Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Hansard source

The Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 sounds, based on its title, like a bill that everyone should get behind. But, as with everything in life, the devil is in the detail. We were once a great manufacturer of products, from cars to washing machines, particularly my state of South Australia. Unfortunately, we have seen a precipitous decline in our manufacturing capacity over the years. And while manufacturing remains one of Australia's largest employers, employing 904,000 Australians and representing around six per cent of all employment, this could and should be much higher.

In parallel, our economic-complexity ranking has declined from 55th position in 1995 to 93rd in 2021, reflecting a reduction in diversification of exports along with the decline in manufacturing. We sometimes hear Australia referenced as a 'sandpit', and this is obvious when you look at our export basket. In 2021 our exports were overly weighted in iron ore and concentrates, at 29.49 per cent; coal, at 12.07 per cent; and petroleum gases, at just over nine per cent. Our export destinations further illustrate what narrow trade relationships we have, with 41 per cent of exports going to China, 11 per cent to Japan and almost eight per cent to South Korea. Of course, there is nothing wrong with exporting products. They have made Australia a very wealthy country. In fact, we are ranked as the ninth richest economy, with a GDP per capita of $60,444. However, because Australia isn't as complex, growth projections suggest that growth in Australia will rank in the bottom half of the countries globally, and that's a concern.

So, based on this information, if Australia is to remain competitive and maintain our wealth, we need to improve our economic complexity and rely less on primary exports. Will this bill correct the decline in manufacturing or improve our economic complexity? I don't believe so. There are a few critical elements that are important for business growth: minimal government red tape, cheap and reliable energy, and business conditions that foster growth. Currently, all of these require significant improvement.

We have ever-increasing burdens placed on business via unnecessary government imposts, our energy costs are among the most expensive in the world and we have a cost-of-living crisis that is hurting both consumer and business confidence. Added to this, governments have never demonstrated success at picking winners at either the sector or the individual business level, yet this bill seeks to invest more than $20 billion into sectors that the government is gambling on—in being the future. It also is hoping that its investment will attract greater business investment. Experience would suggest that it will attract businesses, but they are typically of the rent-seeking kind, where, once the money runs out, they are gone.

Very recent examples have piqued my concern following the commitment of $1 billion by the government to manufacture solar panels at a US company called PsiQuantum ahead of any investment safeguards ever being introduced into the parliament. There are several areas where government should be investing money. At present, there are nationwide shortages of medicines, pharmaceutical precursor chemicals and other medical supplies.

Surely, if we are interested in securing a manufacturing future and strengthening our sovereignty, we should in the first instance be looking at areas where we have identifiable need. We should also be investing in areas where we have a competitive advantage, not in solar panels, where we will never realistically compete with countries like China that have few environmental controls, poor or non-existent workplace laws and very cheap energy, to name just a few competitive differences.

This bill completely overlooks food manufacturing, and that is an obvious advantage and an obvious area for growth in Australia, particularly our regions. We are known as being clean and green when it comes to our food. Australian Food is incredibly well placed around the nation and around the world. However, there is nothing in this bill about food production. Knowing that we have a growing middle class just to the north of us, it makes absolute sense that, if we were looking at manufacturing as a nation, we would be focusing on food production.

My region produces some of the highest quality foods that can be found in the world, whether it's cheeses, cherries or apples—and don't forget wine. We have a huge amount of wine in Mayo. I have six wine regions alone. We have so many growers that want to be able to value-add to their product, and they can't do that at the moment. It's very, very difficult to set up the manufacturing plants—to turn those cherries that are wasted into cherry liqueur. It's very difficult. So that is where I would like to see the investment. We need to be looking at value-adding, and we need to be supporting those small to medium sized businesses to grow, rather than looking at products such as solar panels. We are just never going to compete with China on these products, and, if we think we are, we're lying to ourselves.

I have wondered if the sectors were chosen due to their alignment with unions, rather than with what is good for the country. We've all read with concern about the increasing flexing of union muscle following the election in 2022. Bolstering industry sectors with natural associations to the strongest of unions reads like a play out of the union playbook. I do not support this bill. I want to support a bill that is going to get behind Australian manufacturing, but it has to be smart. If this government is serious about improving our manufacturing capacity, it would address energy prices and reduce government red tape.

I support a manufacturing future in Australia, particularly food manufacturing. That is particularly good for the regions. The regions, I feel, have been completely overlooked in this. I support a future that harnesses our natural competitive advantages and one that incorporates the regions. This bill does none of these things.

See this speech in context