Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Hansard source

It's always good to follow the Prime Minister and always good to have quite an audience to hear my contribution! I do say thank you to the Prime Minister for mentioning regional Australia, because all too often in this place we don't hear much mention of regional Australia and regional Australians from this government—unless we're taxing them, hitting them hard with further imposts or making life more difficult for those who choose to live in rural, regional and, particularly, remote Australia.

I know the member for Gippsland and I share a common view, that we want to see regional Australia be its best self. We want to see those people who live way beyond the bright city lights, beyond the bright metropolitan areas, be able to continue their agricultural pursuits, to continue manufacturing, to continue to grow the food and fibre, and all the other associated endeavours that they do for and on behalf of this nation. And yet those people who live in the regions are facing some of the highest, if not the highest, energy costs ever imposed upon them by the reckless policies by those opposite. Indeed, when it comes to heavy industry, when it comes to manufacturing, when it comes to those industries that employ people who proudly wear the high-vis for a living, they are going to be impacted upon by the reckless energy policies of those opposite, because their power prices, their gas prices, are just going to go up and up and up, and this is a concern to those people in those industries. This is a concern to those people who run those industries, who take that investment risk, not just now but indeed into the future.

The trouble with those opposite is that not a lot of them have actually run small businesses, not a lot of them have run even large businesses. They have run a lot of picket lines out the front of those businesses. The definition of a small business once was what was a large business, or a medium-size business under a coalition government, and then the government changed and they all of a sudden become a small business because of the reckless policies of those opposite. We on this side are the people, the parties, behind business. We want to see business be its best self.

The National Reconstruction Fund, I'm afraid, could also be called 'payback to the unions'. The trouble with those opposite is that their bills, their motions, often come with these flowery terms. I will give credit to whoever is creating them in the publicity department of those opposite who writes the titles for these bills; they all sound great. They then go out on their social media and say 'can't understand why those in opposition constantly say no'. The trouble is it is the devil in the detail. It's the fact that the bills come laced with union favours, with payback to the people who pay their way, who give them the orders. He or she who pays the piper calls the tune, and for those opposite, those who are calling the tune are the unions. So whether it's the National Reconstruction Fund, whether it's indeed the higher wages, more secure jobs bill or whatever they come to this place to promote, to push, to pass, to ram through the House of Representatives, it's always got that payback to the unions. It's always laced with that 'let's pay the unions back for the fact that they back us at each and every election, the fact that they get the nurses and other associated endeavours and sectors out to back their causes'.

We all want to see higher wages. That's why we on this side made sure that we had jobs for people. We actually created many, many jobs for people. There were record numbers of women in employment when we were in government because of the sensible, practical policies that we put in place, not just for workers, mind you, but also for those paying the workers, the bosses, the employers, and you can't always forget them. Those opposite, they once came to this place and talked about the biggest polluters. Then they got a bit smarter and thought, 'We probably shouldn't call them 'polluters' because they are employing people,' so now they call them the 'biggest emitters'. But it is the same difference. It is the same deal. Those people who are running those businesses, running that heavy manufacturing, running those industries, are creating jobs. Moreover, they are creating things. They are creating goods. They're creating hope, employment and opportunity for Australians. And whether that's in regional Australia, whether that's in peri-urban areas or whether that's, indeed, in metropolitan Australia the fact remains that they are people who we should genuinely value, and not just bring policies into this place which might sound all good at the outset, but what they really are—the devil is in the detail—is just an excuse to back unions, to back union activities, to back those people who put Labor back in power— (Time expired)

See this speech in context