Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Last night, when I was talking to the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, we were interrupted. I was making the point at the time that we were interrupted that the idea of 'Australian made' is a mark of quality. We remember that great campaign with the green triangular logo with the kangaroo on it. We see 'Australian made' as a mark of quality. We know it to be a thing of trust. This bill takes that brand, but it's not a bill we can trust. The government has sought to appropriate the sentiment with branding this policy, but it's really all just spin. In short, the government's so-called Future Made in Australia Bill is an exercise in political pork-barrelling and one which will further drive up the cost of living with more corporate welfare and more handouts.

From the outset, I want to make it clear that Australia is a great manufacturing nation. We've got a proud manufacturing history. We on this side of the House have always and will always support manufacturing, but that's not what we're talking about with this bill. This bill establishes a slush fund because it establishes a pot of taxpayers' money to allow the minister to spend as he wishes. Some will say that this bill is about climate change. Of course, we need to tackle climate change. The coalition has a plan to reduce emissions, but this bill from the Labor Party has nothing to do with that. This is about Labor looking after their mates rather than the environment.

What we have seen with this bill is Labor failing to address the cost of living. As I said last night, this bill is adding more government spending to the economy at a time when orthodox economics indicates that government should be restraining spending, not spending more. We are seeing Labor make bad policy decisions that are making the cost of living even worse. The cost of groceries is up. The cost of electricity is up. The cost of gas is up. The cost of petrol is up. Rents and mortgages are going through the roof, climbing higher and higher. Labor has lost control of its spending, and people in my electorate are paying for it. That is why we are going to oppose this bill. The more we hear about it, the more we know the plan doesn't stack up. This is a plan for pork-barrelling. It is not a plan for a strong economy. This is a plan for more government, not more investment in businesses. It is a plan for more inflation at a time when Labor's spending is already making things worse.

Labor's policies on energy, industrial relations and tax are all making Australia a less attractive place to do business. The facts are clear: insolvencies are up, productivity is down and businesses are struggling. Economist after economist has criticised this policy. When you have someone of the standing of Danielle Wood, the government's own hand-picked head of the Productivity Commission, an economist of great standing, be so critical of this bill—and I will come back to Danielle Wood in a moment—it should be a red light and a red flag that this bill shouldn't proceed. This is a slogan in search of a policy. It is really about the Prime Minister trying to pick winners. It is not about orthodox economic policy, and, in the end, Australian families will lose out.

Australia is at the back end of the pack when it comes to fighting inflation compared to so many of the countries across the G10. We are in an entrenched GDP-per-capita recession, with anaemic economic growth, which means household are going backwards. I mentioned insolvencies before. Around 19,000 business have entered insolvencies since Labor came to office. That's the highest on record since ASIC began collecting that data. Behind each of those insolvencies is the story of a family, the story of somebody who has tried to have a go and put everything on the line and yet had their business go bust. Why has it gone bust? In part, it's because of the economic conditions that have been in place due to Labor. Since Labor came into power, prices are up by 10 per cent for households. Personal income tax rates are up by 20 per cent. Real wages for employees have collapsed by nine per cent. Living standards have collapsed by eight per cent. Household savings are down 10 per cent. A family with a typical mortgage of $750,000 is $35,000 worse off. This bill does nothing to help households that are struggling. It does nothing to take pressure off families and small business. In fact, as I have said before, the big-spending agenda here is likely to make inflation much worse.

At the centre of the bill is the establishment of a fund for the government to pick winners. It's economics 101. We know it's been tried in the past and we know that, when governments pick winners, it never works. You are much better off leaving these matters of where investment should go to the market. It is not just the coalition saying this; it's distinguished economists. I mentioned Danielle Wood, the Productivity Commission chair. Let's remind the House what she had to say about this. She said:

If we are supporting industries that don't have a long-term competitive advantage, that can be an ongoing cost. It diverts resources, that's workers and capital, away from other parts of the economy where they might generate high value uses.

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 said:

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

When Ms Wood was asked whether the Future Made in Australia Bill was some sort of tax reform, she said, 'No, it is not tax reform.' What she said was that alternative policies, including lowering the corporate tax rate, 'would make us more internationally competitive', and she is right. They are the sorts of policy ideas that we should be pursuing if we want to have a competitive manufacturing industry in this country.

Danielle Wood is not alone. It seems like a whole range of former heads of the Productivity Commission, a very respected body in this country, have come forward and said that this bill puts Australia on the wrong track in terms of increasing productivity. Gary Banks, a former chair of the Productivity Commission, described the Future Made in Australia policy as a 'fool's errand' that risks repeating mistakes of the past by propping up 'political favourites'. Instead, he said:

Seeking to obtain benefits to society through subsidies for particular firms or industries, including in the form of tax concessions, has proven a fool's errand, particularly where the competitive fundamentals are lacking.

I love this particular quote from Mr Banks, who described the scheme as equivalent to Hotel California, saying many will enter the program but few will ever leave. If we're going to talk about the Eagles, the government is saying, 'Take it easy.' We shouldn't be taking it easy in relation to this bill; we should be opposing this bill.

When the Prime Minister criticised Mr Banks, Richard Holden, another distinguished economist, said:

The PM says all the wrong things … And his main argument for subsidies is that other countries are doing it. Like a primary school kid telling a teacher: 'but he started it!'

We've got Danielle Wood, Gary Banks, Richard Holden and Steve Hamilton, an independent economist who said: 'There are many problems with industry policy, and that is a big one. It's why I tend to favour more neutral investment incentives like a lower corporate tax rate or accelerated depreciation. I thought we'd learned these lessons, but apparently not. The bad old days are back.' This is like Marty McFly—we're back to the future, and it's not a good future. We've tried this in the past—it never works. The government shouldn't be trying it again.

So how does the government's approach differ from what the coalition would do? The coalition's plan for the economy and the future of manufacturing in Australia won't be based on corporate handouts. You won't see policy from us based on political favouritism, and you won't see coalition policy based on a minister setting himself up with a bucket of taxpayer money to use how he likes.

First, we will rein in spending to take the pressure off inflation. We won't spend billions on corporate welfare for pet projects.

Second, we'll wind back Labor's intervention and remove regulatory roadblocks, which are suffocating the economy and stopping businesses going ahead. We'll condense approval processes and cut back on Labor's red tape, which is killing jobs in so many areas, particularly in the mining and resources sector, in the same way that it's killing entrepreneurialism.

Third, we'll remove the complexity and hostility of Labor's industrial relations agenda. That's what I said last night: if we are serious about productivity, we must be serious about creating a more flexible workplace, because that's how you encourage businesses to take a chance to take on people and give them a job and encourage them to expand. We will revert to the coalition's former, simple definition of a casual worker and create certainty for 2.5 million small businesses. We know it's not in Labor's DNA to support small business or any other business that isn't under control of their union mates.

Fourth, we'll provide lower, simpler, fairer taxes for all, because Australians should keep more of what they earn.

Fifth, we will deliver a competition policy which gives consumers and small businesses a fair go—not lobbyists and big corporations.

Sixth, we'll ensure Australians have more affordable and reliable energy.

Our economic plan—unlike Labor's economic plan, which is based on failed policies of the past—is based on tried, tested principles which will restore competitiveness and economic confidence. The policies we seek to implement aren't just about the next electoral cycle; they are about the foundations for the next generation for Australia. That's why today I am pleased to rise to oppose this high-spending bill and to oppose corporate welfare for certain manufacturing interests. That is not in Australia's best interests.

(Quorum formed)

See this speech in context