Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Hansard source

One hundred and sixty-four days after this was announced, we finally get an MPI out of the member for Bradfield on this issue. We had about 50 FOIs, the bulk of them from the member for Bradfield; no questions in question time; no MPIs; and, on this final day, they've decided to put an MPI on and the member for Bradfield can't even sit in here to hear the response. This is a classic case of asking all the questions and not listening to the answers—refusing to do so.

I really would love it, I would absolutely love it, if there was a member of the coalition that could prise that conspiracy tinfoil hat off the member for Bradfield, because, I've got to tell you, it is clouding his perspective. He keeps trying to retrofit smoke into a gun that never fired a bullet. He used his whole moment here to make a series of allegations, none of which could stack up. But the worst thing, friends, is that there are conventions in this place, and there are red lines. One in particular is that you don't go after the people that work for us. And yet nothing stops the member for Bradfield, in a grubby, smear-laden claim, suggesting that members of my team had done something inappropriate—people that I regard as having the highest integrity and character that I've ever had the opportunity to work with. Yet the member for Bradfield will do it.

If that's what the opposition are saying now—'the people who work for them are in the firing line'—they should just say it. But, I tell you what, the way the member for Bradfield has conducted himself is a poor reflection on him, because I know it's not the standard by which a lot of those opposite operate. It was a desperate attempt to smear people and find something that doesn't exist in terms of what we are trying to do.

What we are trying to do is very important. We're investing in one of the most powerful computers on the planet, which is to be based in this country, will be able to be used to benefit our economic and national security and will create a lot of important jobs in Brisbane. This is a company—and bear this in mind—that was set up by two Queenslanders, trained in Queensland, who left this country because, frankly, the coalition never backed these type of firms under their term. If they did back these companies, the coalition gave them small amounts of money. What is ignored in this debate is that the coalition funded Silicon Quantum Computing by Michelle Simmons. We welcome that commitment, and we as well backed it in our budgets when coming into government. We have backed the development of quantum strategies through the National Quantum Strategy that was released by us and has never been done before. We have set up a $1 billion critical technology fund in the National Reconstruction Fund and put that money there. We also went through a complex legal, technical, commercial probity process to make the decision about the investment of—let's get it right, please—$500 million out of the Commonwealth matched by $500 million out of the Queensland government. Roughly half of that is a loan that gets repaid, and half is an equity investment which will make double digit returns for the Commonwealth.

I get that the Liberal Party doesn't understand the whole notion of investing in companies, because anything the Commonwealth does under the coalition gets sold off. But we're actually trying to build something here that is important for the economic and national security of the country. That process is not about one person. It's not about being able to have a minister or prime minister make the decision. It goes through an expenditure review committee, the National Security Committee and cabinet processes. It's not the decision of one; it's the decision of many based on the work of the public service, done in ways that broadly align with the way they have made decisions. For example, when they made the investment in Silicon Quantum Computing, they also brought together departmental officials, just like we did, to make the investment. The coalition made an investment in Moderna of $2 billion to set up mRNA manufacturing. The only thing I criticised was how long it was taking, in the middle of a pandemic, to secure that capability. The coalition conducted a process where they put $2 billion in. And by the way, since you're suddenly big supporters of Australian industry, why didn't you back CSL, an Australian firm, to do that in Victoria? They never did that, and they never talk about it. While we're at it—because we've had the smear put on us saying that Labor lobbyists influenced this—the lead negotiator on the Moderna deal just happened to donate $20,000 to the Liberal Party after he did the deal. You never talk about that, but you're quite happy to smear people. We have gone through a process to make sure that the decision is made properly.

Also, I've got to tell you, I am absolutely loving the member for Bradfield talking to us about proper process. This is a Morrison government minister that signed off on a Leppington land deal that cost the Commonwealth 10 times more than it needed to for land that, by the way, happened to be owned by Liberal Party donors. And this is a person telling us about probity, integrity and proper process after we subjected this to a lengthy process that also involved the Chief Scientist. This is just how cute and sneaky the member for Bradfield is! He quotes the Chief Scientist from the Financial Review today. But he doesn't mention that the Chief Scientist did actually go on a process of starting with scepticism but, through her own analysis—doing what a Chief Scientist does, which is analyse, assess, check the facts and make a decision with other people—then said this deal was our 'Taiwan moment'. This was our moment to build capability that would be important for long-term economic and industrial capability. The member for Bradfield didn't quote that today. He just quoted the bits that suited him. I'm quite happy to acknowledge the Chief Scientist was sceptical, but I'm happy also to acknowledge that all those folks, at arm's length from government, make their own calls and make the advice accordingly, and that's how we act. The problem with the Liberal Party in particular is that they believe that everyone works like them. This government does not. We don't do the coalition 'donate now, decide later' approach in the way that they make decisions on public policy. We make it on the basis that people give the advice as to whether or not things stack up and whether or not those decisions should be made. We do not act in the way that the Liberal Party or the coalition do in the way that they make their calls.

The amount of hypocrisy in the way in which this has been approached over time has been completely staggering. Despite all efforts from the member for Bradfield to, as I say, retrofit smoke into a gun that never fired a bullet in the first place, he has never been able to come up with why this has been bad and why this has been wrong. There are a whole series of questions. For instance, he made a reference to the Australian National Audit Office, which I have said we would welcome if they make that decision. We're quite happy for that level of transparency; we've said that.

What did the member for Bradfield do when the ANAO didn't respond? He decided that he would come into parliament and call for a parliamentary committee. He hasn't brought that on yet, but we will be more than happy for the ANAO to assess that deal—and to take on board quotes from people like Andrew Horsley, who was awarded one of the PM's prizes for innovation this week. He set up Quantum Brilliance, one of the firms quoted by the member for Bradfield today. Dr Horsley said:

You need these billion-dollar scale investments to help build the critical mass. There's a whole supply chain and set of infrastructure around any activity here that needs to be built up.

That's what people in the sector are saying. People in the sector are also receiving record amounts of investment interest that they didn't have before, as a result of the spotlight that's been put on our capability.

In closing, we are doing this because we believe that our economy should be strong, modern and future facing. We need to invest in capability and to not be vulnerable to dependencies on others. We want to be the global frontrunners in this race. It's important for the country, long term, and it absolutely is vital for our economic and national interests. We will not play games the way that those opposite do when it comes to these types of vital investments. However, all you will see is smear, innuendo, a failure to back up their claims and conspiracy theories galore from those who, when they had the chance to make these investments, ignored them and didn't back them. They also bag out Queenslanders and always claim it's an American company, when it's Australians that made this firm what it was. (Time expired)

See this speech in context