Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. So this isn't about national security; this isn't about our domestic manufacturing. It's about politics; it's about power. When this bill was introduced, there was no mention of AUKUS, no mention of national security—no, that was wheeled out this week when it looked like the bill might be in a bit of trouble, when it looked like we were onto you. The heading of the bill looks great, but when you look at the detail it is bad policy that would create bad law, so of course we are not going to support it. This is desperate politics from a desperate government.

If this were really about national security, why would you cut funding for the space industry? Why would you do that? The member for Sturt was quite right to point out that that is of particular interest in his seat and it should not have been cut; it should be supported. If Labor are so concerned about defence manufacturing, why have they held up millions of dollars for critical defence manufacturing projects that were funded through the Modern Manufacturing Strategy of the previous government? Why did you hold those up?

So this politicises the landmark AUKUS partnership—it undermines our cornerstone national security agreement—and that shouldn't happen, in this place or any other place. We should not link the National Reconstruction Fund to a critical security pact, and particularly when the Labor government will be relying on the support of the Greens to pass this bill through the Senate. What demands linked to national security will be put on you? Australians are entitled to know what you will trade to get this through the Senate. We ask the Labor Party to immediately rule out things like mandating union board membership and mandating union agreements as a condition of entry to the fund, because we know several unions have joined many anti-AUKUS protests in recent months.

We need to look at the bigger picture. The Treasurer let us think he was looking at the bigger picture, but he wasn't. We are in a cost-of-living crisis in this country. Australians are hurting and they're asking, 'What is this government going to do to help?' Not much. We know from the IMF that the off-budget funding of $45 billion will directly contribute to higher inflation and higher interest rates, and that is going to be paid for by working families in this country—families at their wits' end because their mortgage repayments are going up. There are 800,000 families who will come off fixed interest rates this year alone.

We have a by-election coming up in the seat of Aston. That seat is full of working families. Those of them who are on the average mortgage for that area, $750,000, are going to have to find an extra $19,000, and that's after tax. Those families are going to have to see about $24,000 extra in their wages just to fund the increases from this year alone. When we listen to the RBA—and we should listen to the RBA—that's not the end of it; there is more coming. What is this government doing to help? Well, off-budget bills like this one are not helping. They not helping, because each $6 billion can lead to a quarter of a per cent increase in the cash rate. So $45 billion of off-budget funding is not helping them when they need that help.

But there's more to the seat of Aston. It has some of the highest rates of car ownership in the country. Many families have two cars and they travel long distances to get to work.

An honourable member interjecting—

I hear the interjection about the car industry, and it's about the bowser; it's about the cost of fuel. They're noticing that, as they put fuel into their car, it is double numbers for the cost compared to the litres. I've heard families tell me that they don't think they can work at the same job anymore, because it's costing too much to get from home to work and back again. So where are they finding those savings? They're not finding those savings from the government; they're finding those savings themselves. So they're going to have to cut things like school excursions, they're going to have to adjust what sort of food they buy, they're going to have to cancel holidays and they're maybe going to have to take kids out of a private school. They're going to have to cut so many other things, because there's very little room to move when you have to find that much extra money.

I listened to the member for Casey's contribution on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill, and he gave a very constructive checklist about what really guides these sorts of bills. The first thing he said was, 'It has a wonderful name.' It would be like the 'national reconstruction fund for puppies', and, if we're not supporting that, why do we hate puppies? It's the oldest trick in the book: you create a great name, then you don't worry about the detail; you don't worry about how it actually affects people on the ground. Just say, 'Because you oppose it, you oppose the name that we have put into it.' Australians deserve better than that. It's cheap politics and it's inserting cheap politics into the name of a bill. We will never support bad policy, which will become bad law.

If you think about what this government is actually doing for manufacturing in this country, then you only have to turn to the radical industrial relations legislation that has been imposed on them—a regime that was not brought to the Australian people at the election. There was no legitimacy for that. It will not help manufacturing respond to a modern economy, and many manufacturing companies may end up closing because of that. Many manufacturing companies—and these are small family companies, medium enterprises—tell me that the biggest pressures on them are the cost of power, the cost of fuel and the cost of capital. Again, we come back to the Treasurer's essay, where he's looking to see how capital is reformed, how capital is allocated. Whenever a government does that, it always ends terribly, and it's not a Treasurer who pays the price, and it's not the government; it is people, it is small business and it is families. They are hurting, and they are asking for so much more.

So can we cease the practice of coming in here with a fancy-sounding bill and saying, 'It's a binary choice; you're either for it or against it.' Can we say: 'What are you doing to help families who are struggling with the cost of living? What are you doing to help reduce inflation?' That's the only question that matters to the economy right now; that's the only question that matters to families and small businesses that are struggling. If you're not contributing to reducing inflation—and this place is a huge role to play in that—then you're part of the problem, and if you're part of the problem, then there should be consequences at the ballot box. I think the first test of that will be the upcoming by-election in the seat of Aston. Families are struggling to put fuel into the car, struggling to pay the mortgage and making really serious compromises to the things that should make people happy, the things that keep families together, the things that make a good life—school fees, school sport, excursions, holidays and good food. We hear so many stories of people eating less meat; they're eating things that are not bought on the edge of the aisle but in the aisle, because they need to be able to store it so they can keep it for next week or the week after. So many people are living pay cheque to pay cheque.

So we plead with the Labor Party: please, stop the cheap politics and join with us in helping use fiscal policy to reduce inflation, to help families and to give them a break, because they need it.

See this speech in context