Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today, every member of this House has the opportunity to vote for Australian jobs, has the opportunity to vote for Australian manufacturing, has the opportunity to vote for Australian skills and has the opportunity to back up Australian regions. We have an opportunity through the National Reconstruction Fund, and through the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022, to be, once again, a country that makes things here.

During the election campaign, I said over and over again that we need to be a country that makes things and that we need a future that is made right here in Australia. That's because we saw during the global pandemic that Australia is vulnerable if we remain at the end of global supply chains. We didn't have enough PPE, let alone ventilators. What we need to do is make sure that we don't just export our resources—those will continue to be important—but that, where we can, we need to value add. We need to create the jobs here. For too long, the view under those opposite was that you just dig it up, export it and then wait for the value to be added, wait for the jobs to be created and import it back at much greater value. That leaves our economy vulnerable.

Those opposite, for reasons beyond my comprehension, are once again saying no—once again turning the coalition into the 'no-alition'. They're saying no to repairing our supply chains, no to strengthening our economic sovereignty, no to new jobs in our regions and suburbs, and no to a future made in Australia. We, on this side of the House, will stand by our National Reconstruction Fund, and I am confident that there are enough people who are sensible and of goodwill in this parliament—in the House and in the Senate—to ensure that this fund is established.

I announced this policy in March 2021. Those opposite like to talk about election commitments; well, they oppose everything that we have a mandate for. And it can't be clearer, because when I was opposition leader we actually had policies—we actually had positive policies to take Australia forward. This will be one of the biggest-ever investments in Australian manufacturing capacity, and I'll say that 'investment' is the key word. The National Reconstruction Fund is modelled on the success of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, a proven vehicle for driving an enhancement of private sector capital. It's a proven vehicle which those opposite tried to abolish not once, not twice, but on at least three occasions. Through 10 years now, every dollar invested by the CEFC has unlocked $2.60 in private sector investment. The National Reconstruction Fund will be run independently and on a commercial basis, with decisions taken in the national interest and not with the colour coded spreadsheet which is how those opposite decided fiscal and spending priorities. Its investment mandate will work across seven priority areas: renewables and low-emissions technology; medical science; transport; value adding in agriculture, forestry and fisheries; value adding in resources; defence capability; and enabling capabilities—the technologies that support new jobs in manufacturing areas.

These are industries where Australian workers and Australian skills can lead the world. Many of us recall the pressure that we were under in the early days of the pandemic; it did show the vulnerability that was there. But we need not just analyse it as if we were some group of academics. We come into this chamber not only to make a difference to real lives, to respond to evidence or to respond to weaknesses when they're exposed but to strengthen our economy in ways such as this legislation. This is about building a more resilient and diversified economy, with more jobs in regional Australia. It's also about national security through economic sovereignty—our capacity to stand on our own two feet. Our National Reconstruction Fund will help to grow and create industries over the long term, revitalising our traditional strengths and seeking out new ones. It will make sure that when our universities and researchers make a world-leading breakthrough, the technology and skills are here to commercialise that idea and also workers with the right skills to make the product.

As well, the NRF will help protect our economy from inflationary pressures. The Reserve Bank has spoken repeatedly about perhaps half but up to two-thirds of the inflationary pressures being because of supply-side shocks, yet those opposite seem oblivious to that.

The truth is that our world-class universities have made Australia a higher education destination of choice. We can be a leader in skills and technology, and in manufacturing as well. I sincerely want us to be a country that makes things here again, and I want products that are made in Australia to be recognised and sought after around the world. Think about just one product. There is not a solar panel anywhere in the world that does not have intellectual breakthrough and innovation that was invented, much of it, not far from here at the Australian National University, and a lot of it at the University of New South Wales. Yet one country, not Australia, accounts for 85 per cent of the world's solar panels, and that will grow to over 90 per cent over the next decade unless countries make the conscious decision to defend their sovereignty going forward by supporting industrial growth here in these areas.

When I met with the energy secretary from the United States here just a short time ago, this was one of the focuses that she had. It is part of the Inflation Reduction Act that they have in the United States. Countries are moving in this direction to make sure they protect their sovereign economic position, yet those opposite are opposing this legislation that's aimed at doing just that.

We have a coherent economic plan going forward, a plan that's about cleaner and cheaper energy, driven in part by the Rewiring the Nation fund's $20 billion to upgrade the energy grid, backed up by the safeguard mechanism to provide business with the certainty to invest. That's step 1. Step 2 is to use that cleaner, cheaper energy to make sure we manufacture more things here, particularly in our regions. Then step 3 is making sure that we have the Australian jobs and skills to be able to do that. That's why we're creating Jobs and Skills Australia. That is why we have 180,000 fee-free TAFE places. That is why we have 20,000 additional university places. Put together, it's a plan for seizing the opportunity that is there as a result of being in the fastest growing region of the world in human history.

Later today, after question time, I'll start the journey to India via Perth. We have, on our doorstep, in India and Indonesia, what will be the third and fourth largest economies in the world. We need to seize the opportunities which are there. We need to not be frightened of the future but to make sure that we seize the opportunities of the future which are there.

Together, this work, this economic plan and how it fits together—cleaner, cheaper energy; driving advanced manufacturing through this National Reconstruction Fund; creating jobs and skills through Jobs and Skills Australia and fee-free TAFE—is all absolutely critical. But if you take one element away from it, then its coherence breaks down. That is why the National Reconstruction Fund is so important. It is about shaping the future rather than waiting for the future to shape us, and that's why this parliament should all be voting for the National Reconstruction Fund. This is not a radical proposition; it's a proposition based upon what works: the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

Those opposite, when they couldn't abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, eventually had to acknowledge that it was an effective driver of investment in this country. They made the mistake of daring the car industry to leave, with all the jobs and the innovation that occurred—including at this dispatch box; the then Treasurer daring the car industry to leave. The truth is that they have an opportunity to actually acknowledge that they were wrong. Just like those opposite, including the shadow minister at the table there and the former deputy leader of the coalition—

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Be careful about what you're going to say, mate. I wasn't here. I wasn't here; I was flat out on a bed.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note the former Deputy Prime Minister is disassociating himself from the actions of the coalition, and that shows good sense! It's precisely why we're still shocked that Barnaby Joyce became Deputy Prime Minister, not once but twice. The sequel was worse than the original, and it hasn't got any better as he sits there and mumbles during question time.

We, on this side of the House, are proud to support the National Reconstruction Fund. We're proud to be on the side of Australian workers. We're on the side of Australian jobs. We're on the side of Australia's future prosperity. I ask all members to join with us in support of a better future, made in Australia. I say to the National Party—and there are a couple of sensible people from the National Party here; they're probably the only ones—that this is about regional jobs more so than anything else. The National Reconstruction Fund is not going to support new industries in the CBDs of Sydney and Melbourne. It's going to support jobs in regional Australia and in the outer suburbs of our cities. That is what this program is about, and that is why it is so important.

One of the things about manufacturing jobs is that they have such a significant multiplier, and that's why the industries that we've identified—including the defence industry, where there will be some announcements down the track this month—are so important. That's why the demise of the car industry was so devastating, not just for people who worked in automotive but because it gutted innovation and it had a multiplier impact in the loss of economic activity.

So I say to those opposite: now is your chance to redeem yourself. Get on board. This is very sensible reform. It's based upon evidence of what works. It's supported by existing industries who want to transform and take advantage of the energy opportunities that are there for cleaner energy, which will be cheaper, but it's also important for the growth of new industries, particularly in manufacturing. We need to be a country that makes things here again. This legislation is the most significant step that will be made in that area during this term and, indeed, for a long period of time. This is perhaps the most significant support for manufacturing that we have seen—certainly in this parliament and in this century, but also for a long period of time. I commend the bill to the House.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's always good to follow the Prime Minister and always good to have quite an audience to hear my contribution! I do say thank you to the Prime Minister for mentioning regional Australia, because all too often in this place we don't hear much mention of regional Australia and regional Australians from this government—unless we're taxing them, hitting them hard with further imposts or making life more difficult for those who choose to live in rural, regional and, particularly, remote Australia.

I know the member for Gippsland and I share a common view, that we want to see regional Australia be its best self. We want to see those people who live way beyond the bright city lights, beyond the bright metropolitan areas, be able to continue their agricultural pursuits, to continue manufacturing, to continue to grow the food and fibre, and all the other associated endeavours that they do for and on behalf of this nation. And yet those people who live in the regions are facing some of the highest, if not the highest, energy costs ever imposed upon them by the reckless policies by those opposite. Indeed, when it comes to heavy industry, when it comes to manufacturing, when it comes to those industries that employ people who proudly wear the high-vis for a living, they are going to be impacted upon by the reckless energy policies of those opposite, because their power prices, their gas prices, are just going to go up and up and up, and this is a concern to those people in those industries. This is a concern to those people who run those industries, who take that investment risk, not just now but indeed into the future.

The trouble with those opposite is that not a lot of them have actually run small businesses, not a lot of them have run even large businesses. They have run a lot of picket lines out the front of those businesses. The definition of a small business once was what was a large business, or a medium-size business under a coalition government, and then the government changed and they all of a sudden become a small business because of the reckless policies of those opposite. We on this side are the people, the parties, behind business. We want to see business be its best self.

The National Reconstruction Fund, I'm afraid, could also be called 'payback to the unions'. The trouble with those opposite is that their bills, their motions, often come with these flowery terms. I will give credit to whoever is creating them in the publicity department of those opposite who writes the titles for these bills; they all sound great. They then go out on their social media and say 'can't understand why those in opposition constantly say no'. The trouble is it is the devil in the detail. It's the fact that the bills come laced with union favours, with payback to the people who pay their way, who give them the orders. He or she who pays the piper calls the tune, and for those opposite, those who are calling the tune are the unions. So whether it's the National Reconstruction Fund, whether it's indeed the higher wages, more secure jobs bill or whatever they come to this place to promote, to push, to pass, to ram through the House of Representatives, it's always got that payback to the unions. It's always laced with that 'let's pay the unions back for the fact that they back us at each and every election, the fact that they get the nurses and other associated endeavours and sectors out to back their causes'.

We all want to see higher wages. That's why we on this side made sure that we had jobs for people. We actually created many, many jobs for people. There were record numbers of women in employment when we were in government because of the sensible, practical policies that we put in place, not just for workers, mind you, but also for those paying the workers, the bosses, the employers, and you can't always forget them. Those opposite, they once came to this place and talked about the biggest polluters. Then they got a bit smarter and thought, 'We probably shouldn't call them 'polluters' because they are employing people,' so now they call them the 'biggest emitters'. But it is the same difference. It is the same deal. Those people who are running those businesses, running that heavy manufacturing, running those industries, are creating jobs. Moreover, they are creating things. They are creating goods. They're creating hope, employment and opportunity for Australians. And whether that's in regional Australia, whether that's in peri-urban areas or whether that's, indeed, in metropolitan Australia the fact remains that they are people who we should genuinely value, and not just bring policies into this place which might sound all good at the outset, but what they really are—the devil is in the detail—is just an excuse to back unions, to back union activities, to back those people who put Labor back in power— (Time expired)

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.