Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It's a privilege to be able to offer commentary in the debate on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. I want to acknowledge those contributions that have gone before the House as the debate comes to a close for the evening.

Listening to debate from both sides of the House, it is right to acknowledge that this was a fundamental that was taken to the election and that Labor definitely have the right to bring this piece of legislation to the table. However, in doing so, they have claimed some falsities. It behoves us, as an opposition, to prosecute a case against the falsehoods that are being debated as, time after time, members of the government roll up with their speaking notes and, one after another, deliver exactly the same message.

That this piece of legislation will miraculously fix our international supply chain issues here in Australia, as it's claimed, is not true. It just will not do that. I come from 25 years in transport and logistics—domestic, intrastate and international. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, with my hand on my heart that this bill is not the panacea—the fix for all the international supply chain failings that have hampered us—that Labor claim it to be. We've heard the argument rolled out time after time that there was a failure in PPE equipment, personal protective equipment, during COVID, but not one of those on the other side has complimented our Australian manufacturing sector. Not one of them has complimented those who were able to move nimbly and dexterously to change up their business models. The Australian manufacturing sector is alive and well, and it is my intention tonight, in the time afforded me, to prosecute the case for how amazing our Australian manufacturing sector is.

We've been told that there are going to be a plethora of jobs in the regions as a result of this fund, but there've been no figures brought forth on that. We were told by the Prime Minister this afternoon, at the dispatch box when he made his contribution, that a $15 billion off-budget investment would create zero inflationary pressures in the country—zero to none. He actually went on to cite the RBA governor's comments to say that the inflationary pressures we are dealing with at the moment have all come from Ukraine—it's the Ukraine conflict; it's not government spending. There is $46 billion of off-budget investment coming through government. Mr Deputy Speaker, I'll just take you back to the UK parliament when they had a new Prime Minister who said she was going to go and borrow a heap of money. She didn't last very long. The markets rejected it. The markets collapsed, and quite rightly. They should have. Those opposite have spoken about making Australia a great manufacturing country again. I say, 'Well done and strength to the arm of our Australian manufacturing sector today.' They do an amazing job.

As I mentioned, our job is to prosecute a case against the untruths that are coming. We are debating this bill today, of all days, when the RBA has delivered yet another rate increase. Here we have, metaphorically, the Reserve Bank governor putting both feet on the brake of the economy by raising interest rates for an unprecedented 10th consecutive time—nine rate rises under this government, one previously. He has two feet on the brake, and the Labor Party, directly in contrast, are bringing into the parliament another $15 billion worth of accelerated spending. The reason I speak against this bill tonight is not just through the prism of manufacturing but through the prism of pure economics.

The RBA governor has been forced to put up interest rates 10 consecutive times. It's a blunt instrument that he has. It is the determination of this place that we set the terms of reference for the RBA, and we ask them to keep the inflation rate at between two and three per cent. If we really wanted to help them, we would slow that spending down, and the IMF have made some comments about that which I will share with you. Please be mindful that the RBA governor has one blunt instrument, interest rates. He has two feet—the governor speaks collectively for the board—on the brakes in trying to slow the economy down, but the Australian Labor Party needs to take its feet off the accelerator. That's because of the unintentional consequences through this bill, which puts a noose around every mortgage holder in my electorate, in the great state of Queensland, and in the country of Australia as interest rates are forced up. Even though during the campaign this government said they were going to make mortgages cheaper, but since this government came to power, if you have a $700,000 loan with a bank your mortgage payments are $1,700 more expensive as a result of leaving these guys in charge.

Don't just take my economic credentials for it. The IMF, the International Monetary Fund, have made comment specifically about this program and their heightened concerns about the spending by this government in light of what the Reserve Bank is trying to do by dampening interest rates. Section 16 of the IMF press release says:

Strong aggregate demand and the tight labor market warrant continued focus on fiscal consolidation in the near term.

Saving of expected revenue overperformance—

And this is the piece I want you to listen to—

and judicious implementation of spending programs, notably infrastructure investment, would help in containing demand pressures and inflation.

So they're saying, 'Be careful! Be careful with programs like that.'

They continue:

Implementation of below-the-line activity through newly created investment vehicles (National Reconstruction Fund, Rewiring the Nation, and Housing Australia Future Fund) should be … should be avoided. Cost-of-living support in light of high energy prices should be targeted, aimed at protecting vulnerable households and small viable firms.

These comments aren't being delivered by Liberal Party hacks. This is the International Monetary Fund raising concerns about the very issues that I raised earlier in my speech. But time after time we have those opposite coming into the House and saying that we're fearmongering and carrying on, as they preached from their speech tonight. Open your eyes: this is a concern. Open your eyes!

We have an amazing manufacturing sector and, as the former assistant roads and freight minister for this country, I'll say how proud I am of companies just in that portfolio alone, like one by the name of Paccar, situated in Bayswater in Victoria. Most Australians don't know about this company, which manufactures Kenworth trucks. They've got about 147 engineers on site. They manufacture from chassis rails to the entire production of Kenworth trucks here in Australia. Mack-Volvo do exactly the same thing in Queensland at Rocklea. So do not say that manufacturing is dead and that this single piece of legislation is going to reinvigorate the manufacturing sector, because it's just not true. Can I tell you how much government subsidies these two great Australian businesses get from government? One of the CEOs once said to me, proudly: 'We do not take a cent of government funding. We raise our own capital internationally or through our parent companies, and we are proud of it'. I said to them, 'You should be proud of it, because there's a long list of skeletons in the manufacturing cemetery of those that have relied on government subsidies as a result of doing deals with the Australian union moment.'

Volvo, Mack, Kenworth and DAF are manufacturing and assembling right here in Australia. They're speccing these trucks up for Australian conditions. And then the value chain to that—the mufflers, the exhausts, the brakes and the motors—is all prepared here in Australia. Some of the componentry comes from other than Australia. In fact, one of the choke points when it comes to manufacturing and getting trucks off the assembly line—they can probably do, collectively, around 30 to 40 trucks a day between those two businesses here in Australia—was out of Taiwan. It was the superchip conductors. This bill will do nothing to affect the supply chain pressures on superchip conductors out of Taiwan, because we do not have the technological capabilities to compete. As geopolitical threats exist, what we could do is partner with those Taiwanese companies and bring them to Australia so that we've got first access to them.

I stand here proud of the Australian manufacturing sector. Those on the other side mentioned that wide consultation was conducted and that there's wide-ranging support for this bill. When I go through and have a look at some of the non-government stakeholders who were consulted, there's the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors. I'm not too sure what they manufacture. But I've spoken to manufacturers, and after I tell you who they consulted with I'm going to share with you what the manufacturers really want. They also—surprise, surprise—consulted with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. What do they manufacture? The Australian Investment Council, Industry Super Australia and the Law Council of Australia are some, to name a few.

When I talk to the manufacturers here in Australia that are employing Australians, producing products that we use every day and putting food on our tables, they say they want cheap, reliable energy. They're not getting that from the other side. They're saying they want a reliable workforce that's globally competitive. It's not forthcoming. Australia needs bipartisan support on programs like this. We need cheaper power. We need reliable power. We need affordable wages.

The consultation process was short of concerning. I came from a financial background before the transport sector, so I'll ask a question of the Australian government. Let's put this to the test. If this was a corporation and there was an opportunity to invest money in it, how many of those on the other side would mortgage their homes and invest their money, as we on this side do when we go and start up businesses, borrow money from the banks, take a risk and employ Australians? Most of us on this side are small business operators. I currently have a mortgage over my house. If I fail in my business operations, the bank will take that house. How many of those on the other side would take that risk and invest in this program? How many? That should be the litmus test.

Have another look at your speaking notes and have a look at Labor's track record. Have a look at how much was raised when Labor brought the mining tax into this House, which was going to deliver rivers of gold. There was to be $350 million raised in the first year, but what ultimately happened over the forward estimates was that they went and spent the money that it was supposed to raise and Australia was left with a debt. Remember when Labor told us: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'? You can't trust Labor. They've said that this bill will address the international supply chain pressures. Believe me, it will not. They may endeavour to achieve that, but I can assure you it will not.

There are a number of irresponsibilities, and the last one is that the bill is fiscally irresponsible, delivering funding well in excess of the coalition's Modern Manufacturing Strategy, which was about $1.3 billion. This is an additional $5 billion for appropriations, plus a $10 billion investment, but the government's not going to tell you when it's going to be invested. The clanger is: 'We're going to create a committee, but we're not going to tell you who's going to be on it when the time is right.' You can't trust Labor.

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context