Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to make a small contribution to the debate on the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and try and just outline, in the simplest terms I possibly can, why we will be opposing this bill. We hear those from the government come in and say that members of the coalition are opposing this because we don't believe in a future made in Australia. Well, that's simply not true.

I want to give, primarily, a shout-out to those manufacturers here in Australia who are doing amazing things for our country, providing the services and the products that we need and, in some cases, exporting them all around the world. I want to share with you some of the comments I hear when I talk to the Australian manufacturers about what we could do if we were to redeploy those $22.7 billion earmarked in this bill, the second largest budget item of this government's spending. I want to share with you what they would prefer to see happen instead of this bill.

Both sides of the House are equally committed to making sure that we have long-term manufacturing capability in this country, because it does give us sovereign capability and it does give us security into the future. Both sides of this House have an enthusiasm to make sure Australia can manufacture products into the future, but we have basically fundamental differences in the approach and how we should get there. Hopefully, at the end of this brief contribution, that will become clearer.

To start my contribution and to give you a sense of how those on this side of the House think: we predominantly think like businesspeople and manufacturers because, for all intents and purposes, those on this side of the House do come from a small-business or manufacturing background, did employ people and did make contributions to our nation. I myself, after my banking career in agri-finance, started a small transport express courier company. I had 14 depots around the state of Queensland and employed over 100 permanent staff and contractors, of which I'm very proud. The member for Leichhardt, behind me, was a prominent pastoralist in northern Australia. He had a crocodile farm, and his business was one of the first Australian businesses to start exporting crocodile skins to a little-known company called Louis Vuitton.

The stories of our comprehensive understanding of the needs of businesses and manufacturers in this country are endless on this side of the House because we are them. We are those businesses. There are exceptions on the other side of the House, where there are some who come from a small-business background, and to them I say, 'Hurrah!' But the vast majority of those on the other side are in this House as a result of a relationship that they have with the union movement. And there's nothing wrong with that; it's just a point of difference. But when we stand here and try to make a point around a future made in Australia, those listening should not believe for one minute that the coalition is not committed to a greater Australia and a greater manufacturing capability.

I take everyone's minds back to nearly half a century ago, to a small village then called Gladstone in Central Queensland—it's a port city. It was built predominantly by the Bjelke-Petersen era on the back of an emerging coal industry, where the government of the day borrowed money from the Japanese government to develop the mines in partnership with them and build a railway line. We can look at the mega-manufacturers—our aluminium capability, our powerhouse capability, our steel manufacturing—through that one postcode, and we can look at what fundamental settings needed to be in place for that community to strengthen and to grow and to prosper over many decades. Fundamentally, like any small business, the same as large business, we cannot—like the member for Sturt rightly pointed out—be in pursuance of low wages of international competitors such as China because we just cannot match that low-rate input cost. But there are other input costs, that in we can address in this room through our fiscal settings that will return that competitive pendulum back towards us on a global stage. Sadly, those are missing from within the contents of this bill—such as lowering our company tax rate.

Everyone in Australia remembers the commitment made on several occasions by this Prime Minister before the election: 'My word is my bond when it comes to the implementation of stage 3 tax cuts. My word is my bond.' It doesn't get any more concrete than that. But as soon as they got in, they crab-marched away from it. They had done a couple of polls. It's like a Robin Hood tale: they took money away from those who make these very contributions—the manufacturers and those on higher wages—and gave greater tax cuts similar to that of stage 1 and 2 to low- and middle-income people.

I'm just pointing out the differences in our tax policies. We seek in this nation to provide a lower tax competitive rate so we don't have our 108,000 manufacturers in this country seeking to move offshore. Why would you manufacture here in Australia, where this bill and government do nothing to reduce our company tax rate, when you could be going up to Singapore and paying around eight to 10 per cent, or any other jurisdiction where it's lower. In America at the moment, they're hungry for investment through their IRA investment footprint. Some economists have said that this is a very poor imitation of that policy, and it has been belittled and bemoaned by economists. I'd only be reading from my speaking points to enter that into HansardI'm sure they're already there.

We've heard those on the other side make the contribution about our Australian manufacturing that we hounded and dared the motor companies in Australia to leave the country. I just remind those in the chamber that, whilst I was a great supporter and still am of both Ford and Holden, at the time they exited the Australian motor market, they were respectively No. 13 and 11 on the top car sales in Australia. Those on the other side of the chamber would make the argument that we dared them to leave the country. Hockey, the then Treasurer, said that. We have those conversations about: 'Why aren't you doing more to support the car industry? What type of car were you driving?' The top five cars were either made in Japan in the country or Korea with the Hyundai Accent or the Mazda. The reality is that the Australian market had changed its appetite from the large six-cylinder vehicle to something more practical in Australia, and the large manufacturing companies failed to accommodate those changes.

This is going to be a failed bill. It'll get through the House, but whilst the intent is noble, wanting to secure a future made in Australia, it's fundamentally flawed because it picks winners over other winners—for example, within the green hydrogen space. Hydrogen is for all intents and purposes the vehicle that is going to fill the energy void between renewables as coal exits the market, but we don't know how much it's going to cost. Deputy Speaker Georganas, you'd be well aware of committees in this place that have travelled the country looking at green energy substitutes. Actually, no, we're on a different committee. Other committees have travelled the country looking at such. If this Future Made in Australia Bill was fair dinkum, it would have included all of the hydrogens—the grey hydrogen, the blue hydrogen and the pink hydrogen—rather than just the green hydrogen. When you look at the hydrogen industry in its complete state, you can pick the winners out of those, and then green hydrogen will float to the top. Without a doubt, it's the most expensive.

We're not prepared to inflict additional costs onto the Australian taxpayer that already exist as a result of the fiscal settings of this government. Under this government, there have been 12 progressive interest rate rises. For those with mortgages, the pressure on households lies squarely at the feet of the inept mismanagement of inflationary pressures. I'd also like to put into Hansard,since this government has come to office, the no less than 19,000 businesses that have ended in insolvency since Labor came to office. How is it that 19,000 businesses in Australia have entered into insolvency, the highest on record since the Australian Securities and Investments Commission began collecting data? It's because of the input costs that are being asked of businesses. When you transfer those input costs to those manufacturers here in Australia, they are all looking for cheaper energy.

So, as our coal mines, who provide the cheapest baseload power at the moment, look to access this Future Made in Australia Bill funding of $22.7 billion, they're precluded from doing so. It's that picking of winners—I'm not going to say pork-barrelling—that this bill has done that precludes the real essence of what we should be looking for in this country, and that is to give every Australian manufacturer the opportunity to access this, not just those friends that may share the same political ideologies of this government. If they were fair dinkum about a future made in Australia, they'd be sitting down with the manufacturing sector representatives of the 108,000 manufacturers here in Australia, and I sing their praise.

When I was the assistant minister for transport, PACCAR, at Bayswater in Victoria, were manufacturing Kenworths and assembling DAF trucks. They're little known to most Australians. I sing the praise of Mack and Volvo, manufacturing right here in Australia, at Wacol in Brisbane. Do you know how many government subsidies both of those companies put their hands up for? None. That's in contrast to the many billions we subsidise the car industry.

I say well done to the Australian manufacturers persisting in an environment where insolvency rates are through the roof. I say to you: the coalition is committed to reform. The coalition is committed to getting the government out of your way. The coalition government is committed to lower taxes and lower input costs to make Australia an attractive place to invest in and employ people. We cannot compete on low wages like our input partners out of China and other small countries, so we need a competitive difference, and that has to come through other line items on our expenditure balance sheet. But I acknowledge our manufacturers. I praise them. Continue to make a contribution to Australia, and hopefully at the next election, we will be back supporting you in the hardest way we can.

See this speech in context