Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition will oppose the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. On this side of the House, we know that the best way we can support the manufacturers of Australia is by creating the right economic conditions for them to succeed. Unsurprisingly, our economy is being managed woefully by this government. The government says, 'We want Australia to be a country that makes things again.' I say to those opposite: we do make things in this country, and we're bloody good at it.

Instead of jetting over to the US and socialising in the silicon valley, the minister could have walked down to Glendenning in his own electorate and listened to what our manufacturers actually need from their government. They would tell you that their success depends on the government managing the economy in a way which creates the preconditions for their success. Those opposite should listen to what our Australian manufacturers are actually saying. Energy prices are sending them to the brink, businesses are being forced to drop products because supply chains aren't coping, and they can't expand because there aren't enough workers.

This bill does nothing for them. This bill is silent on the No. 1 issue that's raised by industry, whether you are an aluminium smelter, a pill pressing plant or a lumber mill. The coalition is opposing this bill because this arrogant government is telling our manufacturers what they think they need rather than addressing what manufacturers actually want.

This is a minister that talks big about value add onshore but sells out as soon as he gets back to his desk. The only value he's adding is to the offshore paper industry, wasting taxpayer dollars on $100-a-ream paper rather than $8-a-ream Australian-made paper which is used in every other printer in this place. As Labor tries to rush its National Reconstruction Fund through the parliament, it just demonstrates that while they talk the talk on supporting Australian manufacturers, they just don't walk the walk. Quite frankly, the minister's commitment to Australian manufacturing isn't worth the paper it's written on. Fancy Conqueror branded paper will not do anything to conquer the rising pressures on our manufacturing. The simple fact of the matter is that without addressing these key economic challenges which are holding industry back, government spending is useless.

Under the economic mismanagement of this government, any proposed financial support will be whittled away by increased input costs. Instead of reinventing economics and remaking capitalism, the government should focus on economics 101. Input costs affect the bottom line, and the price of energy is the first among those input costs for so many of our manufacturers.

In a recent survey conducted by the Australian Industry Group, 83 per cent of respondents experienced rising energy prices. In fact, it represented the highest score in the history of the survey. There hasn't been a single conversation I have had since I have taken on this portfolio where the cost of energy hasn't been raised as a concern. Take Solaris Paper: they have been manufacturing in Australia since the 1950s, with products including Sorbent toilet paper, Deeko serviettes and Handee Ultra Paper Towels. They are facing a tripled gas bill. Making their concerns public, they say that there is a real crisis looming. They said, 'It's a tremendous challenge for us,' and 'It is only one of our costs.' Regional Victorian manufacturer Advanced Bricks and Pavers announced they will let their brick oven go cold after 82 years of business. Why? Because they have gone from paying $6 a gigajoule of gas to more than $37 a gigajoule overnight. The bill offers no hope for manufacturers like second-generation family business Advanced Bricks. Each one of these closures has a human element to it—people out of work, craftsmanship lost and communities losing as a result. So many of our manufacturers rely on gas, yet this government's demonisation of this essential element does nothing but drive prices up. The industry minister thinks he can shirtfront the gas companies into submission and, as a result, prices will drop. I hate to break it to the minister but that is not how economics works. A government divided on the issue with two cabinet ministers at loggerheads in a very public way also diminishes confidence in the supply of this critical resource. The Minister for Resources has one view and the minister for industry has another.

Labor's mismanagement of energy policy is making a bad situation worse. Why do Australians always have to pay more under Labor? We know that, according to the Food Supply Chain Alliance, some businesses are facing 100 to 300 per cent increases in electricity costs, with a further 56 per cent rise foreshadowed in the October budget. Manufacturers can't afford this hit to their bottom line. The government claims it is prioritising manufacturers through the introduction of this legislation. The reality couldn't be further from the truth. This bill does nothing to ameliorate the input costs that are pushing businesses to the brink right now.

Labor misled the Australian people at the last election, saying they would reduce energy prices. We know that the problem is much deeper than that, and it is not just inaction on energy costs hurting which is our industries. Supply chain disruptions and staff shortages have also been left unanswered by this government. This reconstruction bill does not fix these economic drivers which are making it impossible for manufacturers to do business in this country. The Food Supply Chain Alliance has said a 30 per cent increase in fuel bills is cutting into the viability of our hardworking industries every time their truck drivers hit the bowser.

Independent Food Distributors Australia have said the fuel, electricity, transport costs and many other costs have risen by an average of 29 per cent in nine months. The Australian Industry Group says 90 per cent of businesses expect to be affected by staffing shortages. What has the government done to address this? There is no point to this bill reconstructing our manufacturing base if there is no-one to carry out that renewed effort. If they listened to our manufacturers they would know these are the issues they demand action on instead of arrogantly telling them what they need. They did this with their radical industrial relations changes, putting a regulatory noose around the necks of manufacturers. They didn't care to listen. In case those opposite have short memories, this is what they said, 'We know the Labor Party when it suits them is fond of walking into this House and quoting the business community.' The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said that it would be 'particularly damaging given already serious global risks and uncertainty'. The Australian Industry Group called the secure jobs, better pay bill 'flawed and unnecessary', noting it would implement major and regressive changes to Australia's workplace relations arrangements that would set us back decades. But we know these trusted voices are not the ones those opposite listen to.

Millions of dollars in donations equals policy influence in this government and that is at the heart of the Albanese accord—donations go in, policy comes out. Many Australians had to live through the last time industrial disputes wreaked havoc in our economy and they remember it vividly. That was when the then industrial relations minister, the member for Maribyrnong, chose to scrap the Australian Building Construction Commission, the last time the Labor Party was in government, and we know what happened. Unsurprisingly, the number of industrial disputes skyrocketed, the number of working-days lost rose and, as a result, the cost of infrastructure went up by 30 per cent. That means that infrastructure like hospitals, schools and roads all cost 30 per cent more than it had before—a direct consequence of Labor's ideological industrial-relations-induced mania. Have they learnt their lesson? Of course not. Instead, in a high-inflation environment, they are once again encouraging an uptick in industrial disputes, driving up inflation and putting pressure on our manufacturers.

This bill does nothing to support industries impacted by inflationary pressures. The government is not listening to our manufacturers. By bringing on this debate ahead of the conclusion of a Senate inquiry process, the industry minister is sneakily avoiding any scrutiny of due process. The inquiry by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee is yet to even close its submissions—they are open as I speak—let alone hold a hearing or report back to the Senate with valuable industry feedback. The government was disingenuous at its jobs summit and it's disingenuous about its consultation—

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

The member for Lyons on a point of order?

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On reflection, given I withdrew my previous comment, I would ask the shadow minister to withdraw that comment about the minister.

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

I don't want to ask you what the inflection was but—

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd just ask her to she withdraw.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I meant no imputation of the minister in negative terms. If it will assist the rather difficult member for Lyons, I'm very happy to withdraw it so I can get on with the important issue of the debate.

The government was disingenuous at its jobs summit and it's disingenuous about its consultation for this bill as it cuts corners to get this flawed bill through the House. The minister may be impatient when he is trying to ram through his flawed bill, but he has been on a real go-slow in his ministerial duties. Since the election, the government has dithered and delayed, failing to support our manufacturers in any substantive way. The government has delayed the provision of independently assessed grants funded by the coalition, conducted excessive politically motivated reviews and chopped and changed the national manufacturing priority areas. Entire industries have been put in a holding pattern whilst international competition continues to rise. The time it will take to establish the NRF will cumulatively cost our manufacturers some two years before they start seeing any government support for their work.

Establishing something like the NRF takes time—time to legislate, time to attract a board, time to hire staff, time to establish process, time to prepare funding streams, time to market, time to select applicants and time to settle contracts. The government has modelled the National Reconstruction Fund on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the CEFC. However, the National Reconstruction Fund is more complicated, as it invests in multiple industries. History shows us that the CEFC took three years to design, legislate and start making investments, with the Gillard government saying this was necessary due to the complexities involved. Indeed, so great was the task that a full Treasury review was commissioned to design the scheme, and let's not forget that this was for a fund into just one industry.

Following all that work for what was a complex initiative, by the Gillard government's own admission, the CEFC was established in August 2012. The first investment was made in June 2013, some 10 months later. The government has signalled its intent to get money out the door as quickly as possible, but at best, it will be over a year from the election that the corporation will even effectively be formed and quite possibly another year before funding is issued to manufacturers. This is lost time for our manufacturers, prospective workers and economy, and it dampens prospects for investment. Our manufacturers can't afford to wait as their competitors forge ahead. Those on the frontiers in tech or on the cusp of medical breakthroughs and any manufacturer with a cutting-edge offering cannot sit idly.

The government announced that the National Reconstruction Fund should be up and running by next financial year, but they haven't committed to a launch date. They know it will take time. That's why they are rushing it through the parliament. They were quick to stop, stall and stifle any industry program from the coalition government but failed to replace it with any program. Worse, they are now rushing through a lengthy and lacking bill to compensate.

The coalition government's Modern Manufacturing Strategy was delivering for our manufacturers, and dismantling many of these measures was a mistake—a spiteful and partisan mistake by a bad Labor government—undermining what could have been a bridging gap between our programs in government and a properly designed and thoroughly consulted national reconstruction fund. Industry has told us that this type of funding model takes years to get right. Those will be lost years for manufacturers. Consultation has been rushed. Parliamentary oversight has been sidestepped.

This bill poses more questions than answers. The government's own departmental consultation only closed last Friday, and the government will have you believe that this feedback was thoroughly reviewed and workshopped with experts—and changes were made to the bill in only two working days. What a joke! The minister was clearly committed to reviewing the consultation—socialising with celebrities at black-tie events in Los Angeles and having birthday burgers with his caucus colleagues in the Hunter. We know ambition when we see it. I wish the minister for industry were as ambitious for our manufacturers as he is for himself.

The government is wilfully avoiding scrutiny and obfuscating consultation. That's because its flawed bill seeks to introduce significant ministerial discretion, which every taxpayer should be concerned about. The government really does give meaning to that word 'shortlist', because only a special handful have had a chance to contribute to the design of the bill. Unsurprisingly, this list included some frequent flyers to offices of those opposite—the Australian Council of Trade Unions, former Labor cabinet minister Anna Bligh who heads up the ABA, and Industry Super Australia. Who would have thought. The Albanese accord strikes again: donations go in and policy comes out.

The bill hasn't passed but unions are already licking their lips at the prospect of the NRF, and they've listed their demands: a third of the board positions handpicked by the Council of Trade Unions, positions which will determine who gets access funding—an enterprise agreement with the unions a precondition to even making an application. Applicants must not have engaged in conduct that treats workers unfairly. That's a very vague way of saying if you're not with them you're against them. And they're demanding that applicants commit to direct employment, and if contractors or an indirect workforce is used they must be employed on the same conditions as the direct workforce. This essentially enshrines compulsory unionism, to be a successful applicant.

The minister must, today, rule this out and immediately distance the government from such egregious outcomes. Of course, Labor will consult their faction bosses, the union movement and their donors from Industry Super. But given the significant ministerial discretion in this bill, it became clear something was not quite right. It says a lot about this bill that Ethical Clothing Australia, a CFMEU front, believes they stand to gain from the NRF as recipients of a $6 million commitment before the election. The minister must explain how, during the election, support was promised from a fund that (1) hasn't been established, and (2) makes investment decisions via an independent board that is yet to be formed. It defies logic and certainly does not reflect the transparency and accountability the government led the Australian people to believe they would exemplify in office. It's the quid pro quo of the Albanese accord: money comes in; policy goes out. What a joke.

This is symbolic of a deeper structural problem with this legislation. It's the typical 'cloak and dagger' politics those opposite engage in to benefit trade unions. In opposition, the Labor Party jumped up and down in fits of hysteria about what they perceived to be unfair allocations of funding by way of competitive grant processes. They claimed these were terrible, which their own review cleared as being completely appropriate. According to those opposite, grant funding is so terrible that this bill will outlaw grants which our industries have come to rely on, so terrible that the minister has instituted grant programs to work alongside the NRF. Can you believe anything that comes out of this government?

The government promised the Australian people transparency, but what this bill seeks to enshrine by way of ministerial discretion is opaque beyond belief. This is incredible. Out of everyone in the hardworking textile industry, a union front gets the first funds from the NRF slush fund. Only the Labor Party would endorse an organisation with a rampant history of criminal conduct. Corrupt unions are doing well under Labor. No surprises there.

This decision will not provide any certainty to the taxpayer that this fund will be administered in the transparent and independent manner that the government promised. The Australian public aren't stupid. They know the fix is in. We know the Prime Minister and the minister for industry have provided assurances that the fund will be overseen by an independent board, but it's becoming clear that this board is likely to be stacked with union mates. It's difficult to foresee any other outcome when their first decision was to hand money to the CFMEU. And this is a minister with form.

Since the election, it's been revealed that Minister Husic rejected recommended ministerial appointments made by his department and instead installed others. More alarmingly, Minister Husic has made questionable appointments to committees demanding subject-matter expertise. Take his recent appointment to the Robotics Strategy Advisory Committee. Did he appoint a scientist? No. Did he appoint an engineer? No. Perhaps he appointed the head of an industry body? No. Minister Husic appointed the president of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, Andrew Dettmer. Mr Dettmer is not your run-of-the-mill union boss. He's a self-labelled socialist, who on social media publicly called the Leader of the Opposition a pig and called the Productivity Commission a front for neoliberal ideology. Sounds like he might also be moonlighting as the Treasurer's ghostwriter. A union boss, not a scientist, not an engineer—but, on Mr Dettmer's watch, the AMWU has donated millions of dollars to the ALP.

This dangerous bill allows the minister to appoint members of the board, the chair and indeed the committee. The minister will have direct discretion to appoint board members overseeing the rollout of a $15 billion taxpayer fund, leaving the door open to a situation where significant funding could be ticked off or denied at the whim of union officials. The coalition will be engaging with good faith in the Senate processes underway, unlike this bad Labor government. If the Senate processes ask for significant amendments, we will work constructively to that end. We will try to make a bad bill less bad.

But there are also issues with the funding model, which will enrich vested interests and leave small and family manufacturers behind. By ditching competitive grants with robust processes, the government cuts out a stream of funding which may be more accessible to many smaller manufacturers that just don't have the capabilities to apply for complicated equity or loan programs.

Another question about the funding model is what will happen to failing or failed loans, should an NRF recipient encounter economic uncertainty. At what point would the corporation withdraw its loan? How will the government manage these situations? Examples from similar ALP programs, such as the Victorian Economic Development Corporation, have resulted in manufacturers being uprooted, with the taxpayer footing an expensive bill.

There is no clarity on thresholds for applicants. Presuming that loans and equities will generate a higher threshold for applicants, how many manufacturers will be ineligible to apply? Will some industries be too risky to invest in? And what will happen to industries with diminishing margins, threatened by international competition? The NRF, by design, risks excluding certain industries and could become an idle fund if the thresholds are excessive. There are also concerns about crowding out investment. Government intervention will artificially distort capital markets. Each sector has different challenges, and a cookie-cutter approach won't satisfy each of these. This is just an old-fashioned Labor policy of spraying money around indiscriminately. If these investments were so promising and rates of return were viable, then why hasn't private capital funded them already?

The equity funding model is flawed because it also disregards the importance of ownership, which the minister would have registered if he'd actually taken the time to listen to manufacturers instead of prescribing what he thinks works. Many manufacturers that are family owned businesses would be reluctant to give up control of their business through an equity model.

This funding model will stifle innovation. It's a funding model that does not entertain failure, and, in some industries, innovation comes with an inherent amount of risk. The pressure of providing positive returns will disincentivise innovation, something which has put so many Australian success stories on the map.

This funding model is seriously flawed—even more so because, on a political whim, you could cut a whole industry out of the national conversation.

The government have shown they play politics with funding, and this bill does nothing but undermine investment certainty. What this bill shows us is that this Labor government is more interested in pursuing its agenda than keeping the course for our manufacturers. Prior to the election, this fund promised to be everything to everyone. These new priorities are vague, and they don't provide the focus needed to drive investment into specific sectors where we can achieve critical mass.

That's why the coalition established six critical focus areas with specific priorities to maximise the impact of our resources. In their desire to establish their own NRF, Labor have spitefully redirected funds away from the National Manufacturing Priorities. Indeed, the AI Group note in their submission:

Cuts to the Modern Manufacturing Initiative and Entrepreneurs Programme in 2022 deprive the NRF of two main pipelines for preparing innovative SMEs to be investment-ready.

This was all done to lay the ground for the National Reconstruction Fund, a fund which, from the government's own legislation, will see zero dollars this financial year. With a tenth of the investment, the coalition government made real strides to support industry through some of their toughest years. Instead of supporting manufacturing in a bipartisan manner, the government has embarked on a brazen attempt to undermine the coalition's previous policy priorities, deprioritising our investments in the space industry, food and beverage, and complementary medicines. Complementary Medicines Australia noted in their submission that: 'Unlike the previous government's Modern Manufacturing Strategy, the NRF does not specifically identify complementary medicines as a high-value priority growth area. Furthermore, the funding mechanism provided by the NRF will not be as appealing to industry and it will therefore not deliver the same benefits as a model which provides grant funding.' The government must explain what, other than an election, precipitated this change.

The government's decision to abandon Australia's space industry as a policy priority has left a previously revitalised sector in a state of confusion and uncertainty. The minister has provided no reasoning as to why this massive policy shift has occurred. The industry was simply left to find out from department officials at Senate estimates that it was no longer a priority for this government. This important industry was set to create opportunities to grow, whether it be in rocket engines, component parts or satellites. Our dedication signalled our commitment to the industry and helped enable the first of three launches by NASA in the Northern Territory. I would note that there are Australians of whom we should be very proud who are heavily involved in further planned NASA launches to the moon.

The Labor government were gutless in explaining their reasoning why this was no longer a priority. We have already heard from industry that their decision to wipe space as a priority will see manufacturers leave our shores. I call on a minister or other government member to come to this place and explain why they have taken this ill-informed step. This bill does nothing to provide a rethink or reconsideration of support to this crucial industry. Scrapping the space industry as a policy priority is short-sighted and it strips the manufacturing industry of a key pillar for forward-looking policy.

We are also concerned about the decision to scrap food and beverage manufacturing as a standalone priority for Australian industry. We laid out an ambitious plan to double the value of this industry by 2030. This boost could not be more crucial at a time when Australians are struggling with cost-of-living pressures.

We know that in the government's haste to put this legislation before the House they have ruthlessly ripped funding away from the successful Modern Manufacturing Initiative, which was delivering for families across the country who are feeling the pinch at the check-out. Every time they push the trolley through the check-out the cost of groceries is going up. The government could prevent future price shocks by encouraging sovereign capability in this sector, but instead they have chosen to sideline these crucial industries by lumping them in with an array of other sectors. The minister for agriculture even went so far as to state that:

Unlike many other countries, Australia does not face food shortages.

He must be forgetting some of those shortages we had earlier this year.

The Prime Minister said at the last election he would leave no-one behind. He is leaving whole industries behind. Every incoming government has the right to develop policies based on their priorities. We get that. However, it must be done based on expert advice, especially for our sovereign manufacturing base. Changing these priorities leaves investment decisions in limbo.

We had six national priority sectors under our Modern Manufacturing Strategy. We have significant concerns with this bill, its financial implications and the investment uncertainty it will create. In fact, similar financial structures to the one underpinning this bill have drawn criticism from the IMF, which states that:

Implementation of below-the-line activity through newly created investment vehicles (National Reconstruction Fund … should be phased appropriately, and, more broadly, a proliferation of such vehicles should be avoided.

This is the important part. The IMF said:

Cost-of-living support in light of high energy prices should be targeted, aimed at protecting vulnerable households and small viable firms.

An initial $5 billion appropriation is provided upon passage of the bill, but the entirety of the remaining $10 billion will not be subject to further parliamentary approval, with the bill's explanatory memorandum stating:

… it is not necessary to provide for further parliamentary scrutiny of the timing of particular transfers to the Special Account.

With the Labor Party in this Albanese government, there is always a need for further scrutiny. This bill's explanatory memorandum states the remaining $10 billion appropriation can occur any time in the six years before July 2029. Ultimately the government's design choices in this bill add significant fiscal uncertainty around $15 billion that taxpayers have had to borrow by scrapping the established Modern Manufacturing Strategy and failing to address the numerous concerns our manufacturers face. So we don't support this legislation and we don't support the government's vain attempts to extricate itself from coalition policy that was delivering for Australian industry.

At his recent address to the National Press Club, the minister for industry said:

Australia can be a place that makes things. But it won't just happen because we declare it so.

Well, Minister, we do make things here in Australia, but that is at risk because of this government's go-slow. This government does nothing but pay lip service to our manufacturers, declaring it so without actually acting on the things our manufacturers are crying out for. Our industry deserves better than a minister who claims to represent them—an 'Aussie made' in public—but does something very different behind closed doors.

The opposition will always stand with our industries, who are facing significant and growing challenges. We're out there in those industries, on those shop floors and at those manufacturing sites talking to the workforce, talking to the manufacturers, talking to the small businesses and talking to the medium businesses, and we're listening to what they tell us. They're telling us that their key three priorities of energy prices coming down, workforce shortages being desperate and disrupted supply chains are the three priorities they want this government to address in terms of its manufacturing policy, right here, right now, in this parliament. This bill does nothing to address those priorities. It addresses instead the priority of the Labor Party, which is the priority of the unions. That has been made very clear by the heavy involvement of unions that are anticipated to be on the board of this National Reconstruction Fund.

The opposition stands with our industries, who are facing significant and growing challenges. We understand those challenges. We're there for our industries. We're backing them in—unlike this Prime Minister, who said he would leave no-one behind. He is leaving our manufacturing industries far behind. We will fight every day to ensure that their interests are front and centre. The coalition will be opposing this bill.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Higgins, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to speak on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. Manufacturing combines some really important factors. One is education, another is innovation and, of course, there is that X factor—determination. These are the vital ingredients for a modern, prosperous economy, and we in the Albanese government are entirely future-focused on that one goal.

Many Australians scanning their homes or workplaces would be hard-pressed to find a product made in Australia. Once upon a time, not long ago, you may have had an Aussie-made appliance in your home or a car in the driveway. What happened? The wave of globalisation and free trade likely had something to do with it—the destruction, that is, of our manufacturing industry—but so did the lack of government oversight and foresight. Among OECD countries, Australia ranks last for self-sufficient manufacturing capability. According to the Centre for Future Work's 2020 report, the aftermath of this neglect of our manufacturing sector was our impotence in the face of a public health emergency, the likes of which the world has never seen.

The pandemic hit, and my own experience, like that of thousands of healthcare workers across the country, was telling. Shortages of PPE like tight-fitting masks—the ones that save your life from a deadly virus when you have no vaccine—led to rationing. I captured the voices of frontline healthcare workers in a study I published in 2020, during the first year of the pandemic, and this is what they said. From a doctor in Queensland:

I'm currently pregnant and put myself and unborn child and my family at risk every time I assess a febrile patient wearing a simple surgical mask (this is all we are to have access too …

Unless there is a confirmed case, and then a N95 mask is provided. From a nurse in New South Wales—and she only wrote in a telegraphed way, because they're busy:

Work in aged care. Do not have access to PPE, is locked up. Have new residents, residents that go to hospital, visit family come back to the facility. I have no PPE to protect myself or them.

From a trainee doctor in Queensland:

The fact that we are expected to work with inadequate PPE is disgraceful, and runs contrary to OH&S regulations in every other facet of working life. At my hospital, we have masks rationed, and are only allowed to use surgical masks to intubate patients. We re-use goggles (when you can find them).

A nurse in Victoria said:

The PPE we have been given has been sub-optimal, surgical masks sent from China with very poor packaging and have been very flimsy/not moulding to our faces properly. We have been told we cannot wear N95 masks until a patient is proven positive, which at times is taking several days. Our health is compromised every day we work and I fear for my colleagues and my own safety.

Our lack of sovereign capability had real consequences on the health system and the community. The work health and safety of healthcare workers was compromised. Over 3,000 healthcare workers in Victoria alone fell sick and outbreaks spread from healthcare and aged-care settings back into the community, prolonging lockdowns. This was all because we weren't making enough PPE here. Not having the right tools in the toolbox has knock-on effects. But this is not the only public health emergency, is it? The other, of course, is climate change.

The Albanese government's historic Climate Change Act, the first in a decade, signalled a complete about-face in our approach to climate change. We went from being climate deniers to climate doers. We see the climate crisis as the greatest economic opportunity for our country, and indeed it represents the second industrial revolution. One of the key bottlenecks to achieving our ambition of net zero by 2050 lies in industrial capability. Will we have enough solar panels, wind turbines, undersea cables, transmission lines and supporting infrastructure, especially when the rest of the world is clamouring for these goods? Will we be ready to scale up the future fuels for those hard-to-abate sectors like aviation, manufacturing or heavy industry? What do we do if we run out of lithium or its extraction becomes unviable?

Peter Griem publishing in Nature Communications in 2020 suggested that flipping over one billion light vehicles globally would result in an acute shortage of lithium. Investing in future fuels, such as biobutanol, dimethyl ether, methanol and renewable hydrocarbon biofuels, is paramount to growing the sustainability of our industrial sector. And that is entirely what we are focused on.

Australian innovation must be in the energy mix of the future. I've been fortunate to meet some of those innovators of the future—people and companies who could be competitive recipients of investor funding or, indeed, our National Reconstruction Fund. Wave Swell Energy, led by one of my constituents John Brown and a team, represents an instructive case study. Harnessing the power of waves, the Wave Swell device positioned near the shore uses an oscillating column of air to turn a low-voltage generator. Inspired by nature's blowhole in Kiama, this innovation has no moving parts below the water so is impervious to the hostility of the ocean. An intriguing functionality is coastal mitigation because adjacent units, each weighing 11 tonnes, act as a breakwater. The company received $4 million in funding from ARENA—another Labor legacy—which enabled a successful pilot off King Island in Tasmania.

Wave Swell Energy has won numerous awards—the latest being the Sir William Hudson 2022 engineers award in recognition of outstanding engineers who show innovation and excellence. It's a company we want to see succeed in Australia. Wave Swell Energy has garnered interest from countries around the world. A 2022 CSIRO analysis of this technology demonstrated that dependency on battery storage would decrease with a hybrid approach that included wave with solar and wind. In short, wave energy could reduce our reliance on battery storage because waves are less intermittent than either solar or wind. That's not a bad outcome when the world is clamouring for a resource like lithium.

The success of this company belies a struggle universal to emerging industries. We accept that some of this comes with the territory, but in a competitive world Australia can ill afford to treat its innovators badly. Our suboptimal track record in taking innovations to market is reflected in our rank of 25 in the Global Innovation Index. We are very good at creating knowledge given our global input rank of 19 but are let down by our conversion to market, denoted by an output rank of 32.

A moribund business investment environment in Australia, which had been declining for years under those opposite, means that the valley of death is a real prospect for early-stage businesses. This is where government has a role. We in the Albanese government want to give innovators an opportunity to make their products here on home soil. The NRF is Australia's biggest government investment in manufacturing in living memory. It is a $15 billion investment fund with a wide remit, focusing on seven priority areas informed by CSIRO's 2020 report COVID-19: recovery and resilience. These seven priority areas are: resources; agriculture, forestry and fisheries; transport; medical science; renewables and low-emission tech; defence capability; and enabling capabilities like quantum robotics and AI, a subject I am very familiar with.

The NRF will be overseen by an independent board guided by experts in industry, finance and science appointed by the Minister for Industry and Science and the Minister for Finance. Investment decisions will be free from political interference, similar to current processes in ARENA and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. There will be no colour coded spreadsheets determining the manufacturing direction of our nation. The returns from investment will be reinvested in the NRF, much like the CEFC.

If only the NRF had been operating years ago, we would not be in the position of being the world's quarry of critical minerals delinked from manufacture of EVs and batteries. Australia is the world's largest producer of lithium, yet we capture less than one per cent of the value chain. There are 300-plus gigafactories around the world but none in Australia, despite us having the critical minerals for battery manufacture, coupled with an abundance of land and an overabundance, I might say, of talent. This must change. We want to see these industries take root and flourish here.

On the topic of energy, I had the pleasure of meeting constituents Roland and Megan from Hybrid Energy. Hybrid Energy is using biomass to generate energy and a range of products of agricultural value which also address climate change. Sorghum can grow on marginal land. After combustion using biomethane derived from sorghum biomass, it turns into biochar, which acts as a soil improver and a fertiliser, while the oil that is a by-product of this process is a tonic for plants and also accelerates plant germination. Their visit left a smoky aroma in my office, the smell of opportunity. We have a place in the NRF for these kinds of innovations, and we want to see them flourish.

Daniel Fischl, a constituent and the owner of Linnaea Vineyards, the only winemaker in Higgins—which produces, I might say, a fine drop; thank you, Daniel—shared with me his vast knowledge of viticulture, along with water innovations developed in Israel and California that will be vital for our farmers to survive the pressures of climate change. I may not have farms in Higgins, but I have no shortage of agtech experts like Daniel. The NRF will support these ideas.

As a country, we are blessed with an embarrassment of natural resources. Our task is to take that abundance and value-add, thereby boosting our self-reliance and giving our people career pathways—not just jobs but careers—into manufacturing. A vibrant manufacturing sector will need to be supported by professional services, and that's where my constituents step in. Higgins cannot accommodate large manufacturing plants, but it certainly has no shortage of professionals in IT, design and human resources, as well as lawyers and financiers, to keep manufacturing here and humming.

Cheap green energy will be pivotal to supporting manufacturing, and for that we have started the process of bringing large-scale renewable projects online. Transmission upgrades and offshore wind, as we have already announced, are part of our Powering Australian plan, our key to supplying the energy our fledgling industries will demand. Indeed, the transformation occurring in the North Sea off Britain is instructive. Vast offshore wind farms are cropping up where once oil rigs stood, and they are bringing green hydrogen, floating communities and even ecotourism and energy-hungry data centres. The same will occur in Australia—absolutely it will—and our regions and our cities will be the beneficiaries. When we link nation-building projects like high-speed rail—I had to throw that in—powered by our sunshine and made by Australian talent, the sky is the limit. I hope to see this evolve in my lifetime, but hope is not a strategy. The NRF Corporation is. I commend this bill to the House.

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Reconstruction Fund is a proposed $15 billion fund that would invest in key priority areas across the Australian economy with the goal of reviving Australian manufacturing, creating jobs for Australians and encouraging downstream processing to diversify, and to create the necessary complexity in our Australian economy. Australian manufacturing is in dire need of investment. Under the previous coalition government we saw the Australian economy become far less complex, a sort of 'dig it up, chop it down and ship it out' economy. We have seen good quality manufacturing jobs driven offshore by a government hostile to state-led investment. The death of car manufacturing is just one example of a job-intense manufacturing industry that suffered really badly; in fact, it was killed under the previous government. This trend must be reversed.

The Greens support an active role for government in getting public money to where it needs to be. The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022 is a step towards an Australia that can add value to the raw materials we extract, a manufacturing nation that creates high-quality jobs across a diverse economy. At the last federal election, the Greens proposed a $15 billion 'made in Australia' bank to support finance and manufacturing, innovation, industrial decarbonisation and re-localisation of supply chains, a finance vehicle with a core purpose of driving the decarbonisation of Australia manufacturing and significantly reducing emissions in industrial processes. When the Greens set up the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and ARENA with Labor, we built an Abbott-proof fence around it. We insisted on the legislation preventing public funds being directed away from clean energy and towards coal, gas, carbon capture or nuclear. This was actually baked into that legislation and it saved the CEFC and ARENA from multiple attempts by the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments to destroy or undermine it.

While the Greens strongly support the government fostering new productive industries and diversifying our economy, we are deeply concerned by the extreme lack of specificity contained in this legislation for the National Reconstruction Fund. It could take us backwards on the climate emergency. Our final position on this bill in the Senate has not yet been finally determined. There is a real risk with this legislation that this government or subsequent governments have almost unlimited discretion to declare priority areas for a gas-fired recovery or a coalmine renaissance. There is a serious possibility that the NRF could be turned into a ministerial vessel for fossil fuel. Concerningly, there is nothing in the legislation itself to prevent investment in coal and gas, or in projects that would lock in and extend the use of coal and gas. Anything the government of the day chooses to support could be declared NRF priorities in the future. Likewise, the scope of matters that a government can specify in the investment mandate, which is not allowable, affords very considerable discretion. The only limiting factor on this are rules preventing a government from dictating that the NRF undertake a specific investment.

Under the proposed legislation, the minister would issue the investment mandate as a non-disallowable legislative instrument and declare the priority areas of the Australian economy in the form of a disallowable legislative instrument. The minister has provided a good deal of detail on the proposed priority areas, and we thank the minister for their collegiate approach, but the detail provided is effectively a moot point when there are so few limitations on what industries the government of the day can choose to direct the NRF towards.

We Greens strongly support public investment in rebuilding manufacturing in Australia. We need to diversify our economy, but the legislation in its current form is wide open to abuse by governments that want to use the $15 billion for more coal and gas. That is a risk the Australian Greens simply cannot take. We need clear guardrails to stop public money being used to prop up coal and gas. For that reason, on behalf of the Greens, I will be moving amendments during consideration in detail that would rule out money from the NRF going towards coal and gas, or towards native forest logging. These are reasonable amendments that would strengthen the NRF, protect it from abuse, allow the government to invest in reviving Australian manufacturing and decarbonise our economy.

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to contribute to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. How good is it to have a government that cares about Australia, about Australians and our future? Australia is the best country in the world, but the pandemic was a wake-up call. It showed us and the world that we aren't perfect. It showed that our supply chains are vulnerable. But it also showed that, when push came to shove, we pulled through. We need to make sure that we are more self-sufficient, more consistently. Along with the Buy Australian Plan and Made in Australia, the Reconstruction Fund is a part of this government's plan for Australia to be a strong and self-sufficient nation. This fund will help our country to have a renewed basis to sell to the world.

This fund is about bringing Australia back to its glory days. I remember the days when Australia made things, and made things that were of high quality. Unfortunately, I also remember some of the regrettable haircuts from that time. While haircut styles may have improved, our manufacturing sector has gone the opposite way. This $15 billion fund will bring back Australian industry, and it will mean that we are again a country that makes things. Industry in Australia will diversify, so we make more of the things that Australians need. This will give Australians well-paid, secure jobs, our economy will grow and it will leave our country as a whole better off in the long run. We in the Labor Party are serious about creating about a better future for Australia and a better future for Australians. We will have the fund up and running by the middle of this year, and it will be one of Australia's biggest government investments in manufacturing in living memory. This will be a legacy that future generations will look back on and be grateful for.

Manufacturing is my background. I know how it works. I know the capabilities we have here as a nation. Unfortunately, we aren't always meeting our potential in the area of manufacturing, but this is about to change. The National Reconstruction Fund will drive economic development in our regions, like my electorate of the Hunter, but also in outer suburbs all over Australia. The fund will boost our sovereign capability and will also diversify the nation's economy and help create secure jobs.

My electorate of Hunter is filled with skilled tradespeople. Working with our hands is what we do. This fund will ensure that workforces like those in the Hunter will be able to be used to their full potential. This is good for everyone in the Hunter, and I can't wait to see how much our area will develop and benefit from this fund.

Our government wants Australians to think globally and make locally. I know that's possible, because we have great businesses and the best manufacturing minds in the world. I know that Australian people are more than capable of fulfilling our potential. Australian businesses and the Australian people just need to have a government that backs them, and they want us to do that with this fund.

We are going to do this the right way, in a way which won't require any colour coded spreadsheets like those used by the previous government. This is because in order to make the most of Australian skills, the way they vote should not be a consideration. This fund will be similar to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which, I might add, was also set up by Labor. Sometimes, to achieve the best results for our country, politics really needs to be left out of it. The investment decisions of this fund will be free from political interference. I can assure all Australians, and especially those in my electorate, that there will be no sports rorts and no car park rorts under this government. You deserve better, and we are providing that better. The NRF will have an independent board, which will assess projects at arm's length from government to provide equity loans and guarantees. This will help give Australians secure, well-paid jobs. That means this fund will be guided by industry and finance experts, who will help make decisions based on job creation and growing businesses and delivering on returns to the fund over longer terms to allow for reinvestment—all things that are important to Australians.

The focus of the National Reconstruction Fund will be wide ranging. This government will start consultation on several priority investment areas. That means we're harnessing the skills of a range of Australians with backgrounds in vastly different areas. We are a government that values its resources sector. This is one of the country's greatest strengths and provides some of the biggest opportunities. The Hunter is lucky to be the hub of resources in New South Wales, and I would like to thank Australia as a whole. I'm looking forward to seeing investment flow into our area once this fund is up and running.

We also want to look at our agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors and determine how we can help them grow. Agriculture is vital to our nation. It provides the food we need to survive. We are blessed in this country to have a strong agriculture sector and one that is eager to grow. This is another exciting opportunity for the Hunter. Agriculture is in the area and already so strong, yet it has the ability to grow significantly. Forestry is also an important sector and one that has a significant role to play in solving issues we're currently facing in this country. The sector has a lot to offer, from helping us increase supply of affordable housing to playing its part in reducing the CO2 in our atmosphere. Lowering emissions will need to be a major focus of government in Australia in the coming decades. This fund provides an engine that will encourage investment and assist in the renewables sector and development of low-emissions technologies. This is a huge opportunity for Australia to lead the world in emissions reduction and renewable energy technology, and this fund is giving us a head start on the rest of the world. Another area for the future is quantum robotics and AI. These are areas that this fund will also prioritise.

This really goes to show just how forward thinking this government is. This fund is wideranging and goes from looking at the resources and agriculture sector to the medical and science areas. The modern world of medicine is amazing, and Australia has some of the best medical minds in the world. With the additional support provided to the sector by the National Reconstruction Fund, I am sure we'll see some huge medical advancements right here in our own country.

We have a prime minister who is a transport enthusiast and a former transport minister, so how could we leave out the transport industry from this list of priorities? On a serious note, transport is a vital sector for our country and one where we have vast opportunities for growth and investment. As everyone in this place is aware, this is an ever-changing world and it's more important than ever that as a nation we are consistently ensuring that we are protecting our national security. That's why this fund also prioritises defence capabilities. It is vital that keep up with the rest of the world. It is also very important that we have the ability to defend ourselves when needed. So not only will this fund help our country to grow but also it will help to protect our country.

All of this leads to one conclusion: the future is bright, and it's all thanks to our Labor government. The National Reconstruction Fund will bring back manufacturing and industry to our great country and will create a better future for Australians. I can't wait to see what opportunities this will bring for the Hunter.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

SCAMPS () (): I rise in support of the government's National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. I am delighted to be speaking on a bill that introduces what I feel is a very exciting opportunity for Australian industry, innovation and entrepreneurship.

This bill moves us forward from merely talking about becoming a renewable energy superpower to actually implementing practical steps to get there. This bill is very welcome news for industries all over the country, including in my electorate of Mackellar. If we do not invest now in clever technology, manufacturing and value-adding, we will simply be left behind, left to the mercy of international events like COVID and conflict. As the Business Council of Australia suggests, the longer we leave this diversification and futureproofing of our economy, the harder it will be to catch up.

We have heard a lot of talk in recent months and years about the capacity of Australia to become a global renewable energy superpower, about finally moving on from the 'dig it and ship it' mentality, about progressing from being 'the lucky country' to 'the clever country'. We've heard talk of restoring and building our manufacturing and value-adding capacity onshore, about driving investment in home-grown technologies so our own innovators, inventors and entrepreneurs don't have to take their ideas and technologies overseas for them to be commercialised. This bill will enact practical measures to move Australia closer to all these goals. This policy is as urgent as it is long overdue.

The aim of this bill is to diversify and transform Australia's industry and economy. The proposed fund will, over seven years, co-invest a total of $15 billion in independently assessed projects across seven priority areas. This is very welcome news in my community of Mackellar, where many innovators have met with me both to inform me of their ideas and innovations and to let me know of the desperate need for investment to establish and grow their products. It is these cutting-edge enterprises that will be well placed to benefit from the National Reconstruction Fund.

As a doctor, I am pleased to note that medical science is named as one of the seven priority investment areas and that the minister has already announced $1.5 billion for investments in medical manufacturing. The COVID pandemic starkly exposed just what a vulnerable position Australia was in when it came to medical manufacturing. Mackellar is home to several small to medium medical device and equipment manufacturing companies, so to have this field recognised as an investment priority is very welcome news indeed for these businesses and for jobs in Mackellar.

As the Co-Chair of the newly established Parliamentary Friends of Future Generations, I was also pleased to see robotics, artificial intelligence and quantum technology listed as priority areas. We need to raise our gaze beyond the three-year election cycle and invest in a safe and flourishing future for all those who come after us. We have a duty not only to those who are currently alive but to future generations also.

Critically, as a newly elected member of parliament who decided to run because of the lack of political action on climate change for so many years, I was glad to learn that the biggest single priority investment to be made by the fund, some $3 billion, will be invested into renewable and low-emissions technology. The inclusion of this as a priority for the NRF draws together two key strands of Australia's climate policy which I fully support—the transition away from old, polluting fossil fuel energy production and doing so in a way which builds national prosperity by creating a plethora of well-paid clean-tech jobs for Australians across the country. There is a global technology revolution on our doorstep, and our communities and businesses are champing at the bit to take advantage of it. Other countries are certainly taking advantage to encourage the innovation and the transition to a clean economy. The United States government last year committed $500 billion in new spending with the Inflation Reduction Act. Critically, this act is directed at increasing the funding of innovative solutions for carbon reduction.

I have spoken to many entrepreneurs and senior executives in my electorate who are currently caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place when it comes to the growth of their businesses. These are innovative, forward-thinking and purpose-driven businesses eager to develop their technology at home in Australia, both for the good of our country and for the good of the planet. They don't want to be forced to go offshore because of a lack of investment interest here, but they are struggling with the current policy settings and investment conditions in Australia. As a result, such companies are increasingly being drawn overseas to jurisdictions with more favourable conditions—jurisdictions like America who are taking the transition to renewable energy increasingly seriously.

With all this in mind, it was disappointing to hear that the opposition have stated that they will not be supporting the introduction of the National Reconstruction Fund. This is from a party that claims to be pro business and to care about the economy. I instead agree with the Business Council of Australia when they say that we must put the foot on the accelerator when it comes to diversifying our economy into the high-tech clean-energy sector and other future technology, because this is how we will maintain our current high standard of living into the future. We must invest now in our future, or we will be left behind. So I support this policy and its objectives. It has long-term vision and ambition. If it works, it will be a game changer for Australian industry and innovation.

However, I have a couple of caveats. First of all, I support the Greens' proposed amendments: that it must be made explicit in this bill that the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation be prohibited from investing in anything that involves logging of native forests, the building of new infrastructure for fossil fuel projects, or any projects inconsistent with emissions reduction targets.

Second, a key priority of mine is to ensure that our government institutions are underpinned by a robust integrity infrastructure, and so we must examine whether this bill, which proposes to create a body that will oversee the disbursement of $15 billion to businesses, actually contains the appropriate underlying integrity infrastructure to ensure it operates fairly and in the manner envisaged. The government tells us that the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation will be managed by an independent board that aims to deliver a positive rate of return to the taxpayer. But what does it really mean when the government says the board will be independent? How will the board members be appointed, and what will their powers be?

Clauses 18 to 21 of the bill establish that the board members are to be appointed by the minister or relevant ministers for a period not exceeding five years and may be reappointed. To be appointed, board members must have 'substantial experience or expertise' and 'professional credibility and significant standing' in one of a list of various fields, including 'any other field that the ministers consider appropriate'. Those provisions seek to address merit, which is good. However, there are no guarantees of transparency, accountability or, critically, independence from the minister. The government's own literature on the bill, which guarantees an independent board, therefore actually contains no guarantee at all. Instead the two relevant ministers, the Minister for Industry and Science and the Minister for Finance, will have complete discretion over appointments to the board.

A vital ingredient of integrity in our public appointments process is independence, and to say, 'Well, this is the way it's always been,' just doesn't cut it anymore. Australians need to be able to trust the institutions and entities that underpin our democracy, and that means applying a uniform and robust approach to all major government appointments—one that is independent, transparent and based on the quality of a candidate, where board appointments are decided by an independent selection panel. I will soon be introducing a private member's bill called the Transparent and Quality Public Appointments Bill, otherwise known as 'ending jobs for mates'. It is this type of gold-standard model that should be adhered to to ensure that the NRF is not rorted or corrupted.

With these caveats in mind, I commend the bill to the House.

Gordon Reid (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Innovation, reconstruction and growth, because manufacturing matters! The Albanese government was elected on a mandate to drive the transformation of Australian industry and revive our ability to make world-class products in Australia again—to be a country that makes things again. Manufacturing matters because it creates full-time, meaningful work and secure jobs. It matters because secure work is good for families and for the economy. We saw through the pandemic—particularly in my time in the emergency department—how supply chains were under huge pressure. They were strained. Products that we expected and used frequently, particularly in the medical space, were hard to obtain. We need to revitalise manufacturing after years of neglect under those opposite. The former coalition government crushed and starved our domestic manufacturing capability. It is a disgrace.

The $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund is vital to support and to diversify Australia's industry and to create sustainable, secure, well-paying jobs. The NRF will provide finance, including loans, guarantees and equity, to drive investments in seven priority areas in the Australian economy. These leverage Australia's natural and competitive strengths, support the development of strategically important industries and secure those supply chains. Those priority areas are: value-add in resources, to expand Australia's mining science technology and ensure that a greater share of raw minerals extracted in Australia are produced domestically—for example, high purity alumina from red mud and bauxite—and processing or lithium processing for batteries like the one we have committed to for Narara on the New South Wales Central Coast; value-add in the agriculture, forestry and fishery sectors; unlocking the potential and value-add to raw materials in sectors like food processing, textiles clothing and footwear manufacturing; transport—something that is quite close and personal to the now Prime Minister and previous minister for infrastructure and to myself, the member for Robertson—to develop capabilities in transport manufacturing and supply chains, including cars, trains and shipbuilding—something that that mob over there let die. Transport for a connected Australia is vital, from the regions to the cities and out into our more rural areas.

There is medical science, which is so important, as a member was discussing just previously, to leverage Australia's world-leading research to provide essential supplies such as medical devices, personal protective equipment—which we did not have at the start of the pandemic—medicines and vaccines. All are vital to strengthen our clinical operations, improve patient safety and ensure the health care of the nation.

Renewables and low-emission technologies is another area to pursue commercial opportunities, including components for wind turbines, production of batteries and solar panels, new livestock feed to reduce methane emissions, modernising steel and aluminium, hydrogen electrolysers, and innovative packaging solutions to reduce waste. Further defence capability is important in a time of heightened global risk and heightened global uncertainty. And there is maximising sourcing of requirements from Australian suppliers and employing Australian workers, whether they be in technology, infrastructure or skills.

The NRF will target projects that help Australia capture new market opportunities to help our businesses grow and succeed. This is important because businesses have been left behind over the last decade by those opposite. They were left behind by the former coalition government because those opposite do not care about business and they do not care about the economy. This includes NRF finance to grow advanced manufacturing and support businesses to innovate. As a co-investment fund, the NRF looks to draw on investment with superannuation, venture capital and private equity sources, crowding in investment to help create high-quality, sustainable industries and jobs. This is our government, the Albanese Labor government, improving the lives of Australians and revitalising our manufacturing base.

Modelled on the successful Clean Energy Finance Corporation—or CEFC—this bill establishes the NRF as a new corporate Commonwealth entity. The NRF will be administered at arm's length from government by an independent board appointed jointly by the Minister for Industry and Science and the Minister for Finance. The government will provide guidance on expectations and policy priorities through a legislative instrument and an investment mandate. The board will independently make investment decisions and manage its investment portfolio to achieve both the NRF's objectives and a positive portfolio rate of return, free from political influence, and a very different approach from those opposite. The very different approach is that there won't be a colour coded spreadsheet in sight on this side.

There's long been an argument made that government has no role to play in picking winners, no role to play in guiding industry, and no role to play other than establishing guardrails, letting businesses do their thing and only stepping in when there's been market failure. Governments absolutely have a role in making real contributions to our most vital sectors, of which manufacturing is one. Australia is rich in critical resources—resources to be used to build our manufacturing base, add value, and, as I said before, create secure jobs right here in Australia. But, for decades, we've mined those resources and then we've shipped them overseas, only for other countries to process them and add value to them. Then we import them back at many times the price, sending manufacturing—more importantly, sending jobs—offshore and therefore sending the manufacturing industry, and their profits and the thousands of jobs they create, overseas. If we mine it here then we should make it here, because these are our resources.

Australia's scientists and our innovators are the best in the world. Photovoltaic technology, solar cells—they were invented here; they were invented in Australia. But, today, 87 per cent of the world's cells are made in one country. As the world urgently—and rightly so—focuses on decarbonisation, the transition to renewables and low-emissions technologies will be vital in delivering Australia's emissions reduction target of 43 per cent. If we invent it here, then we should make it here. We want Australians living overseas—with their ideas, with their technology and with their manufacturing experience—to come back home. We recognise that many of them with experience in these fields left Australia seeking support and funding for their ideas because, over the last decade, that support was not here. It was support and funding that they just could not find here at home.

We want to empower the NRF to invest in Australia and Australians, because it's Australian ideas and it's Australian ingenuity. Both this bill and the investment mandate guiding investments will make sure that the $15 billion fund drives Australia's natural inclination towards innovation. The Department of Industry, Science and Resources has consulted widely both on the strength of the legislation and, most recently, on how the NRF will be implemented. Co-investment plans will be developed with industry, and these will outline investment opportunities in priority areas and actions for government and actions for industry to build Australia's industrial capabilities. The plans are expected to be released soon, and I will say again: innovation, reconstruction and growth, and that is because manufacturing matters.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's a book out there with a cute title: Brotopia. I was actually directed to it by the minister, and it's germane to the legislation we're discussing today, the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. As the author, Emily Chang, writes:

In Silicon Valley, if you're not a white man, your identity is a ball and chain, from which you cannot escape.

Further:

There may be cracks in the Silicon Ceiling, but it is far from shattered.

This bill provides an opportunity to put another big crack in that ceiling. I encourage the minister and the government to walk the talk and grasp that chance.

The legislation nominates seven priority sectors of the economy: resources; agriculture, forestry and fisheries; transport; medical science; renewables and low emission technologies; defence capability; and enabling capabilities. Spot the common theme? Most of them require STEM skills. What do we know about that? Women and girls are previously underrepresented. Author Emily Chang notes that in the United States in 1984 women received nearly 40 per cent of all computer science degrees. Today that figure is down to 22 per cent. In Australia, figures compiled by the industry department revealed that women make up only 36 per cent of enrolments in university STEM courses and just 16 per cent in vocational STEM. Women make up only 27 per cent of the workforce across all STEM industries, down from 2020. Just 23 per cent of senior management and eight per cent of chief executives in STEM qualified industries are women. This is one of the reasons the gender pay gap in Australia is an appalling 14.1 per cent for full-time workers, and in some sectors is as high as 30 per cent. If the government is right, it will take another 26 years to close that gap. By then, my 14-year-old daughter will be 40. I am not prepared to wait that long, and nor is she. Nor are tens of thousands of teenage girls just like her.

I happened to be interviewed on Sky News last week about the government's decision to legislate gender pay gap transparency for companies with 100 or more workers. I advocated for this throughout the election campaign, and very specifically at the Jobs and Skills Summit in September. I am pleased, therefore, to be talking about this progress. However, the irony of the interview on Sky is that the vision that appeared on the screen with my talking head began with a group of men in hi vis. This is the issue writ small. We have a tight labour market and a skills shortage you could drive a truck through. All the credible evidence is that concrete steps to entrench gender equality across the economy would add between 500,000 and one million female workers. It would be great for them, great for productivity, great for growth, great for our children and great for our prosperity. It also requires access to apprenticeships and safety in trades for women. We have an opportunity to make sure the renewables revolution fosters women into trades, so let's make sure women are catered for.

All of this is the reason that I have proposed to the minister that some key elements be added to this legislation to address the issues of gender disadvantage and diversity. The net effect of such an addition would be that, when considering applications for government loans and assistance, the National Reconstruction Fund would consider the commitment of the organisations receiving the funds to levelling the playing field. That is appropriate if we are serious about creating workplace gender equality, and I thank the minister for welcoming this thinking.

I agree with the minister that, for the sake of our future productivity and prosperity, and to ensure that our children can have secure, well-paying jobs, we must rank among the nations with complex economies, advanced manufacturing and thriving technology exports. Our recent difficulties with China warn what could happen if we remain too dependent for our wealth on exporting commodities. COVID-19 was a warning of what can happen when international circumstances stop travellers from coming here. For too long we have seen good ideas developed by Australian scientists and entrepreneurs sent into exile overseas, so the foreign companies reap the financial benefit, whether it be the black box flight recorder or wi-fi.

We have seen what a success the Clean Energy Finance Corporation has proved to be, despite the best efforts of the last government to get rid of it. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation is the model for the National Reconstruction Fund. I hear the minister's assurance that money from the fund will be independently assessed; however, this requires constant oversight. There is a further level of caution required, as the IMF has warned with regard to the potential inflationary impact of the scheme. Spending must be accompanied by productivity gains. Those sitting on the fund's board must be experienced in industry to guide that productivity growth through targeted funding. The last thing we need is public money being spent on the basis of electoral advantage rather than the independently prioritised needs of the broader Australian community. The government would do well to note the community's distaste for pork-barrelling and how that was reflected last May.

We do need initiatives to transform, modernise and diversify our economy, particularly targeting components aligned to the renewable energy revolution. But there's a further matter to consider. This fund must not become cover for fossil fuel investment. Indeed, the title of the fund might well be better phrased as the 'national destruction fund' if it's used to support fossil fuel developments, particularly new ones.

For the fund to work, there needs to be agreement by all sides that we're committing to investment and transformation over the long term—at least a decade. It needs be taken off the political agenda and added to the national interest agenda. The fund must recruit, utilise and consult people who have been central to industry creation, modernisation and transition. With respect to investment bankers, they don't build industries. And we're not talking about just one sector; we're talking about an entire economy. This requires leaders who have run companies, who have created and scaled globally, who have bought and sold companies, and who have transformed underperforming companies. It needs people who have a black book to customers and co-investors and who can help companies grow with an understanding of geopolitics—a mix of Australians and global Australians—as the world transitions from fossil fuels to a high-growth and sustainable new-generation economy. This fund should be a vehicle for forward movement and new technology on renewable energy and on diversification of industry when it comes to elevating women and other disadvantaged cohorts, including First Nations people and multicultural communities.

Returning to my original point, I promised the Goldstein community, especially our women and girls, that, if I got into this room where it happens, I would speak up for those who are not in the room. Over time, I would suggest that every piece of work and industry related legislation should have a gender impact statement. Perhaps, if we did that, our daughters wouldn't be almost my age by the time they have true equality.

Fiona Phillips (Gilmore, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an exciting day today to speak in support of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022! Over the last nine months in government, we have introduced a lot of really important legislation. It has been an incredibly busy time, trying to set our country on the right path for a better future. But today I am particularly excited because this bill sets out how we will deliver so many of the core promises we made at the election, setting up our country for a self-sustaining better future: secure jobs, support for farming, safeguarding our national sovereignty, transitioning to a renewable energy future, investing in our regions and creating a stronger and more prosperous Australia. This bill does it all, and all through a co-investment fund generating enough return to sustain its future rate of investment—jobs, jobs, jobs. Actually, scratch that. Make it: Australian jobs, jobs, jobs.

So how are we going to do that? The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation will partner with industry and investors to provide finance for projects that add value, improve productivity and support the transformation of Australian industry. Modelled after the highly successful Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the NRFC will provide finance, including loans, guarantees and equity, to drive investments across seven priority areas of the Australian economy. These are: value-add in resources; value-add in agriculture, forestry and the fisheries sector; transport; medical science; renewables and low-emissions technologies; defence capability; and enabling capabilities. We will target projects and investments that help Australia capture new high-value market opportunities, to help local businesses grow and succeed in the industries of today and the industries of tomorrow. For far too long Australia has exported our resources, our talents and our opportunities. The Albanese government is determined to put Australians first, investing in Australian ideas, Australian businesses and Australian people to keep them here instead of driving them to more supportive economies overseas.

In my electorate of Gilmore on the New South Wales south coast, we have historically had one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. With a strong defence industry presence, strong manufacturing base, and abundant farming and agriculture industries, our region has the capability of driving Australia's future economic growth. All that has been missing is a government willing to back in Australian-made, investment in local businesses and farmers, and support our transition into the economy of tomorrow. We are already seeing local industry drive this transition. We are seeing farmers embracing new clean sustainability practices, because they know it is good business and good for their future. We have seen local defence industry pivot its operations to cope with the new challenges thrown at us by the pandemic. We have seen community organisations partnering across the education and energy sectors to explore the feasibility of new energy generation; local people in my electorate looking to find opportunities in the black void that has been government policy. I am absolutely delighted to see that black hole well and truly closing right now.

Government simply must be leading the way. We simply must be providing the guidance, the leadership, the certainty that those looking to invest need. If they can see the government believing in Australian-made then they will too. That is what this fund will do. With a clear investment mandate to spend its $15 billion fund on solely or mainly Australian based investments, the NRF will play to our current and emerging industrial strengths and strategic national priorities, all while it becomes a self-sustaining fund through a requirement to generate a positive portfolio rate of return. What a breath of fresh air for our economy.

The Shoalhaven has a strong and thriving defence industry. Local Nowra businesses are leading the way when it comes to Australia's strategic defence capabilities. We are home to the only Navy air station, HMAS Albatross, and Jervis Bay boasts the Royal Australian Navy College at HMAS Creswell. So it is fair to say we have both the need and the know-how when it comes to defence capability. Defence and defence industry are our biggest employers but, until recently, much of our defence manufacturing has been exported overseas.

Late last year I had the privilege of touring Air Affairs Australia, one of our major defence industry partners located in Nowra. Air Affairs specialises in aviation operations and engineering, but, before the pandemic, 70 per cent of its business was exported. It was a local Nowra based company in demand across the world but with only 30 per cent of its products staying here in Australia. Why? Because instead of investing in homegrown innovation, much of the equipment defence sourced was imported. When the pandemic hit, this created a predictable problem, one which Air Affairs and many others were happily there to solve. This is just one example of how government's failure to invest, encourage and grow local innovation has seen other countries reap the benefits.

Our reliance on overseas supply chains, overseas manufacturing and our lack of investment in Australian-made over so many decades created a weakness that became truly evident when those supply chains were interrupted and broken. Luckily for Australian defence, Air Affairs was able to pivot its operations during this critical phase to increase domestic supply, and now 90 per cent of its products are for the domestic market. To be clear, this is not because its exports dropped off; it is because domestic operation ramped up incredibly fast to meet an urgent and unexpected need. Air Affairs is only one example of this, and we have many other fantastic defence industry partners located in the Shoalhaven who have been doing just the same.

On the weekend I visited Global Defence Solutions at the Nowra show and was reminded of the great work they are doing to supply solutions for defence. The Shoalhaven Defence Industry Group does a fantastic job promoting the work of so many companies locally and at the dedicated Albatross Aviation Technology Park, designed specifically to support defence and aviation industries right next to HMAS Albatross. I got a preview of some of the great work they are doing at the University of Wollongong's defence industry showcase last year. What this shows me is that there is incredible growth opportunity waiting to be realised right here on the south coast. We have the industry already there, we have the space, we have the history and, boy, can we rally when the opportunity calls. So I couldn't be more excited that one of the seven priority areas for the NRF is defence capability.

There is nowhere in Australia as well equipped as the Shoalhaven to reap the benefits of this investment in our local innovation, maximising the sourcing of our defence requirements from Australian suppliers, employing Australian workers in technology, infrastructure and skills—Australian jobs, jobs, jobs. What a mantra. Not only this but defence industry can help to build skills from the ground up, working with local high schools to start a love of clean, advanced manufacturing, employing trades from apprentice level up across so many industries: manufacturing, processing, electrical, painting and more.

One of the things regional areas like ours struggle with is secure jobs for young people. Our youth unemployment rate has been stubbornly high for far too long. Too many local kids either leave to get good jobs in the city or struggle to find work—not a choice any parent wants to see their child face; not a choice anyone should have to make. We know that investing in the future of young people pays dividends across our community in education; in secure, well-paid jobs; and in a strong future in our regional communities, with so many social and economic gains.

This is everything I have wanted for our community for so many years and one of the very reasons I entered politics in the first place. I worked for years as a TAFE teacher, working with young and mature-age people to guide them into careers, not just jobs. I could see the need and the gaps we had, and it just wasn't good enough. I'm a mum of four kids. I want them, like each and every young person across our South Coast, to have the future they want and a career they can be proud of in a secure, well-paid job at home. I am so incredibly proud that this vision I have for the future of our community is also the vision that the Albanese government has for the future of our country.

Another industry close to my heart, and the other side of the coin for my entry into politics, was agriculture. I am a dairy farmer's daughter. I grew up on a dairy farm. What I have seen is an industry getting left behind by a lack of investment and a lack of interest from government in improving and supporting our agricultural industries. Agriculture is the lifeblood of the regions. It's where we started and it's where the hearts of so many lie. But agriculture across Australia is facing so many challenges, not least of all from a transitioning economy and a changing climate.

So one of the other seven priority areas of the NRF is to value-add in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors, unlocking the potential and value-adding to raw materials in sectors like food processing, and textiles, clothing and footwear manufacturing. As I have mentioned before in this place, our agricultural industries are already starting this change. There are companies like AKT Oceania, based in Nowra and focusing on improving organic waste streams by extracting proteins and nutrients for use in other industries. They create animal feeds like fishmeal and more to get the most out of organic waste. But much of the equipment is manufactured overseas, and what they need is support and investment by government to grow these industries here. We've got seaweed plants and cow manure farms. We've got a former abattoir being transformed into the Southern Hemisphere's largest fish-processing plant. We've got agricultural innovation on steroids, sustainability with benefits across agriculture and more, and innovation that's homegrown. This is what we need, and it is these sorts of investment that the NRF will be able to encourage.

As well as having the agricultural industries, the South Coast is home to a growing manufacturing industry, making us perfectly placed to benefit from the investment opportunities this fund will bring by capitalising on what we have, stimulating our economic growth, investing in our existing industries and helping them to diversify. I'll say it again: Australian jobs, jobs, jobs, supporting local business, supporting local people, growing our economy and securing our future.

The other huge focus of the NRF is of course our transition to renewable energy. Renewables and low-emissions technologies will be a priority area for the NRF. This includes pursuing commercial opportunities from components for wind turbines, production of batteries and solar panels, new livestock feed to reduce methane emissions, modernising steel and aluminium hydrogen electrolysers and innovative packaging solutions to reduce waste. It is a fact that the world is decarbonising, and increasingly we need to be focusing on a transition to renewables. We have known for decades that Australia has a unique opportunity to capitalise on this transition. We have some of the best natural wind and solar resources in the world. But so far we have squandered the economic benefits and opportunities this transition could be creating, particularly in regional areas like the New South Wales South Coast.

The Albanese government is determined to change this. We have committed to reducing our emissions by 43 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030 and achieving net zero emissions by 2050. We simply must put our back into capitalising on our homegrown technology and skills to make this a reality. The technology and skills are there but for far too long we have watched them leave our shores to benefit someone else who saw the benefits and invested in it. Our scientists and innovators are the best in the world. We invented solar panels, but someone else is making them.

The aim of this fund is simple: if we invent it here, we should make it here. We are empowering the NRFC to invest in Australians. We have earmarked $3 billion from the NRF for our Powering Australia plan. This fund will drive investments in areas like clean energy component manufacturing and technologies that improve energy efficiency, helping to deliver affordable, reliable and clean energy to Australian industry over the longer term.

During the 2019-20 bushfires the South Coast community saw what happens when we have an energy system vulnerable to natural disasters. Our old-school electricity grid was left exposed, and we suffered through extended blackouts. Local people had no power, no telecommunications, no information about the oncoming firestorm and no way of getting help.

We weren't without power for a few hours; we were without it for days and weeks. We struggled with food supplies, water supplies and medical equipment, not to mention the blazing heat. It is something we all never want to see repeated. For many the answer to this problem is simple—solar power and battery backup so that our community halls, our evacuation centres, our homes and our farms aren't reliant on mains power.

The South Coast community is crying out for investment in solar, investment in batteries and investment in renewables. Renewable energy can help build our resilience and better prepare us for natural disasters. We must start investing in this future now. The best way to do this is to build it at home, create jobs at home, shore up our supply chains and transition us to the clean energy future now.

The New South Wales South Coast is poised and ready to become a renewable energy powerhouse. What we need is investment security and support, and this bill delivers that in spades—a future made in Australia, secure well-paid jobs created using an independent, fair and self-sustaining model, partnering with industry, that we know works. It's a better future, just like we promised. I commend the bill to the House.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was a most curious speech by the member for Gilmore, the last speaker. She represents Nowra, which I understand is the home of the ethanol industry in Australia. She is in the government. Quite interestingly, I have a map here of countries not using ethanol. There are hardly any countries on earth that are not using ethanol. I hold the map up for everyone to see. These countries are not using ethanol: Sahara, Ghana, Iceland, Myanmar, Greenland, Bolivia, Senegal and the Congo. She stood up here and said we're going to use renewables and yet she represents what tiny little ethanol industry we have. To quote the Labor Premier of New South Wales, I will not go another day with the death of hundreds, maybe thousands, of people on my conscience when they don't have to die. If you move from Forbes, Parkes or Nowra to Sydney, your chances of dying of lung cancer or heart disease double. That's one hell of a statistic. That's because of what is in the emissions.

I have actually got legislation drafted for electric cars, but you will never—not in a million years—be able to pack the power into a battery that you've got in one kilo of fuel. You can make that fuel renewable so you have no emissions, yet we're up there with Niger, the Congo and Iceland in doing nothing about it. My case rests. I go no further than ethanol. All you have to do tomorrow is pass legislation saying 10 per cent ethanol, and you might end up like Brazil with 49 per cent of fuel renewable. Sao Paulo is the cleanest city on earth and it has a bigger population than Australia. You might get your fuel for $1.29 like they do in Brazil, with 49 per cent of their fuel coming from ethanol, from renewables.

I hear all this grand ideology in this place. We have a saying in the bush: when you neighbour starts preaching religion, reach for your branding iron. When I hear politicians start talking ideology, I start reaching for my shooting iron, to be quite frank with you, Mr Speaker. We announced the nuclear submarines. It is terrible to have been in this place for some time, because you know that 28 years ago we announced the nuclear submarines we were going to build, and we're still announcing them. In fact, every two or three years we announce the building of nuclear submarines.

What are you doing? Don't talk about ideology or airy-fairy ideas about saving the planet. What are you doing specifically? The most obvious thing to do is ethanol. What are you doing? Nothing, absolutely nothing. There is an inability of the government today—as a person who has seen many years, I get very worried for democracy. Five of the last presidents of the United States spent most of that time trying to fight off going to jail. I don't believe that five of eight presidents were all criminals, but it's a failure of democracy and the triumph of the two-party system, which, quite frankly, has been abandoned by every country on earth, now, except the United States, and they have to live with their constitution.

I'll give you a classic example. Former prime minister Kevin Rudd is a person who did do something. He put in the NBN and he put in the NDIS. He will be remembered in the history books. I hate to say it, because I'm no fan of Malcolm Turnbull's, but he did put in Snowy 2.0, which is very, very important because we are moving more and more to intermittent power, which is extremely dangerous. To have something that we can fall back on is very important. Let me go to CopperString. Prime Minister Rudd announced the electrification of Australia, the connection of the outlying areas—the Ord iron ore industry, Olympic Dam and the North West Mineral Province, which I represent—to connect them to the national grid, which is an excellent thing to do. If you take cheap, competitively priced power in, later on you can take renewables—we hope cheaply priced—out. CopperString are in around their ninth year, now—the idea of building line from Townsville. Every single inch of line in Queensland was built by the government. Every single inch of railway line was built by the government. Now they build nothing. Here is a classic example. When I became minister for electricity in Queensland, I asked the head of the department whether Martin Tenni, my predecessor, had got that line into Normanton. He said, 'No.' I said I wanted it in the cabinet bag on Monday. You'd just do it. You'd say, 'Put it in the cabinet bag and call tenders.' For $274 million, I just said, 'We're going to call tenders for it,' and we did it. That's how hard it is. It took me 10 minutes of discussion with him and about two hours to review the cabinet submission and it was done, so we had a line from Cairns to Normanton. The line from Townsville to Mount Isa is not all that much longer, really. It's been nine years, and we've still made no progress on it. It's an area that is bringing $5,000 million dollars a year into the Australian economy, and we can't build a lifeline to it, let alone talk about renewable energy such as ethanol.

One of the longest serving senior cabinet ministers in the history of this place said to me that government in Australia no longer governs. He said that members of parliament cannot make a decision. They do not govern. It's a malaise of democracy. I never thought I'd see the day when China's growth would outstrip America's. We were brought up to believe the capitalist system and the free market—the competitive system—was vastly superior to centralised economies. That has been proved to be wrong, very badly wrong.

I think every person in Australia shakes their head whenever someone gets up and talks about building Australian made. All you had to do was give a contract for the government cars to Toyota, and you'd have an Australian car-building industry. But neither you nor you could do that. It wouldn't have cost the taxpayers a cent. That's how we got industry going in Queensland. If we wanted something to happen, we acted.

I want to talk about gas. The trade union that I belong to, the CFMMEU, God bless them, had a big sign up. We sold the gas for 6c a unit. You can buy it now for about $45 a unit. What country gives away one of its only three resources, one of its only three sources of income? Qatar, a little tiny country in the Middle East, produces the same amount of gas we do and exports the same amount of gas as we do, and Qatar get 29,000 million a year for their gas. We get 600 million for ours. That's wages—not that there is much wages involved. What sort of government do we have here in this country?

When I went into parliament, our stove was made in Australia, our fridge was made in Australia, our air conditioner was made in Australia. Every single household appliance was made in Australia. Now none of them are made in Australia. If you want to buy things from overseas, you've got to sell something. People in this place have never been in business, so they don't understand that concept. You've got have money coming in as well as money going out. We allowed five of our six great mining companies to be foreign owned. When the much-maligned Bjelke-Petersen government fell in Queensland—outside of the Theodore Labor governments in Queensland, easily the greatest government in Australian history—we owned BHP, we owned Mount Isa Mines, we owned Western Mining Corporation, we owned North and we owned Woodside. We didn't own Rio. Now foreigners own BHP, foreigners own Mount Isa Mines, foreigners own Rio, foreigners own Chevron, foreigners don't own Fortescue—God bless Twiggy—and they own Adani. So five of the six are foreign owned. What sort of a country lets its entire resources be foreign owned?

I can tell you people in this place—I have to say it to you and I say it bluntly: you are not Australians. No-one in Australia would have agreed to any of those things. No person who had any decency and considered himself a true Australian would have gone to any of those solutions. I could take you into a hotel or a shopping centre at any time of the day or night and ask people, 'What are the three things you'd most like to happen in this country if you were the boss of this country?' and, you know what, amongst the three every single time would be that we buy back and own our own country. That's what they'd say. But you don't listen to them because you've got all this grand ideology and you want to preach to them and tell them how you're wonderful and you're saving the planet. Well, excuse me for saying that they're not listening to you. That's why more than a third of Australia voted against you people and against you people in the last election. Wake up to yourselves and become Australians.

Please God—and I pray every night to the good Jesus—we will get the balance of power in Queensland. We dipped out by two seats in the last election. We dipped out by 690 votes at the election before. We're holding our seats by 70 per cent, the four seats that we control in Queensland. When we get there, you will immediately see the launching of a rail line to the Galilee, to open up the Galilee. You can all preach and howl and cry, but are you going to tell 600 million people in India that they can't have power? According to Scientific American, 600 million people in India don't have power. Are you, as a little European country, a little tiny pinprick country in the middle of Asia, going to tell India that they can't have any electricity? Are you going to put solar panels on their roofs? Well, most of them don't have roofs! It would be ridiculous to even consider that. As von Clausewitz said in his book, 'If goods don't cross borders then guns will.' If ever there was a truism in history it's that. Another truism in history is, 'People without land will look for a land without people.' You can whistle and point, in both cases, what country I'm thinking of in that context.

If we open up the Galilee coal—I think it should be done on the basis that they put HELE plants in India. There's no reason why they shouldn't. They cut commissions clean in half, similarly with China. I also believe we should build a plant—and I pay great tribute to Mike Kelly, who was a senior minister in the Labor government in this place. When he came back from Israel he said, 'Algae is everywhere. Algae lives on CO2, water and sunlight.' I love the CO2 bit. But if you build a power station and feed that CO2 to algae, you'll make more money out of the algae then you'll make out of the electricity.

If we open up the Galilee, that will be part of the deal: 'We'll give you 2,000 megawatts of electricity. You're losing 8,000 and you're only putting 4,000 on, so I don't know what's going to happen in seven or eight years time. But we'll give you 2,000 megawatts and we'll give you zero emissions. We'll give you the cheapest electricity in the world, because we're making more money out of algae.' I must pay tribute to Minister Plibersek, because she knows the algae—she's one step ahead of me. I very seldomly admit that.

Build the Bradfield Scheme. There's 23 million hectares of land covered by a prickly tree that is destroying all flora and fauna and will continue to grow, year by year. If you want to arrest that, you'd better start getting off your backside and building the Bradfield Scheme. He wasn't exactly an idiot, Bradfield. He built the Sydney Harbour Bridge. He built the water supply for Sydney. He built the underground railway system that got the international prize for engineering that year.

Hells Gates—silicon. You make solar panels out of silicon. We were negotiating to build the silicon here in Australia when our government fell. I haven't noticed anyone else negotiating to use the purest, cheapest silicon in the world, at Shelburne Bay, to competitively produce silicon. (Time expired)

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am really excited about this National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022 because I am passionate about Australian industry, including manufacturing, and I know how important this opportunity is for my community of Chisholm.

We have two universities, we have medical technology and advanced manufacturing businesses, and incredible work is being done on renewable energy. I am proud of my community and the inventive, innovative ideas they bring not only to our suburbs but to the nation and the world. I am so very happy to be part of a government that is backing ideas, backing making things here, through the establishment of the National Reconstruction Fund.

Something that really strikes me when I visit businesses and talk to people in my community is how excited everyone is about the National Reconstruction Fund. People are excited about it because they know it is good for our nation's future. My community wants a government that supports good, secure jobs and sovereign capability and has a vision and plan for what our country can look like as we rebuild after the very worst of the pandemic.

We get one chance to rebuild our nation after the very worst parts of the COVID-19 pandemic. We must seize it. It is, genuinely, really disappointing that those opposite lack the vision, imagination and conviction to support our country at this time by backing the National Reconstruction Fund. I wish that this could have been bipartisan, and I'm really baffled as to why the coalition won't support our communities. Then again, maybe that's my fault for being an optimist, given that their record shows nothing but contempt for the automotive manufacturing industry in this country, and there's been a terrible decline of manufacturing on their watch.

Our communities very quickly saw what happens to a country when there is no sovereign capability in manufacturing, when supply chains were disrupted through border closures during the earlier parts of the COVID pandemic. This was a moment for our country to reflect and to do what was needed, to make sure we could be resilient and self-sufficient.

This side of the House, the now Labor government, learnt those lessons and is implementing the change we need. Those opposite learnt nothing and now oppose the government doing something which will make our country stronger. We were elected on a mandate to drive the transformation of Australian industry and revive our ability to make world-class products in Australia.

Debate interrupted.