Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 7, page 9 (line 14), at the end of subclause (4), add:

; and (c) the circumstances set out in the rules apply in relation to the sector, such as to justify investment in the sector.

(2) Clause 8, page 9 (after line 30), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) A sector assessment must also consider each of the following matters:

(a) the impact of any relevant international trade agreements;

(b) current Australian stockpiles and supply of sector goods and resources;

(c) the need for Australia to maintain a diversity of resources.

(3) Clause 8, page 10 (lines 18 to 22), omit subclause (6), substitute:

(6) For the purposes of conducting a sector assessment, the Secretary:

(a) must consult with each of the following:

(i) the Productivity Commission;

(ii) the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation;

(iii) the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission;

(iv) Infrastructure Australia;

(v) the Climate Change Authority;

(vi) the Net Zero Economy Authority;

(vii) a person or entity specified in the rules; and

(b) may:

(i) consult with any other Commonwealth entity; or

(ii) arrange for any Commonwealth entity to provide assistance or support.

In this legislation, the Treasurer commits to improving government decision-making on significant public investments to help industry develop the technologies necessary to decarbonise our economy. It's true that we all want to be sure that the government will not sponsor businesses which will never be internationally competitive or will create long-term dependency on public support at a significant cost to the wider economy.

Within the next two decades, the world will stop buying fossil fuels and other countries will enforce carbon border adjustment mechanisms. If we're still then dependent on being a petrostate, we will tank economically. We have clear competitive advantages in our sun, our wind and our critical minerals. We have the ability to become a green energy superpower, exporting decarbonised and value added strategic metals and critical minerals which will simultaneously earn income for Australia and contribute to global decarbonisation.

Before we jump to subsidising new technologies in nascent industries, we have to identify those in which we have a demonstrable current or future competitive advantage and determine how best to support them, while minimising risks to the taxpayer. All industry assistance comes at a cost to those who are not supported. There's always an opportunity cost in subsidising manufacturing and industry. In recent decades, much of our manufacturing has gone offshore. Supply chains are affecting us every day. We have not been effective enough in diversifying supply, stockpiling, forging alternate arrangements and switching technologies to minimise supply chain disruptions. We need to determine where supply chain issues really do, genuinely, require local manufacturing and where other means might be more economical. We should also remember those areas in which we have a genuine sovereign risk and the potential to develop both a domestic surety and a significant export market.

In some ways, this act acts as an umbrella to better coordinate the suite of existing initiatives and funds aimed at the decarbonisation of our economy, but the means by which it will intersect and interact with other entities in this space, whether that be the Productivity Commission, CSIRO, ARENA, the CEFC or others, is not yet clear. To ensure value for money, any government assistance should be based on an independent, transparent and evidence based assessment of the risks and the potential benefits associated with each proposal. There should be tight criteria specifying the outcomes to be achieved and mandated performance monitoring against those specified outcomes. The secretary should be compelled to consult with the relevant authorities and entities undertaking those assessments. Only those entities meeting strict criteria for funding in the national interest should receive public support. We want to streamline assessments, minimise duplication and increase accountability.

Early indicators unfortunately have cast some doubt on the government's preparedness to adhere to these standards under this legislation. The government has already started to allocate funds under the scheme, and, in some cases, there are real questions around the integrity of the decision-making with those grant decisions. So the amendments I've moved today to this bill will increase clarity regarding sectoral assessments and the extent to which they will consider such questions as relevant to international trade agreements, current national stockpiles and resources and the need for diversification of our resources.

There is more to national resilience than spending. We can achieve and address supply chain security in ways other than insourcing. I move here an amendment to ensure that funding under the FMIA framework does not proceed unless all other alternatives have been exhausted. We deserve more transparency over fund allocation. This should include processes which don't include NDAs, closed ministerial diaries and redaction of FOIs, processes which involve open calls for tenders, not lobbying firms and negotiations facilitated by former Labor Party staffers, which don't waste the time, money and effort of other companies and which don't cause a loss of trust in government. The amendments I move here address those concerns, and I commend them to the House.

See this speech in context