Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, it will come as no surprise to you or those opposite or, indeed, those in the gallery that the coalition will oppose the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024. At the heart of that opposition is something that I want to pick up from the contribution of the last government speaker. Those opposite want to paint a picture that, without financial support from government, manufacturing is dead in this country, and I've got to tell you nothing is further from the truth. Those opposite think it is for government to decide which manufacturing businesses should succeed. Those of us on this side of the House think that is a decision best made in a competitive context by businesses themselves. Those opposite want to pick winners; those on this side want to create an economic environment where winners can self-identify and succeed.

This bill isn't a bill for greater business investment. Let's be clear: it's a bill about more and bigger government. Now, it's not a bill about slightly bigger government or modestly bigger government; it's a bill about gargantuanly bigger government, particularly with tentacles into the business sector. And it's a $22.7 billion commitment. If you say that quickly, it doesn't sound like a lot of money. But perhaps I can break it down. That's $22,700 million—in this bill alone. So, those opposite are asking of the coalition, of the parliament and, by deference, of the Australian people that they trust the Prime Minister with $22,700 million of taxpayer funds which he will distribute in the best interests of industry.

This is a Prime Minister who couldn't facilitate a $275 reduction in energy bills. Now, to be honest, I thought deeply about this, and I thought, I don't know who I trust least with a dollar of my money, let alone $22,700 million of Australian taxpayer money—the Prime Minister, the Minister for Industry and Science or the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. But the reality is that that's the mix of office holders in this place who'll be given the great privilege of distributing these funds.

Those opposite want to talk down manufacturing. I'm here to tell you that I am an advocate for talking it up. Barker, my electorate, has more full-time-equivalent employees who are engaged in manufacturing than any other division in this place. We're proud to carry that title. And it's principally in food manufacturing, a great strength of this country—weaponised, I'd argue, by the world-leading free trade agreements that the now opposition, when in government, was able to negotiate and install. Over the course of those nine or so years in government we saw an exponential growth in those sectors, and why shouldn't we? Australia enjoys incredible competitive advantages in this space: our clean-and-green image as well as the strength of our farming sector and, increasingly, our food manufacturing. So why wouldn't we be leaning into this space?

What those manufacturers need—those manufacturers that are operating today, not those that may be operating in the future—is affordable and reliable energy. They need flexible workplaces. They would love to see less regulation and red tape and of course an incentivised tax system. That's what this $22.7 billion, if it were available, should be invested in: creating a more competitive environment for all businesses to thrive, not just those that can be hand-picked in some sort of Labor bingo game. But that's not what's happening in this country right now—not at all. What's happening in this country right now is that industrial relations changes are making it harder for manufacturers. Labor's energy policy is making it harder for manufacturers to do business. As a result, productivity is down and insolvencies are up. That's the reality.

Those opposite, as if to have had an epiphany post the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, come into this place on a relatively regular basis—I'd argue almost daily—and plead with the Australian people to believe them when they say they have always had cost-of-living pressures that Australians experience first and foremost in their considerations since they've come to government. Of course, that's not the truth, because those opposite spent half a billion dollars on a vanity project taking this nation to an unnecessary and ultimately unsuccessful referendum around the Voice. All the while, as that debate raged, as Australians went to the ballot box, Australians were hurting. Over the period since Labor came to power, prices are up 10 per cent for working households, personal income tax is up by 20 per cent, real wages for employees have collapsed by nine the per cent, living standards have commensurately collapsed by eight per cent, household savings are down—and here's the kicker: a family with a typical mortgage is around $35,000 worse off.

Against that background and against the background of the Reserve Bank of Australia warning those opposite that we need to ensure monetary and fiscal policy is in lockstep, what do we see from those opposite? We see a gargantuan commitment to $22.7 billion. Those opposite want to argue this won't be inflationary. Well, of course it will be.

I mentioned earlier picking winners, and of course we can argue about the philosophy of command-and-control economics, but I want to remind those opposite that, not that long ago, the Prime Minister, the member for Hunter, the minister for climate change and the minister for science and industry went and celebrated an investment in a business that was proposing to manufacture photovoltaic-cell solar panels. And what did we hear not a week ago? Of course that business has made the decision to reduce its workforce by 35 people.

Now, the members opposite say industry needs the support of government. Absolutely it does. But it needs the support of government to reduce the cost and regulatory burdens that it experiences. There is a need for greater flexibility across the board, not for hand-picked specialists or specialist businesses that might just tickle an ideological want of this government and those opposite.

But don't take my word for it. Let's investigate what others have been saying. My favourite contribution in this space from others is from Steven Hamilton, the independent economist:

I thought we'd learned these lessons, but apparently not. The bad old days are back.

Well, some of us, I'd argue, have learnt these lessons, but the current administration has not. There are many problems with industry policy, and this proposed bill is a big one. Danielle Wood, the Chair of the Productivity Commission hand-picked by those opposite, said:

We risk creating a class of businesses that is reliant on government subsidies, and that can be very effective in coming back for more.

She went on to paint a beautiful, very clear word picture when she said:

Your infants grow up, they turn into very hungry teenagers and it's kind of hard to turn off the tap.

I expect my parents went through that period when I was a very hungry teenager. The former Chairman of the Productivity Commission, Gary Banks, described the Future Made in Australia Bill as a 'fool's errand'. It's certainly an errand. I accept his assessment. It just had me wondering who the fool might be. So that's the contribution of others. And, quite appropriately, those opposite are fair—and the commentariat otherwise are fair—to ask, 'Well, what would you do? What would the coalition do?' because, ultimately, we're presenting ourselves as the alternative government.

We will take a back-to-basics approach. Firstly, we will do everything we can to rein in inflationary spending. We're not just saying this now. We have not just been saying it since the Voice referendum. The shadow Treasurer has been saying this from day one. In fact, before the now shadow Treasurer was installed by the now Leader of the Opposition to that office he was making that case. Secondly, we will wind back Labor's intervention and remove regulatory roadblocks, because that is what business is asking us to do as we meet with business.

Thirdly, we will remove the complexity and hostility of Labor's industrial relations agenda, which is putting unreasonable burdens on business. As I meet with employers and employees of those businesses, they remind me time and again of how much they value flexibility in the employment relationship. My father has operated farming businesses for much of his life, and my mother a retail business for over 45 years, until she retired. Some of her employees had been with her from day one. Those employees were more family than they were staff, and the idea that my mother's business relationship with her employees needed to be protected in some way by government legislation is offensive to her, but that's the nature of things. There is, in terms of the industrial relations space in this place, all of a sudden an us-and-them attitude when, in truth, in most successful businesses—in, I'd argue, all successful businesses—there's an us-and-us approach to industrial relations.

Equally, I met with hospitality employees recently who told me beseechingly that they didn't want to transition away from casual employment, because they enjoyed and, indeed, needed the leave loading. Those opposite need to understand this: people make decisions that meet their life's circumstances. But I'm off track.

The fourth thing we will do is provide lower, simpler and fairer taxes for all, which will mean that Australians can genuinely keep more of what they earn for themselves. Fifthly, we will deliver competition policy that gives consumers and small businesses a fair go—and that includes the farmers in my electorate, who are very much celebrating that and hoping for that prospect. Sixthly, we will ensure Australians have more affordable and more reliable energy. As a member in this place from South Australia, can I tell you that we have lived, and are living, the all-in renewables experiment. Whether it was the blackout or the highest energy costs in the country, I'm telling you, the experiment is failing. And those opposite want to extend that experiment to the whole of the nation.

This is a bad bill. It's a rotten bill. We oppose it, and those opposite should think again, in the interests of all Australians.

See this speech in context