Angie Bell (Moncrieff, Liberal National Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education) Share this | Hansard source

This is about empathy for Australian families and the extra bills that they're having to pay. They're really struggling, and 800,000 mortgage holders will have to pay more than double. When inflation is out of control it affects every Australian at the supermarket, in local cafes and in restaurants—you name it. We all pay more.

This government is making it worse. They use the line that they're providing cost-of-living relief without adding to inflation, but that's simply not the case. In December alone we saw early childhood education out-of-pocket costs for parents increase by 4.5 per cent. If that's not an inflationary cost caused by Labor's incoming policies, then what is? What further evidence do we need? Under us, those costs decreased by 4.5 per cent in the election quarter to June 2022, which is evidence that we know how to make decisions that improve the economy and the lives of Australians through economic measures. It seems that every time Labor is in government they have terrible luck: every time they come to government there's a sudden and dramatic economic crisis. Why? It's because they make bad decisions which exacerbate the economic circumstances of the time.

The coalition opposes Labor's NRF because it's another bad decision by Labor. It's bad for taxpayers, for business, for manufacturers and for the economy. It has a poor funding model—surprise, surprise! The government's funding model has unintended consequences and is likely to fail. That's why we don't support this bill. It's not because we don't support manufacturing. The minister likes to bandy across the chamber in question time and say that we on this side of the House don't support manufacturing. That's utter and absolute rubbish. And because it's another bad economic decision from the Albanese government, we will see the ramifications through the economy. The shift the government is making to the funding model, from primarily competitive and non-competitive grants to government acquiring equity and providing loans, is likely to have unintended consequences that those opposite are simply not able to grasp, as terrible economic managers with barely an economic degree between them.

The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill is the ALP's $15 billion election commitment in manufacturing policy. That is what we know. The fund will be administered by a corporation with an independent board who'll deliver funds against an investment mandate set by the government. The design and execution are fraught with issues, and I would like to outline just a few of them.

Firstly, the government is telling our manufacturers what they think and what they need, rather than addressing what they actually need. What they need is the government to show leadership on high energy prices, disrupted supply chains and acute labour shortages across the economy. Without addressing these key economic challenges which are holding industry back, government spending is ineffective. It won't address the real problems, and many of my colleagues outlined those concerns.

Secondly, the bill is fiscally irresponsible, delivering funding well in excess of the coalition's Modern Manufacturing Strategy. An initial $5 billion appropriation is provided upon passage of the bill, but timing of the remaining $10 billion will not be subject to further parliamentary approval. In fact, similar financial structures to the one underpinning this bill have drawn criticism from the International Monetary Fund, who stated:

Implementation of below-the-line activity through newly created investment vehicles—

such as the NRF—

should be phased appropriately, and, more broadly, a proliferation of such vehicles should be avoided.

'It should be avoided'—but those on the other side are not listening. They are not listening to manufacturers and they are not listening to the IMF.

They're running head-long off to off-budget or below-the-line funding that the IMF distinctly warned against. In addition, the IMF said:

Cost-of-living support in light of high energy prices should be targeted, aimed at protecting vulnerable households and small viable firms.

That's small family business. That's what the coalition would do, and always does, when in government: support small and family business, which is the backbone of our economy and certainly the backbone of the Gold Coast economy in the electorate I represent. Labor are carelessly rushing through a total of $45 billion of off-budget spending, and it must be stopped.

Thirdly, the bill will create even more lost time for manufacturers. In this broken model, it will take significant time for money to start flowing; whereas, that money was already in place under the modern manufacturing fund. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation, on which the NRF is modelled, was established in 2012 and the first investment was made only some 10 months later. Our manufacturers cannot afford to wait that long, particularly with energy prices going through the roof as they are right now. The government announced that the NRF should be up and running by next financial year but haven't committed to a launch date. Industry feedback suggests that this type of funding model takes years to get right—and those years will be lost for our manufacturers.

Eligibility is another issue. Certain industries might have margins which are too small or it could be too risky with disrupted supply chains. Many will no doubt miss out, and the fund could become equivalent to a great big white elephant. There are risks to crowding out private investment, and they are very concerning. If there are such great investment opportunities the government will acquire in equity, why hasn't the private sector already taken advantage of these lucrative opportunities, when we all know the private sector works at speed light compared to the wheels of government? We must also not overlook the importance of retaining ownership, especially given that many of our manufacturers are family-owned businesses.

The bill will stifle innovation at a time when our country needs innovation, as fund beneficiaries will be unlikely to invest in innovation without a guaranteed return. This funding model does not entertain a failure, an inherent ingredient to innovation. Also, there's an inappropriate ministerial discretion on this bill which allows the minister to appoint the chair and board members who will oversee the corporation and its funds. The government has already demonstrated in its early appointments that it cannot be trusted to make sensible, non-partisan decisions. Also, the bill undermines investment certainty in national priorities, with government changing Australia's national manufacturing priorities on a political whim. They are just some of the major concerns that we have with this bill.

Instead of supporting industry and jobs, the government has chosen to forge ahead with radical industrial relations legislation, facilitating a spike in industrial disputes and paving a path to thousands of job losses. Let's watch the unemployment rate go up. Instead of dealing with power prices forecast to spike by 56 per cent over the next two years—many businesses across the country may be pushed to the brink—this government is focused on bad, economy-wrecking policy. It's time for the government to deliver inflation support for industry and put forward a plan to deal with spiralling power prices. While manufacturers across the country struggle with rising power prices, Labor's focus is on making it more difficult for industry to employ and keep workers, to grow their business and to keep their costs low. Labor's policies are simply not working.

See this speech in context