Dai Le (Fowler, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

A constituent recently visited my office sharing with me the challenges of his manufacturing business in producing tahini. Tahini, for those who don't know, is a Middle Eastern condiment that is served with many dishes from the region. It's made by grinding toasted, hulled sesame seeds to create a creamy smooth paste, which I'm sure many members in this chamber have experienced and tasted. Jamal Elishe, the owner of JR Food Products, shared how difficult it is for his business to grow. He doesn't access government support and wasn't aware that he could.

The challenge for him growing his business locally and internationally is that Australia is importing so much tahini from the Middle East. This simple yet popular Middle Eastern sauce could be freshly made and should have a shelf life of nine months, not the two years that most of the products from overseas are stamped with when they reach our market shelves. Jamal believes the standard of his Australian made product is of high quality because he has to meet the standards set here. However, it's difficult to compete with overseas imported tahini.

We've been hearing and talking about Future Made in Australia here in this chamber. This small manufacturing business is an example of the potential for Australian products to be made here for the future of Australia and to grow our economy, which many members have been alluding to for the last few days, but what support is there for small manufacturing businesses like Jamal's? How can the government assist small food manufacturing businesses with their Future Made in Australia policy?

The government announced this policy earlier with a $1 billion publicly funded initiative to establish an entire solar supply chain in Australia and spun it as a step towards creating a manufacturing base for solar products. But this needs to be questioned. Is such a move prudent or, rather, a waste of funds that could be used elsewhere, such as in food manufacturing? All our current domestic solar efforts are just assembly lines for—guess what—Chinese products. That is not manufacturing. To truly manufacture solar panels, we would need to build an entire solar panel manufacturing value chain or at least meaningful parts thereof, making or participating in the making of polysilicon, wafers and cells and then ultimately assembling the final Australian made panels.

To establish such industrial capability, one would need to invest not just $1 billion but, rather, $10 billion to $20 billion at least. Even then, it would by no means be assured that such capability would be able to stand up against Chinese capabilities and find enough paying customers. The harsh reality is that China leads this sector not only with low costs but high-quality products that are demanded by economically acting customers and that make ends meet. China's solar industry is supported by a robust infrastructure and a large trained workforce. Their total solar investments go into the many hundreds of billions of dollars, with established worldwide sales channels and over 100,000 R&D staff and leadership in all elements of the entire supply chain.

Who do we think we are now in wanting to eventually compete with a measly $1 billion against this established world leader, who already brought Korean, European and US domestic solar manufacturing to their knees? Therefore, I fear that this could end up just being a PR exercise if we don't ensure that it's actually implementable and delivers for small Australian manufacturing businesses.

Let me remind the members of this chamber that my great community of Fowler is the heart of manufacturing in this country. Manufacturing employs 40 per cent of the population in Fowler, compared to about six per cent of Australia's workforce in this sector. Therefore, my community takes manufacturing seriously as it impacts the livelihood of many in Fowler, as in the case of Jamal Elishe and his tahini product.

The Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 has grand aspirations, stimulating the economy with renewable energy manufacturing, promising more secure jobs and even transitioning to a net zero economy. But, as I said, to establish such industrial capability one would need to invest not just $1 billion but rather $10 billion to $20 billion at least. Even then, it is by no means assured that such capability would be able to stand against China's capabilities.

Let's get real. The last few years have been very challenging for all Australians, especially those in low-income areas like my electorate of Fowler. I recently held my second bring-your-bill day, and over 200 people showed up, sharing their struggles with the unaffordable cost of living. Many have lost their jobs, homes and businesses, struggling to keep up with the aftermath of COVID-19, spiking inflation and the lack of affordable housing. Our economy continues to stagnate, and people live with uncertainties. What will help them and all of us now is economic prosperity. So I'm all for a new plan for the future of Australia, but only if it delivers for working Australians—the ones who actually hold up our economy. This new plan is costing $22.7 billion of taxpayers' money. There's no room for error. We can't afford any more expensive mistakes if we are to combat inflation and stimulate growth.

The bill introduces the National Interest Framework, giving the government power to identify and invest in projects of national interest. This means that the government will facilitate private investments to meet these projects of national interest. Priority interest industries will be identified under two streams: the net zero transformation stream and the economic resilience and security stream. The net zero transformation stream will be focused on sectors that make a substantial contribution to achieving net zero, whilst the economic resilience and security stream will centralise on sectors critical to our resilience that need support to unlock private investment.

To obtain Future Made in Australia support, businesses must meet community benefit principles of promoting safe and secure jobs that are well paid, have good conditions and produce more skilled and inclusive workforces that invest in training and skills development and engage collaboratively in achieving positive outcomes for local communities. Those are lofty ambitions, but will small businesses, especially those in Fowler, actually understand what they need to do to qualify for the Future Made in Australia support? Will they even meet the community benefit principles? Will Jamal Elishe meet the community benefit principles with his food production? Do governments have a good track record of knowing how to run or advise businesses or have an understanding of our diverse businesses in this country run by diverse communities?

My concern is that Future Made in Australia will exclude small businesses, like Jamal Elishe's, from obtaining support due to how broad and vague these principles are, especially those of non-English-speaking backgrounds. Family owned manufacturing businesses of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds are already struggling to navigate the existing legislative frameworks for compliance. I understand that the National Interest Framework goal is to identify sectors that can contribute significantly to emissions reduction and spot areas where Australia could have a sustained comparative advantage, but what role would it play in uplifting the small and local manufacturers already operating to ensure economic resilience and security at the community level?

The government must consult and engage with small manufacturing businesses, especially in areas with high migrant and refugee populations like Fowler, to understand their challenges in navigating through the current industrial relations system, let alone the proposed changes. This engagement will certainly give government and its bureaucracies insights on how to best apply the community benefit principles and to issue guidelines to ensure that these communities have equitable access to the support they need to scale. As it currently stands, the sector assessments may not explicitly consider the unique contributions and challenges of small and local manufacturers within these communities. There is a need for the inclusion of criteria within sector assessments that recognise and evaluate the role of small manufacturers in contributing to the Australian economy.

One of the major components of this bill is the National Reconstruction Fund. This $15 billion fund was announced two years ago, and yet, for reasons I have highlighted in another speech, not one dollar of this made it out to small businesses. The NRF has made a comeback under the Future Made in Australia agenda, and the government is expecting us to hope for better outcomes. The lesson of the NRF failure was that those assessing applications had very narrow expertise and experience. They were mainly finance people. This was of no help when business operators involved in food manufacturing, the tech industry and others made applications. It essentially became the same discussion they would have with their own banks. Simply rolling the NRF into the Future Made in Australia plan, with similarly vague or even scant reference to the tactics of how business can apply, and without a pledge for the reviewing committee to be more widely experienced, will result in the same dismal outcome as the NRF.

I worry about the government's ability when it comes to involvement in the renewable industry. I understand that it may be a no-brainer for the government to invest in the renewable energy sector for infrastructure renewal and economic prosperity. We hope that Australians can expect more job opportunities as a result. I support the intention, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We do need to better include small businesses in the big picture. If the bill primarily focuses on larger manufacturing entities and does not provide specific measures to support small and local manufacturers then it fails to address the needs of a vital segment of the industry that is prevalent in Fowler. We are being pushed with the buy-local narrative, but this may be counterproductive and not the whole truth of the process or outcome. To buy local, we must assist businesses like Jamal Elishe to grow and survive.

In the case of solar, we need to invest in the production of the polysilicon wafers and cells required for Australian-made solar panels, for example. We all know that currently there are cheaper solar panels from China that are readily available to meet the net zero objective. How will the government ensure that we can compete in this market?

The bill wants to use public investment to unlock private investments that will act in the national interest, but there is a risk that these investments will prioritise and benefit only larger projects and corporations. This has the potential to overlook the unique challenges faced by small manufacturers and to allow opportunities that they offer to wither. I would like to see the bill amended to more explicitly cater for small businesses, such as a dollar amount allocated to them, so that they don't get left out in the cold as they were under the former NRF approach. I am all for revitalising the manufacturing industry in Australia. If we can do this by incentivising small businesses within clean industries, all the better, but I caution the government: if this leaves small manufacturers out in the cold, like Jamal Elishe, many businesses will fail and the future, rather than being made in Australia, may be quite bleak.

See this speech in context