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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We risk creating a class of businesses that is reliant on government subsidies, and that can be very effective in coming back for more.

She said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Quorum formed)

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The world is currently undergoing a period, at least in the Western industrialised world, of rapid reindustrialisation. After 40 years of globalisation underwritten by US security and the institutions that rose up out of the rubble of World War II, countries are now reindustrialising. They're looking to recover lost manufacturing and lost jobs. Gone are the days of labour and wage arbitrage, where a lot of manufacturing was offshored to cheaper countries and jurisdictions for the production of goods that we need. We've seen real wages decline over the last 30 or 40 years for workers in the industrial sector, and strategic circumstances are forcing many countries to look at their own industrial base and ask the question: are we sovereign, are we resilient and are we self-reliant?

I think the war that started in Ukraine in early 2022—Russia's illegal, unjustified and immoral invasion of Ukraine—has brought this into stark relief, and what we've seen over the last two years is that war transforming into a war of attrition—industrial attrition, where we've seen the United States, which supports Ukraine, and its allies, like the UK and European allies like Germany and France in particular, pitted against the industrial base of Russia, which is also supported by China, North Korea and Iran. So we're seeing, in a war where thousands and thousands of people have already died, that it's now grinding into a war of industrial attrition. It's a reminder to people around the world that, if you want to have sovereignty, be secure as a nation and have resilience, you've got to have industrial capacity. It's a key component of national power.

So that's why we're seeing investment in industrial bases across the world. The US is leading this, and I refer to a report that came out last month called Commission on the National Defense Strategy. It's a document that is well worth reading for all parliamentarians. In it, the authors, who are quite eminent national security people in the United States, make some fairly stark judgements about the state of the US and its industrial production. The report says:

U.S. industrial production is grossly inadequate to provide the equipment, technology, and munitions needed today, let alone given the demands of great power conflict.

There are reasons for that in the US: there have been insufficient defence budgets, there's been a decline of research and development, there's been insufficient access to strategic and critical minerals and there's been an erosion of the broader US manufacturing ecosystem.

We can trace that back to 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall. The US stood supreme as the global power with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and a lot of the investment that occurred during the Cold War ceased, and we've seen the US military decrease, as well as the industrial base that supported it. Now we're seeing a challenge to the US led rules based global order, if that is what you want to call it. That's what a lot of policy people refer to it as. Because that is being challenged, countries are now having to look to their own security needs, which includes a strong industrial base.

The challenge now, for allies of the US who buy a lot of defence capabilities from the US, is that there is a long queue. The US can't even meet its own needs with its shrunken industrial base, so we need to start thinking about how we recover our industrial capacity as well. That's why AUKUS is such a huge opportunity for Australia. I think if we're going to use any mechanism to recover Australian industrial strength, AUKUS is the best mechanism to do so. I was proud of the coalition government that, back in 2021, struck the original arrangement with President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Boris Johnson. We have since seen two changes of government, one here and one in the UK, and still AUKUS continues strongly. But there is a lot of work to be done, and the decline of the US industrial base is a real challenge for AUKUS. We need the US to uplift, we need the UK to uplift and we, ourselves, need to uplift.

The bill before the House, the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, really engages on this question: how do we recover a lot of our lost industrial capacity in this country? Our view, my view, is that this bill does not achieve what the Albanese government is setting out to achieve with this bill. To give some background on the bills, these bills expand the role of Export Finance Australia and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and establish a National Interest Framework that retrospectively underpins the government's Future Made in Australia policy. The accompanying bill expands Export Finance Australia's remit to fund domestic industries and nominates the Minister for Finance as an additional responsible minister. The omnibus bill also expands ARENA's functions from purely research, development and demonstration to support manufacturing, deployment and commercialisation.

The more we hear about this plan, the more we realise that Labor is misguided in this, and it just doesn't stack up. This is a plan for more government, not business investment partnering with government, and that makes it a weak plan. In fact, we believe that this is a plan for more inflation at a time when Labor has already made homegrown inflation a lot worse. We know they've added $315 billion of spending to the budget over the last two years, and we're still leading the world in inflation. Inflation hasn't come back under control to the two to three per cent target range, which is where we want to get it to, and, again, the Australian people are suffering high interest rates with no relief in sight. I know markets are pricing in a cut somewhere around February or so, but there is no guarantee, because we're seeing what the Queensland government is doing to save its skin prior to the election in October. They're spending a lot of money. The Victorian government and the WA government are spending a lot of money. There is no guarantee that inflation is going to abate anytime soon.

The coalition has always supported industry and manufacturing. I think back to Robert Menzies and the economy he inherited when he won government back in 1949. A great economy had been built up during World War II, and it was the basis of our prosperity for the next couple of decades until we opened ourselves up to the world under Prime Minister Bob Hawke.

But now Labor's policy on energy, industrial relations and tax is a whole suite of policies and a whole range of things that have occurred under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese over the last two years. It has actually made Australia less competitive and less attractive for international investment. They've also introduced an industrial relations reform package which has made it a lot more difficult for businesses to employ people, to make a profit and to add to Australia's prosperity. That's why we are actually going backwards as a country in terms of productivity, in terms of GDP growth, and people are feeling it. Real wages are going backwards with inflation, and, of course, we're seeing households less well off now than they were two years ago under the Labor government.

The facts are clear: insolvencies are up, productivity is down and businesses are struggling just to keep the doors open. And so Labor's plan for a future made in Australia—it's a great little line, and I always remember the Made in Australia tags with that kangaroo on Australian goods growing up. We still see them. I get quite nostalgic about it. I'm proud of an Australia that can make things and sell them to the world. They're tapping into nostalgia with a title, but, when you actually examine the bills, the policy and the detail, it falls far short of the nostalgia that it seeks to evoke.

There are some challenges here. The ARENA changes are a slush fund for the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. This legislation changes the purpose, duties and roles of ARENA, which has always been a research and development agency. They're now expanding the remit of ARENA into deployment and manufacturing. These changes give the minister for climate change the ability to boost the funding of ARENA without parliamentary oversight and scrutiny, which has been a habit of the Labor government over the last two years. They like to get things through, they like to guillotine debate and they like to empower the ministers to make decisions that avoid parliamentary oversight or scrutiny. Just look at the sitting calendar this year; it's been reduced significantly. All that does is allow for less accountability, and that's not in the best interests of the Australian people or our country over the long term.

Australian families are paying the price. We have already seen the 12 interest rate hikes, and we've got some of the most stubborn core inflation in the developed world, and the high taxes that come with it. Bracket creep is hurting a lot of families out there, particularly in my seat of Canning, and this has all happened under the Albanese government.

There's also a new national interest framework, and this legislation puts the Treasurer and his department in a position to decide whether a sector of the Australian economy deserves investment. This is less a market-leading solution. Instead, it's a command-economy-style solution. When you run a command-style economy, you assume that those running it have all the knowledge required to make good investment decisions. As we know—you just look at the last 100 years—command economies aren't great at making investment decisions. There are a lot of inefficiencies. There's a lot of waste, preferment, nepotism and all those sorts of problems that come with people making decisions without all the information and without the accountability that a market led solution brings. So that is deeply problematic, and I expect bad decisions, not good decisions, with this framework.

In this place we try to create incentives that will build the security and prosperity of our country—incentives that provide for human flourishing. The incentives that this bill brings in, I think, fall far short of those aspirations. But don't take my word for it. The Business Council of Australia have warned that these procurement rules risk subsidising businesses Australia would never have a comparative advantage in. We are a nation that is blessed with an abundance of resources. That's why we lead the world in exports in coal and liquefied natural gas. I represent a seat which used to be Kim Beazley's seat 25 to 30 years ago, which tells you everything you need to know about the realignment happening in Australia and elsewhere. We produce 10 to 11 per cent of the world's bauxite. We have two bauxite mines and two alumina refineries. I represent a lot of FIFO workers, who leave their families and go to our mine sites, and they're the backbone of this country's prosperity. I am very proud to represent them. I am proud that we have a good number of them who are keen to see us become more productive. I acknowledge that many are unionised members with the AWU. One of the things I've really worked on is having a good relationship with those people, because they are the backbone of this country and they do the heavy lifting that provides for a lot of revenue that is used to fund essential services in this country.

I'm really excited, though, about the investment that the former coalition government took in AUKUS. I acknowledge the work that this government has done in building on that work, with the announcement of the optimal pathway for the Virginia class submarine and the SSN-AUKUS. When we're talking about re-industrialising Australia, I want to focus very briefly on Western Australia. We know that $8 billion of investment is going to flow through Perth especially, just to the north of Canning in Rockingham. There's $8 billion to expand HMAS Stirling over the next decade. There will be 3,000 direct jobs created. There will be an additional $83 million for infrastructure works which will create more than 150 jobs.

This is not just a one-off. We're going to see a huge naval base at Stirling which will run our nuclear submarines. We'll also have US and UK submarines. We'll have the supply chains and the maintenance facilities to keep those running. We're going to see a big footprint. I think one of the toughest things any country can do is own, operate and build their own submarines. We are undertaking the biggest nation-building project I think we've ever done. This is going to be very complex. It's good that we're doing it with the US and the UK, who already have capability and are experienced. I'm actually excited for industry. But this government is not selling that. Instead they're following the climate change minister on his frolics, talking about green energy and all these great solar panels and the wind farms that will be made in China, when we could be talking about AUKUS and the economic dividend, the job creation and the industrial rebuild that will bring to this country. This government's failing and it needs to do better. (Time expired)

(Quorum formed)

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024. This is a bad bill. Like so many bills of this government, it is a smoke-and-mirrors bill that pulls at the heartstrings of Australians. What Australian wouldn't want Australia to manufacture more products onshore? No-one, I'd expect.

I can remember the retail sector I spent over half my working life in, which was the electrical appliance industry. When I started in this industry, working as a storeman at Errol Stewarts, pretty well everything was made in our great country. Westinghouse fridges were made in a factory in Orange in New South Wales, Simpson and Malleys washing machines were made in Adelaide, and Victa mowers were made in Ballarat. Kelvinator fridges, Sunbeam frypans, Chef ovens and Dishlex dishwashers were all made in Australia. You were hard pressed to find an imported product. These factories employed Australian workers and, in many cases, were among the biggest employers in these towns.

I watched with dismay as the range of products slowly diminished because the price difference between the products made here and the imported products began to widen. My experience has been that people will pay between 10 and 20 per cent extra for locally made products, but once you get past this point the patriotism wanes and the family budget takes precedence. Fair enough, especially when times are tough, like now. The impacts of this, of course, are that factories close, jobs are lost and people's lives are decimated, but the hard facts are that the market determines this and tough business decisions need to be made. After all, these are businesses, not charities. I know for a fact that many of them actually ran at a loss in their final few years, resisting the stark reality of their plight as they realised the human element and the devastating effect that laying off hundreds of workers from these factories would have.

How did this happen? Why were we no longer competitive? We always made magnificent products, as far as quality and reliability go. There were many factors, but there were four great contributors, rightly or wrongly. Firstly, red tape and compliance, which simply add to the cost of the goods being produced, accelerated as more and more of these often unnecessary measures were duplicated by two or even three levels of government. Much of this happened when various Labor governments were in power, as they increased the public service—not out of need but purely to buy votes. I have nothing against public servants. They are completely necessary. In fact, my mum was a state public servant her whole life and I have many friends who are public servants. But when you employ more than are necessary they will instil more and more red tape, as they have to justify their employment. The problem with this is that it adds to the cost of goods, which means that people need to earn more to pay for these more expensive goods, which then drives up the wages of the people in the factories making the goods. The cycle continues until it reaches a point where it's actually cheaper to bring the goods in from overseas. That's when factories close.

Whether we like it or not, we're in a global market and every country is fighting for the business to supply other countries with their goods and services. Having run a business myself, I can tell you that the greatest costs to most businesses are the cost of the building in which the business is conducted, whether you purchase or lease the property, the wages you pay and, in manufacturing, energy costs. Let's look at how we go in these areas. We have the highest minimum wage in the world, we have among the highest property costs and energy costs, and we have red tape. When investors are looking to set up large-scale manufacturing, where price is a large factor in people's purchasing decisions, we simply don't stack up. It's a tragedy. It's not that people don't want to manufacture here on a large scale; it's just that we are simply uncompetitive, so they go to a country where all these costs are lower. It's not personal; it's just a business decision. The problem is that you can't wind back the clock. You can't cut wages, because people won't be able to survive. Governments can't control property prices, but all governments can do something about red tape. Sadly, that on its own will only help a little bit. It won't be enough.

Energy is an area where government can help with the right policy. Energy expectations have changed dramatically in the last decade. Globally, most countries have made the decision to go to cleaner energy. Like most new technologies, these are initially more expensive than previous and current technologies, such as coal. In theory this should change over time, but sectors such as manufacturing demand that energy be not only clean but also reliable and affordable. This is where the Labor-Greens coalition and the Liberal-National coalition are miles apart. The Labor-Greens coalition believes that a renewables-only policy will meet these needs, but the evidence and advice from experts and observations from other countries' experiences clearly show that renewables will not supply the reliability or the affordability required by industry, particularly manufacturing, where the energy needs are enormous. I've not even touched on the energy that will be required in the future for data centres as generative AI becomes more and more commonplace. The largest data centre in the world, in Ohio, for example, uses around $850,000 in energy per day as well as an enormous amount of water. This will only continue to grow.

That is why 19 of the 20 countries in the OECD have nuclear energy in their mix. Over the average 80-year lifespan of the reactor, it is less expensive than renewables such as wind and solar, where the infrastructure of panels and wind towers needs to be replaced on average every 20 years. That's four times during the life of a nuclear power plant. Factoring in what the replacement costs of these panels and towers will be in 2040 and 2060 makes it a much more expensive form of energy. The difference in the waste disposal of renewables compared to nuclear is incalculable. Comparing the amount of landfill that would be needed for solar panels and wind towers with the amount needed for nuclear waste over that 80-year period would be like comparing the size of Tasmania with the entire surface area of the sun. The difference in land that will need to be cleared to put in a solar or wind farm compared to a nuclear power station is also stark. A nuclear power plant will need about four hectares and, under the coalition's plan, will generally go where existing coal-fired power stations are, so it will need little to no land clearing. In comparison a solar farm that can generate the same amount of power as one these power stations will need around 4,000 hectares of land cleared. That's not to mention the long-term damage it will cause to the land it sits on.

Labor's renewables-only policy will require batteries to store energy when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. Data shows us that the very unstable element, lithium, that exists in batteries has a very high propensity to catch fire. Ask any firey how hard they are to put out. I know it. In a previous business that I had, we used to sell little golf buggies with lithium batteries. At one o'clock one afternoon there was the smell of smoke, and a buggy that had never even been taken out of the box was suddenly on fire, sitting on six other boxes containing the same lithium batteries. A fire extinguisher was produced, and we tried to put it out to no avail. The fire department was called, and they went, 'Oh my god—a lithium battery!' and dragged it out into the driveway. In about another 10 minutes, they were able to put it out.

In Brendale, in the Leader of the Opposition's electorate in Moreton Bay shire, where we both are, there is a battery facility that's about to put in 240 batteries. Each one is the size of a 20-foot shipping container. This is not out in the bush; this is in residential north-side Brisbane. The shipping companies have been told, as part of the tender to take in these goods, that they have to make sure that they are stored with either air conditioning or water cooling. This is before they're even plugged in and used. That is how volatile this equipment is. So, when people talk about the safety issues of nuclear, I would say that, compared to the safety issues of lithium batteries, they would be insignificant. So, again, nuclear has it over in that element as well.

All this bill does is subsidise large and, in the main, renewables companies which are driving this. They can't stand on their own two feet without government subsidy, because they know it won't stack up. It's no different to the energy now, where the state government is using taxpayers' money in Queensland to subsidise energy costs by $1,000 and the federal government is subsidising costs by $300. It's because it doesn't stack up without the subsidy. The fact is that raw energy costs have gone up under this government. You can't use taxpayers' money to subsidise taxpayers' bills. It doesn't make any sense. They break your leg and then pay for the plaster and the doctor and expect thanks for it. It doesn't work. We need to incentivise smaller businesses. We can compete in smaller manufacturing, even though those fast-moving goods manufacturers, where there's lots of stuff on a scale, can't compete with these other countries that have low energy costs, lower wages, and all of those things I outlined. At the end of the day, the smaller innovative companies are great companies, such as NLT Technologies in Caboolture, in my electorate of Longman, that employ around 20 to 30 people. They've managed to come up with a wi-fi system that works underground in coalmines.

There's a small manufacturer down in Narangba that makes mower parts and mower blades. They bought an old stamping machine from the Mitsubishi car factory, which, unfortunately, because of the reasons I outlined, became uncompetitive, so they stopped making cars in this country. They were able to buy that stamping machine, and, to their credit, they're making it work. These people are in a market where they don't have to compete against these big guys in China. That's what we should be looking at. We want manufacturing in this country, and we should focus on these smaller manufacturers. One of the companies that makes the mower blades would actually like to make a mower here. That would be awesome. I can remember selling Victor mowers. They were proudly made here. He said the problem is, 'I've done the maths, and if I'm going to manufacture the mower here to compete with the Chinese import that Bunnings sells for $300, it would have to be retail at $600.' People won't pay double the price because it's got an 'Australian made' tag on it. We could help these people out. We need some sensible industrial relations reforms that take into consideration the conditions and the pay of workers and the realistic needs of employers. We need to make sure that we cut back on this red tape, particularly red tape where it is duplicated. We need to make sure that these manufacturers have certainty, reliability and affordability in terms of their energy needs. That is absolutely what's needed.

There's also a matter of trust. Australians I speak to, particularly business owners, simply don't trust this government. They don't trust them. They believe that their priorities have been wrong. They spent their first 18 months in government completely ignoring the Australian people, the cost of living and interest rates rising. They focused completely on something that was driven by the Prime Minister's personal agenda in the Voice to Parliament. They saw $500 million completely wasted on something that would never get up, and they're frustrated. Like so many bills introduced here, the headline is appealing. It's exciting. It gets people's blood flowing. During COVID, we saw an enormous amount of patriotism come back, and, because of necessity, we had to see some local manufacturing happen. We couldn't get things in from overseas because of COVID. People got excited about Australian made again, and I loved it. But once all that wore off, the stark reality of high energy costs, high wage costs and the industrial relations laws hamstringing businesses and red tape is that all that stuff has come back to roost, making it simply impossible for these companies to do it on a large scale. So we're back to reality after that short COVID period, and that has all hit home.

Like these bills, the headline is so good, but when you go into the detail, that's where the disappointment begins. The headline promises so much, only to be let down by the detail. I hope there can be some common sense put into this. I really hope that the Labor government, for Australia's sake, will go back and take on some of the ideas of the coalition. Let's work together to make sure that we can get it there. I'll tell you now that this bill and the way that it's currently set up and operating will not achieve a future made in Australia. For me, that's very, very sad.

(Quorum formed)

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As many speakers before me have made very clear, the coalition will be opposing this bill. The truth is, the more we hear about this bill, the more it clearly doesn't stack up. This is basically a plan for Labor ministers to run around the country pork-barrelling; this is not about a strong economy for our nation or about creating jobs.

Quite a remarkable thing has happened to the Labor Party, even in my time here, and that is the massive repudiation of the Hawke-Keating era—this new generation of Labor MPs and Labor leaders who certainly haven't learnt the lessons of the past and are repudiating so much of what Hawke and Keating stood for and, in essence, this reversion back to a centralised economy where the ministers—the very clever ministers here!—will determine—

Sam Rae (Hawke, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're the custodian of the Hawke-Keating legacy, are you, Michael?

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take the interjection from the member. I don't necessarily think it's a great legacy, but one of the things they should have learnt—

A government member interjecting

Well, all we need to see are the recent comments from former prime minister Keating to understand the person they revere and the character he holds. And now they repudiate the one lesson from that government that they should have taken, which is that Labor ministers are not well equipped to determine the investment decisions of any business in this country, that Labor ministers should not be entrusting taxpayers' money to their very clever business acumen. What those opposite should be doing—

Honourable members interjecting—

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Deakin will resume his seat. There is too much chatter, too much interjection. If you're going to be in this chamber, please keep calm. You've got the opportunity to speak at any time later in the day. The member for Deakin has the call.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor government really needs to understand that the building blocks to manufacturing in this country are affordable and reliable energy, flexible workplaces—great wages but flexible workplaces—less regulation, and an incentive based tax system. They're the building blocks for manufacturing in this country, and on every single one of those building blocks of strong manufacturing this government has made things worse.

Affordable and reliable energy is a component in every single aspect of manufacturing throughout the supply chain in this country, yet we see the costs of energy rising throughout the nation, notwithstanding the fact that there were commitments from every single one of those opposite that electricity prices would drop if they were elected. We all remember and know that the Prime Minister—on 97 occasions, no less—promised to reduce household energy prices by $275 a year—let alone reduce wholesale energy prices for large manufacturers.

What have we seen since the election? We've seen energy prices increasing exponentially. In fact, I was with a truss manufacturer. An area that I would say is a bright spot in this country is manufacturing that supports our residential construction industry. Truss manufacturing in this nation, utilising, in most cases, Australian timber, is a bright spot, but this particular truss manufacturer I spoke to has said that his monthly energy bills in his business have risen from $15,000 a month to $40,000 a month. What happens with that increase of $25,000 a month on that input into every single truss that he manufactures? Well, that just finds its way into the price of that product. That product then finds its way into the home, and guess who bears that cost in the end? It is the buyer or purchaser of that home. In many cases, it is first home buyers who will ultimately bear the cost.

It's not just the additional input costs of that truss that that first home buyer in many cases is bearing; it will be the increased energy costs in the bricks and the increased energy costs in the tiles for the roof—the increased input and energy costs into every single component of that home. So you don't assist manufacturing in this country by increasing energy prices on every single step of manufacturing in this country and then playing a two-card trick and saying, 'We'll support some hand-picked businesses here and there.'

We were speaking in this chamber about the CFMEU tax on housing—the CFMEU tax aided and abetted by every single member sitting opposite me, who has personally benefited from the CFMEU in one way, shape or form, whether it's through their pre-selection or whether it's through donations to the Labor Party. Where do those donations come from? Ultimately, the CFMEU extorts them out of law-abiding individuals, businesses and, ultimately—in many cases—first home buyers, who have to pay more for that home. That money then goes into the pocket of CFMEU officials or the organisation and then gets donated to members opposite. That's another area where a lack of flexibility in the workplace is increasing costs—

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Deakin will resume his seat. Member for Hunter?

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

I ask whether the member speaking is willing to give way.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could you just repeat that?

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

I asked whether the member speaking was willing to give way, under 66A.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the member for Deakin accept the intervention?

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, he can sit down.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not accepted.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He can speak on the bill if he wants to speak, and it's very instructive that Labor members are very happy to have their conversations and talk quietly amongst themselves until the connection between them and the CFMEU is drawn to the House's attention. The minute that happens, great offence is taken and we get this clownish behaviour, with someone who has probably never opened that book before in his life. Running a protection racket for the CFMEU is ingrained in what they do because every single one of them benefits from the CFMEU. To the decent people in the Labor Party—of which I know there are many—I'd say: the money that you take from the CFMEU is money that's taken out of the pockets of first home buyers in this country. That is the eternal shame of the Labor Party. It's a disgrace that you would aid and abet the CFMEU for so many years. You've been called out now and—Deirdre Chambers—you're all very surprised about the CFMEU, like it's some huge, massive shock to each and every one of you when you watched the Channel 9 reporting on the CFMEU.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the member for Deakin to go back to the bill. We're skirting very close to the parameters.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When we're talking about manufacturing in this country and the input costs into manufacturing, flexible workplaces are very important, so it's entirely and wholly relevant to this bill.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Deakin will resume his seat.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect, the member is defying your ruling. If he's not willing to comply with your ruling, you should sit him down.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will resume his seat. He has gone back to manufacturing, and he's mentioned the word 'manufacturing' three or four times in the last few seconds.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should listen, Andrew. There was no ruling, by the way. So listen a bit harder.

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

But I warn the member for Deakin to be within the bill. You're skirting very close to the parameters of where that bill is. I ask that you return to the bill.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Flexible workplaces are very important for manufacturing in this country. We know, and I think it's been completely admitted by those opposite, that the conduct of the CFMEU, that rogue criminal organisation that has supported them financially for many, many years, has made it much harder for manufacturing in this country. As shadow housing minister and as a former housing minister, I can see what it's done to manufacturing in this country. We have a proud manufacturing industry that supports residential construction in this country. The truth is that the Labor Party has turned a blind eye to the CFMEU for years. One can only infer that's because of the material financial support that they have provided to the Labor Party for many, many years. It's also instructive that the Labor Party only takes huge offence when the connection between them and the CFMEU is drawn to the attention of the House. Maybe it's because of the close personal relationships that many of them have with the senior leadership of the CFMEU, the close personal relationships between John Setka and themselves. That adds to the cost base of businesses in this country and makes it a lot harder to manufacture in Australia. We've got inflexibility being driven by the government here. We've got a lack of ability to deliver affordable and reliable energy. We all know about businesses, whether they be in Victoria or South Australia, who are ordered at peak times of energy need to turn off their plants because we don't have an energy system that can support that sort of manufacturing 24/7. There are times of the year when I know businesses will contact me in Victoria and say, 'We've been ordered to cease manufacturing for'—it might be four hours during a particular period on a particular day. That is a direct consequence of Labor Party policy in that state over many years.

In order to have a viable and strong manufacturing industry in this country, I go back to the earlier points. You need to have affordable and reliable energy. You need to have flexible workplaces. You need less regulation on businesses. I'm sure even the geniuses on the other side would understand that you need less regulation in order to manufacture. You need an even playing field. There are products that are imported into this country that do not meet the standards that we require of our manufacturers, and that is exacerbated by this government. We will not be supporting this bill. We won't be supporting the pork-barrelling of the government. Certainly, a government that is in bed with the CFMEU has no credibility. (Time expired)

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

I think the previous speaker was quite right in praising Paul Keating—the architect of free markets and free trade in Australia. To quote him: 'We will now remove all support levels.' Well, Mr Keating, no-one explained to you about sending your gladiator into the ring with no helmet and no shield when the other gladiator has a helmet and a shield. You know the story: 'Hey, I need a shield and a helmet.' 'No, if you fight without a shield and a helmet it will make you tough.' 'No, it won't; it'll make me dead—that's what it'll make me.' So why did Mr Keating taking away our shield, our protection and our support levels have this gentleman in the Liberal Party praising Paul Keating for a free market?

No motor cars are made in Australia, no electricity is going to come from Australia, and no clothing comes from Australia except for—God bless—Andrew 'Twiggy' Forrest and the Steel Blues of this world. Almost all of our seafood and pork comes from overseas. Almost all of our household appliances come from overseas. We made the absolutely incredible decision to buy our Army boots from overseas. I happen to represent part of the garrison city of Townsville, and in the annual Anzac Day march 2,000 soldiers had the soles of their boots fall out. There were big pictures of all of the soles. That same day, I raced back to Charters Towers for a catafalque party and said, 'Is it right that all the soles are falling off the shoes?' The sergeant major in charge of the catafalque party lifted up his foot and he had no sole on his shoe. He was doing it in his socks.

You've taken the free markets to the most extraordinary heights. In the field of agriculture our farmers—last time I looked—are on a five per cent support level from the government. The OECD figure is around 40 per cent support levels for all the farmers on earth; ours is five per cent. They are asking us to race a 100-metre race but giving our opponents a 35-metre start. Mate, I could beat Linford Christie if they gave me that sort of start, I assure you.

The government is making an endeavour to come back here. They want us to produce all this zero emissions stuff. Unlike everyone else in this place, I happen to be a little bit of an expert in this field because I put in the first standalone solar system in Australia in 1982-1983. Most of you weren't even born in 1982. Most of you weren't even born. I had to have a very detailed knowledge. Also, we have the best silicon deposits in the world, and I, unlike the people in this place, wanted all of our solar panels to be built from silicon that we got and upgraded here in Australia. I'll rephrase that: I didn't want the cells made, because they're a very small market, but I did want the high-tech silicon for the computers and silicon chips and for the terrestrial wire that carries electricity and information. We wanted it for that and other uses. We wanted high-tech silicon.

You've got to listen to me on this, right? To create high-tech silicon, you must first crush it up. This is very difficult. To process it, you've got to crush it. It is the second-hardest material, after diamonds, so crushing it is not a lot of fun and it costs you a lot of money. Then you put it under electromagnets to pick up the iron. It burns up enormous amounts of electricity. Most of all, we chose to process it by the carbon arc technology. You have two carbon rods with a huge amount of electricity going through. You pull them apart, and you've got this powerful flame. You hourglass the silicon flower—as it is now—past it, and that's smelts it. The other way of doing it is with coal. The electricity comes from coal anyway. You will never be able to pay for silica if you're going to get it out of solar panels.

I don't know about other people, but I used to fly over from Cairns across to Georgetown and there were beautiful trees and a nature wonderland everywhere. I fly now and I'm looking at glass everywhere. To quote the professor leading the action against Chalumbin, 'What's happening here?' I'll tell you what's happening here: our beautiful nature wonderland is being transformed into an industrial wasteland. Is there any person in this place that's going to tell me that we are going to reprocess 10,000 square kilometres of glass in 20 years time? That is not going to happen.

We have the technology—the honourable Minister Plibersek is well on top of the technology, by the way—for algae. You want as much carbon dioxide as you can possibly produce for your algae farms. So carbon dioxide is valuable. Coca-Cola is made with carbon dioxide. Trees grow on carbon dioxide. It's very valuable. We can make a lot of money and overcome our problems with CO2 from coal mines. And if there's a person who seems to be an expert in this field it's Tanya Plibersek, the relevant minister. Whether they give her the money to do it or not is another story.

This is the way it works at the present moment. We've got NAIF out there. We've got all sorts of special assistance from government and we're adding another one here. But I'll tell you how this works. Tom Long has to package it. Now, seven per cent of Australia's fruit and vegetables comes out of Far North Queensland, where Tom Long lives and where my electorate is. We have to box it and send it to the Woolworth and Coles in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane—everywhere. It has to be boxed. It's boxed in polystyrene. It takes a lot of carbon dioxide to produce polystyrene, and you can use it only once. Tom Long's product is used 28 times and then can be recycled again so it goes back into the marketplace. He applied for money and I'll tell you why he didn't get it: because he had a big house and a couple of acres of land, and he had the factory with his house. They just said, 'No, he's not a real producer of anything.'

A bloke called Henry Ford started building motorcars in the garage in his backyard. But these morons that live here—fifth-generation public servants, inbred as all hell—make these decisions: 'Oh, Tommy Long couldn't possibly produce anything of value, because he's doing it in his backyard like Henry Ford did.' To this very day, Ford's Model T is the car most sold anywhere in the world.

You may not have noticed, but the number of us over here on the crossbench is growing really big. The ALP and LNP governments—they're one and the same—that govern Australia bought their army boots from China. Our electricity comes from China. You have to turn on a light at the discretion of the Chinese people who make the solar panels. Because you want to have all EVs, the fuel in your motorcar will be coming from solar panels from China. So the fuel in your motorcar is going to come from China. But they're very reliable people—a very decent government over there! They're people to look up to, aren't they? We can trust them, of course!

The serious economies on earth, the BRIC economies—Brazil, Russia, India, China and I would add the United States—are spitting on this idea of going all solar and all that rubbish. That's the old world. That's Europe. The new world has absolutely no interest in it. Have a look at who's up on the Galilee Basin, where half of our coal is. Who's up there? I'll tell you: the Indians and the Chinese. You have some sort of idea that those poor people in India, 600 million of them without electricity, are going to let you stop them from having power stations. Who the hell do you think you are? You are a little bunch of 26 million overwhelmingly European people sitting here in Asia, and you're going to tell China and India that they can't have any electricity? You're walking on very dangerous ground; that's all I can say.

Of all the things we want to make in Australia—and this sounds a bit off course—No. 1 is Australians. Sadly, in our country, when 20 Australians die, they will only be replaced by 17 Australians. We are a vanishing race. With our tax regime, DINKs, double income no kids, who make $100,000 each will have a disposable income of $75,000 per person after tax. If it's a husband, wife and three kids, and the mum stays home to look after the kids and bring them up properly—a single income and a number of kids, or SINKs—they have an income of $100,000, but it's divided amongst five people, so they get $15,000 after tax. How is it fair that the DINKs have an income of $75,000 and the SINKs have $15,000? There are not a lot of people in Australia having kids—surprise, surprise! When I was a young man—and a little bit of skiting—we had five kids. I paid virtually no tax because the concessions for having children were real. They cost you this amount of money, so you were taxed on your real incomes per person instead of this vicious discriminatory tax system which is watching us vanish as a race of people. So, most of all, we want to make kids.

There is something else I want to mention. The army boots didn't work. I have a brass-handled knife made in China for $9. The brass in that knife cost more than $9. The steel in that knife cost more than $9. And yet the whole knife was $9.

Unlike other countries, we provide no money or capital for investment development. We have QPM making all of the products that need to go into new generation batteries throughout the world for EVs and hybrids. Why wouldn't a government move to a hybrid flexi-fuel motor car running on ethanol? Brazil is 49.2 per cent ethanol, and it's $1.09 a litre. Last time I looked, we were $2.01 a litre here in Australia. Why wouldn't you do that? Because you're under the influence of and actually controlled, directly or indirectly, by the big corporations. The only people in this place who are not are sitting in this crossbench. We may not get it right on many things, but we're not controlled by the big corporations like you people, who are just a bunch of puppets controlled by the big corporations. That's all you are.

How can you explain condemning your country to all of its electricity coming from China? How can you condemn your country to getting all of its electricity from China and, since you want to move to EVs, all of your fuel for your motor cars from China and all of your motor cars from China. Let me just home in on fuel. In 1990, all of your fuel came from Australia; 98 per cent came from Australia. Now, we import $50 billion a year of fuel from overseas. Our entire exports are only $500 billion, and one-tenth of those are being eaten up by us buying the fuel from overseas. Introduce a flexi motor car for all government cars, and you can forget about sending the $50 billion overseas. Ethanol and electricity are produced in Australia, but a hybrid doesn't use a lot of electricity—hardly any at all, actually.

So the answers are there, and you must ask yourself: 'Why won't they go to the answers? Why?' There's just no rational explanation as to why you wouldn't do that. If you say, 'Australia couldn't produce a motorcar,' that's exactly what was said to Laurence Hartnett again and again and again and to the Prime Minister of Australia, Ben Chifley, again and again and again. (Time expired)

Andrew Gee (Calare, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution on the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 on behalf of the communities of Calare and central western New South Wales. I have listened to the debate on both sides of the aisle. The opposition's approach has been a wholesale rejection of the bill, dismissing it out of hand. While I agree that there are definitely flaws in this bill, I think a more constructive approach is warranted.

This bill is well-intentioned and deserves proper consideration on its merits, not just pointscoring. For example, one of the arguments used against the bill by the member for Hume was that this bill would be inflationary. I had to smile when I heard those words. Let's get one thing straight. The fuse on the inflation bomb, which has now exploded and which is causing pain and grief across Australia—in particular, in regional communities—was well and truly lit during the course of the previous government. People may not recall, but for the first time the Reserve Bank of Australia resorted to doing what is called quantitative easing, which is a fancy way of saying the Reserve Bank resorted to printing money in order to pay for the extraordinary spending spree.

It wasn't just the government of the day that's to blame. The opposition was well and truly along for the hayride, and they probably would have spent more if they'd been in power then. Indeed, the only thing the government did not do during COVID was drop money on communities out of helicopters, and believe it or not there is actually a thing called helicopter money. So, if you want to talk about who was to blame for the inflation bomb, there's plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the House, and we need to be upfront, open and honest about that.

Leaving aside the political argy-bargy between the major parties, it has to be acknowledged that there are positive aspects to this bill. Five priority industries or sectors have been developed, including critical minerals processing and renewable hydrogen. Here is my concern. I am looking at this bill through the looking glass of regional Australia and attempting to determine what benefit there could be. Critical minerals processing is obviously an important one. There may be benefit in central western New South Wales in this. Boosting critical minerals—

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

And North Queensland with QPM.

Andrew Gee (Calare, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the interjection from the member for Kennedy. He's a very tough act to follow. Boosting critical minerals processing and production is an issue of national importance and security. Given the deposits of critical minerals in central western New South Wales, it is possible that this bill could bring benefits to our area that will result in employment and business opportunities.

Against this is the fact that the areas of priority are far too restrictive. This bill could be of much greater benefit to our nation, particularly country Australia, if the areas of priority were expanded to include food processing and agriculture. We saw during COVID how vulnerable nations were when their supply chains were cut or threatened. Food security must be a key priority of our nation. Food processing is one area in which Australia does have a strong advantage. Our processing plants are in close proximity to our primary producers, and it's one area of our economy which requires strong support.

If you look at the food-processing operations in the Calare electorate, they include such powerhouses as Ferrero, which makes Australia's Nutella and Tic Tacs in Lithgow, and Simplot, which produces the iconic Chiko roll. As we know, Bathurst is the undeniable and undisputed home of the Chiko roll. We have two pet food processing plants, with the Mars Petcare plant at Bathurst and the Nestle Purina factory at Blayney, while Devro in Bathurst makes sausage casings. We also have very vibrant food processing businesses in our smaller communities, such as Manildra Mill, which is a flour mill in Manildra, and the MSM Milling plant, which processes canola oil in Manildra.

It is of great concern to me that this sector has inexplicably been overlooked in this legislation. Those industries need all the support they can get. They are a huge employer in our area. It really surprises me that food processing has not been identified as a area of national priority and support. This package will deliver tens of billions of dollars, but how much of that will actually flow to the regions? At the moment, it doesn't look like any is flowing to food security and the future generations of Australians that are employed in agriculture and food processing. It is a glaring oversight in this bill.

Another glaring oversight is the lack of support for agriculture in this bill. Australia has the best produce in the world. The food basket of our country is located in regional Australia—in particular, central western New South Wales—and it defies belief that the agriculture sector has not been identified as an area of priority for this bill. The gross value of agricultural production has increased by 51 per cent in the last 20 years, to $94.3 billion in 2022-23. If you look back to the global financial crisis and then the crisis brought on by the pandemic, one of the key sectors which carried Australia through was agriculture. Agriculture has been a vital plank in Australia's economic prosperity that has sustained our nation through the generations. We need to support it. If you want to support food security and production, protect against supply chain disruptions and boost regional employment, you have to support agriculture. So let's funnel some of this money to agriculture.

We can also support agriculture by cutting red tape for ag businesses. We can support their export markets and not destroy them. I am talking about keeping the sheep. We can funnel some of this funding to support ag startups. Let's support jobs in agriculture. If you want to talk about the environment, there are some very promising developments in agriculture that benefit both farmers and the environment, including the conversion of atmospheric CO2 to soil carbon, which increases yields and also allows farmers to turn a badly needed dollar or two. It really is highly surprising that agriculture has not been a part of the conversation surrounding this bill. Our farmers and food processors deserve much better, as do the supply chains that support them.

I therefore flag that I will be moving amendments to include food processing and agriculture as areas of priority in this bill and the billions of dollars of funding that this bill will deliver. I do so wanting to draw the government's attention to the fact that these key sectors have been overlooked, and they must be supported. If we want this bill to be effective, we need to support agriculture and food processing and to bolster Australia's food security.

As my amendments make clear, I have concerns as to whether this bill will deliver tangible benefits to our regional communities. I share the concerns of the member for Indi, who referred to a giant question mark over the integrity and transparency aspects of this bill. It is right to ask whether the public has a clear line of sight on where the $22.7 billion of our country's wealth will be spent. I'm just not convinced that this bill, as it stands at the moment, will deliver and see enough benefits flowing to central western New South Wales.

I would urge all members in this House at this time, including the member for Kennedy and the member for Wide Bay—I know the member for Wide Bay has crossed the aisle and, indeed, sat on the crossbench before—to support this bill. I would urge the government to back my amendments supporting food processing and agriculture and all of the hard-working women and men in regional Australia who are employed in those sectors.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024. We have just heard from the member for Calare, who spent 10 minutes outlining why the bill is quite a bad bill and why this kind of government spending doesn't meet the scrutiny test for effective spending by government, and yet, like all agrarian socialists, his complaint about this bill is simply that he hasn't allocated the government spending, that he hasn't decided which sector it will go to. But if it goes to his preferred sector, by amendment, then somehow the spending will become good.

I approach this bill from a different perspective: in the inflationary crisis that we are in, this additional government spending is going to cause more trouble for the economy in terms of the hidden tax that we all wear—inflation—but also the tax that comes from more government spending through our debt and the other financing that the government uses.

While the title sounds good, we've gone back to the Rudd era of Orwellian title names: a future made in Australia? Nobody could oppose a future made in Australia. But, of course, this money will not lead to a future made in Australia; it's simply more misallocated government spending. This time, uniquely through this bill, it is at the discretion of the executive, as if a government minister has the capacity to allocate capital in a way that will be most efficient inside our economy and produce the best results for a future made in Australia. The bureaucrats who advise him and are inexpert at understanding the demand and supply of the economy and aren't integrally involved in that process day to day will somehow provide some magical form of advice to the executive where a government minister will allocate borrowed money in a way that will produce efficient results.

I think we all know where this is going. This money will be spent, but it will not be spent efficiently. It will not be spent in a way that produces a future made in Australia. It will simply be spent at the cost of more inflation, higher taxes and higher government debt. That's why I oppose this bill fundamentally.

Milton Friedman spoke about this when he spoke about this misallocation of government capital and the increase in government spending. At a time when the Reserve Bank is warning about the government about its spending profile, simply putting a bill in to spend more money at the discretion of the minister is not going to do it in terms of reducing the critical challenge of our time: inflation and the hidden tax that Australia represents on every good and service in our economy.

When we look through what's already occurring, we see that the Productivity Commission has told us through this bill that the $1 billion commitment to solar panels in Australia under the Future Made in Australia program should be retrospectively subjected to a tougher national interest test framework. I think that's a polite way of saying you can produce solar panels in so many countries in the world now at about five to 10 times cheaper than Australia can possibly make them, so why would we mandate the production of solar panels? Only a government could be so stupid as to say, 'Let's produce solar panels when we can get them 10 times cheaper somewhere else.' Only a government could misallocate that capital so badly that the Productivity Commission politely says, 'We should retrospectively subject this $1 billion solar panel program to a National Interest Framework test.' It's very polite language, but what it says is, 'This is a barking disaster.' What the Productivity Commission is saying is, 'We're wasting a tonne of money.' What the Productivity Commission is saying is, 'You are burning government capital and adding to the inflation burden in Australia for no benefit.' However many solar panels we produce, that same billion dollars could buy five to 10 times the amount of solar panels. It's a misallocation of government capital, and it will not produce an efficient solar panel industry in Australia.

What could this money be better used for—even tax credits or tax production credits, which I don't hesitate to say are not a bad idea in many sectors. What could this capital do if it were instead allocated efficiently? These are the questions the Productivity Commission has raised about the manufacture of solar panels. What kind of projects will we see? The government has said a PsiQuantum computer and quantum computing. It might be a virtue. It might be something our economy needs, but why does the government need to allocate $1 billion of public money to a new technology that is potentially going to be one of the most revolutionary and profitable in the world's history if it gets going? There's no answer to these questions.

The Productivity Commission has been absolutely damning about this kind of government spending and the use of government and government bureaucracy to try to allocate this money in an efficient way. And is this the time? We have demands on our school system and our health system. There are plenty of calls on government spending as it is, and the Treasurer is under pressure right now from Labor education ministers and health ministers around the states. Yet here we are allocating $1 billion inefficiently that will not produce a future made in Australia.

The critical problems for manufacturing anywhere in the country are the input costs that they face: their energy costs, the cost of production, their labour costs. The government says, 'High wages, high wages.' We do have the highest wages in the world, but we don't compete on those wage costs internationally. We can't compete. It's factored in that we have the highest wages in the world, but it doesn't mean we can compete internationally with our manufacturing sector. So what can we compete on? We now have energy prices moving to the highest in the world. Well, manufacturing can't compete on energy input costs, so what can manufacturing compete on in Australia if none of these things? These are the questions that the government is not answering. Are we going to look at our taxes on employment or our company tax structures? No. There is silence on these critical questions that could actually make a manufacturing company more competitive and able to manufacture at a profit in Australia. That's why we're losing so much manufacturing.

Even the modern challenges of advanced manufacturing are not being addressed. Advanced manufacturers in Australia will tell you that they can innovate and produce advanced manufacturing products within Australia. Even under the weight of wages, energy costs, other input costs, taxes and regulation, they can still come up with a competitive advantage, which is then stolen internationally, replicated and sold back to Australia. This cripples the innovation and the upfront investment from those corporations. If the government were spending this $1 billion in a way that protected our advanced manufacturing sector from this stealing and replicating that has been going on for many years, that would be a better allocation of the capital. But instead we're going to have this 1950s model where a government minister advised by bureaucrats decides where to spend $1 billion, and this is going to produce efficient manufacturing.

I hate to say that this is not going to work. It's going to be a complete waste of government capital. It's apparent in the very design of this bill. We know that Treasury wasn't consulted prior to the investment in solar manufacturing. Again, I go back to it because $1 billion has been allocated to solar panels, which can be produced five or 10 times cheaper in other countries. Why would we do this? Why would we allocate money to solar? Everybody, including the Productivity Commission and Treasury, is saying this solar program is misallocated capital at the wrong time. We have nothing against solar panels at all, but there is a global production glut of solar panels at the moment. But of course the Australian government says now is the time to spend government capital instead of allowing that capital to be used by the private sector or in the form of other pro-manufacturing-industry policies that might actually make it easier to manufacture in Australia.

There are many good reasons why we oppose this bill. The ARENA changes in particular are quite egregious. Again, the crossbench has been so polite in not calling them out. The ARENA changes really do highlight this, and it's clear in the explanatory memorandum and the second reading speech from the minister. They are changing the operation of ARENA. Why is the CEFC even now needed if industries are commercially viable? Once they get to a certain point of government investment, why are these changes needed if they are viable and why do they need government funding? The minister will have the power at the stroke of a pen to boost funding without any scrutiny and without being subjected to any real test. These ARENA changes, when you go through them—and there is obviously some difficulty in understanding how every element will operate—mean no parliamentary oversight and no scrutiny. The crossbench has been talking about transparency, but under delegated legislation the government can roll out up to $3.98 billion by our estimates, with an election approaching. But even if there wasn't an election approaching, government spending of $3.98 billion done in this way isn't a good idea for any government and will be subject to a lot of waste and a lot of deadweight in its service delivery, in its bureaucracy and administration costs, and in its outcome, especially when you look at some of the ways this capital is being allocated.

Given how many challenges manufacturing in Australia is facing, state and federal governments should be tackling the input cost issue. All input costs are rising. At the same time as we have rising input costs, government is doing nothing for manufacturing in relation to its energy costs, which continue to be one of the biggest factors in manufacturing. It's true that, with the exception of perhaps Queensland, for maybe a decade or more, we've had no new investment in gas, which is one of the prime necessities for manufacturing in Australia. Even in a big state like New South Wales, we've had 15 years of no new gas projects. There are gas bans in big states like Victoria. They're not banning fracking or unconventional gas; they're banning conventional gas in a state like Victoria. Therefore our energy costs have continued to rise, and this bill doesn't do anything to address those issues.

The biggest booster of green hydrogen is scaling back their ambitions for green hydrogen. Green hydrogen is completely unproven when we have conventional gas available now and lots of gas under us in every part of Australia that we could be using now to provide cheap energy for manufacturing, which would actually sustain an Australian manufacturing sector, but we're not allowed to use the conventional gas. We have to then use government subsidies and money to subsidise green hydrogen, which is still unproven and has not yet been tested. So, again, we are seeing that their own investments don't meet the standards already to actually provide for a future made in Australia.

They can say, 'We want a future made in Australia,' all they like. Everybody wants a future made in Australia. We love manufacturing. It'd be great to have more Australian manufacturing. But it isn't just saying it. You've got to understand the practical issues that manufacturing actually faces, and government is there to do that. Spending more simply won't produce that. Spending more in a misallocated way actually risks all those efficient manufacturers that are trying to compete with inflated government spending that is allocated by a government minister with people in Treasury in Canberra telling them that this is the best way to spend the government's money. We've been here before. It doesn't work. It won't work this time. It won't produce an efficient manufacturing sector either, and I think many of those opposite know that.

So why don't we curtail this bill and come back with some real proposals to actually decrease the input costs for manufacturing in Australia and make it viable and sustainable? That would actually help the manufacturing sector, and that's what they're calling out for. We can do something about their energy costs. We can do something about their regulatory and tax environments, actually sustain the economy and make sure that it would actually go better. That's why I oppose this bill and the coalition is opposing this bill. This clearly does appear to be a ministerial slush fund before an election. It has all the hallmarks of it. It doesn't really matter how it is spent. With a government minister allocating it, the capital is very likely, if not almost 100 per cent certain, to be misallocated in our economy and not spent in a way that will produce a future made in Australia.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, I want to thank all of the members who have contributed to this debate over the past fortnight. I think the vast majority of the colleagues on this side of the House have made good, considered, meaningful contributions to this debate, unlike the member just a moment ago, but I appreciate all of the contributions that have been made over the past fortnight or so. I'm grateful for the opportunity to sum up that debate for the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024 that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy introduced a couple of weeks ago.

These two bills are a major step in implementing the Albanese Labor government's Future Made in Australia agenda to deliver our country's next generation of prosperity. They're all about helping make Australia a renewable energy superpower and an indispensable part of the global net zero economy. It's all about more closely aligning our national security and our economic security interests. It's all about modernising and strengthening our economy in a world powered increasingly by cleaner and cheaper energy. It's also about grabbing the vast industrial and economic opportunities which flow from the global energy transformation and to share the benefits of those opportunities in communities right across the country.

The Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 embeds into law the strict criteria and robust processes that will guide our decision-making and set us up for success. The legislation is built on three main pillars: firstly, the National Interest Framework, which will help us identify sectors where we have a sustained comparative advantage in the new net zero economy or an economic resilience and security imperative to invest; secondly, a robust sector assessment process to help us better understand and break down barriers to private investment in key areas of our economy; and, thirdly, a set of community benefit principles that will help ensure that public investment and the private investment that it generates and leverages lead to strong returns and stronger communities.

The Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024 steps out how we will put that discipline and rigour into practice by expanding the roles of Export Finance Australia and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency so that they can make investments consistent with our National Interest Framework. Together, the two bills recognise that the world is changing as the planet moves to that future powered by cheaper and cleaner energy. Amidst this change, Australia has been dealt the most incredible set of cards, and we need to play those cards to make ourselves the primary beneficiaries of this new net zero economy. We've got a unique combination—a very advantageous combination—of geological, meteorological, geographical and geopolitical advantages, and we know it would be an egregious breach of our generational responsibilities as a government if we didn't play this winning hand.

So we welcome and acknowledge the discussion, the debate and the public scrutiny of these bills that has occurred in the House over the past two weeks. I might also say how grateful I am to crossbench members for the opportunity to meet and discuss elements of these deals with them particularly this week. I think the debate has shown that many members of this House understand that these bills will help Australia grasp the jobs and opportunities of the energy transformation. And I think members understand that they will help give investors the clarity and the certainty they need in order to invest and unlock growth in our economy and understand that these bills will ensure that the benefits of that investment flow to our people and communities.

During the debate many members on this side of the House and on the crossbench acknowledged how important it is, for Australia's prosperity, to get this legislation right. We have listened to the points made about transparency and rigour around investment decisions. That is precisely why we are enshrining the framework and processes underpinning a Future Made in Australia into the law that is before us. It's why the National Interest Framework will be supported by transparent Treasury led analysis to the extent that sectors align with the framework, and these assessments will be tabled in parliament. A number of amendments have been moved in relation to the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024. Again, we thank members for their engagement with the bill, and we will consider the detailed amendments put to us in good faith.

We have also, unfortunately, heard some pretty bizarre and unhinged contributions from those opposite. One said that prioritising local communities, secure jobs and skills is 'Orwellian'! The same joker said that putting national security and economics together is 'ideological'! The same person described the Australian Renewable Energy Agency as a slush fund, which is surprising, because it was the shadow Treasurer who said that, and he oversaw the Australian Renewable Energy Agency for about four years as the minister responsible for it! He described it as a slush fund. The opposition member who spoke a moment ago talked in similar terms. It hasn't dawned on them—they haven't taken the time to understand—that, of the $22.7 billion allocated in the budget for this Future Made in Australia plan, around $22 billion is a combination of tax breaks determined by production or investments determined by independent arm's-length bodies: ARENA, NZEA and others. Either that is a point that has been lost on those opposite or they are being deliberately dishonest about it.

The opposition's arguments in the debate reaffirmed what we already knew: this is a contest between the maddies over there and the mainstream over here. We are part of a new global orthodoxy. Our view is mainstream. It's middle of the road. It's all about sharing the views of the investment community here and abroad, who do understand this opportunity that's before us. I met with the Investor Group on Climate Change this week. I met with the AWU and the AMWU this week. There is a broad constituency—a very mainstream, middle-of-the-road constituency—representing workers, representing the investor community, who understand, appreciate and support what we are proposing in these bills.

I think sensible people know that it would be self-defeating to let the global net zero opportunity pass us by. That's why it's important that we pass these bills. The time to act on this is now. The world is changing, with or without Australia, and the golden opportunity in front of us will disappear if we take too long. And if we get stuck in the past our people will be poorer, our economy will be weaker and our country will be more vulnerable. That's why we need to progress this legislation that is before the House and why I'm proud to commend these bills to the House.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Treasurer, but I might just remind him that 'maddies' is not the correct way to describe those opposite. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time, to which the honourable member for Hume moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. Subsequent amendments have been moved by honourable members. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kooyong be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Indi be agreed to.

Question negatived.

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

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Hume be agreed to.

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

The question is that the bill be now read a second time.