House debates

Tuesday, 7 March 2023

Bills

National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022; Second Reading

5:50 pm

Photo of Sam BirrellSam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

From the outset, let me state that I believe in manufacturing, innovation, secure jobs and appropriate government policy to support businesses. The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation may be well intended, but it is the wrong model, poorly executed and even more poorly targeted. It falls well short of what is needed to support agriculture, manufacturing and transport logistics businesses in my electorate.

Why does this matter so much in Nicholls? Well, my electorate of Nicholls has a long and proud history of growing, manufacturing and moving products nationally and internationally. In competitive global markets, they have had to be nimble, innovative and cost conscious. At times, many of these businesses have had cause to seek government support for innovation, sometimes transformation, to support them to take risks that they otherwise might not take. Nicholls has, based on the 2021 census data: 2,291 agricultural businesses with annual gross production totalling $2.3 billion; 739 manufacturing businesses, including many large employers; and 1,260 transport and logistics businesses.

These industries are targets of the corporation this legislation will create, but the notions are vague and the models flawed. It is perhaps best described, and for those who remember this great moment in Australian history, as the 'Leyland P76 of industry and innovation policy'. The Leyland P76 was launched with great fanfare in the early seventies—there was a Labor government that was also launched with great fanfare in the early seventies. It was comfortable, it drove well and it stopped okay. You could even fit a 44-gallon drum in the boot, which was quite a selling point in those days. Initially, the public and the motoring reviewers were sold on it. It even won Wheels Car of the Year in 1973.

But reality soon set in, because people started to realise that the windows didn't seal and that, when it rained, water would pool at your feet. The exhaust could set fire to the carpet. Opening windows could cause the rear windshield to blow out completely. Interior fittings would come loose and rattle. The paint faded quickly, and the wheels literally fell off one vehicle. The Prime Minister at the time, Mr Whitlam, even referred to the P76 car as a dud eventually, and Bill Hayden called it a lemon. I think this legislation is both a dud and a lemon.

The P76 was a dud because Leyland was trying to reinvent the popular family sedans of the dominant players Ford and Holden, but Leyland failed on design, quality control and construction. The National Reconstruction Fund looks shiny and new on the showroom floor, and everyone's getting up on the other side and saying how great manufacturing is. We all agree manufacturing in Australia is great, but this policy won't stand up to a road test in the real world. It's poorly designed, and, while $15 billion is plenty of quantity, there is no quality.

The important thing to remember—and I saw this before I came into this place—is that there was no need to create a new model. The former coalition government had appropriate policy settings and funding pools in place to support our manufacturing, agricultural and transport sectors.

Comments

No comments