Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

There's a book out there with a cute title: Brotopia. I was actually directed to it by the minister, and it's germane to the legislation we're discussing today, the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. As the author, Emily Chang, writes:

In Silicon Valley, if you're not a white man, your identity is a ball and chain, from which you cannot escape.

Further:

There may be cracks in the Silicon Ceiling, but it is far from shattered.

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.

The legislation nominates seven priority sectors of the economy: resources; agriculture, forestry and fisheries; transport; medical science; renewables and low emission technologies; defence capability; and enabling capabilities. Spot the common theme? Most of them require STEM skills. What do we know about that? Women and girls are previously underrepresented. Author Emily Chang notes that in the United States in 1984 women received nearly 40 per cent of all computer science degrees. Today that figure is down to 22 per cent. In Australia, figures compiled by the industry department revealed that women make up only 36 per cent of enrolments in university STEM courses and just 16 per cent in vocational STEM. Women make up only 27 per cent of the workforce across all STEM industries, down from 2020. Just 23 per cent of senior management and eight per cent of chief executives in STEM qualified industries are women. This is one of the reasons the gender pay gap in Australia is an appalling 14.1 per cent for full-time workers, and in some sectors is as high as 30 per cent. If the government is right, it will take another 26 years to close that gap. By then, my 14-year-old daughter will be 40. I am not prepared to wait that long, and nor is she. Nor are tens of thousands of teenage girls just like her.

I happened to be interviewed on Sky News last week about the government's decision to legislate gender pay gap transparency for companies with 100 or more workers. I advocated for this throughout the election campaign, and very specifically at the Jobs and Skills Summit in September. I am pleased, therefore, to be talking about this progress. However, the irony of the interview on Sky is that the vision that appeared on the screen with my talking head began with a group of men in hi vis. This is the issue writ small. We have a tight labour market and a skills shortage you could drive a truck through. All the credible evidence is that concrete steps to entrench gender equality across the economy would add between 500,000 and one million female workers. It would be great for them, great for productivity, great for growth, great for our children and great for our prosperity. It also requires access to apprenticeships and safety in trades for women. We have an opportunity to make sure the renewables revolution fosters women into trades, so let's make sure women are catered for.

All of this is the reason that I have proposed to the minister that some key elements be added to this legislation to address the issues of gender disadvantage and diversity. The net effect of such an addition would be that, when considering applications for government loans and assistance, the National Reconstruction Fund would consider the commitment of the organisations receiving the funds to levelling the playing field. That is appropriate if we are serious about creating workplace gender equality, and I thank the minister for welcoming this thinking.

I agree with the minister that, for the sake of our future productivity and prosperity, and to ensure that our children can have secure, well-paying jobs, we must rank among the nations with complex economies, advanced manufacturing and thriving technology exports. Our recent difficulties with China warn what could happen if we remain too dependent for our wealth on exporting commodities. COVID-19 was a warning of what can happen when international circumstances stop travellers from coming here. For too long we have seen good ideas developed by Australian scientists and entrepreneurs sent into exile overseas, so the foreign companies reap the financial benefit, whether it be the black box flight recorder or wi-fi.

We have seen what a success the Clean Energy Finance Corporation has proved to be, despite the best efforts of the last government to get rid of it. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation is the model for the National Reconstruction Fund. I hear the minister's assurance that money from the fund will be independently assessed; however, this requires constant oversight. There is a further level of caution required, as the IMF has warned with regard to the potential inflationary impact of the scheme. Spending must be accompanied by productivity gains. Those sitting on the fund's board must be experienced in industry to guide that productivity growth through targeted funding. The last thing we need is public money being spent on the basis of electoral advantage rather than the independently prioritised needs of the broader Australian community. The government would do well to note the community's distaste for pork-barrelling and how that was reflected last May.

We do need initiatives to transform, modernise and diversify our economy, particularly targeting components aligned to the renewable energy revolution. But there's a further matter to consider. This fund must not become cover for fossil fuel investment. Indeed, the title of the fund might well be better phrased as the 'national destruction fund' if it's used to support fossil fuel developments, particularly new ones.

For the fund to work, there needs to be agreement by all sides that we're committing to investment and transformation over the long term—at least a decade. It needs be taken off the political agenda and added to the national interest agenda. The fund must recruit, utilise and consult people who have been central to industry creation, modernisation and transition. With respect to investment bankers, they don't build industries. And we're not talking about just one sector; we're talking about an entire economy. This requires leaders who have run companies, who have created and scaled globally, who have bought and sold companies, and who have transformed underperforming companies. It needs people who have a black book to customers and co-investors and who can help companies grow with an understanding of geopolitics—a mix of Australians and global Australians—as the world transitions from fossil fuels to a high-growth and sustainable new-generation economy. This fund should be a vehicle for forward movement and new technology on renewable energy and on diversification of industry when it comes to elevating women and other disadvantaged cohorts, including First Nations people and multicultural communities.

Returning to my original point, I promised the Goldstein community, especially our women and girls, that, if I got into this room where it happens, I would speak up for those who are not in the room. Over time, I would suggest that every piece of work and industry related legislation should have a gender impact statement. Perhaps, if we did that, our daughters wouldn't be almost my age by the time they have true equality.

See this speech in context