Sally Sitou (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have sat in on a number of these speeches because I did want to hear from the opposition about why they oppose the Future Made in Australia Bill. I am genuinely interested in their concerns and their objections to this bill. Let me read out some of the adjectives and other words that I have heard from those opposite: 'interventionist', 'command and control economy', 'market takeover', 'corporate welfare', 'socialist agenda' and, from the previous speaker, the member for Lyne, 'Orwellian' and 'utopian vision'.

It has been an interesting study on their thoughts on this policy, because there is a policy that does meet all of those adjectives and other descriptors, and it's not the Future Made in Australia policy; it is their nuclear policy. If there is a policy that is interventionist, command and control, a market takeover and Orwellian—sure, they may think it's a 'utopian vision' to have more nuclear reactors in this country—that is the one policy that is being offered in this place that does meet all of those descriptors, because there is no private investment in nuclear energy in Australia. They know that, and that's why they know that the government will have to fund it completely. There is currently no nuclear energy industry here. So what they are proposing is a complete market takeover—complete government control to get their nuclear energy policy up.

I am so surprised about their opposition to helping Australian companies and helping create more jobs here. It is clear that the only jobs they are willing to create are those in a nuclear industry in Australia, which is the only industry they're willing to back. It seems such a shame. If you look at their social media, they wrap themselves in the Australian flag, they talk about buying here in Australia and they talk about supporting Australian companies, and yet they refuse to back this bill, which is doing exactly that. The only industry that they're willing to back is the nuclear industry. So I've got some suggestions for those opposite. If you want to trademark a few company names, how about Nuclear Reactors R Us or CNR—Coalition Nuclear Reactors? These are some of the things that you may want to take forward.

The truth is that we on this side of the House genuinely back Australian companies outside the nuclear industry. Those opposite have offered up some suggestions for what might work in terms of industry policy and supporting Australian companies, but it's a bit hard to regard them as credible when we look at their track record. Economists and researchers at Harvard University have done a study into the economic complexities of countries around the world. While those opposite were in government, did our economy become more complex, diverse and rich? No. It became less complex. In the last decade alone, our economy became less complex, worsening by 12 positions in the global rankings. Countries around the world were trying to diversify their economies, increase advanced manufacturing, increase research and development, and support other sectors, but not this country—no. Those opposite refused to back manufacturing.

We are now ranked 93 out of 133 countries, which puts us below Uganda and just above Pakistan in terms of economic complexity. Thanks to those opposite, we are the lowest ranked OECD country when it comes to economic complexity, and we have fallen 38 places since this index was created in 1995. That demonstrates that it doesn't have to be this way. The Atlas of Economic Complexity said, 'Australia's worsening complexity has been driven by a lack of diversification of exports,' and our economy is 'less complex than would be expected for its income level', given we had the ninth highest GDP per capita in 2021. This is because of those opposite refusing to back industry, refusing to back Australian manufacturing and refusing to back Australian companies. All that they've relied on is digging things out of the ground. And we are a country that is blessed with great resources, absolutely, but we've got to do more than dig things out of the ground.

We've just finished up with the Olympics and we've got the Paralympics coming up, so I'm going to use a sporting analogy here. Essentially, what those opposite did was try to create a team around one star player. In this case, our star player was resources and, of course, we had the Sam Kerr of resources—we had great iron ore and great critical minerals. But that was all they relied on—that one star player. If that star player gets injured or becomes sick, or we're playing another team where they're able to defend against that star player, we're stuffed. That's exactly what they did when they were in government; they stuffed us. We don't want to just dig resources out of the ground, ship them offshore, have other countries add value to them and then ship them back so we can use their final products. It's time we started to add value ourselves here on shore.

Why does this matter? It matters because we have seen that when you are not diversified and your economy is vulnerable to these big economic shocks it's the community that suffers. We have seen significant global financial disruptions: the COVID pandemic, the wars in the Ukraine and Gaza and supply chain constraints. We saw what happened during the pandemic when, because we had no real medical manufacturing onshore, we were scrambling to buy masks, scrambling to get RATs and scrambling to get vaccinations. To be fair to those opposite, their former leader did not think it was a race. He wanted to stroll into that, and try to get vaccines, and we paid the price. It was the community that paid the price for their lack of foresight in trying to build up an onshore manufacturing capability.

We won't do what those opposite did. We know that we need to build resilience in our economy and that we need to diversify our economy, and this is exactly what the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 does. It is a plan to grow Australia's economic future and prosperity. It is a large, ambitious and bold plan, and it needs to be.

We are not alone in having industry policies. We've seen the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 in the US. There are industry policies in Japan and Korea. There are industry policies around the world. The only people who aren't backing an industry policy are those opposite.

The government's Future Made in Australia agenda announced in the last budget is about attracting and enabling investment, making Australia a renewable energy superpower, value-adding to our resources and strengthening economic security. It's about backing Australian ideas, innovation, digital and science ideas, and investing in people and places. This is an investment in Australian research, an investment in Australian manufacturing, and an investment in Australian companies and Australian people.

This bill establishes a framework to foster and encourage private sector investment in the national interest for a future made in Australia, by seizing the opportunities of the changing global environment. There are two primary objectives in this bill: to attract more private investment and to make our economy more resilient to shocks. We'll unlock private investment, ensure economic resilience and security in critical sectors and supply chains, and support early applications of nascent technologies critical to the net zero transformation. We'll create a positive investment environment and enable businesses to take appropriate risks. We'll create a National Interest Framework to support better alignment of economic incentives with our national interests.

The National Interest Framework consists of two streams: the net zero transformation stream to identify and support sectors that could have a sustained, comparative advantage in a net zero global economy; and where public investment is likely to be needed for the sector to make a significant contribution to emissions reduction at an efficient cost. The Economic Resilience and Security Stream is there to identify where some level of domestic capability in the sector is a necessary or efficient way to deliver economic resilience and security, and where the private sector will not deliver the necessary investment in the sector in the absence of government support. The National Interest Framework will support Australian government consideration and decision-making in relation to significant public investment that unlocks private investment at scale in the national interest. We can see that there are companies that are already using Australian minerals to manufacture solar panels to put on our roofs. Researchers are making breakthroughs in science that will lead to new medicines and new technologies.

In my electorate of Reid, in the suburb of Silverwater—which is an advanced manufacturing powerhouse—there are two star residence there: RODE Microphones and BluGlass, a semiconductor manufacturer. These are advanced manufacturing success stories. At the 2023 InnovationAus Awards for Excellence, BluGlass was named the Australian Hero for its development and commercialisation of a new semiconductor technology. The company is a wonderful example of converting Australian research success into Australian manufacturing success. The research behind BluGlass was developed at Macquarie University. It was after a decade of research that they had a breakthrough in innovative compound semiconductor technology that they were able to use to develop high-performance laser diodes. These visible lasers are used in critical and emerging technologies, including robotics, advanced materials manufacturing, defence technologies, and scientific and biomedical applications. The semiconductors BluGlass produces lead the world with their energy-efficient performance. How were they able to create this product? With private investment, yes, but also with government support through the research and development tax incentive along with government grants and early-stage revenue. It was through a combination of private investment, government tax incentive, government grants and support that this company was able to be created, which is exactly what the Future Made in Australia Bill is talking about.

The other example of manufacturing excellence in my electorate is RODE Microphones. This high-end audio equipment of choice for podcasters and influencers everywhere comes from an Australian-made company. Its metal components are manufactured onsite from materials sourced from Australia and overseas, and they export 97 per cent of their manufactured goods, largely to the US and Europe. When faced with fierce competition from a Chinese government-backed company on their bestselling product, RODE did not falter; instead, they innovated. In just 100 business days—a timeframe that would make most companies baulk—RODE went from concept to market with a new, superior product. This rapid response was possible only because RODE Microphones manufactures everything in-house, right here in Australia. RODE's founder Peter Freedman said: 'I just walk across the road and talk to the engineers. Two days later, we 're making it.' That's the sort of thinking that we want to be encouraging with this bill.

See this speech in context