Grievance Debate

West End Brewery

Mr MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Leader of the Opposition) (15:07): I think any decent South Australian would acknowledge that today is a sad day because we have indeed formally lost, I understand from Lion Nathan, the West End Brewery to South Australia for what is likely to be forever. West End is South Australia. South Australia is West End. This is an iconic brand. One struggles to think of a close comparison to West End Draught when it comes to those iconic products that we produce right here in South Australia that are consumed overwhelmingly by South Australians.

The news that came early this morning I think shocked many, but none more so than the 94-odd workers who were informed this morning that they are losing their jobs, their livelihoods and their work of which they have been so proud for so many years, servicing so many South Australian households and communities. I think we have to acknowledge that.

We understand and I think all reasonable thinking people understand that, as the Premier said, this is a private company making a decision. But I think it is also true that today's announcement demonstrates some of the differences that exist between those on the opposite side of the chamber and those on this side of the house when it comes to political philosophy and policy on protecting icons such as this.

I point to a couple of examples; the first is Spring Gully Foods. When Spring Gully Foods was set to be lost to South Australians and this country forever, the then Labor government essentially had two options. It could decide to let it go through to the keeper, say that it was a private entity and had nothing to do with us—that is option A; that is this government's approach—or, alternatively, it could do something. It can, at the very least, try to keep that work and try to keep that brand alive in this state.

We decided, as the government at that time, to invest over half a million dollars to give Spring Gully and its workers a chance to survive. They took that half a million dollar investment and invested in new infrastructure and new capital and they have flourished. Those workers are still gainfully employed today and that brand has never gone better. I cannot reasonably guarantee you, Mr Speaker, that such an approach would have worked in this instance, but I can guarantee you this: we would have tried. We would have made a bit of an effort.

Furthermore, under questioning today, it became apparent that this Premier's approach to those 94 workers, in terms of a public policy response, is to do nothing. When asked what the Premier is doing to specifically assist those 94 workers, he went on with a cavalcade of things that this government is doing in a broad public policy sense. He said that it has nothing to with him, and he tried to turn it into a go at the former Labor government. Again, that is in stark contrast to the approach that those on this side of the house would have taken as a government.

To solicit an example, I identify Coca-Cola—a company that those opposite were all too keen to make a political point of when it closed down not too long ago. What did we do on this side of the house? We actively developed a policy to provide immediate assistance to those workers who were losing their jobs—specific assistance, to the best of my memory, to the tune of approximately $4,000 per worker.

What is this Premier's approach? 'That's Lion Nathan's responsibility. Lion Nathan is doing X; Lion Nathan is doing Y.' What are they doing? Nothing. It is unacceptable. We have the highest unemployment rate in this nation; it is worse than Victoria's. We have 170,000 South Australians who are actively looking for work. It is now time for a government to get activist. It is now time for a government to accept its responsibility.

It has a role to play in an economy, not just to provide work for those who are looking for it and not just to create the conditions that are desperately needed for private capital to employ more people. Indeed, it has a role to provide assistance to those who are not getting that opportunity, to provide assistance to the 94 workers who have lost their jobs today, and to at least give them the hope that they have the ability to rely on government's support to retrain and reskill to try to find a job in the toughest labour market that this state has seen in living memory.

It is not acceptable for this Premier just to seek to apportion blame to others and turn a blind eye. We will not abide it because we do not just owe it to those 94 workers; we owe it to every South Australian who is looking for work as we speak. When it comes to West End, this brand is worthy of preservation. I know my footy club relied on that sponsorship. I know thousands of other community groups rely on that sponsorship. We would have tried to protect West End. We would not have let that brand die without at least first putting up a fight.

Time expired.