HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-11-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

GM HOLDEN

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Treasurer, Minister for State Development, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for the Arts) (10:32): I move:

That this house—

1. Recognises the importance of Holden to the economy of South Australia, to the car component supply industry, and to the up to 13,000 South Australian workers and their families, who depend on Holden continuing to operate for their livelihood.

2. Recognises the important role that Holden plays in the development of a skilled workforce suitable for a more advanced manufacturing industry.

3. Notes that—

(a) South Australia has already committed an investment of $50 million to Holden in the event it invests in two new models from 2016 and continues to operate to at least 2022;

(b) Holden will not continue to operate beyond 2016 unless a substantial package of co-investment is negotiated with the commonwealth government;

(c) the commonwealth government’s announced $500 million cut to the Automotive Transformation Scheme has created greater investment uncertainty for Holden and its workers, although the reversal of the previously foreshadowed FBT changes is welcome; and

(d) delays to the resolution of any co-investment package are creating great uncertainty for Holden workers, are delaying investments of businesses associated with Holden and so retarding economic activity, and are themselves putting in jeopardy the possibility of Holden continuing to operate.

4. Calls on the commonwealth government to conclude as a matter of urgency, a package of co-investment with Holden, which ensures Holden invests in two new models and continues to operate beyond 2016.

The government is moving this motion in the parliament today because this is the most important economic issue facing South Australia and it is incumbent on all members—every single member of this house—to stand up and be counted on behalf of South Australia, not just in this parliament, to express the will of this parliament, but also in any forum where they can have influence—any forum. That includes your own political party, your own colleagues and anybody you can influence. You owe it to this state to stand up and add your voice to this important campaign to secure the future of Holden's in South Australia. We believe that the issue of the car industry must be resolved by a decision of the commonwealth government to co-invest in the car industry without further delay.

South Australia has a diverse economy. We make some of the world's best food, wine and beer. We have a resources sector which is unlocking the natural potential of our state, particularly and most recently the exciting prospects in our gas industry. We have some of the smartest scientists and engineers working on world-leading biomedical research and devices. We have some of the finest defence materiel in the world so that we properly equip the men and women of the Australian Defence Force to serve our nation with distinction. As a consequence of that diverse economy, we have a car-making industry based around manufacturing operations of Holden and Toyota and, in the short term, Ford.

One of the most important facts about the car industry for our diverse economy, is how that industry creates capability for the rest of our economy. The automotive industry plays a significant role in bringing world's best practice in business processes, in lean manufacturing and in upskilling workers. Interestingly, when I was at Spring Gully just last week, I was struck by the fact that the consultant who was working there to assist them to make the transition from the difficulties that they were finding to a sustainable future for themselves was in fact an expert in the car manufacturing industry, and indeed the person who was appointed to be the operations manager at Spring Gully is somebody who had a background in car manufacturing.

Touring the ASC—the submarine corporation—and looking at the work that is going on at the warfare destroyer contract, I met many skilled workers who got their start in Holden's or Mitsubishi. When I visited a medical device factory just a few weeks ago, I met a manager who had his start in the car industry—an industrial chemist who came from Bridgestone, a car manufacturing component maker. These skills and capabilities, which are available for the South Australian economy, come directly from our capabilities in the car industry.

When I was at Carr Components at Netley recently, the foundry and tooling operations that are associated with many of our car component manufacturers are not just important for that sector: they are important for the other manufacturing sectors that exist in South Australia. If we lose the capacity to make tools for the purposes of the vehicle manufacturing industry, we lose the capacity to make tools for other sectors. When the critical mass of those component sectors falls below a certain level, the inventories that are necessary to actually create those manufacturing products—the certain types of steel that are kept in supply here in Australia—run down to the point that they cannot be accessed.

This is the difference between winning and not winning a contract. To put in a bid and say you cannot access a particular type of steel, because it is only sourced from overseas and that is an eight-week trip, is the difference between you winning that contract and participating in the manufacturing supply chain or not. So there is a critical mass issue about the way in which a manufacturing sector can shrink to the point where it has massive knock-on effects and capabilities across the whole of our sector.

We have innovative businesses that have significant operations outside of car manufacturing that still have the car industry as important lead customers. That is the other thing that needs to be remembered here. We have companies like Precision Components. A substantial proportion of their work comes from the car industry, but a very important section of the work is in the non-car manufacturing sector. But it is the car component sector of their work that allows them the capacity to continue to operate. If you take one away, the other falls. It is not of sufficient scale to allow that industry to continue in its present form.

In South Australia the automotive industry has 33 direct suppliers and 700 indirect suppliers and has an impact on thousands of businesses, workers and families in the state. One such business is SAGE Automation, based in the southern suburbs. SAGE Automation CEO, Andrew Downs, has said, as part of the More than Cars campaign, that globally automotive is seen as probably the pinnacle of all industry, mostly around its productivity, its use of the latest technology and certainly the adaptation of world's best practice. What I find here is that it is not just the work we do in the automotive sector: it is the discipline we get from it.

Many car component makers have used their capabilities to corner a niche in the automotive market, but they are able to translate that success into other markets. SMR at Lonsdale developed a coding technology, in conjunction with the University of South Australia, which allows them to create lightweight, automotive mirrors. As a result, they have been able to win around a fifth of the global market for automotive mirrors—a fifth of the market from South Australia; 75 per cent of their output goes to the United States, Asia and Europe. SMR has also been diversifying their businesses outside of automotive, especially in the growing and emerging sectors such as medical devices and clean technologies. The company recently established a new division—SMR Technologies—which is seeking to develop products in markets requiring precision, highly engineered moulded and electronic component combinations.

Of course, the importance of the car industry goes beyond these shared capabilities. The jobs that are created by the car industry include those jobs in retail, in hospitality, in construction and services. We know, courtesy of a study undertaken by Barry Burgan and Associate Professor John Sphoer of the University of Adelaide, they quantified the importance of the car industry to our economy. They found that the loss of the industry would be a loss of up to 13,200 jobs. They found that the loss of the car industry would mean $1.24 billion of our gross state product would be lost. When statistics reach this scale they can start to lose some meaning, so we need to remember what it means at the level of the families that are affected by these decisions.

The devastation wrought by a decision not to support carmakers, resulting in the closure of this industry, would be felt by most South Australians. This is a sector that has touched the lives of many South Australians. My own family has had a long history in the car industry. My mother started out at Carr Fasteners, down there on Tapleys Hill Road at Hendon, and she worked there for many years. My uncle spent his entire working life at Holden's, starting at Port Adelaide as an apprentice, finishing at Elizabeth—his whole life as a young man as an apprentice through to the day he retired in his late 50s.

Most South Australians know someone who has worked in this car industry or somebody who relies upon it for their livelihood. The sad reality is that the unemployment that would be associated with the loss of these jobs devastates not only individuals but families and not only families but communities. Particularly for those workers who are semiskilled or low skilled or older workers, the loss of secure employment can set them permanently on a path of insecure work.

We were fortunate when Mitsubishi closed; it closed at the height of the economic activity that was occurring in this state. But make no mistake: there are a number of those workers that are still struggling. There is not a rosy picture for those workers that are having to face insecure employment or many of them that were not able to obtain employment or go into premature retirement. Once proud men and women are forced to rely upon not only their brains and their muscle but the generosity of others to survive. And that is an undignified existence for them.

Fewer jobs in community hit local sporting clubs, schools and community groups. Nowhere would be hit harder by the closure of Holden's and the shutting down of the car industry than the community of Elizabeth. David Cavenett, the President of the Central Districts Football Club, has featured in the government's More Than Cars campaign. And he brought the message home very clearly when he said, 'We can't afford to lose the car industry.' It is clear that losing the car industry would devastate the South Australian economy, workers and the community, but we do not have to have it that way.

We know what the car industry needs. General Motors Holden, as well as us, are in negotiations with the commonwealth government at the moment. They have put a proposition to the commonwealth government. It is the same proposition that General Motors Holden has put to the previous federal Labor government. The previous federal Labor government, following the receipt of that proposition, went on to announce a package during the election campaign which would have delivered an extra $500 million over five years at the end of the existing automotive transformation scheme, with ongoing funding over the years after the scheme concludes.

Of course, it was never the previous commonwealth government policy to rip $500 million out of the current stage of the ATS scheme, which the current government has recommitted to doing. From what Holden has put to us, the package of the previous federal government together with our own contribution would have secured the future of the car industry in this nation. At our insistence, we have also ensured that there will be arrangements to ensure substantial accountability for Holden's and the industry to ensure that we do have a car industry which is transforming and can have a secure future.

But instead of making a decisive move to secure our car industry upon coming into office, the new federal government has dithered. We have given them some time. It was appropriate that they have their briefings, that they have time, but the time for waiting is over; the time for decision is upon us. They have sent a proposition to the Productivity Commission, a decision that can and should be made by the government itself. This is causing a six to nine month delay until the industry has any certainty at all about its future. The delay makes it incredibly difficult for businesses across the state and, of course, Holden itself to make the necessary investment decisions about the future.

What company, even one the size of General Motors, can make an investment decision when the boundaries might be able to change by hundreds of millions of dollars? What car component maker can tool up to get ready for the production of new platforms if they do not even know if they are going to have a customer? How can a deli owner who relies upon the car industry workers for their livelihood and wellbeing make decisions about investing in their business? Unfortunately, the delay itself may even result in the loss of Holden's altogether.

That is why we need nothing short of a definite commitment on funding for the car industry from the federal government and we need it now. To secure this commitment, we have to show that Canberra knows that this car industry is not limited to a few carmakers in Toyota in Altona, and in Elizabeth for Holden's. We have to show the federal government there is a broad base of support across the whole of this country. That is why we have mounted a More Than Cars campaign. We have started working with local communities. Anglicare has been on side, the City of Salisbury has been on side and the campaign is growing in strength. Over 3,000 people have joined the campaign to this point.

We know that the campaign has to go to the whole of the country. That is why I am travelling to Melbourne tonight to meet with car component makers and launch this campaign in Victoria. We know from the ACIL Allen report that there are about 33,000 jobs at stake in Victoria. Victorians stand to lose as much as, if not more than, us here. So over the coming weeks we will be taking this campaign across the nation to show the breadth of support in every city and town.

Today we need to show Canberra that the Parliament of South Australia is united behind the car industry and that we will not accept further delay. There are two paths: an automotive sector, which is a foundation for a diversified high-value manufacturing future for our state, or a car industry that withers and dies and we have to deal with the process of adjustment here in South Australia. We cannot afford to stand still in this state. Our state has an exciting opportunity ahead of us, but we cannot afford to allow this sector to die. If it does, it takes with it the hopes and dreams of many South Australians. I ask this parliament to support this motion.

Mr MARSHALL (Norwood—Leader of the Opposition) (10:47): I rise to speak on the Premier's motion and I indicate on behalf of the Liberal opposition that we will be supporting this motion. I am very proud to say that the debate occurring in the chamber today is, of course, done under the watchful eye of Sir Thomas Playford's portrait by Ivor Hele, sitting behind the current Premier of South Australia. I wonder what Sir Thomas Playford would think about the current performance of the South Australian economy?

Sir Thomas Playford did everything he could to advance the cause of manufacturing here in South Australia. What would he say if he was confronted with the ABS statistics revealed to the people of South Australia last week, where 10,000 jobs were lost in South Australia in a single month? There were 10,000 full-time jobs lost in a single month, bringing to 28,000—think about that over there; think about that over there on the side of the government—the total of full-time jobs lost in this state in the last five months through the hopeless economic settings put in place by this Premier and this Treasurer.

Now he has brought this highly political motion to the people of South Australia and to the house and we will debate it. We want to support it. Why is that? Because we strongly agree that Holden is vitally important to the South Australian economy. Holden is important to the manufacturing economy here in South Australia. The entire manufacturing sector is important to the South Australian economy. We certainly do not want to be lectured to on this matter by Premier Weatherill, who has no credibility whatsoever. He tells us—

The SPEAKER: The leader will not refer to the Premier by his surname. He will refer to him as the Premier or the member for Cheltenham.

Mr MARSHALL: We were talking about several premiers in my speech today, so I just wanted to clarify that—that I was not referring, of course, to a great South Australian premier, premier Playford: I was referring to the current Premier. The Premier used the vast majority of his time in the debate telling us what we already knew.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Elder is called to order.

Mr MARSHALL: He used taxpayers' dollars to tell us what we already knew. In fact, he said, 'We got Professor Barry Burgan to do a report on the importance of the manufacturing sector.' To what end? To tell us what we already knew: Holden is important to the South Australian economy; manufacturing is important to the South Australian economy. So, we spend money from this state government to tell us what we already knew.

We all support the car sector here in South Australia. We do not need a website, we do not need a petition, we do not need motions in the parliament, we do not need Barry Burgan's report. We know that this is an important sector for the economy, and nobody knows that more than I do. I served on the state government's Manufacturing Industry Advisory Board for five years under both the Labor government and the Liberal government. It is an important sector and it is where I come from. My father worked at Holden. He did his apprenticeship at Holden, becoming a fitter and turner there.

We understand the importance of the technology transfer from Holden to the wider manufacturing sector. We understand the importance of skill transfer from Holden to the wider manufacturing sector to the wider business community here in South Australia. We know that it is important. But the government has no credibility—zero credibility—when it comes to the matter of negotiating to keep Holden here in South Australia.

Let me just go through the sorry tale that we have had in South Australia over the last 20 months on this issue. None of us will forget when our intrepid Premier jumped on a plane and flew over to Detroit only to call a press conference and say, 'Guess what? We're in lots of trouble here. Holden is about to depart.' He came back and said, 'But don't worry, I will save this industry. It's safe with me. We're going to enter into negotiations to save this company once and for all and to get two new models through to 2022.' That is what he promised the people of South Australia.

I was the shadow minister for manufacturing at the time, so I said, 'Why don't we do this in a bipartisan way?' That was my first response. I said that the logical way to do this was through the IDC, the Industry Development Committee, which everybody in this place will know is a subcommittee of the Economic and Finance Committee. Guess what happened? Almost immediately, the minister at the time—am I allowed to say his name?

The SPEAKER: No.

Mr MARSHALL: The current member for West Torrens, the former minister for manufacturing, innovation and trade, went straight to the media; when he was asked this question by Michael Smyth on the ABC, when Michael Smyth said to the minister—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Premier was heard in silence, and now the opposition benches are erupting during their own leader's speech. Accordingly, I call to order those who are most disrupting this proceeding, those on the front bench: the members for Waite, Unley and West Torrens. The Leader.

Mr MARSHALL: When the former minister went on radio later that day, Michael Smyth asked him the question, 'Why don't you deal with this issue in a bipartisan way? Why don't you establish the IDC?' Let me read to the house precisely what the minister said on 18 January:

Look Michael, I'm surprised that Steven talked about the IDC today because I announced today in my press conference and he's fully aware of it, that I thought it was a very good idea to send this proposal through the IDC after it was announced and have a consultative approach with the Liberal Party. But he comes on your radio program today saying I should send it there after knowing I've already announced it a few hours earlier. It's the type of politics we're dealing with here because it's not really about finding a solution, it's about creating conflict. It's about trying to create an issue, trying to create a problem.

That is what the minister said, so of course I was delighted. Logically, one would assume from that transcript, and from hearing that on the radio, that the minister had agreed that Holden was important to South Australia so let's deal with it in a positive bipartisan way. You could imagine how incredulous I was when I found out he was not going to go be true to his word; he was not going to establish the IDC! It was never going to happen!

So, what did I do? I thought to myself, 'How can we actually push this issue?' Maybe he just had a little backflip, but the Labor Party in general was going to back a bipartisan approach to saving Holden. What did I do? We moved, within the Economic and Finance Committee, to establish the IDC.

The IDC has worked very well for this state in the past. We have used this, in a bipartisan way, on important issues of economic development. We used it for the defence sector, especially around Techport, and it was used to great effect. That is why we suggested it—not to try and be political or disruptive, or try to extend the time for making deliberations and decisions regarding Holden, but because we genuinely believe that it is the best way to deal with economic development issues in a bipartisan way.

A lot of the decisions that are made in this area have to be made for the long-term benefit of South Australia, and there are likely to be multiple administrations during the life of some of these decisions, so that is why we sent it there. We went to the Economic and Finance Committee and we moved it there. We said to the government that we would like to hold the minister to his suggestion, that we would like to establish the IDC—

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Honour his commitment.

Mr MARSHALL: —and honour his commitment to the people of South Australia. Well, we were flabbergasted when the government decided to use their votes on the Economic and Finance Committee to make sure that we would never establish an IDC to look at the Holden issue. So, this government has been exposed for the hypocrites they are. They talk about working in a bipartisan way with the opposition, but at every single opportunity—every single opportunity—they want to wheedle politics into this discussion. It does no good for Holden, it does no good for the workers in Holden or in the supply chain, and does no good for the economy here in South Australia.

Let's have a look at what happened when the Liberal Party was not involved in the determination of that co-investment deal. First of all, let me just refer to what the government finally put out when they had finished their negotiations because, again, I think that this gives us a clear indication of the way that this government operates. In March 2012, Labor's headline was very clear: 'Holden's future secured'. That is what they said: 'Holden's future secured'. That is what they promised the people of South Australia. In January 2011, they put out a press release saying, 'Holden going from strength to strength'. In December 2008: 'Holden's small car plans secures its future in South Australia'. They are always talking about what is going to happen here in South Australia.

Of course, the pinnacle was after the negotiations in March, when they said unequivocally that they had saved all the jobs, there would be no forced redundancy and, most importantly, I think the Premier indicated to the people of South Australia that he really had no idea about manufacturing whatsoever. He said that the great thing about this deal he had done was that it was going to integrate Holden into the global supply chain. He thought that this was a positive.

Let me tell you that every single auto parts manufacturer in South Australia started to tremble. They knew that was not an opportunity for them to export; they knew that that was an opportunity for Holden to import all their componentry and lose all those jobs across the entire supply chain in South Australia. That was the problem, and he did not understand it. The Commodore was designed in Australia, and the vast majority of all of the componentry is South Australian. The Cruze is on the global platform, and guess where all the componentry for the Cruze comes from? From their global supply chain—the same global supply chain that the Premier was advocating was part of a great deal he had negotiated on behalf of South Australia.

Let me tell you about this deal. Not only did we not secure the supply chain for South Australia, but we have lost hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of jobs since the Premier claimed that he had saved all those jobs. What did we find out earlier this year? The deal the Premier had claimed had been done to secure all the jobs at Holden had never ever been signed. He said, 'Don't worry, there was an exchange of letters.' That is why we are back to the starting point. The Premier said in this house on repeated occasions that we had negotiated a $275 million co-investment package to secure two new platforms for manufacturing right here in South Australia for 2022. Well, that just has not taken place. The Premier did not sign that deal, and we have been in a very unsatisfactory situation ever since.

Can I just say that we do need to move to a more bipartisan approach to the auto industry here in South Australia. That is why in April this year I said that if we were elected we would establish an auto industry task force, but I went further. In April this year, I said to the Premier of South Australia, 'Why don't you establish an auto industry task force and we will join with you and we will work diligently with you to do everything we possibly can to put Holden in the best possible scenario to make sure that it survives into the future'? What was the government's response to that offer? Forget it—he did not want to be part of it. Do you know what he said? He said, 'It's imminent. We either sign up now or it's too late.' Well, here we are in November, many months later, and we are still in negotiations.

Again, I call on the Premier today to start working with the opposition and start working with the federal government to secure the jobs at Holden, to secure manufacturing at Holden, and stop playing politics every day of the week, stop spending state government taxpayer dollars—finite taxpayer dollars—on his latest little invention, like a website, or a T-shirt, or a photograph on the front steps of parliament, or a motion in the house, or a motion—

Members interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: Sir, there is a lot of tension on that side of the house. There is a lot of tension. Take a big, deep breath. What we need in South Australia is an approach that is going to put our manufacturing sector on a long-term trajectory towards success, not press releases. I ask the Premier: whatever happened to that august body he pulled together? Do you remember it—the manufacturing ministerial task force. So, we had—we are not allowed to say their names—four members of that—

The SPEAKER: Yes, they have names. They are their electorates or their portfolios.

Mr MARSHALL: The member for Hartley, the member for Newland, the member for Playford, and I think we had one other member on that committee, the member for West Torrens. Can I say, sir, that there is not one day of manufacturing experience amongst them—not one day, not an hour—and that is the task force. I ask the Premier: can he report progress of the manufacturing ministerial task force and what they have done to secure the future for Holden?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Before we go to the Minister for Manufacturing, this is not a gospel revival tent and therefore rhetorical questions do not need to be answered by members who do not have the call. Accordingly, I call to order the member for Heysen and the member for Taylor. The Minister for Manufacturing.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland—Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade, Minister for Small Business) (11:03): Thank you, sir—and I will tell you and this chamber what former premier Playford would have said. He would have said, 'Pay up.' He would have rung Bob Menzies and said, 'You have to do what you need to do to protect this industry.' He would have said, 'This industry is too important to lose.' He would have said, 'We need this industry to keep our productivity up.' He would have said, 'We need this industry because we need to keep education and our skills up. We need the engineering skills.' That is what he would have said. He would have rung the Prime Minister and said, 'You need to protect this industry.' That is what he would have said, 'and while you're at it, I might nationalise electricity, as well'.

The only complete supply chain in this country is provided by automotive manufacturing right from the very start: concept, design, engineering, prototyping, tooling, component manufacture, assembly, sales, service and recycling—all these things, not to mention the transport, mum-and-dad delis and all the rest that hangs off it. This is the only complete supply chain in the country, and there is only one side of politics that is not interested in keeping it, and it is not on this side of the house.

The R&D spend, the biggest in the nation, comes from automotive manufacturing. That is what is at risk, and that is what Thomas Playford would have known. He would have known that that needed to be kept. With the engineering ability, he would have said, 'This is too important to the rest of manufacturing, this whole manufacturing industry that I've built up in South Australia. Engineering is a key component of that and that's why we need to keep it.' That is what Thomas Playford would have said, and that is what the Leader of the Opposition is not saying to Tony Abbott.

There is the productivity flow-through that we get. Productivity is a key ability of the automotive manufacturing industry. It is actually a relatively efficient manufacturing process, with productivity growth of between 2.5 per cent and 8 per cent, depending on which factory you are looking at. That flows out right across manufacturing, it flows across resources, and it flows across into some areas you would not even think about, where you would not even think it had an effect. Sam Walsh, the CEO of Rio Tinto, said:

If I look at the various things I have shamelessly lifted from the car industry, the most obvious is the business improvement model. To the uninitiated, the two industries might seem worlds apart...If I had to name one thing I have transitioned from...the automotive industry...[right] across to what Rio's mining operations are doing today, it would be an intense, laser-like focus on value and efficiency...

But you might ask, what does operating a collection of large mining pits in the Pilbara have in common with producing precision engine components or wheel bearings? The answer is that these approaches to processes and production are about bigger and more general questions than a specific product or sector. At their heart they are about solving problems and the essential problem is the same for everyone. What is wasting our time, our labour, our workforce skills, our energy consumption, our resources and our money? How do we discover it, isolate it, analyse it and eradicate it?

Rio Tinto wants automotive manufacturing to continue in Australia because they know it matters for them—and that is exactly what Tom Playford would have told Bob Menzies, way back.

What will we see? Everyone knows what we will see: we will see a 1.4 per cent reduction in the gross regional product, according to the Allen Consulting report. Gross regional product is the economy of Adelaide; a 1.4 per cent contraction in that and it will take between 15 and 20 years to recover, just to get back to where we are starting from. Our economy is getting a benefit of $21.5 billion across the country, a national benefit. That will go. That is at stake, and that is why Thomas Playford would have rung Bob Menzies and said, 'You need to keep this industry,' and that is what the Leader of the Opposition is not doing.

We are not talking about a competition between factories; we are not talking about relatively efficient factories because actually the Elizabeth plant is relatively efficient. What we are talking about is a competition between governments, between governments who recognise the importance of an automotive manufacturing industry and are prepared to pay for it—and the federal government needs to engage in that competition. That is what Holden is asking for, that is what we are asking for.

We have done everything we can, the unions and employees have done everything they can. The only government, the only people, that is not doing everything it can is the federal government. The federal government is the only one standing back, doing nothing, and hoping that some sort of productivity report will produce some sort of golden ticket to a new industry. It is not going to happen.

I will tell you another thing Thomas Playford would not have said: he would not have stood in this house and said, 'Let's have a committee,' as the Leader of the Opposition is doing. He would not have said, 'Let's all talk about it.' The Leader of the Opposition's idea of bipartisanship is essentially what you see from Richie Benaud and The 12th Man: 'Let's act as a team and do it my way.' That is his definition of bipartisanship.

Bipartisanship means taking the risks that you need to take and going and talking to the people you need to talk to and even saying so in public, maybe against the political interests of the political party you are a member of but certainly in the interests of your state. That is what bipartisanship means. It does not mean hiding under your desk talking quietly in the dark and hoping that no-one will ever know that you might have rung someone.

That is the only thing we can assume is happening on that side of the house. He is quietly sitting there, up on the second floor, hiding under the desk hoping no-one hears him ring Tony and say, 'Oh, Tony, can you help me, please? That is what we are getting. He loves to talk about—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Be seated, Minister for Manufacturing. I know he is in full rhetorical flight, but he will be seated. I call the member for Hammond to order, but I was going to call the Minister for Health and the leader to order. Minister for Manufacturing.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: The Leader of the Opposition is quite fond of talking about his experience in manufacturing. I will tell you what it boils down to: his daddy gave him a factory and when it got too hard he sold out and he bought a bigger boat. That is not what this state can afford. It cannot afford someone who is going to sell out the state and buy a bigger boat and make life a bit easier for themselves.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (11:10): What a pathetic excuse for a government they are. Twelve years they have been in office; 12 years of state Labor. Now they seek to blame everybody—anybody—passing by for their failures. This motion has one object and the Premier alluded to it in his opening remarks, it is about trying to sheet the blame for what may and hopefully will not unfold to others. It is trying to absolve his pathetic rabble from any responsibility for the circumstances we now face in regard to the automotive industry.

I remind the house that, in the last 12 years, the economic circumstances we have faced have seen manufacturing employment decline from 85,000 full-time employees in that sector in 2002 to little more than 65,000 today, a reduction of over 20,000 employees, most recently collapsing in the past 12 months. During that period, we might ask why that is: because in that 12 years it has been Labor's taxes that have hurt the manufacturing sector; it has been Labor's industrial relations regime that has caused pain; and it has been Labor's collapsed and failing WorkCover regime, the most inefficient and incompetent in the country that has caused chaos.

Under that 12-year governance, we have seen water prices increase by 257 per cent and electricity prices increase by 133 per cent, all creating further pain for our manufacturers. It is during that 12 years that Labor failed to grow exports; they have barely changed in 12 years. It has been Labor's failure to create jobs. It was Labor's failure under the former premier, Mike Rann, the member for Ramsay, that there was a complete inability to restructure this economy to face changing international developments. Now we have a splutter of life. Well it is too little, too late.

It was under Labor that we failed to invest properly in the motor car industry to deliver real advantages in research and development, despite all the money that was invested, and it was Labor's failure to keep in place the $500 million Green Car Innovation Fund back in June 2011 that help create the very circumstance we find today. What did Mike Devereux the manager of Holden say when Labor prime minister Rudd canned that $500 million fund? He said this:

Holden had accessed around $200 million of the funding. We had to invest at a three to one rate so that means $600 million of money coming into Australia for a $200 million co-investment. And frankly losing that fund makes it very difficult to look forward to figure out where will that co-investment attraction come from in the future.

When did he say that? January 2011—and where was the premier then? Where were the ministers then? Where was the cabinet screaming for the federal government to reinstate that funding? There was a shuddering silence. I will tell you this, Mr Speaker, and let us hope it does not happen, but if Holden dies, buried shortly after will be the state Labor government. Rest in peace. A decrepit, pathetic excuse for a government in this state. You have created the business conditions we face today; you have delivered South Australia to a point of economic chaos just like you did last time. The people of South Australia—

The SPEAKER: The member for Waite will be seated. He will address his remarks through the chair. He will not use the second person when addressing me.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. They delivered ruin in 1993 and they plan to deliver ruin again. The sooner the people of South Australia get rid of this pathetic lot, the better, because they are simply with this motion trying to sheet blame. Everyone on this side of the house wants to see a vibrant automotive industry in this country. To suggest otherwise, as we have just heard, is utterly disgraceful and, frankly, is beneath the comments from the persons who have made them. We all want to see Holden's succeed. We all want to see Toyota succeed.

But, do you know what, and I will just remind the house of this. When this pathetic excuse for a government oversaw the collapse of Mitsubishi in 2008, what was their language? Was it their fault? Was it the commonwealth government's fault? No, it was circumstances beyond their control. Decisions being made in boardrooms in Tokyo, totally outside the government's control, meant that Mitsubishi had to go. I could read the quotes from the former premier and the former treasurer. It was everybody else's fault but theirs. It was just the fact that the motor car company had decided it was not profitable to work in Australia any further.

Now, the language has changed. Now it is, no longer, should Holden decide to go it is the corporation's decision. It is somebody else's decision. It is somehow the Coalition's decision or it is our decision on this side of the house. The leader has eloquently exposed the Premier's shoddy arguments. No-one is a stronger advocate for Holden than our leader, our front bench and every member on this side of the house. The way you get results—and we understand that because we come from the business community: we run farms and we run small businesses—is by sensibly sitting down together and working out some solutions. You do not talk about the problems: you talk about the solutions.

Federal minister Macfarlane has offered to do just that. The Leader of the Opposition and all on this side have offered to do just that. Who has refused to quietly sit down with the company, methodically work through the issues and develop some solutions? The Premier and that rabble on the other side, Mr Speaker. They are the ones trying to play politics with this. They do not want a result. They just want to sheet blame.

That leads me to the next point: when did the Premier get really worried about Holden? I will tell you, because someone on his own side dobbed him in because they released to the media a report titled A Study of GMH in Australia by Professor Göran Roos dated August 2013, stamped 'Confidential Draft: Cabinet in Confidence'. What is in that report? Josh Dowling belled the cat rather well, because it explains that, for months now, prior to the federal election, the Premier had secret information, no doubt discussed in cabinet, that really raised the alarm bells about Holden.

Jane Reilly from the media asked the Premier whether he had seen the report and this is what was said. Reilly asked, 'Premier, have you seen the document?' and the answer from the Premier was, 'No, I don't know what The 'Tiser's got.' The last time I heard language like that was when somebody belted a former premier with a Winestate magazine and he was asked, 'Do you know that man'? I've never met him,' was the answer. Read carefully!

I want to know, and perhaps the Premier can tell us: has he seen the document, yes or no? He knows which one the media has. Has he seen it? Did it go to cabinet? I would like to ask the former minister whether he has seen it, and the current minister. I will bet, I would hazard a guess, they have all seen it and they have known what it says. It has all been reported in the media.

Its assumption is that Holden will close, and it goes through the reasons why. It spells out that the next generation of vehicle, should it be commenced (and we all hope it is), will, as the leader has explained, be a global platform. Gone will be the rear-wheel drive Holden, gone will be the Commodore, gone will be the ute and it will draw on the global supply chain. Even if it does proceed, there will be far more limited opportunities for downstream suppliers.

He has known all that. He has known that the news was not good. His own people have looked into it, explored the facts and come back to him and said, 'In all likelihood, Holden will be closing. The corporation will make this decision.' But instead of being honest about it, revealing the report and having it out there in the public space, we have this pantomime, because I suspect that at that time he was also told that, should Holden close, the effect could be dramatic. I suspect he was also told that Mr Jacoby, the new head of Holden in this division, might require anything up to $2 billion or at least $650 million in order for Holden to survive. And what language do we get from Kevin Rudd during the campaign? The language of $2 billion.

What I suspect he has done is shared the report with the former prime minister, Mr Rudd, and the former Labor government, but he has not told the Coalition he has it. He has given information, I suspect—and perhaps he can clarify this—to a Labor federal government that he has denied to the Coalition. Why would he do that, if he is genuine? Because he has already decided, I suspect, in his heart of hearts that Holden is going. That is the advice he has. I suspect that is what he really thinks and he is just playing a political game.

What we are trying to do on the side with minister Macfarlane—and I can tell you that it is very earnest—is work with him to save Holden. We are working very hard. But they can explain to this house, Mr Speaker, why they cut their $500 million Green Car Renovation Fund. They can explain to this house why, over the last 12 years, they have done nothing to help the car industry. They can explain why, over the last 12 years, Holden has been unable to transform itself into an engine room of R&D, vitally important to its global network.

And they can explain to us why, somehow, when they so failed that Mitsubishi closed and left on their watch, the rhetoric now is not that decisions made in boardrooms in Detroit will determine the outcome. Suddenly, it is the Coalition's fault or it is the state Liberals' fault. It is a decision that will be made by the company. They are a global corporation. This government does not understand, because hardly any of them have ever run a business. Hardly any of them have had to earn their own income through their own private enterprise endeavour.

They were happy to have a dig at the leader and many of us over here who, with their own hands, have built our own businesses. They were happy to do that but what they do not understand is that, when you run a business, it is either viable or it is not. You have costs; you have incomes; you have to work out a business plan that is sustainable. Holden will do that and we on this side will do everything we can with the federal Coalition to make sure that whatever funding we can provide is provided.

But do you know what? When Ford announced that they were leaving in Victoria, Dennis Napthine rang them up and said, 'Is there anything I could do?' and the answer were words to the effect that, 'It would not have mattered how much money you offered. We've made a decision as a corporation to go.' Stop playing politics with this. If you are dinkum, get together in a bipartisan way, as the leader suggests with Ian Macfarlane and let us work this through. If you are not fair dinkum—

The SPEAKER: The member for Waite's time has expired.

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I warn the member for Waite for defying my ruling that his time had expired. In fact, before we get to the point of order, I stopped the member for Waite mid-flight because he was not getting a fair shake with interjections from the government benches. The clock was not started again because he was given time on while I dealt with that disruption and, as a result, we have been blessed with, I think, three more minutes of the member for Waite than we bargained for. While we all celebrate that, perhaps the member for MacKillop has a point of order.

Mr WILLIAMS: A point of clarification, sir. I thought it was the practice of the house that, when a member was on his or her feet, and the time expired, they were able to finish the sentence that they were in.

The SPEAKER: Yes; normally, I let them more than finish the sentence. Normally I let them finish the paragraph. The member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (11:25): It usually does take the member for Waite 13 minutes to do what it takes everyone else 10 minutes to do, but that is okay. Fancy getting a lecture on integrity from the member for Waite, a man who forwarded documents into this parliament accusing me of gross corruption. Imagine that!

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Mr Speaker, I ask that that be withdrawn. I think it is unparliamentary.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I certainly will not.

The SPEAKER: I don't think it is unparliamentary. The argument might be that it is not germane to the terms of the motion. Perhaps the member for West Torrens will now move on.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you, sir. The politics of Holden is very, very clear. The Leader of the Opposition said in his opening remarks that he criticised the Premier for commissioning reports when we already knew the outcome. He said we had wasted tax dollars in commissioning reports when we knew what the reports would say. If that is true, sir, why does he now support a Productivity Commission report into General Motors Holden if we know what the outcome is going to be? Because we have heard every member thus far say Holden is vital to this state's future.

If we already know that, why do we need to wait for a Productivity Commission report? Why? Why is that? Could it be politics? Could it be they know what the outcome of the federal deliberations will be? Could it be that the Leader of the Opposition has an inside running into what his colleagues in Canberra are about to do to the people of this state? Is it, sir, the reason that he is terrified lest the people of South Australia find out what his friends in Canberra are plotting behind our backs to do to the people of this state in March 2014? Ian Macfarlane has said publicly he understands that, without subsidy, General Motors Holden cannot survive, but he is not sure his colleagues do. He said that publicly.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: They're not convinced.

Mr Pisoni: Where'd he say that?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Front page of the Financial Review, a paper you probably don't buy very often. If you take the example that Ian Macfarlane says his own colleagues do not support the idea of principles of subsidising the car industry, minding that every major car industry in the world is subsidised—there is not a car on Adelaide's streets that does not have subsidy in it; every single one of them does—how is it that Holden can survive without subsidy? The reality is they cannot. If we want to be a country that manufactures motor vehicles and requires subsidy, this country must manufacture vehicles.

It is vitally important to our national interest and it is important that the opposition comes clean and stops playing politics with this issue. Let's talk about the hypocrisy of their arguments. The Leader of the Opposition says in major speeches to his party conference that investment in public infrastructure is a false economy. He said it is a false economy—

Mr Gardner: That's a damn lie and you know it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —yet when the Convention Centre purchases Marshall Furniture's seats, that is not false economy, Steven.

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens will be seated. The member for Morialta will withdraw that remark.

Mr GARDNER: Sir, I withdraw.

The SPEAKER: Thank you; the member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Mr Speaker, why is it that when Labor governments spend on public infrastructure for the public good it is a false economy, but when that same government purchases chairs from a privately owned company that is not a false economy? Why is it that the Leader of the Opposition is happy to be a beneficiary of public subsidy but not for Holden? Why do we have to wait until March? Why can't we make the decisions now?

If the Leader of the Opposition is right, and reports are being commissioned to which we know the outcome, why delay? Why delay? I am not the one hiding behind a Productivity Commission report in March 2014; it is members opposite. So the people of South Australia will be right to ask: why is it that members opposite want this delayed until after March? Is it that they do not want to be held to account for the decisions of their friends and colleagues in Canberra? This leader, this Leader of the Opposition, does not have the backbone to stand up to Tony Abbott—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: And fake laughter won't hide it; fake laughter will not hide it. He cannot stand up to pressure, sir, will not say no to Tony Abbott, agrees with him every single time. Now is the time to stand up for your state. Now is the time to call yourself a South Australian first and a Liberal second. I am a South Australian first and in the Labor Party second. I put this state first and I call on the opposition to do the same.

Mr Marshall: Put your state first!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will put my state first. If only members opposite did. Companies will not invest in this state if you change the rules on them. They will not. Yesterday, it was reported in the paper that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition criticised a BHP indenture; she criticised it. She was so appalled by it that she voted for it. That's how appalled she was. Then she wanted to criticise the Santos indenture. The two largest employers in the state and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is flagging changes to the indenture agreements. What does that do to business confidence in this state?

Now they want delays to the Productivity Commission report until after March. What does that say about Nyrstar? What about Nyrstar? Is Nyrstar next? This opposition is a true threat to the people of this state. When the Leader of the Opposition received a $50,000 grant from his friend Nick Minchin to make his business competitive from foreign takeover—

Mr Marshall: I hadn't met Nick Minchin at the time!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That's an interesting remark to say in parliament. When he received a grant from Nick Minchin for $50,000 to keep his business competitive from foreign takeover, what did he do? After he received that public subsidy to protect his business from foreign investment, what did he do? He sold it to foreign investors—he sold it to foreign investors. So don't lecture us about subsidy. Don't lecture us about taking a dollar from the taxpayer when you do yourself. When it's good for you, it's fine. But not for Holden's, they will not do for Holden's. You have to ask yourself, why are they trying to hide this?

Mr Marshall: It was not a subsidy. It was a demonstration program.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Oh, that's different! And what was that demonstration program about? That demonstration program was about taking money from the taxpayer to re-fence your company to protect it from foreign takeover. So what did he do? He took that money, made it more profitable and then sold it to a foreign company, and those jobs have gone offshore.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am not the one wanting to change the rules on the business community; it is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is the two people who are arguing against the BHP indenture and arguing against Santos. You have to say, today we have learned of another Productivity Commission inquiry—another one! Which is due to report when? In March 2014. What is that investigating? Alternative funding for infrastructure. What is that code for? Tolls.

Another one! Two inquiries by their friends in Canberra, but of course a first-term MP does not have the ticker, the wherewithal or the know-how to stand up to a politician who has been in parliament for 20 years. Tony Abbott is going to take this guy for a walk around the block and tell him how to run the state. A vote for the Liberal Party is outsourcing this state's governorship to the eastern seaboard. We cannot let that happen.

In conclusion, the members opposite are praying and hoping that the people of South Australia will not wake up to their false accusations, because they do have plans for South Australia, they do have policies, they are just secret plans, secret plans to see Holden's shift offshore, to save that money; tolls for South Australian roads; more privatisations. Mr Speaker, you have to ask yourself this, in conclusion—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sir, I sat quietly through—

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I always get concerned when a man of your age gets so red. Take a deep breath, deep breathe, deep breath.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I don't raise assaults on premiers like you did—coward.

Mr PISONI: Point of order, sir: I believe—

The SPEAKER: If the member makes a point of order—

Mr PISONI: Unparliamentary.

The SPEAKER: —it will be rather inconsistent with his conduct for the last 10 minutes.

Mr PISONI: Well perhaps I shan't do that then.

The SPEAKER: That would be a very good idea, because the member for West Torrens has sorely provoked the opposition for the entire 10 minutes and they have responded in kind and the whole thing was highly disorderly—and consensual.

Mr SIBBONS (Mitchell) (11:35): I have spent the majority of my working life working on cars and representing workers who build and repair cars. I spent four years as an apprentice learning two trades as a body maker and spray painter. I learnt skills beyond my trade such as fitting and machining, engineering, drafting, chemistry, metallurgy, vehicle design, tooling, plant design and maintenance, lean manufacturing and, most importantly, how to work as a team in an ever-changing environment.

Ms Chapman: There's the man for the job.

Mr SIBBONS: I am a vehicle builder and I am proud of it. After 16 years working at Mitsubishi I will never—

The SPEAKER: It's very kind of the deputy leader to say that the member for Mitchell is the man for the job, presumably for Mitchell, but it is disorderly.

Mr SIBBONS: After 16 years working at Mitsubishi, I will never forget the faces of thousands of employees at the Lonsdale plant in 2004, and my fellow workers at the Tonsley plant in 2008. Therefore I, perhaps more than anyone in this place, can stand before you today and speak on behalf of the 2,500 workers at Holden's and the 13,000 South Australian workers whose livelihoods depend on the automotive industry.

I know how they are feeling right now: living on a knife edge of anxiety and uncertainty, sick, let down, frustrated, and angry. They are wondering why—when they have agreed to wage freezes, proven themselves open and flexible in terms of hours and conditions, and shown their dedication and loyalty—they are still being hung out to dry. That is how they feel and they have a right to feel that way.

This time we have a golden opportunity to throw support behind our auto sector and secure Holden manufacturing operations for another decade and beyond. Every single nation in the world that can build a car from the ground up provides government support. Australia has one of the lowest levels of support for our car industry already, and desperately requires a long-term commitment from federal and state governments, if we want it to stay. This is why the Abbott government's decision to walk away from a co-investment package and reduce industry support by half a billion dollars is a decision that will bring the axe to this industry in this country once and for all.

Two months ago I stood in this place and said that the Abbott government's decision to rip out $500 million of committed funding from the Automotive Transformation Scheme sent a shiver up the spine of automotive manufacturers in Australia. That shiver has now turned to pneumonia, and, if we do not wake up and call the Abbott government in Canberra as soon as possible, we will soon be hearing the death knell for this industry, and the devastating flow-on effects to our economy will be far-reaching and destructive for decades to come. Our children will feel it and so will our grandchildren.

With our manufacturing suburbs being home to nearly half of the people who are unemployed or on disability pensions, our most vulnerable communities will be those worst impacted. It is not by accident that organisations like Anglicare, Baptist Care, Centacare and the Child and Welfare Family Association and the Uniting communities have joined the More than Cars campaign. It is because they have seen the generation of poverty that will be the result of Holden's closing its doors.

The Liberal parties both state and federal need to put their money where their mouth is and get behind a co-investment package to keep our vehicle industry alive and well on Australian shores. If not, it will soon be a massive economic blow for our state, because Holden is much more than a factory that builds cars; it is a diverse and thriving community which has played a significant role in the lives of thousands of South Australians and their families for generations. It is an iconic brand that has been a part of the cultural history of our great nation. It is a symbol of national pride and prosperity, of a quality product made by Australians in Australia.

The value of vehicle manufacturing plants cannot just be measured economically in terms of jobs and investment; it is about people and communities in which they live, and the values which they live by. The Liberal Party has long been divided about industry support, but it is time for economic philosophy and political party lines to take a back seat. In the interest of the 16,000 South Australians whose future is right now on the line, it is time to stand up for what is right. Support a prosperous South Australia which has Holden manufacturing at its heart for future generations to come.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:41): I must say, I was not all that impressed by the recent behaviour in this chamber in dealing with what is a very serious matter, when we are talking about the future of Holden's and the people who work there, and the others who depend upon Holden for their employment and livelihood.

I remember when Mitsubishi left this state. That was an unfortunate development, but I see some parallels in relation to what happened there and what could happen in respect of Holden's. I drive a Holden, as do many in here. They are excellent motor cars; I think I am on my fifth one straight, and I have never had a problem with any of them. They are well-engineered, good cars, and are beautiful pieces of machinery.

There are a couple of things that come to mind; the first one is: is the company making the cars that people want? Some people want a larger car such as the Commodore and the Calais, but others do not. The other cars they supply (Barina and Captiva) are essentially imported. I think it is a question that needs to be answered, and answered very quickly, by Holden's and other manufacturers in Australia: are they making what the public want? There is nothing wrong with the quality of the product they produce now, but clearly they are not producing what the public want on a wide scale. That is part of the matter that needs to be addressed.

If you look at what is popular now, there are the so-called SUVs and the Holden import one, the Captiva, but there is a whole range of vehicles that could and should be produced here. We are one of the largest markets in the world for true 4-wheel drives—genuine off-road vehicles. We have not had a local manufacturer get into that field. Ford have dabbled a bit, but not in the category of the heavy-duty off-road vehicles which are sold in their thousands in this country every year.

So, one of the issues I raise is this: is the company making what the public want? I think they need to upgrade their technology. I know they are into some robotics, but if you look for a comparison with Germany, which is not a low-wage country—we are a high-wage country, and I am not advocating lower wages. In fact, members might have noticed yesterday that experts in the field of industrial relations have said that lowering our wages in this country would not do anything of significance for the future of this country. But, if you look at Germany—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: If you look at Germany—

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Transport is called to order.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: If you look at Germany, they—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Transport is warned for the first time.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: If you look at Germany, they take a smart approach to production. Members would be very familiar with some of their companies—and as I said, it is not a low-wage country—such as Bosch, Miele, and Karcher; they are working flat-out around the clock because their production is efficient and their costs are kept down by very smart technology and smart production techniques. We need to get into that mode of production and also with a continuing focus on quality. People will pay, I believe, a little bit more sometimes for quality products.

If we look at the car industry in Australia, and I welcome foreign investment, but the problem is that they are foreign-controlled—controlled overseas. Look at what happened to Ford: the head office of Ford would not allow the Victorian Ford enterprise to compete worldwide. They would not allow them to export. So, whilst you get foreign investment, you get foreign control, which takes away the opportunity often for export initiatives and things like that, because the head office does not want local manufacture in Australia competing necessarily with their worldwide operation.

We do need a manufacturing base in South Australia. We used to make agricultural machinery here. We only make limited items now. We used to make bicycles here. In fact, there was a little bicycle factory opposite where I grew up at Hawthorndene. A guy used to make custom bikes; he had a family business. We used to make washing machines in great number, very sophisticated weighing machines, lathes—members who went to a technical high school would be familiar with the Hercus lathe.

A lot of that has disappeared, and we cannot afford to be sole importers totally dependent on manufactured goods, because the way we are going, we might end up with a thriving agricultural sector if that is given the right support and we continue to put some research into agricultural endeavours, but if we are not careful we are going to end up selling plastic boomerangs made in China to Chinese tourists, because we will have no manufacturing basis.

As the member for Mitchell pointed out, we will lose the skill base of toolmakers and highly skilled people like that. We will not be able to manufacture anything in this country and we will be purely dependent on others. That could be critical in a time of military crisis. Hopefully that will never occur, but you become dependent on others if you do not have some sustainable manufacturing basis. So, I come back to the original point. I think Holden's need to look, with support from government, at whether they are making the vehicles people want and whether they have the technology and the production approach that is necessary in this day and age.

Mrs VLAHOS (Taylor) (11:47): I rise to support this motion. Holden plays an integral role in my electorate and the economy of this state. Its heart is felt within my electorate strongly and in the north in our state and our nation. I know I have met constituents and families in this area who are reliant on this industry and they face tough choices in terms of their employment recently. I have mentioned that in a grievance earlier in the year.

Those who have not taken a redundancy package were told that they either had to take a hit in their wages or face a plant closure. They have stood stoically by while the new government in Canberra has delayed, almost as if they were forced to watch Rome burning while Nero fiddled.

According to the Burgan report, the automotive industry employs approximately 52,000 people around the country and 13,000 people are reliant on the industry in South Australia. It is the equivalent of 10 per cent of our state's total manufacturing workplace and industry contributes $1.5 billion to our gross state product. That is roughly 1.7 per cent of the gross state product.

Just like the recent title of the More Than Cars campaign, this is more than just an ambit concerning T-shirts and things, as someone suggested on the other side earlier. This is about the lifeblood of the people I represent. My electorate has many small businesses that rely heavily on the operations of Holden and their sales. From bakers to cleaners, a whole lot of people rely on this, not just the manufacturing industry. By delaying the decision on co-investment packages, the commonwealth government compounds the uncertainty and makes life harder for them. I will not stand by and let this happen. I will support this motion and do everything I can to fight for this industry.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (11:49): I will be quite brief. I have been a strong supporter of Australian manufacturing all my life. I have only ever driven Australian-manufactured motor cars—mainly Holdens, but I have driven a few Australian-manufactured Fords over the years. It has always annoyed me, when I drive around, to see people driving imported cars, yet they would argue that as a nation we should be subsidising the car industry. I have always chosen, as a point of my own conscience, to drive an Australian-manufactured car, as I support local industry and local business in my electorate through my business. I think that is something all South Australians should aspire to do.

What is the solution to Holden? Why is Holden contemplating its future in South Australia? I was genuinely shocked when Ford announced that part of the reason it was pulling out of manufacturing in Australia was that it costs double the amount to build a car in Australia than it does in Europe. I knew it would cost a lot more to build a car in Australia than it would in Asia, but I was shocked to understand that it costs double to build a car here than it does in Europe. Why does it cost so much more to build a car here? That is the question we should be asking ourselves.

Is it efficient for a government to tax the community in order to overcome the cost burden our society places on manufacturing? That is what the proposal before us really is. Let me give just one example of where this government could have done something substantial to help Holden and every other manufacturer. The member for Mitchell suggested that 16,000 South Australians rely on their employment from that business Holden. If that is the case, and their average wage or salary was some $50,000 a year, the WorkCover burden by their employers in South Australia would be $12 million a year more than it would be if they were employed in another state.

There is part of the problem: $12 million a year more is paid just on WorkCover on the people who are employed as a result of Holden being here in South Australia. That is something the government of South Australia, this Labor government, has failed to address over the last 12 years. We are paying at least 1½ per cent more just on WorkCover average premium rates than is paid in other states. That is just one of the cost burdens facing manufacturers in this state.

We know that this is the highest-taxing state in the nation, and those taxes are reflected in the costs of manufacturing items. That is why, I put to the house, that it costs so much more to manufacture a vehicle here in Australia than it does anywhere else in the world. If it costs twice as much to build a Ford in Victoria than it does in Europe, I suspect it costs even more so (because I know the manufacturing costs are higher in South Australia than they are in other states because of this government) to manufacture a vehicle here in South Australia.

This government, instead of saying that the problem lies at the feet of those in Canberra, should look within its own backyard and ask, 'What could we have done?' I have been arguing the case against this government's attitude to WorkCover for a long time in this place. This government could have done something to bring down the average premium rate of WorkCover to that enjoyed by manufacturers in other states over a long period of time, and that would have made a huge difference to the cost basis. That is the sort of thing that a bipartisan approach to this matter may have resolved.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Treasurer, Minister for State Development, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for the Arts) (11:53): When I sought to move this motion, I did so with the hope that we would be able to send a very clear message, on a national basis, of the will of this South Australian parliament about the future of Holden. I instructed my team to make constructive contributions on the basis that this was an important debate where we needed to express the very clear position of this parliament in support of this very important issue.

Instead, we have, from the Leader of the Opposition down, mere abuse that has cascaded from the other side of the chamber throughout the whole of this debate. Indeed, we have those members opposite talking about Holden almost in the past tense as though Holden had already closed. What they are doing is betraying the idea that there is a white-knuckled panic on the other side of the chamber that they are going to be held responsible for their lack of action in standing up for Holden's. Let me tell you that through the whole of my working life I have—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is warned for the first time.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Through the whole of my working life, I have represented working people—from the first day to this day—and I have done that fearlessly, I have done it on the basis that—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The deputy leader is called to order.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I have done it on the basis that I understand that there are times when you need to stand up and fight, when you go to the people you represent and you ask them what they need, and you courageously represent that, no matter the strength of the foe on the other side of the debate, no matter who you upset and no matter what the personal cost it may take politically.

We did that when we took on Kevin Rudd, in the middle of a federal election campaign, over his FBT changes. That did not create popularity within the Australian Labor Party for me or for the South Australian government. The minimum basic test of leadership is to stand up for your state. The minimum basic responsibility of a leader of this state is to stand up for his state, and that is a test the Leader of the Opposition has abjectly failed—abjectly failed.

What do you call this when you stand on the front steps of Parliament House and you pull on a More Than Cars T-shirt and you are happy to have yourself photographed appearing to be supporting the cause, and then a few moments later you walk over and you speak to the press gallery and cravenly back in the federal government's $500 million cut, and you back in their delay which is putting at jeopardy the future investments in Holden's? What do you call that? What do you call that sort of behaviour? I call it spineless—a spineless Leader of the Opposition who is not prepared to stand up for his state.

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT