Skip to content

Treasury emails fuel concerns over 'haphazard' board appointments to Labor's $15b NRF

Internal government emails show Treasury officials wanted greater investment experience on the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund board, but were ultimately reluctant to weigh in.

Anthony Galloway

Industry Minister Ed Husic and Finance Minister Katy Gallagher were ultimately responsible for the NRF's board appointments. AAP/Mick Tsikas.

On a Wednesday morning in May, Treasury officials in Canberra were asked by their counterparts at the Department of Industry, Science and Resources (DISR) to review a list of potential board members for the Albanese government’s new $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund.

The department was seeking Treasury’s input on their draft list, including “views on any additional people that should be on the list (very keen on suggestions), or whether we have any reservations about existing people on the list”, according to internal emails obtained by Capital Brief through a freedom of information request.

The board appointments for the NRF, the government's signature industrial and innovation policy, have turned out to be a politically contentious issue. The federal opposition accuses the government of stacking the fund “with their mates” because directors include two union figures, former Australian Workers’ Union national secretary Daniel Walton and Australian Manufacturing Union assistant national secretary Glenn Thompson. The government rejects those claims. 

The internal emails highlight a significant reluctance among Treasury officials to get involved in the process despite the importance of the NRF, which aims to spur growth and investment in priority areas like low-emissions technologies and advanced manufacturing by providing $15 billion of loans, guarantees and equity to Australian companies over the next decade. It is touted as Australia’s answer to the Biden administration’s big-spending Inflation Reduction Act.

The emails show one Treasury official making some recommendations about the list, which were redacted. Two days later, the same official sends another email saying the department shouldn’t weigh in.

Join now

Already a subscriber? Sign in