Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

BURNELL () (): I must say, the second-worst part of budget week has definitely got to be the fact that no private members' business was scheduled, as the House didn't meet on Monday. The worst part, of course, is listening to the hollow pontification of the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply speech. But my remarks on that are best saved for another time.

Today I'm joining my colleagues—fellow members of the class of '22—the member for Swan and the member for Hunter in speaking against the motion by the member for Capricornia. For what it's worth, we should remind the House that this is a motion moved by the shadow assistant minister for manufacturing. Manufacturing is immensely important to me as well. It's important to Spence. It is the industry that was positioned around the establishment and growth of Adelaide's northern suburbs. Spence has the seventh-highest percentage of manufacturing business within it—manufacturing for a vast number of industries, from defence to clean energy. But what Spence doesn't manufacture en masse anymore like we used to are cars, and we again have those opposite to thank for that. By virtue of the shadow assistant ministry held by the member for Capricornia, one would of course expect to see a voluminous motion—a treatise, if you will—explaining the coalition's policies when it comes to manufacturing, to energy, to interest rates and to Labor's supply shortages. Alas, this is certainly not an opposition with a plan—not a positive policy in sight.

What we have here instead is an opposition of 100 negative hollow statements, begging questions which serve as a subtext for the ultimate question; when are the worst days of opposition finally going to be behind them? Not today. It will be when those opposite can finally divorce themselves from the record of their former government—not just the Abbott years but the Turnbull years, and let's not forget the Morrison years, too, although we should not forget them entirely, lest we are doomed to repeat them.

The motion moved by the member for Capricornia sets itself out to be either coyly naive or legitimately oblivious of what the Albanese Labor government has done in this past year to move our country forward in this space. As with a breakfast at an inner-city cafe, I shall be attempting to deconstruct the motion by the member for Capricornia as I plate it up for the chamber on this fine evening. Those opposite are making an audacious leap in logic by attempting to contend that the government has no plans to combat any of the issues faced by a number of manufacturers which have been listed in the motion. Whether it be power prices, labour shortages or disruptions to supply chains, I can vividly recall the member for Capricornia voting against the Albanese Labor government's energy plan, voting against the safeguard mechanism, and voting against the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill, just a short time ago. Yet the member for Capricornia attempts to say that the government has no plans.

The member's motion moves on to the National Reconstruction Fund—don't even get me started. This is another piece of legislation that the member and those opposite voted against. In fact, the NRF passed in spite of the member for Capricornia, in spite of the member for Hinkler and in spite of the member for McMillan. As the record reflects, the National Reconstruction Fund Bill received assent on the 11 April this year. On 9 May, what did we get from the member the Capricornia? We got a motion pondering why the fund has not yet issued a single dollar to manufacturers. Am I surprised by this? Absolutely not. I'm not even slightly surprised by this stance, as those opposite are scions of a former government renowned for its colour-coded spreadsheets. That's why I'm not surprised about their air of confusion about why an independent Commonwealth corporate entity that is not yet a month old in the statute books hasn't started financing projects. But of course, as the member's motion notes, if it had done so, she has severe reservations as to the inflationary effect that any funding would cause—just as an aside.

That mindset is just part and parcel of the former government's reluctance to support manufacturing in Australia. It seriously took a once-in-a-generation—hopefully—pandemic for those opposite to think to themselves, 'Oh golly: maybe it might be a good idea if we made things here in Australia again' and start to unwind the damage they've caused to the industry. One of the most important elements of good government is having a good opposition, and all I can say to the member for Capricornia, to those opposite, is: do better.

See this speech in context