Phillip Thompson (Herbert, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

PSON () (): I would like to join my colleagues and make my contribution for the people of Herbert in this place today. The opposition opposes the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill on a number of grounds. The member for Longman said it quite clearly. He hasn't seen a lot of detail; it's been lacking. He hasn't seen anything of substance that would make him want to stand up and vote for this bill. I don't think anyone around the country, at any level of government, should say to their constituents: 'Trust us. We're the government.' That's not a good thing to say. People want to see the detail. People want to see all the little parts of the bill to ensure that what that their members are voting for and what they could be getting is actually going to benefit them. I believe we should be doing absolutely everything we can to support the manufacturing industries, and I think that they drive this country. They absolutely have kept the lights on and they are an integral part of our growth and our development of the nation. There is no question of that.

There are, in fact, a lot of manufacturers in the electorate of Herbert, in Townsville, who do a fantastic job contributing to the economy, creating jobs, providing goods for the rest of the nation and exporting through our awesome Townsville port. They are incredible businesses. Often they've started as small local businesses. They've seen a gap and have decided to manufacture products or to corner a market share that's been lacking, and they are always the most enjoyable to go visit. It's always incredibly amazing to see what our local industry can achieve and the output that they produce.

We don't have a problem with government providing manufacturing businesses with assistance to grow their business and invest in local jobs. Townsville is the largest city far away from a capital city, so, if you're talking about creating jobs, if you're talking about ensuring that people have well-paid professions that they enjoy going to and that drive our nation, we get behind that. The former coalition government supported many businesses like this in the electorate of Herbert, not just through the Modern Manufacturing Initiative but through the Northern Australia Development Program too.

For example, the former government invested in a fantastic local manufacturer by the name of Gough Plastics. This is a family owned business that provides plastics for domestic environmental engineering and rural applications. Through a nearly $5 million grant, the business is going to be able to build a new facility to expand their operations and build more products. This is a really good local, homegrown manufacturing organisation. When I go out and visit the brothers out there, I see these fancy, different-coloured hi-vis shirts that they would wear. I asked, 'Why are you wearing different hi-vis? What's this for?" and they said it's to promote positive mental wellbeing and suicide prevention. It took me back a bit because, when I talk about it, I talk about it from a personal experience within the military, but they have had a personal experience for them within their workplace, and now Gough Plastics wear these shirts to promote positive mental health, to promote suicide prevention. It really resonated with me. It was one of those moments where everything else is going on and I just wanted to know more about their business. At the end of it one of the directors actually gave me a hug. They could see that it affected me. I think that it's appropriate to say thank you to them and to everyone else who does their bit around the nation to promote positive mental health and suicide prevention in manufacturing, construction and all other industries as well.

I will get back to what they are doing now. Through a nearly $5 million grant, the business is going to build this new facility, and it will increase the output of Aussie-made products. That gives an injection of confidence, and they will immediately go on the hunt for 10 new apprentices. We know that building the apprentice workforce and growing it is something that's needed. I did a traineeship. I didn't do an apprenticeship. I did it in construction when I was concreting, and I think apprenticeships are a fantastic way to build the workforce and give another option for our young people, whether they're in school, leaving at a certain age, post year 12 graduation or even some that have graduated or gone through university and gone back to do trades. It should never be viewed as university or a trade—that one is better than the other. They are both equally important to drive this nation, and I know that we need more trades to continue to grow these sorts of industries. That means more jobs for our region; but it also means more training jobs. Another investment of $11 million is helping Wulguru Steel grow and expand its manufacturing operations.

So, make no mistake, we're not against manufacturing and we don't think it's a bad thing to support small business and industry to grow and expand. That's why, on this side of House, we took a very conservative approach, in the context of an economy that was performing well because of good economic management. But we do think this new $15 billion fund is a bad way of going about it, and I want to run through some of the reasons.

Firstly, the government is failing to provide the right economic environment for this initiative to have any chance of succeeding. It's like starting a fire: you might have the match and the kindling, but, if you starve it of oxygen, you're not going to be able to keep the flame going. It's the same with this initiative. The economy needs to be in a position of strength for us to get a strong outcome, but, in only nine months of this government, we've seen higher interest rates, soaring inflation, labour market shortages and disrupted supply chains.

Without policies that create strong economic conditions, any government spending is in vain. I can't tell you the number of manufacturers who come to me asking and begging for help to get workers. What's the use of stopping the importation of products so that we can make them here when we're constantly having to import more workers from overseas to get them made? Even those industry stakeholders who supported the NRF model shared these concerns.

Meanwhile, the bill will discourage investors from backing key national priorities because it undermines their investment certainty. That's because the government of the day can change Australia's national priorities whenever they want and on a political whim. The bill doesn't put into legislation what the priority areas are for investment. The minister has come in here and listed off some important areas in his speech, but the fact that that can be changed at any time doesn't fill me with much confidence and it isn't going to fill investors with much confidence. It's particularly concerning given it could be influenced by the political situation of the day to suit the government of the day. The word 'reconstruction' isn't even defined or mentioned in the bill, except in its title or when referring to the name of the corporation.

This is a big-government approach. As the dissenting report of the Senate Economics References Committee inquiry into the Australian manufacturing industry said:

The majority report proposes a number of recommendations which would underpin a government driven interventionist approach in the manufacturing sector. Such policies have not worked in the past and there is no evidence to suggest that they will work in the future. The danger is that they will distort the market and cause more harm than good.

It's something the Productivity Commission commented on extensively in its submission to the manufacturing inquiry. Instead of broad enabling reforms and investments, it advocated a small number of limited expectations. Along the same lines are worries that industry could be required to comply with a mountain of paperwork to be able to gain investment through the corporation. Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox had this to say:

It is critical that no special regulatory requirements should be placed on the businesses engaged with the NRF that would not apply if the NRF was not involved in their financing. For example, there should not be particular conditions imposed on the governance of recipients of NRF financing; the workplace relations requirements of these businesses should not be required to satisfy additional conditions; and there should not be additional requirements on the share of local content in the production undertaken by these businesses.

On the workplace relations point, that's essentially enshrining compulsory unionism in legislation for businesses that want to participate. That is never a good thing.

It's also incredibly concerning that the minister can appoint the chair and the board members who will oversee the corporation and its funds. We know that the minister has already appointed a union mate to a board and has rejected recommendations that his department has made on appointments. And we've already seen the unions calling on their Labor mates to give them a seat at the table. The ACTU said:

The Bill puts forward a model of independent directors that are appointed by the Minister (s.19). The ACTU does not support this model. The Board of the NRFC should have equal representation from trade unions, industry and other expertise.

If the unions are saying that, that's something that we should be worried about.

This government, I believe, has stooped to a new low, relegating Australia's allies and our defence pact, AUKUS, to being a bargaining chip for their rushed National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill. AUKUS should be above politics, but for the Prime Minister it is not. The Prime Minister promised bipartisanship on AUKUS. It should sit above the day-to-day politics of any specific legislation, but the Minister for Industry and Science has broken that promise today. The government should be embarrassed because of this shameful and desperate attempt to pass this flawed bill. This act of desperation from Labor makes it clear that the National Reconstruction Fund isn't about national security; it's all about politics. When the minister for industry introduced the National Reconstruction Fund bill, he didn't mention the words 'AUKUS' or 'national security'—not once; not at all. This is desperate politics from a desperate government.

If the National Reconstruction Fund is about national security, then why did Labor cut space industry out of its priorities? If Labor are so concerned about defence manufacturing, why have they held up millions in funding to critical defence manufacturing projects funded through the Modern Manufacturing Strategy? And if Labor are so concerned about defence and national security, then why have they held up the LAND 400 deal? Now the price that it was set to has been halved, or thereabouts. We have the 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, in Townsville using the APC, which is an armoured tracked personnel carrier that is literally in museums as a relic. LAND 400 would support them. It would give them the vehicles that they need to do their job, which is to fight and win wars, and they would have the kit to be able to do it correctly.

I think that everyone wants to support manufacturing in this country, but trying to tie this light-on, changing with the wind bill to AUKUS to emotionally blackmail the coalition, because they know that AUKUS is something that we negotiated, that we took to the table and that we put in this position, is nothing more than bad, bad government from a lazy, tricky government. And that's all we've been seeing from this Prime Minister.

( Quorum formed)

See this speech in context