GM HOLDEN

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. J. W. Weatherill (resumed on motion):

Ms BETTISON (Ramsay) (19:30): Holden, as a registered training organisation, 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 of an Indigenous apprenticeship program. Another exciting program offered by Holden is its 12-month cooperative student program which is designed to provide students undertaking tertiary studies with the opportunity to gain practical experience in not only engineering and manufacturing but also in a variety of areas including corporate affairs, finance, legal, marketing, sales and design.

The Training and Skills Commission recently predicted that growth in our state's economy, combined with replacement demand for jobs, will result in 163,000 job openings in specialist occupations over the next five years. That is why it is so important that we ensure that all existing workers or potential employees in South Australia receive the training they need to take up technical and trades jobs or to further enhance their existing skills.

As well as offering many training opportunities, Holden has in place numerous programs to upskill its existing employees. In 2010, Holden invested $718,000 and 345,000 hours in staff training. All of Holden's new employees complete a Certificate II in Automotive Manufacturing and supervisors can access training opportunities such as a Diploma of Competitive Manufacturing, as well as participating in Holden's area leadership program. Even during the difficult times of the global financial crisis Holden moved to consolidate its existing employees' skills by ensuring that all employees complete a Certificate III in Competitive Manufacturing. This is a testament to Holden's determination to remain a viable and competitive car maker both locally and on a global scale.

As the house is aware, South Australia has a robust training sector, with more people than ever starting and completing training. Figures that came out in February this year from the National Centre for Vocational Education Research attest to how well we are doing in terms of the number of apprentices and trainees commencing and completing their training. As well as a record high number of commencements over the year ending 30 September 2011, the report indicated a record number of completions in this time frame. This included the highest number of completions for technicians and trades workers.

Securing the future of Holden and therefore the future of thousands of manufacturing jobs enables workers to utilise and expand on their hard-earned skills. This co-investment goes further than creating a skilled workforce and retaining jobs. Holden invests in the wellbeing of local communities, my own seat of Ramsay included. For instance, a joint state government and Holden initiative to upskill long-term unemployed residents of Adelaide's north has allowed for two eight-week TAFE-based programs to be run. A recent example is Holden's support of Bedford Industries South Australia, where local road safety programs were developed to help some of the 3,000 people with disabilities or disadvantage gain their car licences.

Holden's is also a forerunner in the field of advanced manufacturing in terms of achieving equal opportunity in the organisation. The Diversity at Holden policy launched in 1999 saw Holden address issues such as their employment, recruitment and training processes that may have been impeding women's progress to ensure that they were being given opportunities for training and development, transfer and promotion.

This co-investment is good news for women working in the manufacturing industry. This month, Holden was named an Employer of Choice for Women for the fifth time, indicating that the model that they are using has been a highly successful one. Holden is setting new standards in the areas of women in manufacturing, leadership, pay equity and parental leave. This co-investment allows Holden to continue to lead the way for women in the automotive manufacturing industry.

Holden and advanced manufacturing are an integral part of the South Australian story. This co-investment is vital to the diversification and strengthening of the manufacturing industry, and I urge members to support the motion.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (19:36): I was not going to take the time to speak on this motion, but I feel as though I have to. I actually regard it as a foolish and silly motion and I have no idea why we are even debating it. There is absolutely no question at all about the necessity of keeping General Motors Holden, or indeed the automotive components section of the South Australian manufacturing industry. It is a no-brainer, quite frankly.

We saw what happened with Mitsubishi. That disappeared, never to be seen again. I just hope that ultimately this does not happen with General Motors Holden. It is actually quite a personal thing for me, because the Holden family lived in my electorate. Sir James and his wife lived on Kangaroo Island for many years, and the Hon. Ian Gilfillan, a former member of the upper house, was at one stage married to Sir James Holden's daughter, and they were very proud of that Holden name.

The nuts and bolts of it is that General Motors, of which we have the General Motors Holden brand in Australia, is a multinational conglomerate that came out of the United States. It is a big powerful company. I just see this debate today and this evening as a complete waste of time, and an attempt to wedge the Liberal Party—which is not going to happen, because, as was adequately explained by the member for Waite earlier on, we just do not operate that way. We can have healthy, rational, sensible debates and we can disagree with one another, and we have the right to express our views if needed. Indeed that is what the federal member for Mayo, Jamie Briggs, did—and good on him. He happens to be my local federal member. He has a point of view that he wanted to put forward, which he went ahead and did.

Some of us have a certain amount of the agrarian socialist in us (not a lot, I might add). I think the important issue here is what I hear in my electorate, which is predominantly agriculture, tourism and the retirement sector. The farming community say, 'Well, we are going to pay all this money to keep Holden here, and we are paying it'—'we' being the taxpayer—'But we get absolutely no support for the rural industries.' I might add, and I am sure that my farming friends here will agree with me, we actually do not want support. All we want is a bit of respect.

In the United States and in Europe the subsidisation of farmers keeps them going. We are the best, most efficient farmers in the world, but it gives them a case of the screaming irrits when they see funds being paid out to keep multinational companies in Australia when they are finetuning and working all the time to keep themselves going and to provide food and fibre to the world without any sort of economic subsidy at all. I say, again, they do not want subsidies: they want a fair go. They want the government to get off their back, both state and federal. They want them off their back. This is the issue for them, and I think it is an important issue.

Likewise the fishing industry. While these lunatic greenies and bureaucrats in this state government and federally run around trying to tie up the world and protect Australia from itself and our fishing industry, they are getting done over. We now find that we are bringing this enormous percentage of fish into Australia and our fish are happily swimming around in the sea increasingly and not getting caught. I just think it is absolutely bloody stupid, quite frankly—absolute stupidity, and that has been borne out. It is interesting, and we need to discuss these matters because I heard the minister for the environment, again, this morning, on ABC 639 pontificating on marine parks. It ain't going to go away, government members; and, I tell you what, they will come out swinging if you do it the wrong way.

I know that the Premier has picked up on this issue and I hope that they get it right; but they do not want subsidies, either. Likewise with the tourism industry. They come to me from areas in my electorate and they say, 'Well, we're struggling,' but they say, 'We pay our taxes and here we are supporting General Motors Holden. Why?' Of course we want to keep it in South Australia and Australia, but why do we have to pay for it when it is owned by a multinational conglomerate based out of the United States and here we are falling for the three-card trick?

I have friends who work in General Motors and have worked in General Motors, and even on Sunday I had the Metropolitan Male Choir down in Victor Harbor, which was founded in the Holden factory in 1938 by a fellow called Charlie Roberts, I think, off the top of my head. It has been fantastic for the state—and that old gentleman over on the wall opposite, who has been watching everyone speak tonight and this afternoon, must be turning in his grave over us having this debate. What Sir Thomas Playford did was amazing and, of course, Ben Chifley; I acknowledge his efforts.

All we seem to do is to screw down manufacturing, yet when this happens and we have to come in here and debate what I say is this foolish and silly motion over absolutely nothing which is a no brainer, I scratch my head. Similarly, the mining industry. Well, they are the last ones who need any sort of subsidy at the moment, but over the years it has struggled. One day, again, it may struggle, who knows, but does it want a subsidy? Well, they are paying enormous amounts of taxation to help subsidise keeping General Motors Holden in Australia. I say to you, sir, it is a foolish debate. It is one which we have come back tonight to debate further. I would rather be debating something of substance that needs to be amended or improved in South Australia than to be debating the absolutely bleeding obvious, in my view. I just think it is silly stuff.

Much has been said tonight, but the other thing was that recently ABC television had a program on Bavaria where they make BMW motor cars. While the rest of Europe is struggling (and I do not know whether or not other members saw it) and in a dreadful mess in some areas—Italy, Spain, Greece and Ireland—Bavaria is going gangbusters and the BMW motor company is going gangbusters in the middle of this dreadful crisis. I would say to the Premier and to his minister, 'Perhaps you'd better jump on the plane and go over and see what they are doing in Bavaria to get it right,' because they are doing it right. Heavens to Betsy knows the costs of production in Europe (how they equate to Australia, I am not sure; that is not my forte), however BMW is doing particularly well, and Germany and particularly Bavaria is doing well.

I would hope they would listen to my words and actually go over there and have a look. I would be interested in going over there myself, only problem is that I do not have a passport and now we can't take anyone anyway, but that is another story. I would say that it is not all doom and gloom, but General Motors Holden is a critical and vital part of South Australia. If you go back over the years and look at Simpson Pope and other manufacturers who have come and gone because we now import everything from Asia—we import our fish, our electrical products and more and more motor cars—it is a ridiculous situation; it is a totally ridiculous situation.

I have had friends in Western Australia for 30 or 40 years who say to me that what South Australia always had over the west was they had to take everything over the Nullarbor to get it there because they had no manufacturing, whereas in South Australia (largely due to that gentleman up there) we had a great manufacturing industry. Long may manufacturing continue in South Australia. I desperately hope it continues.

I would like to see more manufacturing start up in the southern suburbs. We have lost Mitsubishi, and what have we really done? We have actually done nothing. I would like to see a highway go out of the south through Mount Barker to connect in rather than have go the long way around. I would desperately love to see that. It is not for my personal gain; it is for the state of South Australia. I think it is a sad indictment of where we have ended up.

We seem to spend money on things that we do not need but we are going to get, whether we like it or not—and I refer, of course, to the Adelaide Oval (which many people in my electorate think is terrific). However, I was in Mount Gambier recently and I said to people down there, 'What do you think of the Adelaide Oval upgrade?' and they said, 'Well, we couldn't give a tinkers, quite frankly.' But I said, 'Don't you want to come to Adelaide and see the football in a partly covered stadium?' They said, 'Why would we want to do that? We can get to Melbourne in the same time and for the same price whenever we want to and see football over there as much as we want to.' The other intriguing thing they said down in Mount Gambier is they do not care what is in The Advertiser because there are far more copies of the Herald Sun sold in Mount Gambier than of The Advertiser. Now they are done over on their forestry industry, and time will tell on that.

In the United States they have bailed out airlines and companies like Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, and they have bailed out other industries. They have bailed out motor car industries. But, they are a nation of 300 million people and we are a piddly little community of just over 20 million in Australia and we are trying to nut it out with nations like China with over a billion people—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Can I quote you on that, that we are piddly little country?

Mr PENGILLY: Welcome back, Mick. You are the only bloke I know who takes an hour and a half to watch 60 Minutes. I say to the house: I just think that it is a foolish debate to be having. I really, for the life of me, as I said at the start of these remarks—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: You can get up in a minute and pontificate but let me finish now. In the United States they bail out their companies, and I have mentioned the population. There are a billion in India, a billion in China, and whatever the population is of Japan—I think it is around 180 million—and here we are running around spending all our taxpayers' money on things that I find absolutely bizarre. There is absolutely no way that the figure quoted is correct—16,000, I think. I do not want to see 16,000 people in South Australia out of work. I think it is a nonsense. We did not get it right with Mitsubishi. There are still people who worked for Mitsubishi who have not got jobs. We did not get it right there. We are letting manufacturing industry go down—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Sibbo's got a job.

Mr PENGILLY: Sibbo got a job, that's true. I am hoping that the member for Mitchell is going to get up and tell us how Mitsubishi went broke when he was working there, but I doubt whether he will do it. I do not want to go on, but I just make the point that I think we are having a silly and foolish debate. Long may General Motors Holden continue—Holden's, as some people call it. Many of us in this chamber and the other chamber drive a Holden or Calais, or whatever, but I just think we are silly for debating it.

Ms THOMPSON (Reynell) (19:48): I do not think this is a silly and foolish debate. There are many people in my electorate who went through the experience of Mitsubishi closing—first the foundry and then the Tonsley Park plant. That was accompanied by months and months of fear and anticipation where—

Mr Sibbons: Years.

Ms THOMPSON: 'Years,' says the member for Mitchell, and that is true. There would be a slight revival and then it would happen again. I was aware of many people in my electorate who experienced severe mental health trauma during that period. I was aware of families connected with those workers who were also experiencing extreme anxiety during that period. Many of them required extensive medical support to overcome the difficulties that they were facing and then, when the closure finally came, many were so dispirited, that they were not able to readily move onto something different—they had been knocked around. I do not want to see the people of the north go through that trauma.

I know already that there are people in the south who are benefiting from this decision, so I want to thank the Premier and the ministers who were involved in the consultations, negotiations and discussions, and also the public servants who supported them because I have known some of them for many years and I know their commitment to keeping a vibrant manufacturing industry going in South Australia. I would particularly like to thank Len Piro for his long work in this area of keeping South Australia as a manufacturing economy.

When I was aware of this important decision, I contacted the Lonsdale Business Association, a very active organisation in my area, and asked what their reaction was, and their immediate response was 'Good, it gives us some security. We need to keep a manufacturing industry, and we know that in this day and age, particularly with the high Australian dollar, Australian manufacturing needs support.' I spoke to A Class Metal Finishers who no longer provide any work for the automotive industry and have seen their workforce shrink from 80 to 20 in their specialist niche organisation, as various parts of manufacturing, including for Caroma and Origin that they used to do, have gone overseas. They see a statement like this as a real signal that this government truly recognises the importance of manufacturing in South Australia and recognises that it is not always easy and is prepared to work alongside organisations to keep manufacturing here.

I spoke to one person who thinks the market should rule but, generally, others saw that this was a very positive effort for people as far away as Lonsdale and O'Sullivan Beach. For instance, SMR Automotive on Sherriffs Road, Lonsdale (previously known as Schefenacker) currently employs around 500 people at their Lonsdale facility. They manufacture automotive mirrors and lighting components, with their biggest contract being an export mirror to Ford US. They are also diversifying into other areas such as medical devices. However, they see this support for Holden's as key to the continuation of their workforce, even though only around 10 per cent of their employees are affected by trade with Holden. They are very pleased with the decision because already they have seen that employee confidence, security and morale has been restored. They see that the long-term confidence in the sector has stimulated certainty and long-term planning in terms of business and investment. They point out that, globally, governments are co-investing in industry to stimulate confidence in the broader community.

Every job in manufacturing has significant flow-on effects, stimulating local service industry and employment in the community. A spokesperson from Walker Australia, in Morrow Road, O'Sullivan Beach, was also very positive. They see that this brings security for around 120 workers, and the Holden contract accounts for about one-third of their workers. Unfortunately, I was not able to get in touch with anybody from PBR Australia, but, as I was making inquiries, I found that many people know that down at the old Mitsubishi foundry site PBR are making brake rotors for Bosch, as part of the Bosch chassis systems, and they are very proud that that work is being done in our area. I know that this debate particularly relates to our members from the northern suburbs but I wanted to put on the record that it is also of great importance to the southern suburbs. We do not want to see colleagues in the north going through what we have gone through.

As the member for Finniss said, not everyone has got jobs. Many have, and they were able to take advantage of the excellent retraining packages, but unless we have that auto industry there it will be very difficult. Many in my community also worked a little closer to town in some of the areas I am sure the member for Mitchell will talk about, and that is extremely important. We need to be a nation that makes things. They are not original words, they have been said often, but for people in my area it is a particularly personal issue. They need to have the security of their jobs, jobs for their children, and they are proud to be manufacturing workers.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (19:56): I have come in this evening to make a small contribution. As a lad I moved into the western suburbs down at Henley Beach, doing my schooling at Henley High. I was given the opportunity of moving into the workforce—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr WHETSTONE: They are everywhere; we are a good breed. Moving into the workforce, I was given my first real, full-time work experience as an apprentice at GMH. Back in those days it was known as GMH. It was not known as Holden, Holden's or General Motors. It was an icon in itself. That was down at the Woodville plant. I served a four-year apprenticeship there from the mid-70s as an apprentice fitter and turner toolmaker.

As an employee, I used to turn up there every day, and I can proudly tell you that in four years of apprenticeship I had one sick day. In four years as an apprentice I proudly went there to be a part of a fraternity of a workforce, and back in those days everybody took honour in being part of that workforce.

I can proudly say today that I took ownership of parts of a car. When we were making tools, when we were making the dies that would press out panels for that plant, I can proudly say that I formed the pressing tool that made the bumper bar for the Sandman panel van. The Sandman panel van is an icon of Australian culture, and it was something that I was proud of. I still talk about that with some of my mates over a beer, because I had ownership of that bumper bar, the rear bumper bar on the Sandman panel van.

We moved away from the hard core metal car into the Commodore era. I also made up the die for the dash panel of the first Commodore. They are just little things that remain in my memory, very fond memories. The GMH facility down a Woodville was renowned. Being an apprentice at GMH I was the envy of the apprentice world when I went to trade school, because it was known as the best training facility in the tradesman's sphere of South Australia.

It would always proudly present myself not only to Regency Park, but back to Kintore Avenue, back in those days, where we would do a training, and it was renowned for giving the best training, we were given the best opportunities by the GMH brand, the GMH tag, as it was.

Sadly, in the early eighties I was retrenched from their workforce. Back then, once I had finished my apprenticeship, once I had finished my stint as a tradesman, I was saddened to realise that it was an industry that is sadly reliant on being subsidised, having to rely on the government to step in and save the operation. It gave me some realisation that, stepping into the real workforce, I would have to stand up for myself. I would have to go out there. I would have to present myself. I would have to work a business case. I would have to actually run a business that was profitable without anyone saying to me, 'It is okay. If you are not going to make ends meet this week, we will sort it out.'

That was a bit of a realisation but, in today's world, I understand that the manufacturing industry is facing huge pressures from the world market. It is facing pressures from what the world demand is and that is that Australia has an expensive workforce and they rely on technology. They rely on the advancement of manufacturing to get them through the tough times of an expensive workforce competing with a very cheap workforce elsewhere abroad.

Moving on from there, sadly, I have had to realise that the real world is out in front of me. I moved into the oil and gas industry, and from there I moved into the agricultural sector and that was a real reality check. Once I moved to the Riverland, I had to deal with the reality of making a pay packet for a workforce every week. I had to make decisions that were relevant to the real world and that is, if you want to be a part of the real world and you want to survive, you have to be a bit of a mover and shaker. You cannot just rely on a handout. You have to rely on being one step in front. You have to be out there dealing with what the Australian dollar will present to you in today's world. Admittedly, when I moved into the agricultural sector, the dollar was about 60¢. Today, we are looking at about $1.05, and that has presented real issues with the manufacturing sector of today's world.

I understand that Holden, as it is today, is dealing with that very issue; that is, the Australian dollar is putting pressure on the sector. It is not only the Australian dollar but it is about the structure of what our economy presents on the world stage, and that is that we are not competitive when it comes to the labour; but again I say that we are competitive when it comes to the smarts of dealing with technology and dealing with presenting a quality product onto a world market. Again, it is about a culture of resilience. Sadly, I think the manufacturing sector has become reliant on government subsidies. They have become reliant on the money being put there so that they can continue.

Just in closing, I would like to say that being part of the agricultural sector for the last 25 years has taught me how to deal with a world market. It has taught me how to deal with the world demand. It has taught me how to deal with consumer satisfaction. Today, while I support the Holden's initiative by either a commonwealth or state government-funded exercise, it saddens me to think that this continues. Over the last 25 years, nothing has changed. We are still, as a manufacturing sector, looking for government handouts. We are looking for government subsidies. We are looking for government to put its hand in its pocket and, through taxpayer-funded subsidies, help out that sector.

Being a farmer, being a part of the agricultural sector, we have to stand on our own two feet. Sadly, today, the manufacturing sector is still looking for handouts. I think that it is an important part of our manufacturing industry and, if that is the way of the world today, I will put my hand in my pocket as a taxpayer and support the industry. Sadly, as a farmer and as part of the agricultural sector, the reality is that we have had to learn how to stand on our own two feet. I think it is an indication of the type of people we are that we make things work. A culture of looking for subsidies and handouts is a culture that will continue to rely on government taxpayer-funded subsidies and, sadly, that is the world today.

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (20:05): I was enjoying the member for Chaffey's speech for a while. There are some points on which we disagree, but I am pretty impressed by the Sandman story. I do not know if I can compete with that; it was pretty good. I will not take up too much of the house's time. This is subject about which I have spoken many times in this place, a subject close to my heart, obviously.

In my first speech, and on other occasions since, I spoke about my dad's work at Holden and the many other direct connections I have with the place. I said in my first speech that, while I am in this place, I will do whatever I can to ensure that Elizabeth, and the northern suburbs, remains a place which makes cars.

Today, I am proud to be a member of a government that recognises the importance—both current and strategic—of keeping Holden's in South Australia. On behalf of my constituents in the northern suburbs, I want to publicly thank and acknowledge the work of the Premier, the Treasurer and the minister for manufacturing and others, as well as the tireless advocacy of the federal member for Wakefield, Nick Champion, in making this co-investment possible.

As I said, my dad worked at Holden's for a while. As for many immigrants from the UK and elsewhere, it was the first port of call for employment in the north, and I think that the Minister for Infrastructure made that point well earlier. When we settled in Elizabeth in 1981, we stayed with my aunt and uncle in Elizabeth Downs. My Uncle Ron worked for Holden's all of his working life. For him and for many of his mates, it was more than just a job, it was a whole way of life. They really identified with the place as the centre of their world.

I have many other family members who work, or who have worked, at Holden's. It is impossible to overestimate the extent to which Holden's is part of the social fabric in Elizabeth. Almost every time I doorknock, I talk to one, two or three people who work at Holden's, and I speak to many more who talk about its importance and worry about its future.

In the wake of this latest co-investment announcement, I think there has been a lot of misguided criticism of direct government intervention in the industry. There has been talk of bailouts and protectionism as if the Australian automotive industry exists in some sort of perfect free-market environment. Clearly, it does not, and I think many people have pointed that out already.

Yesterday I asked the minister for manufacturing about some international comparisons with our own assistance to the car industry, and I think it is worth repeating some of those figures. He said that the Canadian government provided $4 billion worth of loans to the Canadian car industry in 2008-09. An amount of €6 billion was provided to the French auto manufacturers Peugeot, Citroen and Renault as part of a larger financial package in that country. The list goes on all over Europe, North America and Asia.

There were even reports last week that the Chinese government, due to popular pressure incidentally, is considering making its officials and agencies across China drive locally manufactured cars rather than the many Audis, Mercedes and BMWs, etc., that any visitor to Beijing will have seen. If these reports are accurate, we can assume that there will be a significant decline in foreign car imports to China.

All car manufacturing countries provide assistance to their car industries. None of them exist in isolation. This government understands that the securing of thousands of jobs and over a billion dollars of gross state product per year is unequivocally the right thing to do.

It is interesting to note—as the minister for finance touched on earlier—that 60-odd years ago the great Liberal premier, Sir Thomas Playford, understood this as well. I want to quickly quote from the excellent study of Elizabeth's economic history, called Good Times, Hard Times by Mark Peel. He devotes a lot of time to the establishment and impact of Holden in Elizabeth, and also to Playford's role in securing the deal. He says that Playford took a major role in Holden's establishment in Elizabeth. The plant at Woodville was nearly 40 years old and already hemmed in by other factories and railway lines, and so on. The company was looking to relocate hardware production and some car assembly. I quote from Peel's book:

Playford was determined to retain South Australia's share of this major employer and lobbied local and American officials vigorously. Securing Holden meant purchasing land—300 acres in all—that had not been included in the original site. The offer was sweetened by agreements to provide the land cheaply, reorient the route of a major road, provide all surveying, roads, electricity, water, gas connections and lay on a railroad spur. With these concessions, GMH agreed to locate its new factory in Elizabeth.

Today, our Premier and our Prime Minister also recognise that industry and government can work together to ensure future prosperity.

Again, I am proud of the fact that a government of which I am a part is securing the future of Holden's in Elizabeth for at least the next 10 years. I will say again, as I have said several times in this place already, that I will continue to fight to keep car manufacturing in Elizabeth.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (20:10): I join my opposition colleagues in supporting the $275 million co-investment program for Holden to build two next generation vehicles at Elizabeth here in South Australia in the second half of this decade, securing Holden's manufacturing presence in the state until at least 2022.

I support this on the principle of ensuring that critical Australian business survives and prospers. We have lost so many other key industries in South Australia, it is time we say enough is enough. This morning I went to the last Fletcher Jones shop which is open in Adelaide. I have been going to that shop for over 50 years and it will be closed within two days so I am going to look after my clothes very much from now on. I went to another place and I have to say it is not the same. The closing of Fletcher Jones, an iconic Australian company, is indeed a tragedy: quality, affordable, Australian-made clothes that you can be proud to wear—just gone and with it the last of the Australian clothing manufacturers.

You could go to hundreds of other well-known Australian businesses: tyre companies, none left made in Australia; electronic and whitegoods with Australian names like Kelvinator. Tonight I had dinner with two business ladies from Mannum and we extensively discussed the businesses at Mannum, particularly Shearer's of Mannum which used to make harvesters there—it was a prominent Australian business. Yes, the company is still open and it makes cultivators on a much, much smaller scale. And also Lightburn. All these companies are gone from the South Australian scene. Surely there are critical industries that we must retain in Australia for strategic reasons if nothing else.

If Holden's were to stop manufacturing it would be a disaster for our state. To start an industry like this today would be impossible; you could not do it. If you wanted to reverse this you could not even begin. Australia in general would feel the cost—thousands of workers who assemble the cars and even more thousands who make the bits and pieces, the components. As well as ensuring that we keep the jobs at Holden's we should ensure that the Australian content of Holden's should never go below a figure of, say, 25 per cent. That is a concern to me.

Every Holden that comes out has more and more overseas content in it. The Calais, a current Holden, has a dashboard that is fully built in another country. It is brought in in a box and it is glued in—bang, there is the dashboard. I know the differentials are the same and so are the seats. That is a concern, Premier, and I hope that—

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill: We make the seats.

Mr VENNING: I did criticise the seats in my car and I was told that since they went overseas they lost that lovely subtle feel they used to have. The Australian content of our cars needs to be watched as well. We know that the components are already brought into the country, as I said.

Mr Bignell interjecting:

Mr VENNING: We are all about saving Holden but I ask (in my 22 years here) are we hypocrites? How many MP's personal car is a Holden? Not your State Fleet one; not the one that the government provides—your own, the one you choose to buy and drive for you and your family. Some of the hands are still up; I am very pleased—so we all choose this car.

A previous member for Playford, the Hon. John Quirke, was going on about us importing second-hand car parts to this country and I said, 'But, Mr Member, what sort of car do you drive?' I have never seen him stop in his tracks like he did that night, because he had a Volvo parked out in the car park.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr VENNING: True story!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Schubert, will you get back to the topic.

Mr VENNING: I am, sir. I proudly own and drive a current model Holden Caprice, which is equal to any luxury car, I believe, in the world in that price bracket. I am proud to drive it. I think the people who made it would be proud to have made it. It is a magnificent motor car. My family has always driven Holdens over the years: Statesman cars, Calais, Holden Premiers. Remember the old Kingswoods, the Holden specials? How far back do we go? Not to mention the many Holden utes that we had, the legendary Holden ute that we had on the farm. Most Australian families, especially country folk, have had a wonderful relationship with GM Holden.

Holden began building cars here in 1948, when they built the famous FX. They were building bodies already here in Adelaide, at Thebarton, since 1924. They really hit their strength about 1927. They built all the bodies for the Chevs and many other makes which imported engines and chassis; they were all built here at Thebarton under Holden Bodyworks, becoming the Holden Car Company in 1948 when they built that first car. The dealership network that they ran right through the state was also very commendable. They had a wonderful dealership network right across the state, and the member for Goyder had one of the best in Rosewarne's and in Toop's as well. Rex Toop was quite legendary. We have all had them. The saddest part is that a lot of them have gone, which is very sad indeed.

I have to declare that for the first time in my 22 years here my work vehicle is not a Holden. You read about it in the paper. The Hon. Tom Kenyon made the headline, but I was in the article as well, so I cannot be too precious about that. I do not drive a Holden for my work vehicle because I need a specialist type of vehicle and Holden does not make one. Members would remember my stoush with the then treasurer Kevin Foley when he agreed with me to upgrade my car from a Holden Berlina to a Holden Calais, mainly because of the poor seating on the passenger side of the Berlina model.

My wife Kay had a hip replacement (which is now two hip replacements, in the same hip) and considering the long drives we were doing—up to 60,000 kilometres a year—we needed a higher electric lifting seat on that side of the car. The Calais had one of those as standard. We could not get one fitted to the Berlina, so treasurer Foley agreed that it was all okay and we were allocated a Calais; and all members were then allocated a Calais, which is a good vehicle. It was all very good until Venning and Foley locked horns one night and he reminded the house of the favour. That is what that was all about; that is the history.

In my last Calais the electric lifting seat on the passenger side was excluded. Not only was the seat too low but, as we became older, we also found it harder to get in and out of the car, so we let the car go. The point of all this is Holden's really do have to meet the market and make a car that most of us want. We are an ageing society. Why did Holden decide to make the luxury car Calais into a sports car? That is what they did. Low profile tyres, which were noisy, firm seats, hard, and also very firm sports suspension. Great if you are a hoon; but I, hopefully, am not one of those. I want the old man's Calais, which has soft suspension, soft seats and quiet tyres. It would not be very hard to offer these under a vintage Calais model.

Also, Holden has lost so many sales to overseas manufacturers who have totally captured the farmers' and off-road markets with their diesel four-wheel drives today. I know that Holden also imports a similar vehicle, but it does not achieve the same market share as the others have, particularly in relation to Toyota and Nissan. The question I have always asked is why Holden does not make a third new platform, as discussed tonight—high clearance, rugged suspension and with a diesel motor—and on that platform build several motor cars They could build the new Australian Holden ute and offer both two and four wheel drive. So many of our farm vehicles never ever use four wheel drive, and two wheel drives are much cheaper to buy and operate and they are better for the environment.

They could also build on the same frame, the same chassis, on that platform, a car in both two and four wheel drive to match the international competitors. It is all about clearance, ease of access, diesel economy and being environmentally friendly. I cannot see why this is such a big deal. Also, as we have found out with this assistance, we must all consider how other countries trust or treat their auto industries. It is very much coming to the fore when you think about this. Do we have a level playing field in relation to support? Are our cars given the same access to overseas markets as their cars do coming into ours? We do not seem to discuss that, and I think it is high time we did.

We need to support and protect our vital industries. As I said, long may Holden flourish in Australia. Where would we be without meat pies and Holden cars? My car is a Holden, what's yours?

Mr SIBBONS (Mitchell) (20:21): I rise to speak in support of the co-investment package to ensure the survival of General Motors Holden's car making operations at Elizabeth. The South Australian government will provide $50 million over the years 2016-17 and 2017-18 as part of the $275 million package negotiated with the federal and Victorian governments. In return for this investment, Holden has agreed to inject more than $1 billion into car manufacturing in Australia and to make two next generation vehicles here that will be cheaper to run and better for the environment.

This partnership will see GM Holden continue making cars in Australia until at least 2022. There have been many debates over the years about the manufacturing sector and the benefits of industry assistance and support. I worked in manufacturing for 16 years and spent a further decade representing workers in the sector. I have also had firsthand experience of the negative impacts which follow when a major manufacturing company shuts down. I have seen the impact this has had on the broader community, as well as on the many families directly impacted by these redundancies.

As a former Mitsubishi worker and an official who represented employees at the Lonsdale and Tonsley Park sites, I will never forget the address to more than 3,000 employees when the Lonsdale plant closure was announced in 2004. It was a surreal feeling. Whilst the Lonsdale engine plant would close, the Tonsley Park plant would remain, so naturally there were mixed emotions. As Tonsley workers were celebrating a future, Lonsdale workers were shattered and faced an unknown path ahead.

I remember the atmosphere at the Tonsley Hotel that evening. It was packed with relieved Tonsley workers who were celebrating the announcement that Tonsley would survive. The emotions at the Lonsdale pub were much more subdued, I am sure. I must say that the saddest day of my working life was on 5 February 2008. It was 2.30pm and my union colleagues and I were sitting in a media-packed executive dining room at Tonsley Park, the loyal workers next door in the adjoining canteen, and all of us nervously awaiting the announcement that was to follow. The news we had dreaded for years was now a reality—Tonsley would close. For those who say, 'Men don't cry,' I am sorry to disappoint you.

I know my eyes started to well that day, as did many in the room. I have often described Mitsubishi as the heartbeat of the south. It was more than just a factory, more than just a vehicle manufacturer: it was a multicultural community, and it played a huge part in my life and in the lives of many thousands of South Australians. The closure marked the end of an era for vehicle manufacturing in the south and the beginning of a painful transition for many workers. So I can speak from personal experience about the value of manufacturing, not just to our economy but also to our communities.

The work undertaken by Professor Göran Roos as a thinker-in-residence has been invaluable. As a result of his work, we have gained an expert perspective of the state's manufacturing sector, our strengths, weaknesses, and a path to ensure its prosperity. He has demonstrated that it is possible to have a strong and diverse advanced manufacturing sector that maintains high skills and high wage jobs. We do not have to encourage the race to the bottom. Professor Roos has made the following points:

Each job in manufacturing generates, on average, between two and five jobs in the rest of the economy.

Manufacturing is the biggest spender in the areas of applied research and innovation, with major spill over effects into the rest of the economy.

Manufacturing is the key driver of productivity improvement. It makes up the biggest share of world trade and, hence, is critical for export earnings that pay for the costs of importing things.

The importance of manufacturing has been realised by all advanced economies, if not before, certainly since, the global financial crisis.

The countries which have recovered best from the global financial crisis are all based around high-value-added export orientated manufacturing.

A healthy manufacturing sector is a must for any advanced economy with ambition to maintain economic and social wellbeing. Without a vibrant manufacturing base, societies tend to divide between rich and poor.

The smaller the economy, the larger the need for government intervention in the form of industrial policy.

While traditional manufacturing activities have succumbed to competition from low wage countries, successful advanced economies have found ways to transform their manufacturing sectors through a focus of innovation and constantly moving up the value chain and can ensure that manufacturing, particularly high value advanced manufacturing, remains a vital part of the South Australian economy.

In Australia, mining accounts for 7 per cent of our gross domestic product while manufacturing accounts for 8 per cent, so our mining and manufacturing sectors account for a similar level of economic activity. However, with almost 1 million workers across the nation, manufacturing employs four times more people than mining. While a crucial part of our economy, mining will not replace our manufacturing sector. It is equipment intensive, generating relatively few jobs, it fosters less innovation and has less flow-on benefit to other sectors.

In South Australia, manufacturing has been a key industry since the 1940s and currently represents 10 per cent, or $8.9 billion, of the economy, the highest level of any state or territory. Manufacturing also employs 79,000 people, or 9.8 per cent of total employment in South Australia. Conservatively, almost a third of South Australians and their dependents rely on manufacturing for their incomes, through direct and indirect employment. We must not underestimate the importance of this sector to our future prosperity.

It is interesting that, given the shift towards investing, supporting and protecting manufacturing as a sector by governments around the world, the Liberals in Australia are still behind the times when it comes to this important aspect of economy policy. Do we really need a cost benefit analysis to show that, when a third of South Australians and their dependents derive their income from this sector, it is economically and socially important for the government to support it? Our automotive industry is an essential element of South Australia's advanced manufacturing sector. The vehicle manufacturing and component sector in South Australia does more than just provide a livelihood for South Australians and their families. In our northern suburbs, the General Motors Holden plant is an economic backbone for the broader community, with some families having been employed there for three generations. It provides social networks through sporting clubs and various community associations, and it provides the economic viability of scores of small family businesses in the area.

The automotive sector drives demand, sustains capabilities and stimulates innovation across the manufacturing sector. Experience internationally suggests that once you lose a sector such as the automotive industry, once these manufacturing capabilities are lost, they are usually lost for good. In an article in The Adelaide Review earlier this month, Associate Professor John Spoehr notes that a technologically sophisticated manufacturing facility like General Motors Holden fosters technological innovation through the region in which it exists, sustaining a high-skilled workforce, that in turn underpins a higher standard of living than would otherwise be the case.

I believe that it is more important than ever to ensure that our communities genuinely understand the value of industry assistance such as the co-investment package for GMH. As our Prime Minister has said:

This funding is not a handout—but a strategic investment that will boost our economy, foster innovation, build new business opportunities and promote the adoption of new fuel-saving and safety technologies.

Holden has estimated that the new investment package will return around $4 billion to the Australian economy. Most importantly, this co-investment will support thousands of jobs at Holden that would have been lost if the company had stopped making cars in this country.

Economic modelling undertaken by Associate Professor Barry Burgan for the Department of Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy found the closure of Holden's vehicle assembly operations would have a devastating impact on the state's manufacturing sector. The modelling indicates that, if Holden was to shut its doors, we would be at risk of losing up to 16,000 jobs and $1.5 billion from our gross state product.

Do we need a cost benefit analysis to show this would be a bad thing for our state? An investment of $275 million that will return $4 billion to the Australian economy sounds like a reasonable bang for our buck if you ask me. The loss of 16,000 jobs and $1.5 billion from our state's economic output sounds like quite a cost. We must also recognise that we are not alone as a government in co-investing in advanced manufacturing. Every single country in the world that has the manufacturing capability to build automobiles has some kind of government assistance or support in place. How much industry support are Australian governments really offering our automotive sector; and how much does it compare to that of other nations who have a vehicle manufacturing capability?

A report commissioned by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries and released in January last year looked at this very question, while acknowledging:

A comprehensive comparison is not possible because, unlike the case in Australia, the overall level and forms of assistance provided to the automotive industry in many overseas jurisdictions is opaque.

The report provides a comparison with the budgetary per capita assistance provided by governments in Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, United Kingdom and the United States. The results are very interesting, and I strongly encourage all of my parliamentary colleagues to have a look at the report.

It shows that the budgetary assistance provided to the Australian automotive industry in 2008-09 was relatively modest compared with these other countries. It also notes that claims made by the OECD that Australia had the second highest level of budgetary assistance to the automotive industry during that period are based on a misrepresentation of data. This includes an assumption that Australian government assistance was provided over two to three financial years when, in fact, it covered 13 financial years.

The report shows that on a per capita basis in US dollars in 2008-09 the following countries provided the following level of support to their automotive sectors: Sweden, $334.18; the United States, $264.82; France, $147.38; Canada, $96.39; Germany, $90.37; UK, $27; and Australia, $17.80. In fact, government budgetary assistance to the vehicle industry in Australia is modest in comparison with our overseas competitors, and our assistance is transparent and open, whereas elsewhere it can be opaque.

Of the 13 nations which have the capacity to design and build automobiles, all provide support to keep this capacity in their countries through tariffs, direct support or co-investment. Co-investment plays a vital role in allowing the automotive industry to diversify and strengthen its manufacturing base as well as supporting innovative automotive parts suppliers, attracting investment, and securing jobs.

Governments do have a very important role in economic development and helping to build our industries to positions of sustainable competitive advantage. Governments can actively assist by helping to collect information, map industry capacity and capability and workforce requirements, as well as providing gap analysis, R&D and technology forecasting. While industry assistance should not be limited to budgetary assistance, this is still appropriate when used to correct a market failure to create or protect existing capabilities, address market gaps or assist with industry transformation.

The aim is to build clusters of key capabilities and excellence that may have application across all sectors. By working collaboratively with governments and the education and technical base and by sharing new knowledge, practices and even technology, individual companies can make better and more informed decisions about their future.

Let's understand what the assistance package we are talking about today means in the real world. Approximately 2,700 people are currently employed in the GMH plant. These are the same workers who two years ago agreed to shorter working weeks and decreased pay when times were tough to prevent redundancies. This was a groundbreaking agreement for all parties involved, including the company, the workers and their unions. It showed a commitment to something much bigger than an individual worker or an individual company.

When you have 2,700 people working together it becomes a community. When you include spouses and children it becomes a town. Then there are the component suppliers, and then there are the suppliers to the component suppliers, and then there are the supermarkets, hairdressers, childcare centres, mechanics, service stations, accountants, travel agents, clothing stores, chemists, delis, builders, plumbers, electricians, the pub, and the local coffee shop, who all receive direct revenue from these automotive workers and their families—16,000 people. That is a lot of jobs and a lot of revenue—a lot of small to medium enterprises whose livelihood is directly impacted by whether GMH stays or goes. So, let us not kid ourselves about what is really at stake here.

Professor Roos also found that Adelaide's manufacturing suburbs are home to one-third of the metropolitan area workers but have more than half of the people who are unemployed or on disability pensions. This means that factory closures in these areas have a far greater impact on the standard of living in a much more concentrated way. Losing General Motors Holden would also reduce the standard of living in areas where a high percentage of residents are struggling anyway. Without these manufacturing bases helping people to secure high skilled, high wage work, the poor will certainly get poorer.

In a time when we need to be tackling generational unemployment to ensure we have enough skilled workers to meet future demands, what is the cost of creating a brand-new era of generational unemployment? I believe that is far too high a price to pay. Holden's is the heartbeat of the north and this is a very important motion before us today. It is important for the future of this state. It is important for the healthy diversity of our state's economy into the future. I commend the motion to all South Australians.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (20:41): I rise to support the motion in support of the state and federal government support for General Motors Holden. I just want to make a few comments about the Holdens that I have owned over time. My first car was a 1975 Torana with a 1900 Opel motor.

An honourable member: Piece of shit.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes. It was not the most, should I say, reliable car for a lad's first car. I think I was 17 and the motor was starting to play up after 11 months. I do not know whether the issue was hard driving or what happened, but I was told when I inquired that the—

An honourable member: A few points and plugs.

Mr PEDERICK: —that the Opel motor needed more than a few points and a few plugs. In fact, I probably should have done something else with it but be that as it may. After that, I bought one of the icons—a HQ Kingswood. What a car—173, three on the tree. That was a great vehicle. Three years—

Mr Piccolo interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: No, it was only a 173; that is the smallest motor you could get in the HQ.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Better than a 282.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, better on fuel—absolutely.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: I don't know. It was a very reliable vehicle and I had that for three years. I had the pump up shock absorbers on the back. I must say that I think all I put in that vehicle was a water pump, so that was extremely reliable.

Members interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: I am not going to respond to interjections, Madam Speaker! I must say, on the farm, we had a couple of Holden one tonners that were never renowned for working in sand. In fact, you had to dig a Holden one tonner out more often than not, but it was a very reliable vehicle. As the transport minister stated, we had the 202 Holden motor in those and they were a very reliable utility for farm use.

As I was growing up, my father had a HQ Holden wagon. Now this had a 308 V8 in it and this was a motor that must have been built on a Wednesday because this car worked. It was just a pity we did not keep it in the family. This was pre-emission control and that car could accelerate to the speed limit quite respectably.

Mr Whetstone: And not beyond.

Mr PEDERICK: And not beyond, absolutely. Our family cars have included a HZ Statesman, which my brother has in a state of disrepair in Queensland. He tells me that he is going to rebuild it. The motor has been sitting out of it for about six years, so I will not hold my breath for that to happen. My father drove a VS Statesman until he gave up driving last year at the age of 91, but he still owns it. So we have done our bit in supporting the Holden cause.

What I want to talk about tonight just briefly is the inequity in industry support. I understand that the member for Chaffey talked about the agriculture sector, which gets virtually no support from government. Earlier today I talked about the United Dairy Power factories in Murray Bridge and Jervois. I have been going in to bat on behalf of United Dairy Power to see whether we can get some sort of incentive for it to buy these factories. We are trying to get some stamp duty relief and some payroll tax relief.

Tony Esposito from United Dairy Power confirmed to me today that he got a letter on Friday from minister Gago indicating that there would be no such relief. So, here we are, talking about all the jobs in the north—and that is all great, and we on this side support the support for Holden's—but what about other industry in the state? Where is the support for them? What do I say to the 120 people who have jobs at Murray Bridge and Jervois? What will I say to them if it all goes pear shaped? What will I say?—that there was just no support forthcoming.

I talked about support for other projects. I had a candid conversation with the former premier (premier Rann) before he left this place. He asked me how things were going in Murray Bridge. I said, 'Not too bad. We've got the race track proposal that's going ahead and the 3½ thousand homes in the project and that sort of thing'. Mike Rann said to me, 'Yes, we helped out a bit with the one in Gawler'. I said, 'Yes, I understand that that was about $6 million, Mike. Murray Bridge would accept that assistance if they could get $6 million to assist with their project'.

Mr Piccolo: In Gawler?

Mr PEDERICK: No, it is not in Gawler. It is not in a marginal seat. So, where is the equity in this state? If we are going to give assistance to one industry, what about the industries in Hammond? What about the racing industry and what about the dairy industry in this state? If those factories that United Dairy Power has now purchased fall over, it could have dire consequences for dairy farmers in this state in relation to where they deliver their milk. I will just leave that message with the house tonight.

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide) (20:48): I rise to support the motion. There are broadly two ways to think about economic management. One is that the economy largely manages itself and government should keep its involvement to a minimum. The other holds that this is a dangerous position for governments to take, as without careful regulation economies have a habit of lurching wildly from states of boom and bust, and the losers in those transitions are the people who elect the governments to act in their best interests.

Modern economies are never unchanging. The challenge for a government is to bring predictability and stability to the changes that mean the economy can remain healthy over the long term and everyone can share in the benefits of prosperity.

The events of the global financial crisis, experienced in most Western economies as a recession, offer, even as it is continuing, many lessons for economic management. Above all, we can learn that there are two things that governments must do during booms that are too late to do when the boom is over. The first is to prepare for the boom to end. The second is to recognise that not everyone wins during a boom.

What happens when a boom comes to an end will be shaped by how well a government uses the boom time to prepare for its end and the extent to which the long-term economy has been strengthened by investment in infrastructure, skills development and research. Recognition that not everyone benefits from a boom will draw government attention to industries that have a long-term importance in the economy but suffer when another sector is booming.

What we have in the car industry is an industry that is the beating heart of the South Australian manufacturing sector, and it is under serious pressure from the high Australian dollar. Our resources sector is expanding apace and our dollar is encouraging a flood of cheap imports which replace Australian-made produce but the soul of our manufacturing sector, the car industry, is affected by the dollar and the relative strength of the Australian economy.

A government that subscribes to the first model I described, one that says the economy just needs to grow in its own way, will sit back and enjoy the strength in the economy and ignore the sectors that are struggling—survival of the fittest. But a government that recognises that it is an active participant in the shaping of the economy and its impact on every person in the state will see that the potential loss of a manufacturing sector is no light matter.

It has been said before but it is well worth reiterating that a manufacturing sector cannot easily be restored once it has gone. If we were to allow manufacturing to go we would have to do so in the full expectation that manufacturing is gone forever. With it would go thousands of jobs right now and the possibility of Australians being able to make things of our own, but also something more: the future benefits of the manufacturing sector producing things that are yet to be developed and employment for future generations.

Is this an argument for government to prop up a failing sector and keep it in stasis? It is not. The modern car industry is at the edge of advanced manufacturing that is dependent on a highly skilled workforce and constant investment in research and development. One of the reasons Holden's and the related components manufacturers have survived so well thus far is that their workforce is highly skilled, highly professional, and the companies involved fully recognise the need to constantly improve processes and product.

Holden's at Elizabeth is one of the most precise plants in the world, with high standards and huge capacity for flexibility which is unmatched by overseas plants that are geared for high volumes of identical vehicles. This puts our Holden's at the centre of the modern consumer economy where customers expect variability in product to reflect their individual needs and tastes.

Government intervention in a sector (and governments intervene in all sectors at various times) should be tested by several criteria: the sector must be investing in its own future, and the investment Holden's has announced is substantial; the sector must be modern and constantly improving; the sector needs to employ a large number of Australians or to have the potential to do so; the sector must have strategic importance; and the sector must face competition from overseas where other governments are also investing. There is no doubt that investment in Holden's will be in line with all these criteria.

That is the theory and that is the economic justification, but there is another way of looking at Holden's—the messages I receive at the door in my electorate. Quite simply, thousands of people living in my electorate and the neighbouring electorates are dependent on the survival of Holden's, whether because they work there directly, because they work for component manufacturers or because they are employed because the people who are in manufacturing have money in their pockets to spend. These people have families, mortgages and plans for the future, and this government will not turn away from them.

It would be economically reckless to allow the manufacturing sector, which rests so soundly on the base of a thriving car industry, to slide away. We, and every generation following us, would pay for it. It would also be financially reckless to pour money into a dying industry, and the application of the criteria I have listed guards against that. The car industry is growing and it is robust. It supports many allied industries. It represents the foundation of advanced manufacturing which is the future that must play a significant part in the South Australian economy for us to remain both prosperous and stable. I therefore support the motion before the house.

Mr PICCOLO (Light) (20:53): I rise in support of this motion. I do not wish to cover all the areas which my colleagues have already covered, and I thank them for the vast amount of facts and figures they have provided to ensure that we have a good debate.

When dealing with issues like this we have two choices. We can either believe in unfettered market forces to resolve all our problems or we support government intervention. As a proud social democrat I support government intervention where the markets fail or to ensure a fair and just society. Part of a fair and just society is to ensure that all in society have the ability to live a life with dignity. Access to employment, health and education are some of the important elements of living a life with dignity.

When you strip this debate of all its political posturing and rhetoric, it is about ensuring that a range of workers have greater job security and greater access to employment: greater job security to support themselves and their families; greater job security to have an income to support local small businesses through purchases they make; greater job security to be able to afford to send their children to school; and greater job security to pay off their mortgages.

While the debate has focused on the co-investment to Holden's, other businesses in the area will actually benefit from this co-investment. All those component industries which supply Holden's will also benefit.

I met with a senior executive from a competitor to Holden's earlier this week and I spoke to him about the Holden's co-investment. As a competitor I expected this executive to say, 'Where's our share of the money?' The point he made is interesting, though. He actually supports the co-investment in Holden's because it keeps the component industry alive in Australia. They also rely on component industries to ensure that they can manufacture in Australia as well.

The announcement of this co-investment has again injected new confidence into the community in the northern areas of Adelaide. Importantly, it will also ensure skills for the future. It will ensure that we have apprenticeships and traineeships for all those young people in that community. It will also ensure that we train the tradespeople for the future to have the skills for our agenda to grow an advanced manufacturing industry in this country.

This motion before us is about people. It is about people in my electorate. It is about the importance of the Holden employer and other component industries to the people in my electorate. As an indication, my late father was also a worker at Holden's—when I was a kid we called it Holden's; maybe it was an ethnic thing, but we called it Holden's. Perhaps the people in the eastern suburbs are different.

Members interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: At least some courtesy. I didn't interrupt you; grant me the same courtesy. I wouldn't expect that from you. Holden's gave my father an opportunity to support his family, so I welcome and support the state government's decision to make the co-investment to help secure the future of manufacturing in the north of Adelaide.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Minister for State Development) (20:58): I thank all members for their contributions. Without diminishing any of the contributions that have been made here—and a number of them have been deeply personal ones—I want to acknowledge the member for Mitchell's contribution, because he spoke and reminded all of us, I think, of what is at stake in this debate: the closure of a car factory and the heart-wrenching effect that has on the community, the lives of those who work there, and the families of those who rely upon those workers to provide for them. It has brought home to all of us the magnitude of the decision that we have taken.

I do not want to dwell at length, except to say that in relation to the contributions of those opposite, all I can say is better late than never, that they are now supportive of this package, having raised questions about it consistently from the start. The truth is that those opposite have been negative—

Mr Pederick: No, we are just seeking answers.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, right from the start. You have been driven by public opinion to the point of simply saying that this should be supported. At the start they were raising real doubts about whether investments of this sort should be made, and up until very recently they were suggesting that all this was was compensation for the carbon tax and that on that basis there is no proper basis for it. I do welcome, though, the albeit belated support for this measure.

Motion carried.

At 20:59 the house adjourned until Thursday 29 March 2012 at 10:30.