistake. We allowed Holden to be taken over by a multinational. It was an American multinational and we now find ourselves one cog in a multinational wheel producing 'me too' vehicle products, excellent though they may be, that are also produced by that multinational in other destinations like Thailand, China, South Africa, Europe and the United States. Therein lies the dilemma. Our products are not distinguished by science, innovation and quality. We are part of a multinational and, therefore, subject to the whims of the decisions made in Detroit.

If we are to turn this around, and this investment package seeks to do that, we need to address some of these fundamental concerns. The only way we will now rebuild Holden into a vibrant part of its multinational parent is if we make it relevant to its multinational parent by becoming the hub of science and technology within that multinational parent in certain fields.

I had a constituent come to see me in Waite—and the minister for industry and trade might like to listen to this example—who told me that he had worked for eight years for Mercedes-Benz in Germany, producing tail-light assemblies for various models of Mercedes-Benz. He was the leader of that team. He wanted to come back to Australia and Mercedes-Benz said, 'We cannot afford to lose you. You will bring our tail-light assembly and innovation and design plant to a standstill.'

He said, 'Well, I want to go home.' They said, 'Right, you will continue working for us from Adelaide.' He was set up in his lounge room with all of his information technology equipment, designing tale-light assemblies for three models of Mercedes-Benz, sending the technology back to Germany and getting a big fat cheque every month—a very good arrangement and an example of how industry and manufacturing is changing. It matters not so much now where you are. What matters is how smart you are.

If Holden is smart, and if the government is smart with this investment, they will insist that Holden South Australia becomes a design and manufacturing centre of excellence in those fields within the Holden technology sphere that we can achieve that goal within. If we can do that, if we can make ourselves relevant—I have heard the Premier make these noises, so I am sure he understands the point that I am getting at—then Holden will have a future.

I am not focused so much on the quantity of money. Admittedly, only $50 million of it is ours. Arguably, I suppose, the other $220 million is coming from other states that have kindly donated to South Australia.

Mrs Redmond: And us.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: And us indirectly. What I am focused on is how wisely the money is spent to lock in a future for manufacturing and for Holden. There are a number of ways government can help manufacturing. One of them, as I mentioned, is through promoting science, innovation and entrepreneurship. Many of the instruments through which we might do that have recently been decommissioned by this government. Many of the agencies and investments that we once had are no longer there. You need machinery if you are to promote science innovation and entrepreneurship.

A second way to do it is through building infrastructure, and I just observe that we happily spent $450 million, or thereabouts, on infrastructure at Techport to support the defence industry and we are now here debating the $50 million investment in General Motors. We are happy to put money into various industries when we choose to; it is a question of how we do it and what results we get for it. I have supported both of those initiatives—Techport and Holden—but I want to see the outcomes, which gets back to the point made by the leader and other speakers about the business case, which I think would have been worthy of being made publicly available far sooner.

Another way that the government can help is with selective co-investment. I am the best economic purist you will find. I am with Henry Ergas on most issues, but I am not with him on this issue. I think there are certain core industry pillars that you simply must have, and I think in this state the motor car industry is one of them. If it was another industry, being an economic purist, I might say, 'Let it go'. However, this one, in my view, is too big to fail. I think everyone in the house recognises that—on this side and on your side.

What we have to do, though, is make sure that it not only does not fail this year but also that it does not fail in 10 years when this arrangement runs out, and that it has a long-term future. That is what we would all like to see.

Holden trains a lot of apprentices and employs a lot of people, and a lot of other industries hang off Holden. If those industries are smart, they can diversify and find other markets for the products they are selling to Holden, whether it be rear vision mirrors or technology going into dashboards or the design of anything from taillight assembly to wheel nuts. They can also diversify into other industries and related products and, by being smart, they can move up the value chain and sell high value-added products.

The model to think about is the same model we are using with defence shipping. The real money is not in the steel that goes into building the hull of an air warfare destroyer: the real money is in the smart technology and manufacturing that goes inside it, that fits it out. That, too, is the case with motor car manufacturers. It is not the steel and the heavy bits that necessarily have the value: it is the technology that goes into everything from the dashboard to the design aspects of the vehicle that have the real added value. That points to where an economy like ours might pitch itself to General Motors as an important part of the international network. I am all for selective co-investment as long as it is very strategic and isolated to pillar industries and not thrown away just as industry subsidies to whoever may come.

Everyone in the house supports the motion and the package. I am saddened that the government has bought this here with a political motive rather than a policy motive. As the leader has pointed out, it has been all about misrepresenting the views of the Liberal Party, both federal and state. The government seems to be confused by the fact that, in the Liberal Party, we can have a robust debate about policy and people are actually able to have different points of view and express them publicly and in parliament, something that seems to be woefully lacking in the Labor side of politics—from Queensland to WA.

So what if federal members have slightly different points of view and they air them? So what if from time to time we debate openly and publicly the pros and cons of an argument? That is what we do in the Liberal Party. What do you try to do? Grab those comments, misrepresent them and mould them into something which is a complete fabrication. I find that political component of this motion disappointing, because it is a very important point.

We do not know where the car industry or this economy will be in 10 years from now. The Aussie dollar may not be at whatever it is today—$1.05 or $1.06. The Aussie dollar might be back at 70¢. The car industry might suddenly be facing a whole different trading environment. Who knows where we will be in 10 years. Perhaps we will have a Liberal government that, over a period of time, will have got the taxes and charges in this state down to a level where businesses like Holden can actually make a profit, instead of having to struggle under the burden of Labor's ridiculous taxation regime.

Who knows where we will be in 10 years' time? Perhaps we will have a Liberal government that over a period of time will have got the taxes and charges in this state down to a level where businesses like Holden can actually make a profit instead of having to struggle under the burden of Labor's ridiculous taxation regime?

Who knows where we will be in 10 years? Perhaps we will have a government that actually promotes innovation and science and which will seek to connect our universities, our CRCs and our other centres of excellence with manufacturing in new, smart, clever ways, instead of the dumb arrangements that this Labor government has delivered after 10 years where it has actually sought to decommission relationships between manufacturers and the science and technology centres of excellence in this state and where for 10 years I have hardly heard them mention manufacturing. All I have heard about is defence and mining, defence and mining, defence and mining.

Suddenly they have discovered manufacturing. It is just another reflection of how Labor across the country has lost touch with its core constituency. Let us be honest about what this is: it is an attempt by the Labor Party to reconnect with the core supporters who they have lost over the last 10 years through the Rann-Foley period through simply snubbing their nose at them. It is a pitch to the union movement and working South Australians to say, 'We haven't forgotten you.' The trouble is that it comes 10 years late. If you had been looking at ways to promote and support Holden 10 years ago we might not be here today, but you were not.

I am all for this motion, but I am all against the misrepresentation of the Liberals' position by Labor for purely political purposes. You will find no more staunch advocates of manufacturing and Holden than the Liberals, but we are not (unlike those opposite) a brainless bunch of morons who follow factional orders. We actually have brains over here and we have conversations on policy issues with our federal colleagues and each other, and we are even prepared to have them publicly.

At the end of the day we know who built this state; we know who pays the bills; we know who hires the workers; we know who makes the investment in the future—the private sector—small business, medium-sized business and big business. Government did not make this state and it never will. The people who founded Holden made this state. The people who founded the farms, the mines, the small businesses and the small factories are the people who built this great state and they are the people who will continue to build it if they could just get the monkey of government off their back.

I get back to my opening point: are we to become nothing more than a mine, a farm and a tourist destination or have we something more to offer? Looking beyond the politics of this I am not yet convinced that this government has any vision for the future of this state beyond winning the next election, and I want to see something far more detailed and far broader than this simple motion before I am to believe that you even understand how to rebuild manufacturing in this state. I support the motion.

Mrs VLAHOS (Taylor) (17:23): I am pleased to speak in favour of this motion today and I recognise the vital role of Australian manufacturing, in particular the car manufacturing industry in South Australia. I am also pleased to speak in support of the Weatherill Labor government and the leadership our government has shown to the working people of South Australia through the co-investment package to secure the future of GMH's operations in the northern suburbs. I am particularly pleased to speak on behalf of my electorate of Taylor where most of Holden's operations are situated in South Australia, and where many manufacturing workers live and raise families.

The co-investment into Holden's operations in Australia by this government, supported by the federal and Victorian governments, provides certainty for the car manufacturing sector in South Australia and beyond. This $275 million co-investment package represents a very small price to pay in the wake of the $1 billion investment by Holden's through the Next Generation program and the $4 billion that Holden is expected to inject into the Australian economy over the life of the program.

Last year alone Holden sold around 40,000 Commodores domestically as well as around 33,000 Holden Cruze—two vehicles in the top five of the highest selling cars nationally and they are local products. The $50 million being contributed to the package by the state Labor government represents a sound investment in South Australia's jobs and the state economy. Due to the international pressures and global economic circumstances we have been facing, there has been a risk that GMH would reduce or close its Australian operation. The simple fact is that any closure of the Holden GMH plant would strip away over $1.5 billion of gross state product and affect roughly 16,000 South Australian jobs, and $83 million per year would be stripped from the state's taxation base. Such a closure would be most likely a reality without the investment and foresight of the federal and state governments, and would be immensely negative in the north, where I am from, and to the whole South Australian economy.

Under these conditions and with ironclad agreements from Holden to continue the production in South Australia, the co-investment by the federal and state governments represents a very small price to pay. In truly examining the necessity of this investment, we must look at a number of factors and the negative flow-on factors that could result from the closure at Elizabeth. As well as the loss of thousands of jobs for Holden workers at the plant, the consequences for the wider community would be dire.

Firstly, there would be an immense negative impact on the state's reputation, both nationally and internationally, as consumer confidence and investor confidence would both be hit hard with such a large reduction in revenue, large numbers coming onto the unemployment list, and production. This would come at a time when the global economy is still recovering from the financial crisis that was not of our own making, and at a time when the South Australian economy can least afford to suffer the unnecessary loss of such a vital industry.

Secondly, there are the impacts and the subsequent loss of skilled labour. I have heard some suggestions that instead of supporting Holden's through direct investment, the money could be spent on retraining workers and relocating them to sustainable industries. Unfortunately, such a suggestion holds little weight, as immediate retraining and relocation of up to 16,000 workers is simply unfeasible. The continual training of our workforce takes time and it takes money.

Yes, it is a vital part of a changing economy. However, employees and workers are best assisted and trained while they are at work, in a workplace. The loss of such a pivotal industry and skilled jobs assists no-one. The co-investment package proposed by the state and federal governments is an assurance that the skilled labour present at the GMH plant Elizabeth will be kept in work, and therefore kept at the centre of innovation and advanced manufacturing.

Thirdly, there are the socioeconomic impacts of any closure in the north, which already suffers from high employment, lower than average household income and lower than average tertiary education completion. Putting such negative pressures on a region that is supposed to be the focus of the greater metropolitan Adelaide plan, and is earmarked for future growth and population increase, would be detrimental to the already stretched community framework that exists in the north.

This is more than just about guaranteeing the current Holden workers their jobs. It is about ensuring the thousands of South Australian workers who provide components and support Holden are kept in work too. This is about ensuring the communities of the north are not ravaged by a wave of mass unemployment in a time of global economic pressure. Component manufacturer, Futuris Automotive, is one of the many companies in my electorate which will be directly affected by this package and will help the Holden plant at Elizabeth produce the components for its cars.

On my recent visit to Futuris with the Premier, we were shown around the plant. It is 100 per cent Australian owned, supported by Elders. This leading and award-winning automotive component manufacturer provided information on how it would affect their staff. Futuris designs, engineers and manufactures automotive seating and interior trim products for many vehicles manufactured at the Holden plant, and employs around 900 people throughout its Australian operations. This is another 900 jobs throughout the country that are put at risk if the government fails to co-invest in the future of Holden operations and the future of the domestic advanced manufacturing sector.

Futuris has continued, despite economic downturn, to invest in innovation and technology to ensure the viability of its Australian operations. However, without assistance to the manufacturing sector, such companies will be forced offshore, leaving unemployment and losses to state revenue. This innovation has led Futuris to diversify into the areas of clean-tech manufacturing solutions and infrastructure products and services.

Australia is not the first or the only country to provide assistance to the automotive manufacturing companies. In fact, in comparison to Europe and the US, our manufacturing sector receives a much smaller amount of public subsidy per employee. Federal government figures have indicated the Australian taxpayers contribute less to our car industry than those in other developed countries, including Germany, France and the United Kingdom. We only need to remember the statement from Mr Abetz quoted yesterday:

Australia is in a special situation. It is one of 13 countries in the world that has the capacity to make motor vehicles. That is a pretty special capacity and I think it's within the national interest to have that sort of wherewithal.

Former federal manufacturing minister Kim Carr said that:

At only $17.80 per taxpayer, the Australian government's level of support for the car industry was a very low figure compared to those of Canada at $96.39, France at $147.38, Germany at $90.37, Sweden at $334, the UK at $27, let alone the great home of free enterprise, the US, at $264.

When I have asked the constituents in my electorate they have indicated that they would definitely choose to pay $17.80 to support our industry rather than risk the closures and the job losses to their communities. Senator Carr stated:

Nowhere in the world—nowhere—does the industry survive without substantial co-investment by governments. The governments of these countries around the world value investment. They value jobs. They value the huge benefits that come from research and development and from exports. They value services that are generated.

He continued to say:

In Australia, our investment in the automotive industry is very small, very small by international standards, and the recent reports indicate that for Australia it's less than the price of a football ticket. We have the capacity in this country to be able to be part of a great global industry and to remain part of it, but it requires investment, new investment. It needs constant attention. It's not a set-and-forget policy area. It's an area which we must work closely with everyone involved [in the sector] to maintain our international competitiveness.

Economic rationalists may argue that governments should not intervene, but we are not competing on a level playing field. Other nations around this world clearly support this automotive sector, and we would be mugs not to protect our state economy, our future and our workers' interests. There may still be criticism by some sections opposite that the government is supporting a private industry with subsidies. We must remember the practical implications of manufacturing for this state and for the communities and for the opportunities in the north this represents.

I have not encountered anyone in my electorate who is not in some way connected to Holden. The job figures we effortlessly squabble about here are mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, sons, daughters, neighbours and friends in Taylor in the north. In my community these workers are often the sole breadwinners in their house, employed either directly in the plant at Elizabeth or in the components industry, and it makes me sick to my stomach to hear the sniping on the other side of the chamber.

The message that we have heard from the Liberal Party on this issue is not comforting. Instead of support for maintaining a high level of employment in a region in Adelaide that needs it most, all we have heard from the other side of the chamber is arguing over whether it is pronounced 'Holden' or 'Holden's'. I hope that members opposite remember—God forbid if they are ever in a position to make some decisions—that around 16,000 workers are being affected and that they do not simply offer grammatical correction. I hope that if they are ever faced with the destruction of an integral and iconic part of South Australia's economic history they do not reply with a sentence structure lesson.

It is clear from the debate in the last two days that this government has a clear, long-term vision for the betterment of South Australians—a future for this state. This flies in the face of the short-term economic purists on the other side of the chamber who simply dislike spending money, even if it means ensuring a gain in advanced manufacturing, continued employment or sustained social and economic progress for this state. It is easy to revel in economic purist debate and question subsidies when you live in Burnside or other areas where it is not a matter of survival, and it is for my people.

We need a clear message from this chamber today that we support the manufacturing industry, an advanced manufacturing industry, and that we support jobs and we support workers and their families. They deserve a future, something the people across the chamber do not always remember clearly. I commend the motion to the house.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:34): Mr Acting Speaker, I am gobsmacked by that last contribution. I call on the member to go back and read the contribution by my colleague the member for Davenport because she obviously has no understanding of the history of this state and no understanding of the role—the very proud role—that the Liberal Party has played in supporting business, jobs and manufacturing in this state. We took over a bankrupted state in 1993 and rebuilt the economy—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: —which saved tens of thousands of people from being thrown on the scrap heap of unemployment. We did that because the Labor Party has no idea how to run the finances of the state—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: —and we find ourselves back in the same situation now. It galls me to sit on this side of the house and have that sort of claptrap—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: —thrown across the chamber—

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. The member for MacKillop is quite a humble fellow and is being interjected profusely by the member for Croydon. I ask you to quieten down the poor old fellow a bit.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): He hasn't been too quiet during this debate, but I would like him to be heard in silence.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. As I was saying, it galls me to listen to this claptrap. Let me go back to what the Minister for Finance said. He almost knows what he is talking about, but he is so confused about where he is that he gets it all wrong. He tried to make the case that we do not support manufacturing because the Leader of the Opposition pointed out the reality that if you manufacture something in South Australia you then have to get it to market and, because we have got such a small population, we do not have a big market. The reason South Australian has been so successful for so long is that we maintained a low cost structure. The minister even said that himself. He even made the point that Thomas Playford and Premier Butler worked to ensure that we had a low cost base.

What has this government done? These people, who would have us believe that they are really concerned about the welfare of the working men and women of this state, have driven us to a high-cost-base state, a high-cost-base economy. We are the highest taxed state in the nation. How is somebody supposed to survive in manufacturing in South Australia in the sort of economy that we have as a result of 10 years of this government, when they still have to manufacture something and then transport it to market, whether it be in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane or offshore? That is the dilemma that we face here in South Australia. That is not the point I wanted to make, and I do not want to be too long.

I cannot believe how angry the members of the government are that the opposition is supporting this motion. I cannot believe the poor old Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. He was livid when he found out that the opposition was, in fact, supporting the motion. We support the motion because it is a sensible motion. It is a little bit like motherhood and apple pie but, putting that aside, we support the principle that the state should, indeed, support industries.

I recall when we were last in government we were constantly berated by members of the Labor Party about what they called 'corporate welfare'. On a daily basis, they were berating us because of the support we gave to industry—they were constantly berating us—and now they have the temerity to suggest that we have no interest in supporting manufacturing and jobs in South Australia. They have no understanding of the history of this state.

The reason this Liberal opposition is asking questions is quite simple: we do not trust this lot. We do not believe what they say, and I will demonstrate why we do not believe what they say.

Mrs Redmond: There are lots of reasons.

Mr WILLIAMS: There are lots of reasons, and I certainly will not be comprehensive in the reasons because that would take me days and days and the house would not find that acceptable. There is a plethora of examples where the government has demonstrated that it will say whatever it takes, irrespective of the truth, to try to spin a yarn and spin a line and try to convince the voting population that the Liberal Party is saying something which we patently are not saying. The Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade is a typical example. He has been here today saying that I would rather build a port. He went on and said, that I said, we would be better off putting this money into a port.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: That is not what I said at all. The minister and I were on public radio, I think it was back in January, and I have the transcript of what I actually said. I will preface my remarks by saying this, when asked by David Bevan and Matthew Abraham on their program about this debate, whether we should be financing or using taxpayers' money to support manufacturing in this state, specifically Holden's, and the fact that we were asking questions, I said:

This Labor government keeps throwing money at all sorts of projects without doing a proper analysis of it. We have seen the Royal Adelaide Hospital. We were told it was going to be built for $1.7 billion and it looks like it is going to end up about $3 billion.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order: the member for MacKillop is a stickler for the standing orders and now he is debating a matter that is not before the house.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): I will listen carefully to the speaker and I am sure that he will try to ensure to be on the topic.

Mr WILLIAMS: I certainly am. I am pointing out the dishonesty and that is why we need to ask questions, because we just do not believe them. I made the example of the Royal Adelaide Hospital. We were told $1.7 billion and it has turned out to be $3 billion. Then I went on to say that it never gets the scrutiny of the parliament, and we have an Industries Development Committee which is supposed to scrutinise these sorts of projects, particularly projects which involve private companies. I was pointing out that we have a process established in the parliament to give proper scrutiny to this sort of behaviour, and it is not being used by this government.

I was asked another question, and I went on and made the point that Jay Weatherill said that he will not be doing a cost benefit analysis, so I am not quite sure what the committee is actually going to look at because the Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade had made a comment the day before that, after a lot of pressure from the opposition, they would refer this to the IDC of the parliament. Still not there.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: You just made it up.

Mrs Redmond: He's reading from transcript.

Mr WILLIAMS: I am reading from transcript.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: You are reading from a transcript that I said we would refer it to the IDC?

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Read it out.

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes, you made a comment.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: I said, 'I noted yesterday minister Koutsantonis came out and said he is going to take this to the committee.'

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Your words; read out mine. You just make stuff up. You are hopeless.

Mr WILLIAMS: So, you are not going to take it to the committee?

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Don't backtrack. Did I say I was going to take it to the IDC?

Mr WILLIAMS: You are not going to take it to the committee?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will return to his speech.

Mr WILLIAMS: Matt Abraham made this comment, 'What are your thoughts on that?' This is what I said:

If you had a lazy $200 million that you thought you might be putting into a sinking industry, how would you better spend it?

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Sinking industry! Well done; there you go. That's what you think—the automotive industry in South Australia is sinking.

Mr WILLIAMS: No, this is what Matt Abraham said. Let me read this again:

If you had a lazy $200 million that you might be putting into a sinking industry, how would you better spend it?'

That is what Matt Abraham said. This is what I said:

I would certainly want to see some analysis of the benefits of that $200 million.

What I said to David yesterday was:

There is another industry in South Australia which is screaming out for some money—the mining sector. The mining sector has been screaming out for investment in a deep sea port to service that industry. It may well be, and I am not saying, I don't have the data, and this is what I am debating. We need the data so we can decide which is the best place to put our money.

That is what I said, and from that the minister is saying I said we should be building a port and not putting money into Holden's.

Mrs Redmond: That's dishonest.

Mr WILLIAMS: Absolutely dishonest. It is not misleading, it is blatantly dishonest. That is why the opposition is asking questions, because we do not trust this lot. We do not trust them because they suffer when it comes to the truth.

There are a lot of manufacturing jobs in this state under threat. What is this government going to do when they get the phone call from Nystar when the carbon tax kicks in? What are they going to do? What are they going to do when they get a phone call from OneSteel? There is a plethora of companies around the state. In my own electorate Kimberly-Clark Australia has been laying off workers in the last 12 months, hundreds of them, because they are struggling to compete in this highest taxed state in the nation.

The opposition supports government intervention. We were very good at it when we were last in government in spite of the constant criticism and carping from the Labor opposition. We were very good at it. We worked closely with the manufacturing sector and industry in general to support them in an economy which had been left in a perilous state by the previous reign of the Labor Party.

We have a very proud record of supporting industry. We are not economic purists. We do believe in market intervention, and we have demonstrated our ability to do that. As the member for Davenport pointed out, there would not even be a manufacturing sector in this state if it was not for the Liberal Party. There would not be those jobs for the thousands of men and women who work in the manufacturing sector if it was not for the Liberal Party. There would not be—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes, the Minister for Finance did acknowledge that. There would not be those thousands of jobs if it was not for the Liberal Party and Liberal Party having a vision. That is the one thing that makes the Liberal Party stand out from the Labor Party in this state and in the nation, to be quite honest. We do have a vision. This vision is for a bigger and better South Australia, it is for a place where people can get work.

I cannot believe that members opposite, after spending 10 years in government, 10 years controlling the financial levers of this state, can come in here and say the things that they are saying when the unemployment rate at Elizabeth, right where General Motors Holden operates from, has grown steadily by a percentage point each year, from 17 per cent, 18 per cent, 19 per cent, to 20 per cent, and they come in here and try to create this myth that that is something to do with the Liberal Party. They try to create a myth that it is something to do with the Liberal Party.

The Liberal Party has been the one party that has built manufacturing, that has built industry, and that has built jobs in this state. I have sat and watched for far too long people lose their jobs because the Labor Party only knows how to tax and spend. That is why we now find ourselves the highest taxed state in the nation with a deficit heading back to $11 billion. That is where we inherited it last time. Unfunded liability and WorkCover—where is that? One at 1.2—

Mrs Redmond: Over a billion again.

Mr WILLIAMS: Well over a billion dollars. The highest WorkCover levy rate in the nation by a mile and a half. Why do people struggle to keep operating in manufacturing? Because of the cost structure. Do something about the industrial relations system, do something about WorkCover, do something about getting their costs down. Make sure that we invest in proper infrastructure to support industry.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: That is what we stand for. I think one of the greatest shames of this government is what it did to WorkCover. It is a great shame.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (The Hon. M.J. Wright): Could the Leader of the Opposition and the minister stop their behaviour and let the deputy leader be heard in silence.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: I will rise above it, sir.

The ACTING SPEAKER (The Hon. M.J. Wright): Thank you.

Mr WILLIAMS: One of my colleagues, I think it was the member for Davenport and the leader may have even alluded to the same point—I have not agreed with everything that Kevin Foley has said and done. In fact, he was one of the ones who led the charge, complaining about what he called 'corporate welfare' when we were last in power.

One of the things that Kevin Foley did do was, when we needed genuine bipartisan support for the BHP Billiton indenture bill, he walked across to this side of the chamber. He spoke to me and he spoke to my leader and he said, 'This is very important for the future of South Australia. Let us rise above the politics. Let us see what we can do to get this to happen and happen in the time frame that it needs to happen in.'

What happened was the Liberal Party acted as it always does. It acted with integrity and it acted for the best outcome for South Australia. We gave Kevin Foley our word. We said we need to understand what sits behind the indenture and we need some time to get our head around it because we are not going to rubber-stamp it. We are an opposition that actually works.

We put that to Kevin Foley and he said, 'Fine. I trust you.' He put his trust in us and we never let him down. As was said, we negotiated with BHP over a long period of time and we did not let them down because we did what was right for South Australia. We did not play petty politics.

The opposition is supporting this motion. We think it is important for South Australia. We are disappointed, as the member for Waite said. We think that this motion is being promoted to get some sort of political gain; that is why the government members are so damn angry that we are supporting it—because we have thwarted their plan.

Mrs Geraghty: We're not angry.

Mr WILLIAMS: Patrick was angry. The reality is that, anybody who suggests that the Liberal Party, first of all, does not do what is best for South Australia, does not operate with integrity, does not support government intervention to underpin jobs and careers in South Australia, has a very poor understanding of the history of the Liberal Party in this state.

I am proud to stand here as a member of the Liberal Party. I am proud to be a member of the great party which has a great record on building industry, manufacturing and all of the other industries that operate in this state that provide jobs.

I am appalled by the behaviour of the Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade, who would want to get into the gutter and make some cheap comment about some financial support that was given to an industry that was employing 200 people because there was a connection with one of the now members of the Liberal Party. That is the sort of gutter, low, cheap politics that does not do any of us any good.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes, it is typical of that minister, particularly when we are talking about something of vital importance.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: I think you have already said enough, Tom.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (The Hon. M.J. Wright): Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: Is that echoing out of the gutter? It is a gutter echo.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (The Hon. M.J. Wright): Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: Let me just repeat in conclusion that the Liberal Party supports this motion because it believes in manufacturing, it believes in intervention and it believes that the car industry is fundamental to the South Australian economy. They are the things we believe. That is in our DNA. That is in our nature. We have always done the same thing.

So, nobody on this side of the house accepts the nonsensical claptrap that has come from some of the members of the government. I know they are disappointed and upset and angry even, some of them, that we are supporting this; but, if they had thought for more than a moment and a half on this matter, they would have realised that we were going to support it and always would because it is in our nature and in our DNA.

Ms BETTISON (Ramsay) (17:55): This government supports a strong and sustainable future for manufacturing in South Australia. As Professor Roos reports, a healthy manufacturing sector is a must for any advanced economy with ambitions to maintain economic and social well-being. In my own electorate, it is very important.

According to the 2006 census, 20 per cent of people living in Salisbury and part of the Salisbury workforce are employed in manufacturing. According to Professor Roos, manufacturing is the biggest spender on applied research and innovation. It is the key driver of productivity improvements. It is critical for export earnings. It is the largest driver of high-value services and it is the largest generator of employment.

The recent Burgan report found that up to 16,000 jobs are supported by the presence of Holden. In the northern suburbs, companies such as Futuris Automotive, Detroit Diesel, Australian Arrow, Vinidex and ZF Lemforder are key component suppliers clustered around Holden. These suppliers are crucial to the delivery of Holden's world's best practice advanced automotive manufacturing.

Professor Roos also notes that each job in manufacturing generates on average between two and five jobs in the rest of the economy. Burgan notes that Holden purchases $530 million from core local suppliers, supporting jobs and manufacturing, construction, transport and retail. Supporting an employer as large as Holden also ensures that many opportunities exist for people in our community to take up apprenticeships and traineeships. These opportunities exist not only at Holden but in other industries that provide direct inputs to the automotive industry. These industries include steel, non-ferrous metals, polymer products, specialised and other equipment manufacturing, structural metal products, glass, chemicals and plastics.

As a registered training organisation, Holden offers a number of first-year apprentice positions in South Australia. Apprenticeship programs can include, but are not limited to, toolmaking, engineering trades, automotive mechanics and instrumentation technicians. I am pleased to be able to report to the house that Holden is currently in the early recruitment stages for an indigenous apprenticeship program. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.