Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

Swiss cheese does have a lot of holes; indeed, so too does their plan. It is a plan for more government, not for more business investment. The more we hear Labor talk about a future made in Australia, the more it simply does not stack up.

Australia requires strong economic management that gets our economy back on track by getting the basics right: affordable and reliable energy, flexible workplaces, less regulation, fewer market interventions and less red tape. Labor's policies on energy, industrial relations and tax are all making Australia a less attractive place to do business in. The facts are clear: insolvencies are up, productivity is down, and businesses are struggling to keep their doors open. Just last week, we saw a major energy company abandon its plan for green hydrogen—a key focus of this bill. We know this bill shows bias, prompting a renewables-only approach in contrast to similar schemes being established by the UK and the EU—a bias that will directly impact longstanding Australian companies. We on this side of the House know that the future made in Australia bumper sticker is more about spin and delivery, and therefore this bill should be scrutinised in detail. I make this point following the government's gagging of debate, in the last sitting of the parliament, during the consideration in detail phase of the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024.

The bill to which this motion I put today refers has implications for domestic industries. Referring this bill to the Standing Committee on Economics will allow for a detailed examination of its potential economic impact on various sectors, particularly manufacturing and energy-intensive industries, which may be hit with additional costs related to the Guarantee of Origin scheme. Through the imposition of any additional regulatory and certification costs on energy producers, this bill may lead to higher energy prices. This could hurt Australian households and businesses at a time when they have been gripped amidst a cost-of-living crisis.

Referring the bill for further scrutiny will allow for a proper assessment of potential energy price increases and their impact on consumers. As shadow minister for climate change and energy, I strongly believe a bill such as this should be closely aligned with economic policies, and thus the importance of the committee to which it is being referred. The importance of job creation and economic growth is included in some of those economic considerations. Labor has stood behind CSIRO estimates that an Australian clean hydrogen industry could create more than 8,000 jobs. How do these numbers stack up after recent withdrawals from green hydrogen by Fortescue and Origin? A referral can evaluate whether the bill would further support or hinder job creation in light of these changes in the marketplace and would suggest modifications that better serve our national interest.

As we know from other Future Made in Australia legislation, there are loopholes that create a pathway for foreign companies to extract economic benefits from Australia without adequately supporting domestic businesses. Referring the bill for further scrutiny will help to ensure it is focused on the genuine economic interests of the Australian people and the Australian economy. That's why I stand today to call on the House to refer this bill to the economics committee for an advisory report. As I mentioned earlier, the committee would operate as it would when undertaking an inquiry into any other issue of concern or interest. The committee would be free to convene public hearings and invite submissions. It could provide this House with an advisory report to help inform members as to the merits or otherwise of this bill. This would enhance the House's consideration of the bill and certainly not undermine it. Importantly, the work of this House committee would be entirely separate to whatever work the Senate is currently considering via its own processes. To anticipate an argument from those opposite about there being two concurrent inquiries into this bill being run, I say this: if the minister has nothing to hide in this legislation, then surely more scrutiny, not less, is a good thing.

There is an important consequence to passing this motion which I want to ensure is understood by members. Under standing order 144—and this is detailed further in practice—the House cannot proceed to the consideration in detail stage of debate until such a time as the committee has reported to the House. The opposition deems this necessary to ensure extensive economic assessment by all members in consultation with stakeholders. This should not be a controversial proposition. The opposition is not proposing to push this bill into the never-never. We are not running interference or seeking to block the government's legislative agenda. What we are doing is asking the government to work constructively with the opposition and all members to ensure that this bill is given the scrutiny it plainly deserves. This motion is, in itself, an acknowledgement of this fact. I hope those opposite will support what is a simple, straightforward request. If indeed the government has nothing to hide and is not afraid of scrutiny, then it would support this motion without hesitation. I commend this motion to the House.

See this speech in context