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

We absolutely did, and I saw it in my electorate. I'll give you a couple of examples. One is the Modern Manufacturing Initiative at HW Greenham & Sons. Greenham operates a meat processing facility in Tongala, in my electorate. Under the Modern Manufacturing Initiative, the coalition committed $10 million towards a $60 million project to expand the facility, increasing the production from 50 tonnes a day to 200 tonnes. Greenham can expand into premium beef and premium beef export markets. At the same time, it creates 240 jobs. Labor has ditched the Modern Manufacturing Initiative but the already committed Greenham grant survived, and I'm grateful it did. I was out there the other day looking at all the wonderful employment that's going on. I was looking at a company that got some government help to take a risk and is going to export fine northern Victorian and southern New South Wales meat products around the world. It's an example of investing in outcomes. The commitment by the government enabled a larger investment by business. A grant provided the certainty businesses crave.

Tom Maguire, the Group General Manager of HW Greenham & Sons, said this when the grant was confirmed:

It is very welcome news, we have a project that is going to create 240 jobs, and that funding was critical.

We have faced significant increases in costs since we started the project, and this will help us to overcome that and complete the project and start employing.

The coalition provided $2.5 billion to create the Modern Manufacturing Strategy. This support sought to bolster our sovereign manufacturing capability, and it empowered over 200 projects across Australia. We invested, we leveraged private investment and we got results.

The Modern Manufacturing Initiative backed businesses to expand, innovate and create jobs, and it did that by leveraging private capital. In contrast, the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation will use debt, guarantees and equity. I'm all for supporting industry innovation and advanced manufacturing, but loan schemes and government equity are less accessible than grants. Competitive grants, or targeted grants where they are justified, are a much better mechanism and fairer to the circumstances of individual businesses. There is a real risk that good manufacturers will be excluded because they can't meet the return on investment thresholds or can't complete a high-level business case in-house. There is a risk of crowding out, rather than leveraging, private investment. And there should be real concern about the bitter pill for family businesses in giving up equity in exchange for what is ultimately government support—support that could and should have been delivered as a grant by a government confident enough to back good projects.

Here's another example from my electorate. J Furphy & Sons not just is an industry-leading manufacturer; it also lays claim to being one of the oldest continuously operated family businesses in Australia—159 years in my electorate and still going strong. Furphy, for those of you who may be interested, is famous for its water carts. The description of something as a furphy—and I've heard a few furphies since I've been in this place, Mr Deputy Speaker—means it is a rumour or a falsity. Used unwisely in this place, a furphy could be ruled unparliamentary, but 'furphy' came from the gossip and rumours amongst our soldiers gathered around the water tank in World War I. So that's where the word 'furphy' comes from—from that fine Shepparton business.

Furphy Engineering is an innovator and now makes highly technical stainless steel tanks, such as storage tanks, processing tanks and pressure vessels for industry: milk, wine, beer—you name it. Furphy was supported in its modernisation by the former coalition government, whether it was solar panels on the roof or the $675,000 grant—a grant, not a loan—for a laser welding machine under the Goulburn Valley business innovation fund, part of the coalition's regional jobs and infrastructure program. Furphy are going right ahead with state-of-the-art laser welding as a result of the kit they've been able to buy with some government support. A grant enabled production of pillow plate heat exchange panels for existing and new applications, including value-added panels to help revolutionise solar thermal technology. It's a great example of the previous coalition government investing in practical outcomes when it came to energy transition.

This is a real-world example of what the Minister for Industry and Science in his second reading speech could only express in vague generalities. It was targeted, meaningful and productive investment. We on this side understand how to support our industries. Many on this side have lived experience. The best way this government can support industries is to create the right economic conditions for them to flourish. Instead, under Labor, we have soaring input costs, disrupted supply chains, critical labour market shortages, radical new industrial relations laws, rising interest rates, rampant inflation and, if the government gets its wish, rising wage costs for no additional productivity. That's no way for us to compete on the global stage. Without policies that create strong economic conditions, any government spending is in vain. The simple fact of the matter is that without addressing these key economic challenges, which are holding industry back—including those great industries in my electorate—government spending in this fashion will not achieve the outcomes we all want. I want a strong industry and innovation policy to support manufacturers. I have hundreds of manufacturers in my electorate who would embrace support from this government, but it must be the right support. Grants that provide confidence and leverage investment are the right mechanism. Loans and equity schemes with union strings attached are not. There is inappropriate ministerial discretion in this bill which allows the minister to appoint the chair and board members who will oversee the corporation and its funds. And a corporation with $15 billion in public funds will be a honey pot for union influence. Nobody should be shocked by the support for the governance arrangements for the corporation shown by the ACTU, the AWU and the AMWU.

Worst of all, the risk is that the corporation won't deliver outcomes. As the member for an electorate with a large agricultural and manufacturing base, including food manufacturing, I know how important it is to foster good outcomes. We need competitive industry, we need innovative industry and we need industry to have the confidence to invest in the future and create the jobs of the future. Above all, we need a government that understands what industry requires. I can't say this enough: I support the aims of the legislation, and I support our industries and the need to invest in sovereign capability. We need to continue to foster growth in high-skilled, well-paid jobs. We need an industry and innovation policy that is fit for this purpose, and not just a jalopy. Thank you.

See this speech in context