Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have taken the metaphorical or interpretive nod from you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are not protectionists on this side of the chamber. I'll leave the other side of the chamber to talk about whether they're protectionists or not. It has never been totally clear when you look at their history, particularly some of the scandalous behaviour in the early part of the 20th century and their adoption of not just capital protection of industry, but protection around keeping some people, based on the ethnicity and the colour of their skin, out of the country—particularly through the use of the trade union movement, as a political weapon. We are not protectionists in this country. We believe that Australia's economic capacity is built on us being competitive, is built on us harnessing our natural endowment, and, of course, value adding to the sector in a competitive way. We rely on countries that are also free trade nations—or, I should say, freer trade nations—to be part of our growth model, because we can't do everything well. There are some things we do exceptionally well, and we want to share that with the world. This is a simple observation, but countries that trade tend to do a lot better than those who seek to indulge in protectionism. But that doesn't change the fact that we do face challenges around supply chains, around choking points that can exist and particularly around making sure that, through geography as well as broader geostrategic political risks—pandemics and health security risks—we hedge our bets to make sure we are in a resilient position. Of course, domestic industry build-up is going to be a critical part of that.

The previous speaker, the member for Macarthur, despite his disappointing reflections on sectors like mining and agriculture, did acknowledge that a sovereign capacity is going to be important, and some of it is located in his electorate, in the context of defence and defence manufacturing, and the role that can play as part of our national security framework.

Of course we've seen discussions and measures implemented by this government in this term of parliament around broadening the base of fuel security so that both our Defence Force and our civilian capacities are increased against the challenges we may face with external risks and threats. And of course there's the advanced manufacturing strategy which is being pursued by the government. That is to say that even when there are sectors where we perform very well or where we have natural endowments in emerging sectors, like rare earths, we put the policy framework in place to make sure that we can realise everything we as a country want to be in terms of building the opportunities for the 21st century. Sitting behind that is going to be a critical understanding not just of how we grow the economy in a way which doesn't foster or pander to protectionism but which does take advantage of our knowledge and our skills, and that this government, this parliament and our nation can back those who want to be part of building the next chapter in the global economy—with Australia at the forefront.

Of course, this isn't just in the sectors I have outlined. One of the critical parts of that conversation is in the energy environment. We have gone through long debates in this chamber and in the other place—and, of course, in the public square—about the future of the Australian energy market and Australia's energy resilience as we have seen a shift and transition away from the traditional dependence on brown and black coal, which were a critical part of our past and are a continuing part of our present but which are a diminishing share of our future. We have seen the rise of other technologies which can make us an energy exporter. We can continue to adapt, obviously, not just to the power of technology and innovation, and what those can do for Australia as an exporter. More critically, those are going to become an increasing part of consumer and business demand into the future so that they can meet other obligations, including reduced emissions profiles and economic competitiveness. There will also be an environment where energy is likely to change in its cost profile. In some places it's going to be more efficient if we harness the potential of cheap energy which costs less to transport—we might be in the position to build domestic sectors off that. We can all be proud of that and maybe replace some of the jobs which may be offset by other parts where there is a decrease in demand over time.

That's why we should always be optimists about the future. The future is going to be awesome off the back of technological advancement and change. The only thing that holds us back is whether we are prepared to run to it and embrace it, to see what it can do and how we can be part of leading that change to make sure that we build a better Australian economy for the future. That's what this bill is ultimately about. It's making sure that its focus is squarely put on the importance of industry, innovation and science for Australia so that we have an organisation that's looking into sectors where Australia can excel, where we can continue to contribute and where we can leverage existing sectors that we have. IISA—again, not to be confused with that nefarious body Industry Super Australia—will continue to complement and be informed by the work of other advisory bodies, such as the National Science and Technology Council, with a focus on the needs of business, to support greater uptake and development of new technologies, products and services.

I think that this broader strategic shift, as well as what's in the legislative proposal before us today, is of such critical importance because, when I look over my entire parliamentary career, we've had issues—without seeking to diminish them at all—which are cyclical, or which we might come across as the result of events or fads. When I say 'fads' I mean that events might lead people to suddenly get very exercised about an issue at a particular point in time. They might write to me or to the member for Barker, or even to you, Deputy Speaker Wallace, and have very strong views and want parliamentary action. Of course, I don't take anything away from those issues; they're of the utmost importance and, where we confront them, hopefully, we address them. But in almost every space where we get a sustained interest—at least from the wonderful residents of Goldstein—it's largely about how we utilise technology to be part of securing and building Australia's future.

I always have enormous sympathy for being a very strong friend of technological innovation and its capacity to be part of owning the future, growing jobs, building industry and being on the side of the future of the country—not just for ourselves but for our children and our grandchildren. We don't just want to respond to the times; we want to lead them, we want to charge and we want to make sure that we're not just seeing the terms for ourselves but in the global economy so we can take full advantage of it.

One of the areas where I also get a lot of feedback, as many members no doubt do, is in the space around Australian security and the tension that exists in that nexus between being open, free and competitive while also ensuring we protect our nation. As I said right at the start, a critical part of that conversation was exposed last year as a result of the pandemic and the challenges of supply chains going principally through a single country. Thankfully the drift was already there towards regionalisation of supply chains to address those emerging risks, not just for the pandemic but also for the economic risks and the like.

What we know, at least on this side of the parliament, is risk is there to be managed; it is not there to be something that we wish to try and pretend we can make disappear. We know that risk has to be managed, and one of the worst ways to manage risk is to take on all responsibility and think you can do everything in isolation. As a country, you can't, because you might lack the skills, the knowledge, the primary inputs and, of course, the intellectual capital that comes with it as well as the manufacturing base. We know we rely on others to do so successfully, so hedging risk means working with others.

The objective of this bill focusing on industry and innovation is to make sure that Australia is part of the global cooperate effort of defining the future. We will do that by making sure we are a strong nation in our own right. Poor countries are weak countries; rich ones are strong. We back Australia every step of the way, not just our own potential, our ingenuity, our innovation, our capacity, but our people, those who are innovators, those who are business people, those who commercialise and develop and sell products, goods and services that help enrich our country. When they look at this parliament, they have a choice. They can look at the Labor Party and see a political movement that is interested in harvesting them for their knowledge and skills for their own benefit, whereas we on this side are interested in backing them for their success. (Time expired)

See this speech in context