Ms JEANES(7.35 p.m.) —It seems that my comments in the House on Monday got the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) more than just a little bit excited earlier today. I would have to say it got me a little bit excited when I heard that he had accused me of talking up my view on the future of the automotive industry at home in Adelaide but not here in Canberra.

It also got me a little bit excited when I heard that he wanted me to defend the workers at Griffin Press when he was grizzling in this House about the book bounty. I am always happy to defend workers, but Griffin Press is at least 10 kilometres out of my electorate, so the member for Hotham offers the House just another example of his ignorance on South Australian matters.

I would like to expand upon the views that I expressed in this House and that were later reported in the Advertiser after I spoke here on Monday, the very place where he apparently accuses me of not standing up for the industry. The doctrine of economic rationalism commenced its pervasion of the Canberra bureaucracy under the previous Labor government, a government of which the member for Hotham was a minister for some six years, I understand. The member for Hotham entered this parliament in 1990. A year later, Michael Pussey warned that economic rationalists had `invaded' the bureaucracy by exposing the extent of the spread of their doctrine through Canberra in his book entitled Economic Rationalism in Canberra.

I would like to say just a few words about the economic performance of the previous Labor government, particularly in relation to the automotive industry. The current debate, as everyone knows, has centred on the issue of tariff reduction. The Labor Party in government reduced tariffs in the car industry from 57.5 per cent in 1984 and committed it to a target of zero per cent in 2010—and they called the member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) `Captain Zero'. Now they have suddenly become the saviours of the automotive industry by proposing a slow down in the rate of reduction by announcing that they have adopted Ian Webber's position. Thank you very much, but we on this side of the House do not need their help. We will support the industry as we believe fit, by working with the industry.

I would like to offer you a bit of advice, seeing that you have adopted Mr Webber's position as your policy. I suggest that you approach Mr Webber and offer him the job as your industry spokesperson. He might give us real opposition on this matter backed up by real arguments, not opportunistically adopted ones.

The member for Hotham was the Minister for Employment, Education and Training in a government that spent billions of taxpayers' dollars on labour market programs that did not create the jobs to put the people they were training into. They spent $800 million on some programs that had a success rates costing up to an astonishing $140,000 per job obtained.

The programs were so expensive that the Labor government had to flog off their crown jewels, like Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank, in order to pay for them when they should have been retiring their debt in order to reduce the strain on interest rates which was one of the many factors that they let kill off the small businesses that could not afford to employ the people they were churning through the member for Hotham's training programs.

What the member for Hotham and perhaps another member or two on the other side do not like very much is the fact that the member for Hindmarsh (Mrs Gallus), the member for Sturt (Mr Pyne), the member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) and many other members on this side of the House, including myself, are sticking up for our constituents who work in the automotive industry.

We are expressing views in support of our car industries, and those opposite do not like it. We are actively participating in the debate to do our best to ensure that the automotive industry in this country not only remains viable but continues to grow through its increasing export activity on the international markets.

You would have to be blind not to notice that there are a range of views expressed on this side of the House. Naturally, I believe that my view is the correct one and the one that will ensure the future growth of the industry. Any member who has anything to do with the automotive industry in their electorate who did not get up in this place and outside to promote their vision for the future of the industry would be derelict in their duty if they sat quietly and let the debate go by. I therefore welcome and enjoy the views expressed by the member for Corangamite.

Those on the other side of the House can continue with their attempts to seek political mileage out of the range of views that government members legitimately hold, but your attempts at opportunism will fail because we can see through your thinly veiled efforts. The member for Hotham's attempts to pick up on our language, to get members like myself to support his amendments when his government had 13 years to address the problems that we are now having to fix, are just a little bit too transparent. You are going to have to do a lot better.

I stand by my comments that the doctrine of economic rationalism has too much influence throughout the bureaucracy, and those opposite let it happen. What the people on the other side really do not like is the fact, as I pointed out to the House on Monday, that the one thing that the Industry Commission's draft report has achieved is the pulling together of a very diverse group of people—people like a number of my South Australian colleagues and myself; the South Australian and Victorian Premiers; your traditional supporters, who see that we are genuine in our efforts to save their jobs; the car industry workers and their union representatives; the car companies and component companies. That leaves no place for those opposite, and they do not like it. So stop playing around with the jobs of my automotive industry workers. They will not thank you when your opportunism explodes in their faces. (Time expired)