David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I can hear Senator Chisholm asking why. It's because they're inflationary! That's $45 billion of inflationary spending that this government is not putting through the budget.

The economic experts at the IMF have assessed this government's key policies, such as the National Reconstruction Fund, Rewiring the Nation and the Housing Australia Future Fund, and said that these are a bad idea. And it's not just the IMF and the coalition saying that the Albanese government is implementing bad policy: the IMF has countered against this strongly and yet the government is intent on forging along with their ideological approach to governing and implementing their policies, despite being told that they'll make life harder for Australians. I just don't know how those opposite can do that. There are no two ways about it: this bill will not improve the lives of Australians, it will only make things harder. The government may as well change the name of this bill from the National Reconstruction Fund to the 'Labor slush fund', because all it's going to do is pick mates and throw taxpayer dollars into projects that people, such as the IMF, have said should be avoided.

This bill also has the potential to contribute to the increase in inflation, which is already skyrocketing under the Labor government. The legislation's intent is to borrow $5 billion of the $15 billion up-front, increasing the interest bill for Australians. This off-budget funding of $15 billion, in conjunction with the other off-budget policies that I've talked about, will increase government spending and drive up inflationary pressures. The government can't say that this won't happen, because the minister's own department admitted at Senate estimates that they had done no modelling on the inflationary impact of the National Reconstruction Fund. And this is at a time when Australians are suffering through a cost-of-living crisis. Energy prices are rising and mortgages and rents are rising; it astounds me that those opposite wouldn't at least to some modelling on this fund.

With its $45 billion in off-budget spending, the Albanese government is going on a political spending spree while the rest of Australia is tightening its belt. The RBA is looking to lower inflation, and this government seems to think that it's a good idea to push inflationary pressures up. But, again, we know that what has become clear with this government is they're great at making promises but not at keeping them. The PM promised to lower power bills by $275 on 97 occasions—I'll add that in there—and has not delivered them. In fact, they've gone up. Those opposite promised cheaper mortgages and have not delivered those either. They promised they would not make changes to super and we've had the world-class Olympic backflip which just happened on that. They promised cheaper medicines and better access to health care, and they have broken those promises. And they promised an aged-care pay rise but have broken that promise. That's just to name a few.

However, back to this bill. Despite the Labor government campaigning in the election on accountability and transparency, this bill lacks any of the checks and balances necessary for good governance. For a $15 billion fund, it's absurd that this legislation only proposes a five-yearly review of the act. It must, at the very least, be annual. On top of this, the bill will allow the corporation to keep investments anonymous. Where's the transparency, guys? As Research Australia stated in the Senate economics hearings, there's no apparent reason that the default position should be that the identities of recipients of NRF investments be kept secret. Rather, it's the other way around.

Not only does the National Reconstruction Fund lack transparency and integrity it's just simply a poor funding model, shifting from a competitive grant program which the coalition implemented through the Modern Manufacturing Initiative—and I have visited many dozens of companies which have got to an economic position where they can survive and go to market through that—to one where this government is providing equity and loans. Government equity and loan schemes are less successful than grants, and manufacturers may struggle to meet the return on investment thresholds or to put together a detailed business cases in house. And what will happen to failed or failing loans? It's clear that last experiment down this path by a Labor government, the Victorian Economic Development Corporation, almost destroyed the Victorian economy. We have to think about what this one is going to do to the Australian economy. It risks drowning out private investment, and this is also terribly concerning.

It also begs the question: if there are such great investment opportunities the government will acquire equity in, why hasn't the private sector already taken advantage of these lucrative opportunities? We must not overlook the importance of retaining ownership, especially given many of our manufacturers are family owned businesses. Are the government going to appoint directors to the boards of these family owned businesses? If so, who are they? My guess would be their union mates because that's how they roll. The bill will also stifle inflation as beneficiaries of the fund will be unlikely to invest in innovation without a guaranteed return. This funding model does not entertain failure, which is inherent in being able to innovate.

What is most concerning to me is how the government has attempted to politicise national security and AUKUS to try to support this slush fund. The Department of Industry, Science and Resources stated in committee hearings that they had provided no advice or briefings to the minister, who stated that, if the national reconstruction fund bill were not to pass, it would have implications for the AUKUS agreement.

When the minister introduced the national reconstruction fund bill, he didn't mention the words AUKUS or national security once. If the NRF was about national security, then why did Labor cut the space industry out of their priorities? If Labor are so concerned about defence manufacturing, why have they held up millions of dollars in funding to critical defence manufacturing projects funded through the Modern Manufacturing Strategy? Or how about they start looking at supporting many of our great SME defence companies whose products are being sent around the world and integrated into foreign armies, being used in conflicts such as that in Ukraine, but who cannot get any acquisition support here in Australia.

Actions speak louder than words, and this government isn't supporting our defence SMEs. They've delayed projects because of the DSR, and let's point out that they've delayed them until after the New South Wales state election and after the Aston by-election. They're undermining national security by drawing it into this political vehicle and they're undermining AUKUS with a concerning increase in the number of Labor backbenchers speaking against the AUKUS deal. National security and the AUKUS agreement should be bipartisan and above the politics of the day. It's absolutely disgraceful that the minister has attempted to tie it to this political slush fund.

It is clear, at least to me and the people on this side of the chamber, that this bill should not pass. It's riddled with problems. There are parts of it the government cannot explain as to why or how this will improve the lives of Australians. It's clear that it's going to be inflationary, that inflation is running away and hurting Australians every day in their household budgets, in their mortgage repayments, in their credit card repayments, in their car repayments—everything that they use in their daily life. They are simply paying more under this government. So how this government can look Australians in the face and add more inflationary pressures to the back pockets of our hardworking Australians is completely beyond me.

I call on this government to scrap this fund. I call on the Senate to vote against this fund because I cannot, in all good conscience, support this bill. Thank you.