GM HOLDEN

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (14:48): My question is to the Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade. Following Mike Devereux's comment that, I quote—'A $20 to $30 per tonne carbon tax raises our costs between $40 and $50 million. That is a fact of life'—how is the government's $50 million contribution to Holden not a taxpayer subsidy to help pay for Holden's tax liability built up over a number of years?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Treasurer, Minister for State Development, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for the Arts) (14:48): This furphy was perpetrated by the Leader of the Opposition when he was a lowly spokesperson for industry. I like re-watching the YouTube clip where the Leader of the Opposition almost swallowed his tongue when he was trying to explain the national policy—

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order. Standing order 98. This is clearly debate. The Premier is asking his own team if they remember YouTube clips.

The SPEAKER: Yes, I think the point of order is a valid one and I call the Premier back to the substance of the question.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. They were just some preparatory words to what I was about to say. I remember that on that occasion the Leader of the Opposition was talking about this furphy of the carbon tax being the need—

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: Point of order, member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: Surely this is in direct breach of your ruling that he get back to the substance of the question. He is now repeating on the same incident, claiming it is about that issue.

The SPEAKER: The question was about what part of the General Motors carbon tax costs were met by the government subsidy, so perhaps the Premier could address that point.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That is exactly what I'm addressing, sir, because the remarks that were made on that occasion were directly rebutted by Mr Devereux on that occasion back when we had this earlier debate, around about March last year. I remember we had a debate in the parliament; I brought back the package here from Detroit, and the same furphy was perpetrated by the Leader of the Opposition and backed up by the federal opposition.

They were trying to make their points about that. That was when the carbon tax was a matter of some focus from the federal opposition and, of course, the local Liberals jumped on board with that because it was fashionable to do that. So, everything was about the carbon tax and the Leader of the Opposition was parroting the federal opposition at that time, and he was rebutted at that time by Mr Devereux, who said that that was not a material—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is called to order.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —consideration in the question of requesting the co-investment by the South Australian and the commonwealth governments to ensure that the next platform would be in place between 2016 and 2022. So, it was completely rebutted by Mr Devereux on that occasion. Absolutely no part of the discussions recently about any of the decisions that were taken around the 400 jobs being cut have any relationship to the carbon tax. This is just a myth that is being perpetrated by the Liberal opposition. It has no support from Mr Devereux.

What Mr Devereux's remarks should be seen in context as meaning is that the background costs associated with running a business in this country are not material to their decision. They assume that. There is a background of costs associated with doing business in this country—labour costs, taxation arrangements—and there is an air of unreality about this. There will be a price on carbon in almost every developed jurisdiction at some point in the foreseeable future and, certainly, we're seeing a number of jurisdictions in different ways pricing carbon.

This will be the background into which all major car manufacturers will be making their investments in many countries around the world, including Australia. So, it is a nonsense to separate out the carbon tax as being somehow in any way related to their request for co-investment, which was all about investment in a new platform, and the fact that they had to make up the capital gap between the investment that they needed to make and what they could justify based on their business case.