Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. The stacking of Commonwealth government boards and entities with party-friendly appointments has become all too common and undermines the very foundations of our democracy. The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill proposes the establishment of a board that will oversee the disbursement of $15 billion, but the relevant ministers are set to appoint all of the board members themselves. How can the minister assure the Australian people that this board will be truly independent of government?

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

I thank the member for Mackellar. I appreciate not only the question but, if I may say so, the constructive way in which the entire crossbench has worked with us on this. We think this is a moment for nation building. The National Reconstruction Fund is a significant investment in capability, and we want people to feel like they've got a part to play in setting this up for the longer term, because it will be important for the economy and for communities well into the future. So it is important to be able to take those factors into account. We're not going to agree on everything, obviously, but people expect that the parliament will work collaboratively, which is exactly what is happening from there—not from here but certainly from there.

If I may say so to the member for Mackellar, there were two big motivations for setting the fund up. One was obviously to attend to those supply chain issues and to learn the lessons from the pandemic—not to say, 'We've picked those lessons up,' and then do nothing afterwards but rather to rebuild capability in those priority areas. The second thing was that we saw in the last term of parliament huge amounts of money being allocated not in the national interest but in a political interest. You saw the grants. You saw the rorts. We were all shocked by that, and we wanted to do better. So this is why we—particularly the Prime Minister when this was announced in March last year—emphasised the independence of the board: these decisions would be made in a way that would be independent of political decision-making, and you'd have people of capability making the decisions. If I can go to the heart of your question, we want to make sure that all the investment decisions of the NRF will be made solely by the board.

In terms of the composition that you referred to, the legislation has listed skills that the two responsible ministers—I and the Minister for Finance—have to have regard to in making the appointments: experience in things like banking and finance, venture capital, private equity, economics and industry policy—that industrial background that is really important. Just as with the successful CEFC, which was opposed by those opposite, we want to make sure that the NRF operates along those lines with decisions made in the national interest, with not a colour coded spreadsheet in sight—not the way that those opposite made decisions. We want to make sure that these decisions are made in the national interest for the longer-term benefit of the country, rebuilding manufacturing and creating jobs, unlike those opposite, who said no to jobs, no to manufacturing and no to regional opportunity. They love dressing in the high-vis, but they never back the workers who actually wear it. They are never there. All those people who profess to support manufacturing will need to account for their failure to support it properly. (Time expired)