Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Hansard source

The coalition will be opposing this bill, as amended by the Senate. The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023 remains significantly flawed, even with the amendments that the Senate agreed to. The government has, unfortunately, made a habit of rushing poorly considered legislation through the parliament. The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill is no exception.

This bill, as amended by the Senate, poses more questions than answers. Key issues remain. Consultation has been rushed. Parliamentary oversight has been sidestepped. Advice on critical matters was not sought by the government in their drafting of the bill, nor in their response to the amendments that were agreed to. Questions from the parliament remain unanswered, as debate was guillotined in the Senate last night. There is not a single clause or amendment in this legislation that will tackle: the high and rising costs of energy; a shortage of skilled workers; a disrupted supply chain,; or the red tape impacting our industries. This bill remains silent on these issues that are critical to the success of our manufacturers.

Instead, it offers government loans and equities. Not once have I heard these called for by our industries. It is not their primary concern. This legislation, returned from the Senate, delivers on what the government arrogantly suggests our manufacturers need, while failing to address the pressures that our manufacturers urgently seek to resolve.

In securing passage of this bill through the Senate last night, the government has made a desperate, dodgy deal with the Australian Greens, prohibiting the fund from investing into coal, gas or forestry projects. Yet, the government could not clearly articulate the implications of this amendment when asked in the Senate. Nor have they asked for any advice or consulted industry as they hastily accepted this really bad deal for our manufacturers.

I can tell you that the implications are indeed dire. While the government states that the fund would never have invested in the particular industries now prohibited in this bill and reaffirmed by the other place, we were regularly reminded before the election about industries such as forestry that would actually be a beneficiary of this fund. This legislation, as passed by the Senate, prohibits investment into our important forestry sector, another broken promise from this government. When asked in the Senate how far-reaching these amendments will be down the forestry, gas or coal supply chains, the minister dithered and dodged, providing no assurances and no clear answers. This bill also lacks the appropriate transparency warranted by a fund of this scale, size and complexity.

The Senate was ready to ask questions on behalf of industry, which is confused and concerned about this legislation. And yet the government chose to guillotine debate in order to avoid scrutiny. This legislation allows the National Reconstruction Fund $15 billion to invest in a wide range of industries, all with different risk profiles, market conditions and competitive pressures. Sensible amendments to introduce additional scrutiny measures were opposed by the government in the Senate. This bill before the House, as amended by the Senate, is a blank cheque for the minister to deliver on whatever priorities may be given at a given point in time. The minister suggests that this is a blue-collar bill, but the reality is that it's anything but. If the minister cared about blue-collar jobs he would put up a fight and address the crippling energy prices being made worse by his government. Instead, he just stays silent, just like this legislation does on this critical issue.

This is a bad bill which does not respond to the questions and concerns raised through the limited consultation process with industry. This bad bill does not respond to the concerns raised by the opposition or, indeed, by the crossbench. For matters so critical to the future prosperity of Australia, there should always be an open approach to accountability, scrutiny and concern. We will be opposing this bill as amended by the Senate.

See this speech in context