Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Hansard source

I do want to thank members for their contribution on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. I am grateful to the member for Flinders for giving a considered contribution to this debate. I know there are a number of people on that side of the House who think deeply about what we need to do with respect to manufacturing, and some of them I see in this chamber right now. It's unfortunate that we haven't had the ability to engage in a meaningful way through the course of this debate, but I remain optimistic that at some point we may productively re-engage, because this bill is about ensuring that we have the growth capital available for manufacturers in those key areas in which we need to see longer term economic growth propelled.

It is a $15 billion financing vehicle, and it will be one of the largest investments in manufacturing capability in living memory. It is important for the country long term. It will make investments in projects that will support, diversify and transform Australian manufacturing. It will also support economic reform by boosting participation and productivity. Now, it's very important to emphasise the $15 billion in growth capital that will be available for manufacturers across the seven priority areas. These investment decisions will be determined by an independent board made up of people with a variety of skills. First, they will be guided by an investment mandate. Second, they will not have, despite the suggestions of those opposite, ministerial intervention in any shape or form. They will be making decisions in the national economic interest and not in partisan political interest. That is important to point out as well.

So there will be clear direction through that mandate in respect of risk, return, investment, governance and core government policy priorities. We aim to crowd in investment. We have one of the largest investment savings pools on the planet with our superannuation system. We have challenges at this point in time with venture capital, but they will not last forever, and we imagine we'll work with them as well. We will also work with private equity. We want to make sure that the capital is there at a time when the cost of capital has increased, both locally and globally. We need to ensure that, for firms that have an idea about how they want to grow, that money will be there to allow them to grow.

Now, I've listened to some of the comments, particularly those of the shadow minister for industry and the deputy leader of the coalition a few weeks back, and I've listened to some of the contributions here. They've clearly got the rote responses, and a lot of them are just plain wrong, frankly. They demonstrate that there has not been a willingness to actually look at what the bill does, nor a willingness to take the time to read the explanatory memorandum and all the material that we've had out there. Those facts are an inconvenient hurdle in the way of making a point. Quite frankly, I think what we can sum this up as, in terms of coalition opposition, is that they're saying no to this bill for one of two reasons: that they didn't introduce it, or that they don't like any program where they don't get to decide where the money is going. I suspect it's a bit of both.

I want to pick up on the points made by the member for Flinders. You indicated through your contribution, Member for Flinders, that we weren't delivering what manufacturers want. In actual fact, the big focus of the incoming government has been to address long-running issues that we have inherited. Manufacturers want access to skilled labour. They have not been able to get it. We have had massive skills shortages, and some of that stems back to decisions made by the coalition government. We are investing in TAFE fee-free places. We are investing in universities. We are reforming the visa system, particularly in relation to skilled visas, so that we can get the skills that are needed. Manufacturers want skills and we are delivering after years of neglect.

Manufacturers also wanted lower energy bills and lower energy prices. We had to make some pretty big calls in relation to, for example, gas, where industrial users make up half of the domestic gas demand. We needed to step in and do that. We also need to ensure that there is access to lower cost capital, and that is what the NRF does for a lot of manufacturers who struggle to get the support that they need to grow at that point in time, and who will often tell us how difficult it is to get a bank or other lender to support their ambitions. We do not want firms to feel like the only way they will get access to capital is to leave Australian shores. So we need to make sure that we have all those things in place.

The NRF is not the be-all and end-all of what is required to grow manufacturing in this country, but it is a massive platform to ensure that that occurs. Again, it will be decisions that are made independent of government and, if I may say, guided by a model that has existed and has operated under previous coalition governments and us, based on the Clean Energy Financing Corporation, which, again, existed under the coalition and, in some cases, in spite of the coalition. It has demonstrated through lived experience what can be done.

We built the NRF concept from the ground up based on some expert advice and informed by, for example, the CSIRO's Recovery and resilience report of 2020, which highlighted the areas we needed to invest in longer term to be able to see longer-term economic growth. We were informed largely by that but we were also informed by some other things—for example, priority areas in the realm of transport, where we believe that there is a need to be able to provide investment in, for example, building public transport infrastructure or what we do with electric vehicles be they light commercial or heavy. Being able to ensure that that capital is there for that growth is really important.

Let me run through other points made during the debate. There have been a lot of worthy contributions. I'm grateful for the contributions from members of the government and from the crossbench. I stress my gratitude to the crossbench, who I have engaged with over a period time. A number of them have made terrific contributions that I am grateful for. We can't agree on everything, but that's not the nature of Australian democracy. Where we can work together, we should—and I have been grateful for their constructive engagement. I would also make the point that questions around processes, thresholds and the like can be easily answered in the legislation.

Despite some coalition claims—chiefly directed through the shadow minister for industry—we haven't abandoned the food and beverage manufacturing industry. In fact, that claim will be a surprise to the industry, which is mentioned by name in our $500 million investment target in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food and fibre. The coalition also claimed that the NRF will be ineffective because of rising energy prices, despite the fact that they voted against our moves to bring those prices down. The coalition also suggested that we weren't doing anything about supply chains. This bill is trying to deal with that issue. The challenges in relation to concentrated or broken supply chains had been ignored by those opposite. Supply side issues had driven inflation and had set us on a trajectory of higher interest rates while the coalition was in government. We are trying to ensure that we correct that, that we can moderate inflation—take that fight to inflation—and also ensure that we put downward pressure on interest rates.

The NRF has a crucial role to play, and those opposite are voting against it. Many of those opposite speaking against the bill have, time and again, shown a complete misunderstanding of the way in which the bill would work, claiming it would stifle innovation. Hardly—given that this is actually extending capital, particularly in terms of enabling capabilities and critical technologies, where the support is required here on Australian shores, instead of forcing innovators offshore because we don't have the capital available for people right here.

We have designed it, as I've said, to crowd in investment and help local firms attract support, showing other investors that the government supports their work. Of course, the NRF will make decisions that appreciate risk and reward. They will take bigger risks on some projects than others, but it won't be a government minister making a decision on the basis of political interest; it will be on economic and national interests that those decision will be made—again, at arm's length from government and supported by advice from experts to support innovation, investment and opportunity in key growth sectors for the country.

This is our first step in revitalising Australia's industrial capabilities, so that we can be a country that makes things again. The NRF is designed to help secure our future prosperity, drive sustainable economic growth and leverage Australia's natural and competitive strengths by providing finance to projects in priority areas. A strong, diverse economy underpins our government's commitment to creating a more sustainable, high-value job proposition for the rest of the country.

I thank the House for their consideration of this absolutely vital bill, and make the point that, when the vote eventually comes on this bill, people will be asked to make a choice. They will be asked whether or not they support Australian manufacturing and they support good blue-collar jobs. Manufacturing generates, on the whole, full-time, secure work. There are 90,000 manufacturing firms in this country; a third of them exist outside the capital cities. We can do better. We can certainly—and we certainly want to—ensure regional manufacturing grows. And it's not just in the regions but in remote Australia as well. I note the presence of the member for Kennedy, and I note his interest in ensuring that manufacturing occurs in all parts of the country, not just in some. We want to make sure that that is there.

I understand that some Liberals may not necessarily get the value of manufacturing and capability to modern economies and how important this is for economies to grow. The National Party certainly does. The National Party understand this in their part of the world—not just in terms of agriculture but also in terms of the manufacturing activity that occurs across other sectors in their communities. It staggers me that the National Party, knowing how hard it is to get access to capital for some of their businesses, would not back in the NRF. It is simply astounding that they will go back to their communities and say that they will not back in growth capital for manufacturers who have struggled with banks, who occasionally will not provide that support. It will be interesting to see how they reconcile that in their communities. You never know, they could have a change of heart. We'll see.

See this speech in context