Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australia Fund Bill 2014 proposed joint committee on the Australia Fund. It is a bill, interestingly, to establish a joint committee and it is to look at this question as to whether an Australia Fund would be useful. I think the origins of it are well known: the member for Fairfax, as leader of the Palmer United Party, asked us to look at the concept of this. The terms of reference are quite wide, but I think one can understand why a motion of this type is being moved: from time to time Queensland in particular has been affected by drought and floods, which we are all very familiar with, and the manner in which we deal with these issues has always required government assistance in one form or another to deal with the very significant disadvantage that people are sometimes afflicted with as a result of national emergencies of that type.

The question is: how should you look after people's needs? How might you respond to them? It is being suggested that we should have a committee to inquire into the need for a rural and manufacturing industries fund to deal with crises and natural disasters and to look at matters relating to emergency or ongoing financial relief. It would look at loans—whether guarantors might be necessary to purchase all or part of an existing loan, whether to waive interest or to capitalise it, whether to assume control of a business for a particular period, whether to grant funds to an appropriate industry body and whether to grant funds to a business for the purposes of purchasing new technology to make it more economically viable—and also look at bankruptcy and insolvency laws and how they might impact.

Let me make it very clear. This is an inquiry to look into issues that we all regard as important and that governments have over a long period of time responded to. It is really a question of whether there are better ways of undertaking that task.

Committees provide an opportunity for organisations and individuals to put views to us and to have those matters dealt with on the public record. Parliament's committee system has significantly strengthened our parliamentary arrangements here in Australia for dealing with these sorts of issues. The make-up of this particular committee will include a balance of government and non-government members and senators, and obviously any position that might be adopted would require cross-party support. Having a committee with broad representation is likely to ensure that we get a thorough investigation, particularly as to whether there is a need for a fund. Such a committee would be able to undertake inquiries around Australia, not just in Queensland but where natural disasters occur frequently. And, of course, we will treat with respect the committee's views, just as we do with all other committees.

In the end, the response will be a matter for government. Nobody knows where an inquiry of this sort might lead, but I am sure all of those who sit on the committee will bring their conscientious efforts to produce an outcome that is worthy of consideration. I would simply note that, in terms of some of the media commentary around industry subsidies and handouts, the government has expressed some views and the Treasurer had something to say. I think it is useful to quote because it may help to inform the committee and the way in which they look at this issue. He says the government believes that 'industry, being in the business of relying on its own enterprise, should not become reliant on taxpayer support, because ultimately industry assistance is revenue from another person'. I think the Treasurer was making it clear that the government does not necessarily support the creation of a new government owned industry assistance bank. The members who are giving consideration to this matter ought to have, I think, some regard to those thoughts.

The issues raised in the terms of reference are challenging, and I am sure there will be a wide range of submissions put. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that we cannot predetermine the outcome of an inquiry of any committee, but the government will await the recommendations of the report and will obviously give proper consideration to the matters that the committee raises.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is clear from the contribution from the member for Berowra that the government supports this legislation, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australia Fund Bill 2014, which sets up a committee, but is not necessarily committing to the establishment of an Australia Fund. It seems to me that what the government is really doing is playing along with the Palmer United Party's proposition that they want to set up a committee to do this but at the end of the day reserving its judgement on it. I believe that that is simply a political move on the part of the government and a tactical move to stall and delay any decision on this matter. But it also raises the question of just what deals have been made between the government and the Palmer United Party with respect to this whole issue, because it is clear from comments that the Treasurer has already made and comments that the Prime Minister has made that at no stage in the past was this government going to look at providing any form of direct assistance to industries, farmers and the like, but suddenly it has changed its view and is now prepared to consider what options are available. Why would a government change its view and consider what options are available were it not for perhaps having done deals with the Palmer United Party?

Again, that is a matter that goes to another statement made by the Prime Minister before the election that this is a Prime Minister and a government that will not make deals with Independents and minor parties but instead will lead as a government and govern as a government. So much for that commitment made to the Australian people before the election. It is clear that once you are in government all bets are off, all promises are in the past, and we now face a new landscape. It really highlights the hypocrisy of the government that it was prepared to say one thing before the election and another after.

But it is even more concerning because this proposition effectively flags giving hope to industries and farmers that are perhaps struggling right now and need some form of government assistance. By setting up a committee to look at what is available, it gives them some hope. The reality is that, by the time the committee is set up, carries out its inquiry, prepares its report and brings it back to parliament, and then the government responds to that report, we will be into the next election. It means that these people will not be able to get any form of assistance whatsoever.

What is even more concerning about that is that the member for Fairfax, in his address in support of his own bill, strongly made the point that one of the issues of concern to the farmers and industries that need assistance is the delay that they are experiencing as a result of government processes. So here they are being critical of government processes but then setting up another process which does exactly the same—it causes delay, it causes uncertainty. I suspect that, by the time this matter is resolved by the government, anyone who needs assistance right now will have moved on; it will be well and truly too late.

This is a government that has made it clear that it is not interested in manufacturing in this country. It has already turned its back on the manufacturing sector. We saw it very clearly with respect to car makers in this country, we saw it with respect to SPC Ardmona workers and we have seen it with respect to numerous other industries that hang off those sectors, both in the food area and in the direct manufacturing area. We are now also seeing it with respect to the construction of naval ships here in this country. This is a government that is not prepared to lend one iota of support to manufacturing, yet it pretends, by saying it is prepared to look at a proposition put forward by the Palmer United Party, that it might do so. The government simultaneously says that it cares about farmers in Queensland, yet we know that it is very, very slow in delivering the kind of assistance that they already need and that is available through drought relief schemes and the like. It is just dragging its heels in respect to providing the support that it could provide.

There are mechanisms available and already in place if the government wants to support both industry and farmers. There are funds available and already in place. Although the government has cut almost half a billion dollars of funding to manufacturing and industry generally, there are still funds available. Let us look at the processes that are available, improve those if we need to and stop wasting time with what is nothing more than a delaying proposition by the Abbott government.

Debate adjourned.