Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs (House)) | Hansard source

I rise to talk on this very important matter, and that is, of course, a future made in Australia. We need an economy and a labour market that is sustainable, that provides opportunities for workers in this country and opportunities for businesses, but which also ensures that we are able to stand on our own two feet. If anything, the pandemic has exposed the failure of this government in what it has done to manufacturing.

In fact, I recall that in December 2013, only months after winning office, the Treasurer of the country goaded Holden to leave our shores—firstly threatening them by taking away the support that was provided by the previous government and then goading the company to leave our shores. They promptly did, and with them they took those jobs and those skills. What that did, of course, was very much undermine our economy and our labour market. That was the most sophisticated sector of our economy when it came to manufacturing skills, and it was a dreadful shame to see that happen. That happened within a few months of the election of this government, and of course that wasn't going to be the end of it.

In the 2014 budget we saw the abolition of Labor's manufacturing plan. They removed entirely the plan that was put in place to engage with the manufacturing sector to actually use government leverage in order to ensure the enlarging of manufacturing. We saw that happen because of their disregard and enmity towards the sector. They were not interested in the sector that was actually making things in this country. I tell you what, they got more joy out of it when they realised it might have been a unionised company that was hitting the wall. This is a government that did not support and has not supported manufacturing in this country. It has only been recently, since the pandemic, that they've started to mouth the word 'manufacturing'. In fact, they brought back in name only the manufacturing plan that they abolished in 2014. I recall they also abolished the instant asset tax write-off in 2014 and had to bring it back. They pretend it's their own idea, but of course they abolished it in 2014. It was providing support to small businesses at the time.

Who can forget the forgettable minister, David Johnston, who said, famously—he was the first defence minister of this government; in fact, he was the first of six defence ministers of this government—that Australian industry couldn't build a canoe. That was the sentiment of this government towards the defence industry and towards manufacturing. When you have a cabinet minister saying that our manufacturing sector couldn't build a canoe, what message does it send to those businesses and those workers who have worked so hard to deliver defence assets to this country? It says everything about the government's disregard and hostility towards manufacturing in this country. We need to see defence industry increase so that we can be more resilient and provide opportunities.

It should be seen by those opposite that the defence industry in and of itself is a defence asset because we need to be able to build more and maintain more defence assets in a world that, of course, is increasingly less stable and where the risks have increased. We have not seen the government prepare for that industry to deliver the assets. For all of the rhetoric of the government in relation to these changes to the threats to this country, we have not seen the delivery of defence assets. We've seen a lot of discussion about what might happen in 2038, whether it be increased personnel or actually delivering under AUKUS—which Labor supports. But where's the increased firepower to existing assets today? Where are the decisions to actually ensure that our current platforms have better firepower to act as a deterrent in times that are less stable than they were? Frankly, for all the rhetoric, there's a yawning gap between what the Prime Minister and the defence minister say and what they deliver. Why is that? One of the reasons is that they have allowed the defence industry to be impoverished and have not provided sufficient support, whether it be in skills or in other areas of public policy.

See this speech in context