ANTHONY ALBANESE, PRIME MINISTER: Good morning. Last night, the Senate passed the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund legislation. I went to the election with a clear commitment that I wanted a future made in Australia. And that's what this legislation is about. Recognising that during the pandemic, our vulnerabilities at the end of supply chains were exposed for all to see. We've been very good at exporting our resources and should continue to do so. But where possible, we should be value adding, creating jobs here, particularly in our regions and in our outer suburbs. And this is about manufacturing. It's about making sure that we make more things here, that we're less exposed to the supply chain issues which we continue to see placing pressure on inflation. We have everything that goes into a solar panel. We have everything that goes into a battery. We should be making things here. And that is what this is about. We identified during the election campaign as well key priority areas, renewables and low emissions technologies, medical science, transport, value add in agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors, value add in resources, defence capabilities and enabling capabilities. It's extraordinary that the Opposition opposed this. They said no to jobs, no to manufacturing, and no to playing a constructive role in this Parliament. But that's a matter for them. If they want to be the observers of Australian politics, rather than the participants, then they'll be marked down for it. But my Government's determined to make a difference. This is a clear commitment that we took to the election. And I'm very pleased that it will be now operating. It, of course, is based upon the Clean Energy Finance Corporation model, very successful, established by the former Labor Government, three attempts to abolish it by the Coalition Government, unsuccessful. And it has been a great success. Not only has it created investment and support for the private sector and created jobs, it also has produced a return to taxpayers. And that's what this will do as well. Good economic policy, good employment policy, good social policy, good environmental policy, all wrapped up in one. And I congratulate the Minister on his efforts in securing this legislation.
ED HUSIC, MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY & SCIENCE: Thanks, Prime Minister. And this is a big day. I mean, this is a big deal. And it's a big day for Australian industry and for Australian jobs, from our outer suburbs through to the regions. We want to create good, secure work for Australians and being able to rebuild Australian manufacturing. It's time for us to get up off the mat. We're the worst in the OECD on manufacturing self-sufficiency. We know we can get stuff done. We just need to have the faith to back people to make that stuff happen. And from our point of view, backing Australian know-how matters. It's not a cute line, we need to be able to have the ideas that create firms and generate jobs and that we back that. We do export a lot. And the other thing we export a lot is ideas. They go offshore to be developed by someone else, where the value add happens overseas, and then we import that back into the country. We should be backing our own. This fund, the National Reconstruction Fund, is about Australians backing Australians in terms of pursuing those ideas. It's from the factory floor to the lab bench to the boardrooms of this country, making sure that we've got that huge growth capital available to unlock what is really important for the economy and jobs long-term. And the National Reconstruction Fund will be the greatest investment in manufacturing capabilities in living memory. It's a big deal. And we know we can't do everything. But we also know we need to do the important things to drive longer term growth in the economy and job creation. And also, if I may say, it's about thinking ahead. You know, a lot of parents think about the jobs for their own kids or for their grandkids. How are we going to evolve the economy and grow it and sustain jobs into the future? And that's what this fund is about. Thinking long-term and investing in Australian industry. Now, it's also important, I just want to end on these points, every Australian needs to know that at the point where we needed to back blue-collar jobs, the Coalition, the Liberal and National parties, were not there. They actively voted against blue-collar jobs. They did not want to back this in. They wanted to do it the old way, the grant system that we all know, so many people realised was used for political interest and not national interest. The Liberal and National parties wanted to go and slink back to that. So, they refused to engage. And when the Coalition stepped back, the crossbench stepped up. And we worked with them. And I want to thank them for doing what the public wants. They want to see a Parliament that works together on the big things at these moments in time where we can make the big nation-building investments that means so much for the economy. And importantly, that they have done it in a way that they've prioritised national interests. So, none of this Peter Dutton line that says that the Liberal and National parties are the parties of the working class and then when it comes to supporting the working class, they actively vote against them. We are thinking long-term. We are making sure we invest in the future the nation, its economy and its jobs. The National Reconstruction Fund is a big part of that.
JOURNALIST: I understand that this is $5 billion now and $10 billion added to that for the next six years. A lot of other countries around the world, including competitors, are spending billions and billions of dollars as well to increase their domestic manufacturing. If this fund works, would you like to increase the funding over those six years to try and compete with other major economies?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, look, we put forward this legislation. We put forward the amount at the election campaign. Of course, future policy will be a matter for future governments. But if you look at the environment were living in, you had the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States. If we're not careful, what that will see is capital move from Australia to the US in terms of investment. And I've had discussions with President Biden and others about issues related to that. But we're very confident that this will work. And one of the things about having a fund like this is that it regenerates. It's not $15 billion in grants that goes out and then it's done. It regenerates. And that's what the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is doing as well. So, this is about providing some assistance, facilitating investment that might struggle to attract capital, particularly given what other nations are doing. But we've already fallen behind. And there's a reason why other nations back their automotive industries. Because it's not just about cars, it's about the multiplier effect. And we can do it here. We manufacture caravans. We manufacture buses. We manufacture the fastest EV charging stations in the world, Tritium, in Southeast Queensland. We can do all of this. What we haven't been good at is commercialising those opportunities. That's what this is about.
MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY & SCIENCE: Well, I'm always willing to make a pitch to the Expenditure Review Committee, but I don't think this is the best forum to do it. But the Prime Minister is spot on. We've set this up in a financially responsible way. It will regenerate. It will also, we want to partner up, and I met with the Biden administration in late January talking about how we can team up with the Inflation Reduction Act and the National Reconstruction Fund in their areas, for example, the Prime Minister referenced batteries, we've got all these resources, and yet, we do not extract the greatest value out of the battery value chain. And the future battery industry, CRC, for example, just revised upwards and nearly doubled their estimates about the commercial, economic and employment value of if we get the battery value chain right in this country, it could create up to 60,000 jobs. It's a huge and over, or close to, $16 billion in economic value if we get it right. It's why we're putting together a national battery strategy to think that through and make sure the growth capitals are available through the National Reconstruction Fund. So, we are also joining up a lot of the other things that we do in Government to make that work. So, the National Reconstruction Fund builds capability. Our procurement reforms through the Buy Australia Plan puts that capability to work where we can through government contracts, and again have that multiplier effect. Thinking smart about how we use government resources to have a lasting impact, jobs today and jobs for our kids, really important. And again, as the PM said, it'll be a decision for future governments. But this is a moment to think about right now, this $15 billion investment in our manufacturing capabilities across sectors. And it is a big day for that.
JOURNALIST: PM, have you done any modelling? Or do you have an idea of how many jobs this will create and when they will come online?
MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY & SCIENCE: Well, again, the expectation out of industry is that they want to be able to have growth capital at a time where it's really hard to get that money to expand. And so, you're asking, really, about what type of plans industry will step up with and the type of jobs that will come out of that. We see that this will be a huge platform for them to grow that. And so, it is complicated to be able to do modelling predicted on what intentions will be made, investment intentions are there. But if I may emphasise, it's really Government, through leadership, sending signals about what it says is important for longer term growth working with industry. You cannot deny the impact of that in those investment decisions that get made. At a time where it's hard to get capital, and you've seen some people withdraw out of the market, and particularly through, in some cases, venture capital that's vital for commercialisation. It's really hard in this environment. And what we're saying is, 'Let's not slow down. Let's not cease. Let's not give up that chance to be able to grow jobs and industry into the future'. And we want to be able to have that growth capital as a bridge, through what we're going through now to what we see can emerge down the track.
JOURNALIST: Tony Burke says that the Government submission on the minimum wage will be consistent with your values. Is it still your absolute belief that the wages of the lowest paid should keep up with inflation? And will that be reflected in the submission?
PRIME MINISTER: We are absolutely consistent with our values. And what we don't do in submissions, we didn't do it last time, was put a dollar figure on that.
JOURNALIST: But what about the principle?
PRIME MINISTER: I just answered the question. You get one.
JOURNALIST: Just going along from Paul's question, given the high rate of inflation, your submission this year showed some more restraint from the previous.
PRIME MINISTER: Well, it will be consistent with our values.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, you mentioned the importance of the supply chain at the end of the pandemic. In August last year, you said a COVID inquiry would be held as soon as practicable. That's seven months ago. Where are you up to in terms of organising that inquiry into the COVID response?
PRIME MINISTER: We're still seeking advice on that. And that's something that I've also spoken with the state leaders about, because of the obvious reasons in terms of the response. But we have still been dealing with COVID. That should be obvious to all that our priority has been the response to COVID and getting the policies right around that. We are now considering a timeframe of when we would make an announcement. But I made it very clear at that time, as I continue to do, that the priority has been the response to COVID.
JOURNALIST: On the Safeguard, there are some coal bosses talking about the safeguards putting them at risk or competitive disadvantage, creating risk for strategic partners like Japan. Do you have any concerns about that? And Minister, if I may, when is the first project going to be funded under the NRF?
PRIME MINISTER: No, I have no concerns about our relationship with Japan, for example, which is very, very good. We are a secure and reliable partner. We are a partner for Japan, South Korea and other nations that always delivers on the commitments that we make.
MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY & SCIENCE: Sarah, I know this won't come as any surprise to you. But I'm exceptionally impatient. I would love to have announced the first project yesterday. But we are very focused on making sure this, the National Reconstruction Fund, makes these investments really quickly. We don't have a moment to lose in terms of rebuilding capacity. Our big focus will be on establishing the board and getting the investment mandate sorted. And so, that work will begin today in terms of getting the next stage of this all set up. And so, we're very, very keen to make sure those investments happen. I would love for it to happen this year. But if I can make this point, we deliberately set this up to be different from the Coalition. The Coalition's big flagship manufacturing grants program announced in 2020, and hardly any money went out the door at a time where we needed to rebuild manufacturing after the pandemic. Hardly anything out the door in 2020, hardly anything out the door in 2021. 85 per cent of the decisions made in the weeks leading up to the election. We know their track record of colour-coded spreadsheets. We said we can be better than that. So, we're setting up an independent board with an investment mandate that will make their decisions based on what's right, in terms of meeting the priority areas of the investment mandate and the return on the taxpayer. So, we want them to get those calls right. And it's not for us to badger or jab them from a lectern and say, 'Just make the decisions'. We want this to invest in capability and jobs. And they're going to be given the room to make those calls.
PRIME MINISTER: I'll take just a couple more.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, just on the housing fund, how confident are you that the housing fund will be able to pass this week given the significant Greens concerns and from the crossbench? Are there any further concessions the Government are making to get it over the line?
PRIME MINISTER: We want to invest in affordable housing. All those who say they support increased investment in social and affordable housing should vote for the bill. It's as simple as that. I find it rather bizarre, the argument that says, 'What we want is more money, and therefore we'll vote for no money'. It's up to the Greens political party to explain their position on that. I think that, from time to time in this place, a revelation here, there's politics played. And the Greens spokesperson on this issue seems to be more obsessed by the politics than outcomes. I want outcomes. We have our Housing Australia Future Fund. It is a clear policy. We have a mandate for it. There is time factors with the Senate. That's the reality. We finish tomorrow. And the Safeguard Mechanism will be put to the rolling votes at 1pm tomorrow afternoon before Question Time, so we'll be able to deal with safeguards then. My understanding is that there was a filibuster last night from the Coalition. They like having a look at what some politics in another jurisdiction does, it would appear, in their ideology and sometimes in their practice as well. It's up to them to explain what the purpose of that is. But we remain committed to the legislation. There were a range of amendments agreed to. But if the Greens Party want to continue to hold it up, but I'll make this point as well, that if the Coalition actually participated in this Parliament with something other than just filibustering, then you would get different outcomes as well. They voted against the National Reconstruction Fund. They're going to vote against the Safeguard Mechanism. And I find some of the commentary from the Coalition spokespeople on safeguards, which is their framework, their policy set up by the Abbott Government, some of the adjectives that they're using, I hope Tony Abbott's reading it, because he'll be horrified to know what he did in 2014.
JOURNALIST: February CPI data is out today this morning. Are you expecting more encouraging numbers? And if you do see that trend continue to go down, should the RBA pause its interest rate hikes this month?
PRIME MINISTER: You'll have a press conference, I'm sure, sometime after those numbers come out. I won't try to pre-empt them by hours.
JOURNALIST: Just on India, they're obviously an important strategic partner. And Mr Modi is going to be here, I think, for the Quad. The Opposition Leader in India has just been given two years in jail for saying unsavoury things about the Indian Prime Minister. There's a lot of criticism of the way that Modi runs India. Is our relationship with India becoming a bit difficult in that sense, having to be friendly with someone like this?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, our relationship with India is a relationship between two nations. And it is a strong relationship. I've received a very warm welcome in India. I know Prime Minister Modi. I also know and have met with Mr Gandhi in the past. And I've had good relations with both of them. I haven't followed all of the detail of what has occurred there. But India is, of course, the world's largest democracy. And it will grow to be the third largest economy in the world. And I want closer economic relationships with India going forward.
JOURNALIST: There was a poll two days ago, which showed that 60 per cent of West Australians supported the Voice. Were you surprised by the level of support that poll showed? And what does it show about the success or otherwise of the strategy that you've adopted so far and the potential success of the referendum later this year?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, I wasn't surprised. Because I think Australians will always stand up for the fair go. I think it's part of our ethos. Australians know that this referendum is about just two things. Recognising Indigenous Australians in our Constitution. And secondly, that they should be consulted about matters that affect them. And all of the noise that attempted to be created by opponents, declared and undeclared, to the Voice, whether that be in the media, some sections of the media, or whether that be in the Parliament, of talk about looking for every nuance to try to push out there what essentially will be a scare campaign about something that I note that Justice Hayne, someone who was chosen by the former Government to conduct serious royal commissions, has said is just that - they are all just scare campaigns with no validity. Justice French, of course, has said exactly the same thing. The wording that is being put forward is very clear. 'Do you support constitutional recognition through a Voice?' And the three clauses – One, there shall be a Voice. Two, that it may, important word, give advice on matters that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. And three, the primacy of the Parliament to determine the structure and functions, including to determine the operation, essentially, of the Voice and what it considers. People know that that's the case. So, you can have word games in this place, or in the chamber there. But it's just word games. People can see that, the idea that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders who I sat with are going to say, 'Yes, yes, our priority is making a submission to the Reserve Bank about interest rates'. There's a 10-year gap in life expectancy. There were worse educational outcomes, housing outcomes, infant mortality. So, I say to the people in this room, that you have a responsibility, as well, to report on. People can have different views and people are entitled to either vote 'yes' or 'no'. But people have a responsibility to not assist some of the nonsense that's been out there. And I think also, if you go back, I quoted yesterday, the Shadow Attorney-General and Shadow Aboriginal Affairs Minister in 2014, that put forward words that called for a body to give advice to Parliament and the executive government. The words that Julian Leeser and others put forward in that body in 2014 are pretty close to the words that are recommended in the constitutional change. I've said before, and there have been some that have said that when I've said, 'This isn't my idea, my proposal', they've said, 'Well, they're distancing themselves from it'. For goodness sake, have a bit of maturity in the analysis of what needs to happen here. Because this isn't about me or the Labor Party. This isn't about the Government either, or the Opposition. It's about the nation. And whether we, the day after the referendum is held, wake up and go, 'What just happened?', or whether we wake up with a very modest change, we recognise the fullness of our history, the great privilege we have of sharing this continent with the oldest continuous culture on earth, and whether we'll just ask people about matters that affect them that are their priorities. So, the priorities and their concerns are very real. And they are about closing the gap. That's what this is about. And I think that Australians, I was pleased with the poll, but polls will come and go. And when a poll is published, it shows numbers going down a little bit. I saw one poll when one of the numbers went from, I don't know, 62 to 59, or something, it was like, 'Big fall in support'. I'll take 59, thanks very much. This is an opportunity. And I think where I go and speak to people as well, whether they be people of faith, whether they be young people, people who engage with them, when you go through the arguments, then you get there. The other thing, I'll make this point, and I'll conclude here, every single time there has been an advance on Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander affairs in this country, in my lifetime, there has been an argument, which says it will end in litigation. Wik, Mabo, the Apology to Stolen Generations. I sat in that Parliament throughout the entire Howard Government years being told that if we had an apology, it would divide the nation. Does anyone think that the Apology divided the nation now? I'd ask people in this Parliament, in the House of Representatives and the Senate, for those people who are thinking about what they should do, what they have an obligation, in my view, to consider is - did the Apology create more unity or less? In my view, it made us a better nation. So will constitutional recognition. Thanks very much.