Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I speak in favour of the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024.This legislation is a supportive and measured response to the global climatic and international economic circumstances that the government must respond to. Failure to take action and respond to these circumstances would be a failure to govern. I note that the Liberal and National parties appear to intend to vote against this legislation. That would be a failure to grapple earnestly with the challenges of our time and, for the students up in the gallery here today, this would be a missed opportunity for their future that will be made here in Australia. If all the coalition can do is carp from the sidelines and indulge in spurious nuclear fantasies then they will not be fit to govern for some time. They need to accept the science where they haven't, come to understand the international efforts by our trading partners in the space and realise that it would be dangerous for us as a nation to fail to maximise our opportunities in what is a new economic paradigm. Whether the coalition can do all of this without some sort of root-and-branch renewal of their parties is perhaps the most interesting question posed by this debate. What seems possible at the moment is that the coalition will only catch up with the world in 10 or 20 years time. Certainly the world can't wait for the coalition and neither can this parliament.

The Future Made in Australia Bill is a simple and efficient bill that runs to 15 clauses. It does five simple things. Firstly, it creates a national interest framework to guide the federal government's consideration and decision-making in relation to the way public support encourages private investment at scale. That framework has two streams. The first is directed towards the net zero economy and the second towards economic resilience and security. There will be a significant and increasing overlap between these streams as time goes on. For the net zero economy stream, we seek sectors that can provide a sustained comparative advantage and for which public investment is likely to be needed. For the resilience and security stream, the domestic production must be a necessary or efficient way to deliver the outcome and unlikely to occur without government support. I note that it is 'necessary or efficient', not 'necessary and efficient'. This government takes security in all its forms, including supply chains, seriously.

Secondly, it directs certain matters to be considered in sector assessments in determining the role that a sector can reasonably play in a future made in Australia. Not every sector, industry or product will be one for which domestic production makes economic sense. As an example, we may find that the production of wind turbine blades is better done offshore whilst nevertheless supporting a local company developing wind turbine gearboxes here and eventually exporting those to the region.

Thirdly, importantly, it outlines the community benefit principles which must be applied in making decisions about the provision of support. The legislation provides that the support needs to lead to safe and secure jobs, skill development, positive benefits for local communities, including Indigenous communities, strengthening local supply chains and transparency in tax affairs. Further community benefit principles can be provided for in the rules.

The fourth thing that this bill does is provide for certain investment programs to be identified as Future Made in Australia supports. The legislation does not limit the nature of those supports, which may include grants, loans, equity investments and others. Regardless of the nature of the support, what is important is that the community benefit principles do apply.

Fifthly, it requires plans to be provided by recipients of support that outline the way in which the projects will meet those community benefit principles. Clear commitments to meeting the community benefit principles will always be required.

So these are five simple things, but through this legislation we create an overarching framework within which the interface between the federal government and private sector investment, both domestic and international, will be encouraged, supported and governed. It is a framework for a future made in Australia.

We're not doing this, though, in a vacuum. Indeed, we are playing catch-up. Two years ago, the Inflation Reduction Act in the US created great hope and a great challenge. The Albanese government's policies on climate change and energy and nation-building are meeting that challenge. The executive summary of Building a Clean Economy, the policy paper issued by the White House in January 2023, states:

The Inflation Reduction Act's $370 billion in investments will lower energy costs for families and small businesses, accelerate private investment in clean energy solutions in every sector of the economy and every corner of the country, strengthen supply chains for everything from critical minerals to efficient electric appliances, and create good-paying jobs and new economic opportunities for workers.

There are clear parallels in the current bill.

The US challenge has been met in Europe. Just this month, Germany's cabinet provided 57.6 billion euros for green investments in 2025, increasing subsidies to help the country become net zero by 2045. The allocation includes 18.9 billion euros for construction, 12.6 billion euros for renewable energy, 4.0 billion euros for EV charging infrastructure, 4.1 billion euros for local production of renewable components and 4.0 billion euros for semiconductor production. Much of this investment is directed not only to net zero but also to resilience and strengthening local supply chains.

In the face of what is a global movement, the contribution so far by members of the opposition parties to this bill has been disappointing. The member for Mallee made a reference to Disney and then made a Fantasia-level error of calling green hydrogen 'experimental'. That would come as a surprise to many companies around the world manufacturing green hydrogen today, like Linde and Shell.

The member for Riverina referred to what he called a 'rush to renewables' as if that was a bad thing. That language indicates that perhaps the member doesn't understand the gravity of our urgent need to move to renewable energy. He also raised the coalition's three-eyed nuclear red herring. The coalition has been talking about nuclear power in opposition for the last 30 years or more—never in government, just in opposition.

The member for Riverina may be interested in a recent study from the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems in Germany. The study found that solar and battery systems are now much cheaper than coal or gas power plants or new nuclear—much cheaper.

And the member for Hume, true to form, raised integrity concerns and used the word 'pork-barrelling'. I'm sure the member for Hume is capable of writing a book on the subject, but it is a strange thing to raise as an objection to a bill that quite clearly sets out a framework with legislative community benefit principles. Sometimes it feels like the member for Hume lives in an alternative universe only somewhat similar to our own.

The member for Hinkler thinks it's wrong for the government to want to use something called the National Interest Framework to guide decisions. The member for Casey complained that government members were spending too long talking about the opposition in this debate, and he could be right, but the opposition is certainly the gift that keeps on giving in this space. The member then calls renewables a single technology. Renewables aren't one technology. The hint is in the plural. Renewables are many and varied and complementary, and they include solar and wind, both on and offshore, geothermal and hydro and others, and they're supported by all different kinds of storage. I invite the member for Casey to seek to correct his error.

We are in a transition. We need to wean ourselves, over time, off coal and reduce our need for gas, which will nevertheless play a firming role for the foreseeable future. We need to take action to help our trading partners do exactly the same thing. Transitions take time and need to be planned, which is something the Greens unfortunately don't seem to understand. This bill is a crucial part of the Albanese government's plan, which began with climate change legislation two years ago and has already seen a record investment in renewables. But a transition requires something else, too. It requires a long-term commitment. I hope it can be a shared commitment. I want to see the coalition come on board, not with nuclear pretence but with real policy.

The Commonwealth Bank's commendable early announcement last week to stop funding fossil fuel projects is the first in a series we will see from like banks and other finance companies. In fact, some years back, the ANZ Bank stopped funding coal. I acknowledge their leadership in this space. In the parliament, we also need to lead. As Prime Minister, Scott Morrison brought a lump of coal into this place and brandished it in a silly way, thus indicating he wasn't on board with any transition. Even today, Senator Babet has a lump of coal in his office window. These absolute failures are on show.

But the coalition needs to take a step forward now. It's time for them to acknowledge that we need to engage with the transition, either due to the threat of climate change or, at the very least, due to the economic imperative that squarely faces us. To do anything else would be to fail to lead. The government seeks to create the conditions whereby we can become a renewable energy superpower within the transition to a global net zero economy. There is no reason why the Liberal Party and the National Party can't engage in that effort too. In fact, I know they will, but I hope they will start today. I expect they will start shortly after the coming election. I fear, however, they will continue to leave it for years and years, when they've already caused years and years of delays—10 years of delays, in fact, that we could ill afford. We need to attract investment. We are in a global race for this. Over the next few decades, we need to replace our fossil fuel industries with green industries. We need to start now. Indeed, we are late to start, and we are playing catch-up.

Back home in Hasluck, however, industry isn't waiting for the coalition to catch up. BGC is an example of a company in Hasluck in a high-emitting sector: concrete and bricks. They recognise that some of their products are emissions intensive and see it as their responsibility to reduce their emissions profile. They are watching developments elsewhere in WA, like the Collie renewable energy hub supported by the Cook state government, and looking for partners in their endeavours. Taking action now is surely a better course than to continue emitting and waiting for a fantasy of a Collie nuclear power plant to be ready in 30 years time. BGC have also set up their material innovation hub to conduct research and development work, aligning with their commitment to reduce scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions to net zero by 2040.

Earlier this year, ARENA announced funding of $15.8 million to assist Centurion in Hazelmere in Hasluck to roll out 30 battery electric trucks and 15 dual-port chargers to cut emissions from its depot there. Centurion aims to operate Australia's first 100 per cent renewable energy off-grid electric truck fleet. This is just phenomenal and an example of the change that is rapidly coming, and we need to be on board.

Hofmann Engineering in Ashfield operates across the fields of mining, defence, transport, energy, manufacturing and agriculture. It is a splendid example of our ability to rise to the challenge of a future made in Australia. Hofmann Engineering has been repairing and improving the life expectancy of wind turbine gearboxes since 2008.

Fortescue Future Industries in Hazelmere, among other projects, have been designing and testing groundbreaking 100 per cent carbon-free green hydrogen haul trucks and battery electric haul trucks. They've also investigated renewable green hydrogen, green ammonia and battery power for trains, ship engines and surface crawler drills.

We do already have energetic, forward-looking companies that are willing to be part of the solution. They are putting the money into investing in these solutions and working in partnership with our government. However, the challenges before us to address climate change and meet our targets and to transform our economy to one which is net zero at home and exporting as a green energy superpower require investments of a greater magnitude, and this bill sets the grounds for the attraction of that investment. It outlines a careful attitude on the part of this government and an acknowledgement that Australia will not manufacture all things in all sectors; rather, we must play to our strengths.

The Albanese government is up to this task. The people of Hasluck and of Australia can be proud that they have a government, at last, that is prepared to confront this in a serious and realistic manner, take action to get us to net zero, take action to ensure our supply chains are solid, work with our international partners, attract investment and back in innovative Australian companies.

As it is on topic, I'd like to remind all members that Mr Till Mansmann, the German Innovation Commissioner for Green Hydrogen, will address the Australia-Germany interparliamentary group. All interested members, senators and staff are welcome from 10.30 am tomorrow in the committee room 1S3 to discuss green hydrogen and the opportunities that we have before us for international cooperation.

See this speech in context