This bill became law on Apr 11th, 2023.
Budget, tax & economy
Creates the National Reconstruction Fund CorporationThe new public body set up to invest government money in industries the government wants to strengthen. to direct more finance into parts of the Australian economy the government treats as national priorities.
Supply chain vulnerabilities and gaps in finance left Australian industry struggling to commercialise innovation, build sovereign capabilityThe ability to make or maintain important things in Australia instead of relying heavily on overseas suppliers. and adapt to a net zero economy. The bill creates the National Reconstruction Fund CorporationThe new public body set up to invest government money in industries the government wants to strengthen. to invest $15 billion in priority Australian-based projects through loans, guarantees and equityAn ownership stake in a business, such as shares or another form of ownership interest., helping attract private investment.
After years of manufacturing decline, including the end of major car production in 2016, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed how exposed Australia was to global supply chains and how hard it was for local firms to scale up production in strategic sectors. The Albanese government responded by proposing a $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund in late 2022, then passing it in March 2023 after amendments narrowed where money could go, creating a new public investor to back Australian-based industry with loans, guarantees and equityAn ownership stake in a business, such as shares or another form of ownership interest..
The main criticism was that the fund gave ministers too much discretion over a large pool of public money, with too little detail, scrutiny and protection against politicised or wasteful investment decisions. That case was pressed most strongly by Coalition speakers, while some crossbench and Greens support remained conditional on tighter safeguards, especially to stop fossil fuel and native forest projects being funded.
Hon Ed Husic MP introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, some crossbench members; opposed by Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, UAP, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 11 Apr 2023
Final passage
Recorded final vote
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Passage speed
132 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Creates the National Reconstruction Fund CorporationThe new public body set up to invest government money in industries the government wants to strengthen. to direct more finance into parts of the Australian economy the government treats as national priorities.
Lets the National Reconstruction Fund CorporationThe new public body set up to invest government money in industries the government wants to strengthen. provide loans, guarantees and similar finance for projects in priority industries.
Lets the National Reconstruction Fund CorporationThe new public body set up to invest government money in industries the government wants to strengthen. buy ownership stakes in businesses working in priority industries, not just lend them money.
Requires funded investments to be mainly based in Australia, so the fund is aimed at domestic economic activity.
Lets ministers add new priority sectors over time, which means the fund’s reach can be expanded without passing a new Act.
The object of this Act is to establish the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation to facilitate increased flows of finance into priority areas of the Australian economy.National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Act 2023 final Act text
(a) to provide financial accommodation for purposes relating to any of the priority areas of the Australian economy; andNational Reconstruction Fund Corporation Act 2023 final Act text
(b) to acquire equity interests in entities that carry on activities in a priority area of the Australian economy.National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Act 2023 final Act text
• Each investment of the Corporation must be solely or mainly Australian‑based.National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Act 2023 final Act text
The Ministers may, by legislative instrument, declare that each area of the Australian economy specified in the declaration is a priority area of the Australian economy for the purposes of this Act.National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Act 2023 final Act text
Context
After years of manufacturing decline, including the end of major car production in 2016, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed how exposed Australia was to global supply chains and how hard it was for local firms to scale up production in strategic sectors. The Albanese government responded by proposing a $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund in late 2022, then passing it in March 2023 after amendments narrowed where money could go, creating a new public investor to back Australian-based industry with loans, guarantees and equityAn ownership stake in a business, such as shares or another form of ownership interest..
Ford ends Australian engine production in Geelong
Speakers cited the September 2016 closure of Ford's Geelong engine plant as part of the wider loss of manufacturing capacity and jobs that shaped the case for new industry policy.
Hansard ↗Ford ends vehicle assembly at Broadmeadows
Speakers pointed to the October 2016 end of assembly at Broadmeadows as another marker of Australia's shrinking manufacturing base and lost supply-chain capability.
Hansard ↗COVID-19 pandemic exposes supply chain vulnerabilities
Parliamentary speeches said the pandemic showed Australia was too dependent on overseas suppliers, with shortages of essentials like PPE and ventilators sharpening the push for more local capability.
Hansard ↗Government introduces the National Reconstruction Fund bill
Industry Minister Ed Husic introduced the bill as a key Albanese government commitment to channel $15 billion into priority sectors and rebuild domestic manufacturing.
Hansard ↗Greens secure amendments to block fossil fuel and native forest funding
Senate debate recorded that negotiations produced amendments preventing the new fund from directly investing in coal, gas and native logging projects.
Hansard ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing the creation of the new financing vehicle for Australian-based investments in priority industries.
Parliamentary timeline ↗National Reconstruction Fund becomes law
Royal AssentThe formal approval that turns a passed bill into law. turned the bill into an Act, clearing the way for the National Reconstruction Fund CorporationThe new public body set up to invest government money in industries the government wants to strengthen. to be established in law.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Referred to Committee (01/12/2022): Senate Economics Legislation Committee; Committee report (10/03/2023)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 89 to 53.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber. Later message exchanges with the other chamber were still recorded afterwards.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 34 to 29.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Committee of the Whole debate
Recorded vote: 34 to 28.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Consideration of Senate message
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe formal approval that turns a passed bill into law., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the fund gave ministers too much discretion over a large pool of public money, with too little detail, scrutiny and protection against politicised or wasteful investment decisions. That case was pressed most strongly by Coalition speakers, while some crossbench and Greens support remained conditional on tighter safeguards, especially to stop fossil fuel and native forest projects being funded.
Criticism was real but split between governance concerns and narrower safeguard demands.
Too much ministerial discretion and weak oversight
Critics argued the bill created a large investment vehicle with too much ministerial influence and too little parliamentary scrutiny, raising the risk of opaque decision-making, patronage or a political slush fund.
Poorly targeted spending that may not fix industry problems
Opponents said the fund was a costly intervention that could crowd out private investment, fuel inflation or waste taxpayer money while leaving the real pressures on manufacturers, such as energy, labour and supply chains, largely untouched.
Risk of funding fossil fuels and harmful projects
Some MPs who backed public investment still warned the bill should not bankroll coal, gas, native forest logging or projects inconsistent with emissions goals, and wanted those exclusions written in more clearly.
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Passed 34 to 28. Support came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Earlier bill-stage votes
Passed 89 to 53. Support came from Labor, Greens, Centre Alliance, Katter's Australian Party, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Passed 34 to 29. Support came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Passed 34 to 28. Support came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Amendments grouped by chamber. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.
House
Passed 84 to 54. Support came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and Katter's Australian Party. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This added a major prohibited-investment safeguard to the bill before it completed the House stage.
Passed 67 to 15. Support came from Labor and Liberal Party. Opposition came from Greens, Centre Alliance, Katter's Australian Party, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This left ministerial appointment discretion unchanged in the bill.
Passed 87 to 55. Support came from Labor and Greens. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and Katter's Australian Party. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The proposed change was agreed.
The APH progress record says 2 Crossbench amendments were agreed without a counted division being collected by this run.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The House agreed to the amendments made by the Senate, so the bill could pass both chambers in the same form.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senate
Passed 34 to 30. Support came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a second-reading statement only, so it expressed support for extra startup finance and an ACT office without changing the bill text.
Passed 34 to 30. Support came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a second-reading statement only, so it expressed support for extra startup finance and an ACT office without changing the bill text.
Defeated 27 to 33. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
That kept committee consideration moving instead of adjourning it.
Defeated 14 to 37. Support came from Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This would have added an environmental safeguard to the investment settings if it had passed.
Passed 34 to 28. Support came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This inserted broader policy duties into the CorporationThe new public body set up to invest government money in industries the government wants to strengthen.'s governing framework.
Defeated 6 to 46. Support came from One Nation, Jacqui Lambie Network, and UAP. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Greens, Labor, and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This would have removed a large category of clean-energy-compatible investment from the fund.
Defeated 28 to 34. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a combined package that would have loosened the bill's limits on fossil-fuel-related investment and elevated IP commercialization.
Defeated 28 to 34. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The bill kept the government's more flexible oversight and reporting structure instead of the opposition's stricter version.
Defeated 28 to 34. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, One Nation, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This would have increased transparency around where the fund's money went.
Passed 37 to 25. Support came from Labor, Greens, One Nation, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This tightened the bill's review cycle and shortened the initial board term.
Defeated 12 to 38. Support came from Greens. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Labor, Nationals, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This would have greatly widened the bill's prohibited-investment rules and added stronger First Nations consent requirements.
Passed 34 to 30. Support came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This added a major prohibited-investment safeguard to the bill before it completed the Senate stage.
Passed 34 to 30. Support came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a second-reading statement only, so it expressed a policy position without directly changing the bill text.
The Senate agreed on voices to 10 government amendments and three Jacqui Lambie Network amendments during committee consideration.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate agreed on voices to two Independent amendments during committee consideration.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
In relation to the amendments, I would ask the amendments on sheet 1866 be put separately to the amendments on sheet 1897 revised 2 and sheet 1919.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senator Tyrrell’s proposal was rejected on voices and would have added a note clarifying that the CorporationThe new public body set up to invest government money in industries the government wants to strengthen. could fund a constitutional corporation that does prohibited activities unless the investment directly funds those activities.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senator Tyrrell’s proposal was rejected on voices and would have required the Board to prepare a five-year Strategic Direction, keep it consistent with the Investment MandateThe ministerial direction that sets how the Corporation should invest and what it should pay attention to., and update it after mandate changes.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
The parliamentary record also shows 2 Crossbench amendments, 10 Government, 3 Jacqui Lambie Network amendments, and 2 Independent amendments agreed without a counted division.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Husic strongly supports the bill, saying it delivers a key election commitment to rebuild Australia’s industrial base, create secure well-paid jobs, and back investment in strategic manufacturing and technology.
Read in Hansard ↗Sussan Ley says the coalition will oppose the bill because it does not address the energy, labour and supply chain pressures hurting manufacturers, and because it gives too much discretion to the minister while sidelining proper consultation and scrutiny.
Read in Hansard ↗Waters says the Greens support the bill because it will back public investment in rebuilding Australian manufacturing and industrial decarbonisation.
Read in Hansard ↗Steggall supports the bill and says the National Reconstruction Fund can help Australia lift investment, innovation and manufacturing.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
37 speakers · 39 contributions · 37 support
“Both this bill and the investment mandate guiding investments will make sure the $15 billion fund drives Australia's natural inclination towards innovation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“What a breath of fresh air for our economy.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“It is important the bill be passed as soon as possible so the fund can be up and running from 1 July. It's important this parliament does the right thing and supports the legislation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill, the investment mandate, the guiding investments and the board's independence to make decisions in the national interest will make sure that this $15 billion fund drives Australia's natural inclination towards innovation. Labor's focus is on renewing, revitalising and rebuilding our manufacturing industry for small-business owners, for the regions, for better pay for families, for a stronger economy and for more secure jobs. I urge those opposite to put their politics aside and to not oppose this once-in-a-generation investment in our crucial manufacturing industry.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I'll say today, in this Senate, that this is a policy and a commitment to support manufacturing workers. I know that the debate will go down many channels and that there'll be many excuses from those opposite. But, on this side of the chamber, and through this policy, we support manufacturing workers. The people who vote against this policy don't support manufacturing workers. It's black-and-white: we support manufacturing in regional Queensland, and I encourage other senators to do the same. I say to those manufacturing workers in regional Queensland: whether you work in sugar, train manufacturing or marine manufacturing, thank you for the work that you do. I'm so proud to represent you and to deliver this policy for you today.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The National Reconstruction Fund is about building a better future for all Australians. It deserves support from all in this parliament, and I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“There are a number of benefits that this legislation brings, which is why everyone in this place should be supporting it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I support this bill because I think the government can and should strategically and thoughtfully invest in industries for the future. This is what this bill does, and this is how we will create jobs. As our economy transitions away from emission-intensive industries, there needs to be a plan. We cannot leave the future of our workers and communities to chance. It was heartbreaking to see my father become a so-called 'stranded asset'. I don't want that for anyone, least of all the constituents of Swan.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Passing this bill is a step forward in revitalising the industry after the damage that was caused. Let's all work together in this place. Let's all get together and support and rejuvenate the manufacturing industry in this country. Let's improve our sovereign capability across key areas. Let's reduce our reliance on fragile and uncertain international supply chains. I urge everyone this chamber, particularly the National Party, who say that they support regional Australia, to support this bill, and let's support the revival of manufacturing, support regional employment and support a future made here in Australia.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“It is with great delight that I rise in this chamber today to speak in support of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. This bill presents such an enormous range of very exciting opportunities for my electorate of Newcastle—and not just my electorate.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This is the way of the future. Australia has so many opportunities to build manufacturing, build jobs for Australians and build industries. The National Reconstruction Fund helps companies and industries prepare for a bright new future. I commend the bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I'm obviously speaking in support of this very good bill, the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. It's a major reform for Australia.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The NRF Corporation is. I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to speak in proud support of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022, a significant and important commitment made by the Albanese Labor government and a clear commitment to help the growth of industries in Australia.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So I commend this bill to the House. It's one of the most important pieces of legislation this House is dealing with. It delivers on a key election commitment this government made coming into government. It's fantastic for the country, it's fantastic for manufacturing jobs and it's fantastic for the regions.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In closing, I say to the opposition and the Greens: get with the program. Back Australian manufacturing. I say in particular to the Greens political party: don't vote with the Liberals all the time. Don't team up with the Liberals. Back Australian manufacturing and support this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Ed Husic on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Minister's second reading speech
Husic strongly supports the bill, saying it delivers a key election commitment to rebuild Australia’s industrial base, create secure well-paid jobs, and back investment in strategic manufacturing and technology. He argues the National Reconstruction Fund will help keep talent and businesses onshore and strengthen sovereign capabilityThe ability to make or maintain important things in Australia instead of relying heavily on overseas suppliers. through independent, merit-based investment.
“The introduction of this bill is another step in delivering an important election commitment which will propel Australia towards a strong, modern and diverse economy.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Ed Husic supports the bill and argues it will provide long-term growth capital for manufacturers, strengthen supply chains and innovation, and back good jobs across the country. He says the National Reconstruction Fund is an important arm's-length investment vehicle and criticises the opposition for voting against it.
“I thank the House for their consideration of this absolutely vital bill, and make the point that, when the vote eventually comes on this bill, people will be asked to make a choice. They will be asked whether or not they support Australian manufacturing and they support good blue-collar jobs. Manufacturing generates, on the whole, full-time, secure work. There are 90,000 manufacturing firms in this country; a third of them exist outside the capital cities. We can do better. We can certainly—and we certainly want to—ensure regional manufacturing grows. And it's not just in the regions but in remote Australia as well. I note the presence of the member for Kennedy, and I note his interest in ensuring that manufacturing occurs in all parts of the country, not just in some. We want to make sure that that is there.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“There are good members on the other side. They care about Australia's future. They care about Australia's national interest. They would know that $15 billion invested in manufacturing, in advanced manufacturing, in technology, in capability and in supply chain resilience is good for Australia. Maybe they'll have the courage in their party room to stand up to their leader and say: 'No, we should negotiate. Let's try and put up an amendment or something but we should back this bill in because it's good for Australia, because it's good for our constituents.' To them: I'm asking you to back Australian made. I'm asking you to back Australian jobs. I'm asking you to back the Australian economy. I'm asking you to do the right thing and not oppose the National Reconstruction Fund.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The introduction of this bill is another step in delivering an important election commitment which will propel Australia towards a strong, modern and diverse economy.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I sincerely hope that those opposite support this. I hope that the crossbench supports this. It's essential for our nation's future. It's essential for our nation's security. On that basis, I very much support it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We, on this side of the House, are proud to support the National Reconstruction Fund. We're proud to be on the side of Australian workers. We're on the side of Australian jobs. We're on the side of Australia's future prosperity. I ask all members to join with us in support of a better future, made in Australia. I say to the National Party—and there are a couple of sensible people from the National Party here; they're probably the only ones—that this is about regional jobs more so than anything else. The National Reconstruction Fund is not going to support new industries in the CBDs of Sydney and Melbourne. It's going to support jobs in regional Australia and in the outer suburbs of our cities. That is what this program is about, and that is why it is so important.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Let's talk about what this legislation seeks to do. We seek to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. The National Reconstruction Fund will provide the finance to drive investments in seven priority areas. First, it will add value in resources, expanding Australia's mining science and technology, and increase domestic processing in Australia. That's incredibly important to my electorate, the headquarters of some of the largest mining operations in Australia. I speak all the time to people from the CEO of the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, Rebecca Tomkinson, through to the CEOs of those major mining companies. We know there is so much more we can do if we back the science that is already being developed in Perth, already being developed in Western Australia, already being developed across Australia, to make sure that we secure the future of our resources industry and all that it can become. I note that's also on the agenda for the Minister for Resources, as she travels with the Prime Minister and the trade minister to India today.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022 is a big step forward, both for manufacturing and for jobs in our country. The opportunities that are presented by the National Reconstruction Fund have the potential to shape the future of Australian industry. While some in this country—and that does include those opposite—gave up on Australia having a future in manufacturing and our industrial capability, this government has not.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I am very glad to support the National Reconstruction Fund along with my colleagues. Its basis is rock solid. It is shaped in the way that the CEFC was established, and that has been enormously successful. It has identified seven pretty clear and, to some degree, I would say, obvious areas of focus: value added resources, value added agriculture, transport, medical science, renewables and low-emissions technologies, defence and enabling capabilities. I don't know anyone over there could argue that those aren't things that we should be leaning into. That's how the National Reconstruction Fund will work. It will catalyse sophisticated manufacturing and innovation in this country, and it will do it through a proper and rigorous investment structure. I am very glad to support it. It's what the Australian community voted for last May. I guess we just keep holding on for the day, at some point in the future, when those opposite, after nine years of saying no and doing nothing in government, and now nine months of saying no to everything in opposition in this parliament, come in here and surprise us and say yes. But I won't be holding my breath.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Carina Garland on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Garland strongly supports the bill and says it will back Australian industry, secure jobs and build sovereign manufacturing capability after the pandemic. She criticises the coalition for refusing to support it and says the country needs this investment to become more resilient and self-sufficient.
“I am really excited about this National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022 because I am passionate about Australian industry, including manufacturing, and I know how important this opportunity is for my community of Chisholm.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Garland strongly supports the bill and says the opposition should back it, arguing that the National Reconstruction Fund will rebuild Australian manufacturing, strengthen supply chains and create secure, well-paid jobs. She presents it as a necessary post-pandemic investment in the country's resilience and future industry.
“This is a good bill that will do great things for our nation. This is a good plan for our country. We can rebuild our country to be a place that is sufficient, resilient and more secure. That's what the National Reconstruction Fund is about. It would be nice if those opposite didn't just say no to everything. What we are seeing in this debate is that this is not a contest of ideas about how manufacturing can be supported in Australia. There is none of that. There is no constructive plan from those opposite, no vision, no imagination, no hope and no support for people in our communities across Australia who want to have a thriving manufacturing industry here.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“The Albanese government backs in workers. We back in Aussie smarts, and we're backing in Australian jobs. The National Reconstruction Fund is a smart investment in the potential of our nation. It is about renewing, revitalising and rebuilding Australia's manufacturing industry for Australians, for small-business owners, for the regions and for Australian jobs. It's not a handout and it's not about picking winners. It's about creating opportunity from Australian smarts for the people in my community and so many others like it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I, too, rise to speak on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023. Australia should be a country that makes things right here, because 'Australian made' means Australian jobs. That's why I rise to speak in support of this bill, which will rebuild Australian manufacturing in this country.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I, too, rise in support of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022, which will be driving transformation of Australian industry.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This legislation begins that task, and I commend it to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This $15 billion fund will bring back Australian industry, and it will mean that we are again a country that makes things. Industry in Australia will diversify, so we make more of the things that Australians need. This will give Australians well-paid, secure jobs, our economy will grow and it will leave our country as a whole better off in the long run.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund is vital to support and to diversify Australia's industry and to create sustainable, secure, well-paying jobs. The NRF will provide finance, including loans, guarantees and equity, to drive investments in seven priority areas in the Australian economy.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We are in desperate need for a federal government partner to help grow manufacturing jobs. If we want to be a country that makes things, we need to be doing more than just handing out clunky grants, more than just leaving it up to the market. This is an opportunity to actually be a partner. It is innovative. I know those opposite struggle with innovation, but if they actually took the time to work with and listen to manufacturing groups, particularly those in regional areas, they would learn that this fund being put forward by the government is the answer to a lot of challenges that we have in growing manufacturing in the regions.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So I'm asking you, I'm urging you, to support this legislation and back in advanced manufacturing in this country. To those who are destined to vote against this bill, I want you to reflect on that while you still have the opportunity—what this is going to mean for our country.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The reconstruction fund will be governed by an independent board and will be empowered to co-invest in projects through loans, guarantees, and equity, partnering with institutional investors, private equity and venture capital. It will invest in strategic priority areas, like: value adding in resources, renewables, and low-emissions technology; transport: agriculture; forestry; fisheries; and a wide range of other industries. Importantly, it will help to grow a more resilient and diversified economy that will create more jobs—and I think it will particularly create more jobs in regional Australia.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“But let's be clear: this bill is essential. This is an essential step for our country, for rebuilding our industrial capability and for creating secure and well-paid jobs.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Albanese government is voting for legislation to revive Australian manufacturing, and the Liberals and Nationals are voting against it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Those opposite have a choice: they can support us and join us in renewing and revitalising manufacturing or they can turn their backs on manufacturing once again. I commend this bill to the Senate.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
48 speakers · 49 contributions · 1 support · 46 oppose · 1 unclear
“The opposition stands with our industries, who are facing significant and growing challenges. We understand those challenges. We're there for our industries. We're backing them in—unlike this Prime Minister, who said he would leave no-one behind. He is leaving our manufacturing industries far behind. We will fight every day to ensure that their interests are front and centre. The coalition will be opposing this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I conclude with the observation that this is a bad idea and badly executed. Labor has a long track record of financial disaster with these kinds of schemes, and the current Prime Minister seems to have a particular enthusiasm for them. I confidently predict this fund will not live up to the breathless claims being made. A lot of taxpayers' money will be wasted. It's a bad bill. I have no hesitation in voting against it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I will start with the fundamental issue that we in the opposition have with this bill—the fact it does ignore some of the economic situations and realities that industry faces. There are things like rising energy costs; a lack of supply of particular materials and inputs into the manufacturing process; labour market shortages; of course increased costs related to labour, which is another key input; disrupted supply chains that arise out of some of these challenges; and increased fuel costs. This bill does nothing to address those issues.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Once again I come back to where I started. Those opposite will potentially be providing money to state and territory governments who already have any number of other sources. They will be putting forward all sorts of proposals for which there is already existing availability. So we will not be supporting this bill. It is the wrong decision for Australia, and it is a political showbag. (Time expired)”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“It's too expensive, it's too opaque, it's too risky, and it asks way too much of the Australian taxpayer.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This fund is going to channel $15 billion to—as my good friend and colleague Senator Scarr rightly says—the rent-seeking parasites. The fact of the matter is that small businesses, like window manufacturers up in Cairns, won't know how to go through all the applications and the paperwork and jump all the hurdles to get the hand-out.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The other thing that is really disappointing about the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023 is the fact that it basically applies every single piece of bad policy and bad legislative design and regulation, and stuffs it all into one bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“What will we on this side do in relation to this bill? We will not be supporting it. It is bad policy. It is just like their super changes—bad policy. So if you want to actually get some support from this side of the House, come up with proposals that will help the Australian people, that are not bad policy and that are just looking after your union mates.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So I'm very proud of the important, strong, principled position that we've taken on this bill and on a similar bill, and I hope that it might persuade some of the reasonable members of the Albanese government who can channel some of the more reasonable members of the Whitlam government to stand up against this kind of fraudulent accounting trickery and put the interests of this nation first, put the finances of the people of Australia first, and vote down this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“On the funding side of it, the coalition put some $5 billion into the Modern Manufacturing Initiative. It was against quite specific areas which were targeted as national priorities, including things like space, as well as medical products, food products and defence—a range of sectors that were important for our economy. It was a competitive based program in those important sectors, whereas here we have $15 billion, $10 billion of which is not targeted against anything and will not be subject to further parliamentary scrutiny. That is an enormous amount of taxpayers' money to not have a structured, strategic plan for its investment or the oversight of the parliament, as the Australian taxpayers' representative, to make sure that it is spent wisely.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“On this side of the House we will always support practical and realistic support for industry, for innovation and for small business. We don't make life harder for Australians by driving up inflation and forcing the RBA to increase rates. We don't just throw around money in the hope that it works, and we won't support a bill that does that. We won't play the political games that the government continue to play, with a prime minister that's all about politics and spin and not about real Australians.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition opposes Labor's NRF because it's another bad decision by Labor. It's bad for taxpayers, for business, for manufacturers and for the economy. It has a poor funding model—surprise, surprise! The government's funding model has unintended consequences and is likely to fail. That's why we don't support this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise today, on behalf of the opposition, to speak to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023. The coalition will be opposing this bill. Why are we opposing this bill? It's because the bill is from an arrogant government which believes that it can tell the manufacturers of Australia what they need, rather than addressing with good and proper policy what the manufacturers of Australia are telling the government—because they're out there, I assure you—they require.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The heading of the bill looks great, but when you look at the detail it is bad policy that would create bad law, so of course we are not going to support it. This is desperate politics from a desperate government.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise today to address the main reasons why the coalition will not be supporting the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023 in its current format, and I'm actually surprised that some opposite are going to be supporting it, because when they come in to address this bill, their bill, they're not selling the bill to us. They're not talking about how great it's going to be; all they do is keep looking back towards the coalition and talking about what the previous government did, and of course they're rewriting history significantly. But if this were so great, wouldn't you think they'd be in here to sell their bill, to talk about the positive impacts it's going to have, rather than just, hilariously, talking about using cheap political shots? They are the government and they should be in here selling the positive outcomes to the Australian people on the bills they propose, but unfortunately they can't do that, because this bill does not produce those outcomes.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I strongly object to the bill on a number of areas, particularly as it does not include something as important as space manufacturing. That's completely extraordinary.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The focus of government should be basically a focus on the investment environment. There are plenty of things we can do to make this country more productive and more attractive for capital investment in the manufacturing industry, and that's what we should be doing, not investing taxpayer dollars in the way proposed.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition acknowledges the importance of having strong supports for Australian manufacturing, which is why we achieved this and delivered the Modern Manufacturing Strategy. But it was transparent and it was sound economically. Labor's National Reconstruction Fund is many times the cost, has great risks for Australian taxpayers and will demonstrably not result in any benefit for Australian manufacturers. It will just result in more pain for Australian taxpayers.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So, make no mistake, we're not against manufacturing and we don't think it's a bad thing to support small business and industry to grow and expand. That's why, on this side of House, we took a very conservative approach, in the context of an economy that was performing well because of good economic management. But we do think this new $15 billion fund is a bad way of going about it, and I want to run through some of the reasons.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We oppose policy when it's a dud deal. We oppose policy if it's going to be bad for the economy or if it's going to be bad for the Australian people. Indeed, we'll oppose policy if it's clearly not going to meet its objectives. If it's not going to address the issue that they say it will address, we'll oppose it because that money could be better directed or better spent elsewhere, which is the case with this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In rushing this bill through, the Albanese government wants to offer $15 billion in taxpayer funds to a board picked by Labor to fund priorities set by Labor. They are leaving the task of determining manufacturing priorities to the minister. The potential for misuse is enormous, and I need not remind the House how out of whack Labor's priorities are. Instead of addressing energy security, they're funding climate warrior training programs. Instead of mental health support, they're spending $400 million a year of borrowed taxpayers' money on a housing policy experiment that may not result in the construction of one home. Borders are opening and the Navy is on alert. Regional GPs are closing. Businesses are shutting up shop. The construction sector is teetering on the edge of collapse. Mobile towers are going up across Labor held seats while regional Australia languishes once again at the hand of Labor's neglect. And those opposite have the gall to talk about integrity and transparency!”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The reason I speak against this bill tonight is not just through the prism of manufacturing but through the prism of pure economics.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“But the solution provided is a mechanism for more power for unions in this space. I don't speak against unions on the basis that they are simply unions, I speak against any monopoly that tries to exert too much power—and I fear that's exactly what this legislation opens up the opportunity for.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“But what we are seeing now are proposals by this government not only to have an equity stake in your business but they want an equity stake in your house and they want an equity stake in your super. What else does this government want an equity stake in in your life? We should oppose this bill, because it's bad policy and it's bad for the country.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This should be seen as an opportunity. I understand governments want to come in and put a new label on a new minister and say, 'We're going to do it a different way.' I hope and pray it works. If it doesn't, we kick ourselves in the foot again. I want this to work. I want it to happen. I want this nation to succeed.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“For all of the reasons I have outlined, I oppose this bill. It is not supported by industry groups. It is not supported by business. It is supported by unions. It will do nothing to improve our manufacturing industry.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So there are many reasons that I have concerns about this particular bill, but, I must admit, I was surprised and disappointed to hear the minister's reference to AUKUS in promoting this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So I am concerned in so many areas with this bill: the quantum of it, the $15 billion; the fact that it is off-budget borrowing; the fact that we're in an environment where interest rates are rising, and the service costs on that debt will continue to rise; and the fact that we have a board which will be appointed by the minister, and we're told that it will be independent, but we have all these other decisions that have come out of government that would almost seem to preclude the investment by this new board of this new fund in the very industries that we need to drive Australia forward. On so many fronts, I do not think this National Reconstruction—and I have told you why I don't like that word—Fund is sitting on sound foundations or is good for Australia, and that is why we on this side of the chamber are opposing it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“However, the future will not look so kindly—history will look very dimly—on Labor's National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill. This bill fails to address the economic conditions now facing Australian manufacturers. It fails to provide for timely funding. It fails to present manufacturers with a rational funding model. And it fails to provide investment certainty. The bill is, in other words, a reckless and slapdash attempt to throw money at the manufacturing industry, with no certainty as to the returns that it will deliver.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“What we need is a government that understands what the headwinds are and doesn't come up with a shiny new thing that they can market in a retail political space saying, 'Look at us. We want to be the government that makes things again.' Please! Provide the settings that business needs to get ahead. Back manufacturers in.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise today to speak to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022, a bill that the opposition will, indeed, oppose. It's a bill that fails to support the manufacturing and industry sectors on the ground across the north-west, the west coast and King Island in the great state of Tasmania.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Without policies that create strong economic conditions, any government spending is in vain. The simple fact of the matter is that without addressing these key economic challenges, which are holding industry back—including those great industries in my electorate—government spending in this fashion will not achieve the outcomes we all want. I want a strong industry and innovation policy to support manufacturers. I have hundreds of manufacturers in my electorate who would embrace support from this government, but it must be the right support. Grants that provide confidence and leverage investment are the right mechanism. Loans and equity schemes with union strings attached are not. There is inappropriate ministerial discretion in this bill which allows the minister to appoint the chair and board members who will oversee the corporation and its funds. And a corporation with $15 billion in public funds will be a honey pot for union influence. Nobody should be shocked by the support for the governance arrangements for the corporation shown by the ACTU, the AWU and the AMWU.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Mike and Chris are indicative of the good folk of Flinders, who cry out for one thing, who tell us what they need but are told by this government that they really need something different. In this case, they need the National Reconstruction Fund, which seems to deliver on what the Labor Party wants and potentially what the union movement wants, not what our struggling and striving Australian manufacturers need. The model that Labor wishes to implement in a no doubt well-intentioned policy is not what is currently needed. This bill, much like everything else the Albanese government has presented to the constituents of my electorate, completely misses the mark.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to speak in opposition to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. In doing so, I say that Australia is a country that is blessed with so much. Aside from making things—and apart from a series of fantastic tourism ads—we also have significant natural resources, a motivated workforce and, most importantly, that good old Aussie ingenuity and pride in our products that we stamp as 'Australian made'.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“It sounds good, doesn't it? I think the governance of this fund is going to be very interesting, and we will watch this with interest. Obviously, we'll be voting against this inflationary slush fund, but we will keep a close eye on the governance of this fund. It's been neutered in its own shell bill, but the government will, I'm sure, want to issue press releases in future years saying that the very independent, very highly skilled board has made these judgements about various matters.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill highlights the inability of Labor to deliver a nonpartisan program that will assist all sectors. This bill picks favourites. This bill should not be supported in its current form. I note that the coalition have several amendments which will go some way to improving outcomes under this bill, if the amendments are passed. I would strongly request that all senators give those amendments full consideration. As it stands, I cannot support this bill, and I do not endorse it to the chamber.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition is opposing this bill because this arrogant government is telling our manufacturers what they think they need, rather than addressing what they want or what they need. The simple fact of the matter is that, without addressing these key economic challenges which are holding back industry, government spending is useless.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The National Reconstruction Fund is a very, very poor funding model. The National Reconstruction Fund is another attempt by the Labor Party to realise their ideological obsession of government ownership over what rightfully belongs to private industry. Instead of a competitive grants program, as offered under the coalition's Modern Manufacturing Initiative, Labor has opted for loans and acquiring equity. We know, from similar schemes rolled out by previous Labor governments, that equity and loans schemes are less accessible than grants, and manufacturers may struggle to meet return-on-investment thresholds or, indeed, be able to put together the detailed business cases in-house.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“By scrapping the Modern Manufacturing Fund and replacing it with the National Reconstruction Fund, this government will make it more difficult for smaller manufacturers to access. The process outlined appears to be far more complicated and laborious. We are also being told by this no-plan government that this fund should be up and running by next financial year, but they haven't committed to a launch date yet. Industry leaders have told us this type of funding model takes years to get right and the government has chosen to redirect the modern manufacturing initiative funds without even having rolled out their own National Reconstruction Fund. This has left out manufacturing industries in the lurch without certainty.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Senator Sheldon said that every submission to the inquiry was in support of this bill. Well, gee, guess what—business looks at free money and says yes. Is anyone remotely surprised by that fact? That does not mean it's good policy. We have hundreds of cases—I've named a couple of them, such as WA Inc and the Victorian Economic Development Corporation, and I'm sure Senator Scarr can give me hundreds of examples from Queensland—where these sorts of approaches have resulted in very negative outcomes for the taxpayer. Throughout history and throughout the western world, there are plenty of examples of where governments haven't been able to help themselves—trying to achieve a particular economic outcome and protect a particular industry, they have got their sticky fingers involved, and it has never—or very rarely—ended in positive territory for the taxpayers of the nation involved. That is why I remain extraordinarily concerned about this bill and I will certainly, very happily, vote against it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Again, Labor have missed an opportunity to provide practical support to the business community for three reasons: firstly, they simply don't get business or the economy; secondly, they have to consider their union masters in every decision; and, thirdly, they will never be able to inspire the most critical thing of all, which is business confidence.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I would really like to support a bill that is genuine and can be trusted, and a government that can be trusted to implement a big economic responsibility like this. Within the very short time this government has been in power, it has shown that it can't be trusted. Today, when the Minister for Financial Services gave an explanation of self-managed superannuation funds, it could only be described as either not telling the truth or incompetent; it was one of the two. So how can we trust this government to implement a program that is going to spend $15 billion of hard-earned taxpayers' money? I would like to do it, but I simply can't.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Michael McCormack on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Michael McCormack opposes the National Reconstruction Fund CorporationThe new public body set up to invest government money in industries the government wants to strengthen. Bill because he says it ignores the real pressures on regional businesses, especially labour shortages, rising energy prices and the cost of living. He argues the fund is a fanciful scheme and says Labor should fix those problems first.
“But what are those opposite doing about it? They're proposing a lottery-type scheme in the Pacific which doesn't actually cut the mustard, I have to say, nor does the National Reconstruction Fund. Let's look at the critical issues first: labour shortages, rising energy prices and, basically, the cost of living. Let's let Labor address those issues in government before going down with this fanciful bill that they have before the House.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
McCormack opposes the bill, arguing that the National Reconstruction Fund is really a package of union favours dressed up in appealing language. He says the detail matters and that the measure backs unions rather than the businesses and employers he wants supported.
“The National Reconstruction Fund, I'm afraid, could also be called 'payback to the unions'. The trouble with those opposite is that their bills, their motions, often come with these flowery terms. I will give credit to whoever is creating them in the publicity department of those opposite who writes the titles for these bills; they all sound great. They then go out on their social media and say 'can't understand why those in opposition constantly say no'. The trouble is it is the devil in the detail. It's the fact that the bills come laced with union favours, with payback to the people who pay their way, who give them the orders.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“At a time when our country is battling rising energy prices, labour market shortages and disrupted supply chains, this government wants to add more manufacturing to a mix via a fund that is not needed and was not in the budget. This bill ignores the economic issues that we're already facing and that must be addressed first. Kickstarting a series of significant manufacturing projects requires strong economic conditions, and that is something we just do not have right now. This bill does not follow good fiscal considerations. The initial $5 billion appropriation is provided once the bill passes, but the timing of the remaining $10 billion is not subject to further parliamentary approval.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In brief, I think the transparency, the mechanisms and the potential generation of a whole list of consultancies that will benefit out of this are a problem. I think there are issues with the timing of getting it to market soon enough. I know $7 billion has been allocated quickly, but that is a concern for us. In some of the negotiations about what's excluded, we don't know what's coming up. In the mining areas, we don't know what's going on there. If we're talking about existing mines and what we're doing there, that's fine, but, if we're talking about cobalt, lithium or copper mines—all these things—we don't know the number of mines we will need to bring on line. Some research and some manufacturing in the mining sector will bring that on line to help the current plan, which is the Rewiring the Nation plan. The Nationals understand. We feel the motive of creating regional jobs and we respect the government for doing that, but, unfortunately, we haven't been able to meet them on this bill. We hope to have longer, earlier consultations on the next one, but we'll be opposing this one. Thank you.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund sounds great in theory, but as usual with this government, it's all style over substance, and I'd be surprised to see that money has gone out the door by the time the next election rolls around.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
11 speakers · 13 contributions · 9 support · 2 mixed
“Coming to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023, this bill would invest in rebidding Australian industry and manufacturing, and it's a public policy outcome that the Australian Greens have long pushed for and very much welcome. We strongly support public investment in rebuilding manufacturing in Australia.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I imagine it wouldn't be controversial, certainly not for the Labor government, to support this. It's very broad. It's in line with what they're delivering in other areas. The Liberal Party of course should support this, because they've taken the first steps on the road to a circular economy. But they'll probably oppose it, because they're opposing everything. Somehow, now that they're in opposition, everything gets opposed. But it would be good to see the Senate come together and vote on something that—it's not binding on the government, but it is symbolic—sends a really important message that we're all on the same page now in trying to establish a circular economy and a zero-waste economy in this country.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Because of our Greens amendments, this fund will not use public money to fund coal and gas. This is a really important aspect of this bill. The coalition, when they were in government, tried to use public money to fund coal and gas through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and ARENA. They couldn't, because we Greens and Labor made it impossible. Now the National Reconstruction Fund will be similarly protected. It'll focus on genuinely fostering our agriculture, manufacturing, innovation and research, and I hope it makes appropriate investments in our universities, in our young people and in developing the capability to do research that is original and new and is transmitted into real action in our manufacturing and agricultural sectors.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I do also want to commend the second reading amendment moved by my colleague Senator Whish-Wilson talking about a circular economy. Building that into our planning is a critical way forward. With those comments I commend the amended bill to the Senate.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Greens have also secured a government amendment so that the investments made by the board will have to align with the legislated climate targets and any updated future commitment by Australia under the Paris Agreement. I cannot understate how important this is, as the Greens continue to fight for stronger climate action and for the government to listen to the climate science. This is a huge win for our climate, jobs and the economy. It's aligning us with a global movement and not propping up some of those dying industries. The Greens took a policy for a manufacturing fund to the election. I was in Kalgoorlie in regional Western Australia talking about the importance of investment in manufacturing. We strongly support public investment in rebuilding manufacturing in Australia. Every cent spent on coal and gas will wreck the climate and divert much-needed funding from manufacturing initiatives, especially in regional Australia.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Let me be clear in conclusion. We support government expenditure when it supports people and the environment, but the tragic reality is that native forest logging is wanton environmental vandalism, and it's being subsidised by state governments at a cost to many people who would be outraged to know their governments are subsidising the destruction of our precious forests. This amendment is a small step towards ending that financial support for a dying and dangerous industry, but there is more to do. Native forest logging is devastating for our climate and devastating for endangered species, and it leaves us worse off as a society and as a nation. We are supporting this bill today—particularly, from my perspective, supporting the amendment—but, on ending the logging of our native forests, we will keep fighting and we won't stop until we know that Australia's precious forests have all been protected.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Nick McKim on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
McKim says the Greens will back the bill, but only with amendments to ensure none of the fund goes to native forest logging. He argues that industry is a carbon bomb and should not receive public subsidies.
“Make no mistake: native forest logging does not have a social licence. It is a carbon bomb and it is a mendicant industry that can only survive due to ongoing taxpayer subsidies. Let me tell you one thing, colleagues: if you pulled all the public subsidies out of Australia's native forest logging industry, it would finish the next morning. The next morning it would be over, because it is the taxpayer who is subsidising the profits of the corporations that are driving the destruction of our native forests and the massive emissions of carbon and carbon equivalent gases that that involves. We're very proud in the Australian Greens of the amendments that we have negotiated which make it clear that none of the money—”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
McKim supports the bill after Greens amendments redirected the fund toward rebuilding manufacturing and away from coal, gas and native forest logging. He says the money should speed up the shift to a net zero economy and must align with climate targets and the Paris Agreement.
“The amendments negotiated to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill by the Greens ensure that the NRF will be focused on the task of rebuilding a genuine manufacturing base, not propping up coal and gas corporations and native forest logging. That is critical because the Greens want the moneys appropriated for the National Reconstruction Fund to be used to accelerate the transition in Australia away from coal, gas and native forest logging—those environmentally destructive industries that are contributing so massively to climate change.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Sarah Hanson-Young on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Hanson-Young says the Greens support the bill, but only because they secured changes to ensure the fund backs future jobs and cannot be used for fossil fuel projects. She frames that restriction as the key reason the party can back the legislation.
“I am speaking in support of this legislation, the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023. The Greens have been able to negotiate with the government to improve this package to ensure that the money that comes from the Reconstruction Fund is actually spent on high-quality jobs that are going to future-proof our nation.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Hanson-Young supports the bill after securing Greens amendments that stop the fund from backing fossil fuel companies or native forest destruction. She says the money should instead go into smart manufacturing, supply chains and electric vehicle production.
“We're debating the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill, and we've had a lot of contributions. This is an important infrastructure fund. Thank goodness that the Greens were able to get the amendments we have and the commitment we have from the government to ensure that this money won't be flowing to any fossil fuel companies or to those that want to destroy our native forests. If we are honest about the type of manufacturing, infrastructure and smart jobs of the future that we need in this country, it won't be with the century-old economies such as the fossil fuel industry or knocking down our native forests and in no way adding to the high value of our manufacturing footprint.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“With an amendment secured by the Greens, we have ensured that, regardless of who is in government, the National Reconstruction Fund will be used to fund to the future of manufacturing and not finance coal and gas or native forest logging. Our amendment has ensured that financing of coal and gas, construction of gas pipelines and the logging of native forests are prohibited investments for the National Reconstruction Fund.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We Greens strongly support public investment in rebuilding manufacturing in Australia. We need to diversify our economy, but the legislation in its current form is wide open to abuse by governments that want to use the $15 billion for more coal and gas. That is a risk the Australian Greens simply cannot take. We need clear guardrails to stop public money being used to prop up coal and gas. For that reason, on behalf of the Greens, I will be moving amendments during consideration in detail that would rule out money from the NRF going towards coal and gas, or towards native forest logging. These are reasonable amendments that would strengthen the NRF, protect it from abuse, allow the government to invest in reviving Australian manufacturing and decarbonise our economy.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I commend the Greens for negotiating the prohibition of direct investment by the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation into coal and natural gas projects, as well as native forest logging. But there is more to this. There are many industries that are required for these projects to go ahead; they produce the equipment for gas drilling and the machinery needed for coalmining or for logging our forests. Today I will be moving amendments to prohibit the corporation from investing in these industries as well. I'll also be moving an amendment to prohibit investments in nuclear technologies, at a time when nuclear war has become more threatening than it has been over the last 30 years and at a time when we know not only the dangers of nuclear energy production and dealing with radioactive waste but also the economic rabbit hole that nuclear power constitutes. It only makes sense to exclude this thinking, which is from the past, from our planning for the future. For those of you worried about nuclear medicines, we can and will continue to produce nuclear medicines, but this can be done safely, through the use of particle accelerators rather than nuclear reactors, posing much less risk to our communities and environment.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 oppose
“I rise to speak to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023. One Nation is not inclined to support this legislation, but as usual we're going to try and make it better. I remind the Senate that this is why we are here—to improve legislation, not to rubber-stamp the green left political agenda. One Nation will be moving amendments to the bill. Our first amendment will attempt to put some substance behind the phrase 'Australia is the clever country'. This nation has produced world-leading scientists, engineers and inventors who have contributed a great deal to the body of human knowledge. But all too often clever Australians are forced to take their great ideas overseas to be commercialised and this intellectual property is lost to our nation. A recent example of this was a non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccine developed by the University of Queensland. It was refused a patent, and the TGA refused to approve it. Australia was left to import vaccines from overseas pharmaceutical companies.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023 is last-century Soviet thinking, a product of the comrades deep in Trades Hall who do not seem to have noticed that the Soviet Union has fallen, because it failed to maintain the standard of living of everyday people. Standards of living in Australia are decreasing—the reverse of what is happening to energy prices. That is one of the many causes. This bill is ideological rubbish designed to reward businesses who promote joining union bosses. That is the sentence the minister will put in later. Subject to amendments, One Nation opposes this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
10 speakers · 8 support · 1 oppose · 1 mixed
“So I support this legislation, and I've met with the minister to discuss improvements and where I think there are risks in the implementation. I urge the government to ensure that the aim is to achieve growth that is both inclusive and sustainable and that the focus is on small to medium enterprise as well as large business, because too often government makes the mistake of focusing on very large business, and SMEs miss out.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I believe in local manufacturing, and on that principle I support the bill. But I also understand the challenges that many big manufacturing companies have in setting up in Australia, due to the costs involved and the fact that Australia, although big in land mass, is small in population compared to other developing nations. Nevertheless, I believe that the government can step in to provide support for small local manufacturing companies like Pakko to thrive and be competitive, at least locally.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, you may ask, after me giving that speech, why I'm supporting this bill. I'm supporting this bill because we used to be a nation that made things, and we're no longer a nation that makes things. I'm the daughter of a factory worker. The member for Makin, who spoke before me, spoke about Holden and how he made cars in South Australia. Holden was one of a number of car manufacturers in South Australia. My dad worked at Mitsubishi. It provided a good, solid wage. It paid the bills and kept us in a house.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“As outlined, I've put forward some reasonable suggestions on how to make this bill better. My proposed suggestions will help strengthen the integrity of the fund and prevent wastage of taxpayer money. I hope the government agrees.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So I support this policy and its objectives. It has long-term vision and ambition. If it works, it will be a game changer for Australian industry and innovation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill provides an opportunity to put another big crack in that ceiling. I encourage the minister and the government to walk the talk and grasp that chance.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“It should not be lost on people that this government has just broken a pre-election promise on superannuation—taking billions from hardworking retirees only to go and hand it out to a few hand-picked industries who may or may not deserve it. The better idea would be for the government to plan some major cuts to spending. That would be the better idea. Cut spending. That would be a better way to fund this reconstruction fund. Don't just borrow more money to fund a manufacturing boom that is not real. I say 'not real' because this boom will only exist because of subsidies; that's it. It's not because of a genuine business model—much like the entire renewables debacle which we are currently being made to suffer through. That's what's going on. If the government wants to spend $15 billion, find some savings across the budget to ensure that we're not just adding to our already severe and out-of-control national debt just so that a few headlines can be written in the legacy media for a couple of days.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Integrity is the theme of the three amendments I am moving today, in what I hope will be seen by the government as a good faith attempt to improve this legislation constructively—legislation which will, hopefully, contribute towards the greening of our economy and to the building of significant new export industries for Australia and new high-wage occupations for Australians. This is the kind of long-term vision and legislation which I and the community are seeking from our government, and which I will support. Thank you.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I would like to be a hundred per cent supportive of this bill, but, like many of my crossbench colleagues, I'm concerned about the potential of this government or future governments to abuse the intention of this legislation and this fund. Government support is only needed if market forces do not provide adequate incentives for investment. This mainly occurs in emerging or immature industries. There is a risk that the fund could be used to grow economic activity that's contrary to the sustainable long-term robustness of our economy. For example, value-adding to resources will need to leverage our natural advantage in renewable energy, not embed or grow the use of fossil fuel energy sources.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“There's clearly huge potential to use the NRF to create the next generation of jobs, industries and environment we need to be front and centre in the kind of future we seek to build, so in principle I support this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 89 to 53.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Consideration in detail: amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 34 to 29.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Committee of the whole: amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 34 to 28.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
House · Message from Senate reported
Message from Senate reported
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Consideration of Senate message
House agreed to Senate amendments
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe formal approval that turns a passed bill into law., turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Economics Legislation Committee; Committee report (10/03/2023)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (1 Dec 2022): Senate Economics Legislation Committee; Committee report (10 Mar 2023)
APH bill page notes
