House debates

Thursday, 10 October 2024

Matters of Public Importance

PsiQuantum

3:42 pm

Photo of James StevensJames Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Waste Reduction) Share this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to contribute on this very important topic. In doing so, I recall that it was about six months ago when the Prime Minister gave that speech—which I think was up in Brisbane—outlining the great vision he had for his policy, A Future Made in Australia. It was on the eve of the budget and, in the theatre of politics, all part of building great momentum around the purported concept that this government had some exciting new agenda to invest in and to develop capability for Australian manufacturing. As my good friend the member for Casey—who might be angry with me for stealing a line he's about to use again, but I credit him—has said, quite cleverly, the first thing that they did under the Future Made in Australia was to invest in the future made in America, and to make a decision to put a billion dollars into this American company, with the—obviously—lost opportunity of enormous investment, were that same investment going into local firms and local Australian businesses in the same sector.

On the way up to that speech, I think he made the solar panel announcement which we might remember—that's been really successful in Newcastle—and the PsiQuantum computing decision that I hear might be being looked at by the Auditor-General. We're very pleased to hear that. I'm pleased that the minister has given his permission for the Auditor-General to have a look at it! It's good of him to do something that's absolutely irrelevant to him whatsoever, because the Auditor-General doesn't need to know that the minister would welcome having this looked at or that the minister is happy for that to happen. The Auditor-General will look at what the Auditor-General chooses to look at. As the member for Bradfield has articulated to the chamber, there are very significant grounds which we hope will justify the Auditor-General making the decision to have a look at this. If the minister says he's got nothing to fear, so be it. We don't really care whether he does or doesn't support or give his permission for the Auditor-General to look at this matter, because hopefully the Auditor-General does look at this matter. Hopefully, other integrity bodies are looking very closely at what has happened in this deal.

As I said, when I heard the Prime Minister's announcement back in April, or it might have been May, about Future Made in Australia, I had assumed that the announcements that were being made, like the great solar panel one and the PsiQuantum American billion dollar investment one, were actually part of a new policy position that he was announcing and that was going to be in the budget. What we have found out since the announcement is that quite a stark and concerning set of circumstances led to a billion-dollar decision being made in this way, as the member for Bradfield has pointed out. It seems to be very clear that this was a captain's pick. This was a political decision and one that maybe they thought would garner them a bit more significant successful political coverage than it has turned out to, but this always happens when you do the dodgy. Then they reengineered the process to try and make the decision stack up and seem logical and robust after it was made.

It's completely against the principles of what a Future Made in Australia purported to be. It's not about investing in Australian capability and Australian businesses. It's not about having a merit based process where a whole range of people are given the opportunity to bid for taxpayer funds and to compete with each other and having the most meritorious option of government support being chosen. This was an unsolicited process. There was a lot of murkiness, which the member for Bradfield has pointed out, around the links between different people associated with that approach to government to people in government—good things for the Auditor-General and maybe other integrity bodies to have a look at, I might add, about how this decision was made.

Instead of the great businesses of Australia, particularly the great technology businesses, looking upon this overarching faux 'made in Australia' policy position and agenda of the government and thinking, 'This is something that we could be a part of and something that gives us some confidence that our government supports us and backs us and wants us to get ahead,' they give a billion dollars to an American company. Because of that the decision, the confidence of the sector is at absolute rock bottom.

We look forward to a number of important inquiries by the appropriate integrity bodies of this nation looking very closely at this whole thing, because, as the member for Bradfield has pointed out, there are a lot of significant questions to be answered. The minister just had the opportunity to do so and regrettably did not take that opportunity. (Time expired)

Comments

No comments