Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Higgins, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise, in continuation, to debate the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, a bill that I strongly support. We need a future made in Australia to also help hard-to-abate sectors such as aviation, heavy industry and the built environment decarbonise with low-carbon fuels like green hydrogen and sustainable aviation fuels. It's absolutely crucial to the decarbonisation journey of this country. But what we have failed to acknowledge is the vast human capital needed in order to make that future made in Australia a reality. It highlights the opportunities for young Australians, if they're thinking about future careers. We have an abundance of resources in our nation, resources beneath our feet, resources in the sky and, of course, the resources that walk among us—our human capital. Knowledge workers, tradies and blue- and white-collar workers all have a place in a future made in Australia. We make around 8,500 PhDs a year. We need to stop losing them to the hunger games of academia and give them a berth in local, homegrown industries. We have around 500,000 people—we've clicked over half a million—who have signed up to fee-free TAFE, and they will absolutely be a part of a future made in Australia. Those jobs are theirs for the asking. But these workers, young and old alike, need industries to absorb them—industries that are future focused and are exploiting the opportunities of the net zero transition that is already well underway globally and the key markets in Asia that are on our doorstep. I can see some children up in the stands; this is for you.

These nascent industries, however, need help. They need support to help them compete in a distorted global market. We call ourselves an open free-market economy. The rest of the world isn't necessarily that way, so we need to give our industries a helping hand. Elsewhere, those businesses are getting incentives, tax breaks and government subsidies. That's the international reality we live in, and there's no hiding from it. The playing field has changed. If we want to make manufacturing return and then boom in Australia—and of course this side of the House does—we must make it easier for companies to go from small to medium and then leap to hopefully large-scale enterprises. There are far too many roadblocks at the moment, and that is something this bill, the Future Made in Australia Bill, addresses.

The Future Made in Australia act will be guided by a national interest framework with priority industries identified under two streams: the net zero transformation stream, focusing on renewable hydrogen, green metals and low-carbon liquid fuels; and the economic resilience and security stream, focusing on critical minerals, clean energy manufacturing and applying stronger policy overall. In general, the Future Made in Australia Bill has over $22 billion in it, and it's directed towards grants, production credits and cutting red tape in order to enable investors, whether they be domestic or foreign, to better connect with the bureaucracy and with investment vehicles within the government.

Investment vehicles include the National Reconstruction Fund, a $15 billion fund dedicated to making things in Australia again and getting high-tech, advanced manufacturing back in Australia. Whether it be defence capabilities, health care, renewable energy or ag tech, we want it all back. AI and quantum are also included in that. There's a lot of money backing that. That's the future we want, not for us but for those kids up there.

It's also important to note that those opposite voted against the National Reconstruction Fund. They don't believe in government handouts. They have their heads in the sand when it comes to the global reality. Australian companies are not competing on a level playing field globally. They need the help of government, given how far back we have fallen after a decade of Liberal inaction that watched industries after industries depart our country, the most egregious being the car industry.

These grants will include $8 billion to support green hydrogen over the next 10 years, mostly as production credits, which means that they are only paid out on success—when the green hydrogen is made. We talked to experts, and we think that commercial-scale green hydrogen is somewhere between five to eight years away. It's not that hard to make. You need sunshine, you need an electrolyser, and you need water. So there is a race on globally to make green hydrogen because it is essential as an alternative to our fossil fuels—our petrol and diesel, which are used by heavy industry.

We also have $7 billion over 11 years in tax incentives for critical mineral processing, and we have over half a billion, $549 million, for battery manufacturing. We've also invested close to half a billion in quantum computing. If there are any young people out there interested in maths and computer science, quantum computing could be a destination for you. Your pathway could be through science and/or engineering and then onto a higher degree like a master's or a PhD and then straight into this industry, which we are now establishing in Australia, and we make no apologies for it.

I would suggest to the Liberals that, for their sins, this is an opportunity to atone for the mistakes they made when they were in government, particularly around the departure of the car industry. I didn't really realise at the time what that meant for our country, but the enormity of it has actually landed—the loss of those jobs and those skills. The multiplier effect that came from that one high-tech industry cannot even be quantified. They could atone for that by voting for this Future Made in Australia Bill and give those kids up there in the gallery a pathway to secure, well-paid jobs in the future that they want. That's a future that is decarbonised and high-tech, with high living standards and well-paid, secure jobs in industries that they want—not what you want but what they want.

Manufacturing is not just a sector; it is a capability. It is essential to our prosperity and to our national security. It is a capability that drives innovation, productivity, incomes, international trade and supply chains and it has a multiplier effect. A virtual cycle spins up when manufacturing returns. One business leads to another business and another. A good example is renewable energy. Offshore wind zones are attracting data centres. Why? Because they are energy thirsty. That is attracting other businesses, even ecotourism, and then value-adding manufacturing industries. Energy is the key.

The next election will be a choice between a future made in Australia and a future made overseas. Instead of doubling down on the past and more of the same, which, frankly, I think is untenable—it means digging up and shipping stuff out and doubling down on coal and gas—we have an opportunity to value-add to our natural resources and our human capital in this country and turn Australia from the fossil fuel giant that it currently is to the sun king. I commend this bill to the House.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024. Those opposite may have a selective memory. Perhaps it may be because much of their election policy platform has been scrubbed from the internet. But this bill and all its promises sound very familiar, indeed. This bill and the rhetoric behind it churns out the same empty promises our manufacturers were given almost word for word by Labor before the last election. In fact, guess what the name of the policy was on the webpage? Yes, that's right—'A Future Made in Australia'. This government's latest promises made in this place over recent days offer cold comfort to our manufacturers, because they have been living through two years of Labor failures. Our hardworking manufacturers and the Australian public were given this exact sell just over two years ago. I've met with them and they are over it. They don't need more hollow promises; they need a break. The Prime Minister made all sorts of commitments at the last election, but his shallow promises to manufacturers are plain for all to see.

Here we are, 2½ years on, and they have spent $8 million running the National Reconstruction Fund. They just forgot to spend the money on actual manufacturing projects. This is what they promised at the 2022 election. The then opposition leader and now Prime Minister said:

At the end of the first term of a Labor Government, when we reflect on what we have built, we'll see this … an economy that makes more things here at home, powered by cheap renewable energy.

The exact opposite is true, with our manufacturers paying among the most expensive energy prices in the world. How can Labor promise a future made in Australia if they can't keep the lights on today?

Instead of a stronger economy with cheaper power, Australia faces a manufacturing insolvency crisis, with insolvencies tripling since Labor came to office. The Prime Minister also said of his National Reconstruction fund that it will 'rebuild Australia's manufacturing base', while the now Deputy PM prophesised:

Only Labor will ensure we come out of the pandemic stronger through bringing manufacturing home.

Any reading of the economy will tell you otherwise. The NRF is still yet to spend a single cent on a single project. So, if that's the lived experience since they took office, how can we trust anything they say on this legislation?

Here they are, yet again, making commitments on manufacturing and saying to Australians, 'Trust us.' The government has had two years to demonstrate how they will rebuild manufacturing in Australia. Instead of delivering a proper economic plan, we see economic conditions continuing to deteriorate. Industry reports anaemic growth rates that are at or near their lowest levels in a decade. That clearly doesn't bother the members opposite. Are those opposite acknowledging or responding to a reported decline in new orders at the largest rate since the global financial crisis? No. Neither are they concerned about invoice defaults sitting at record highs. All we get is silence when we hear of manufacturers going bust.

Large institutions in our industry landscape like Qenos, Bosch or Alcoa have made difficult decisions as a result of this government's policy failures, with whole supply chain implications such as the announced closure of Sydney chemicals manufacturer Indorama. A furniture-making company in Dandenong, MadeCo, who recently entered administration, said:

… we've weathered many storms, but unfortunately, some waves hit harder than others. The challenges brought on by the pandemic were tough enough, and the recent downturn in the residential cabinetry market, coupled with the closure of two major account clients has made our journey even more arduous …

The building supply chain is very much feeling the pain, and manufacturer LUTUM going into voluntary administration is just another sign of that. It brings me no great pleasure, but I want to share the comments from the administrators:

This is a manufacturing business exposed to the building and construction sector. It's got all the problems of manufacturing plus all the problems of a building supplier.

And what are we told by this government? That they want to double down on their failed policies. They look at the past two years of inaction and failure and say, 'We want more of that.' Make no mistake: that is the choice that we are being provided here, and the track record of this mob fills no-one with confidence.

The Treasurer asserts that it would be 'an egregious breach of our generational responsibilities as a government if we didn't play this winning hand,' with reference to this bill. It's the sort of stuff you get from a bloke with a PhD in politics, not in economics. He loves to sell his policies; he just doesn't understand them. Well, let me give some free advice to this Treasurer from someone who has actually worked in a blue-collar job with hardworking men and women. Treasurer, what would be an egregious breach of your government's responsibility is not responding to the conditions that I've just outlined.

Manufacturers are struggling. Aussie families are struggling. Australians have endured 12 mortgage rate hikes under this government, with little to no support. Real wages for employees have dropped by nine per cent, and living standards have collapsed by eight per cent. Household savings are down by 10 per cent, all while the prices for food and groceries continue to rise and are up by more than 11 per cent. Over 116,000 Australian households are on electricity bill hardship payments, with 600 new households entering hardship plans each week—each week—to try to pay for their power prices. Because of this government's bungled energy policies, Aussie industry and households now pay at least 22 per cent more for their electricity, and this government's reckless approach to gas has led to drastic hikes in the price of gas, essential for most manufacturing operations. Under Labor, 90 per cent of our 24/7 baseload power will be forced out of the system. As manufacturers choose to shut down, unions have been given the green light to rise up. Emboldened by new, retrograde industrial relations laws, unions continue to be the kingmakers for those in the modern Labor Party. Is it any wonder that productivity has fallen by over five per cent under the Labor government? It's telling that the Treasurer did not mention productivity once in his budget. This is not the target of this bill. The government just keeps adding fuel to this inflationary fire, and this Future Made in Australia policy is proof positive of that.

There are also some key questions of this bill that show just how disingenuous this government really is. Their budget has already committed to a number of programs under this Future Made in Australia umbrella. Take the Hydrogen Headstart program, the Solar Sunshot program and even the PsiQuantum deal as examples. Knowing full well that these programs would be part of their Future Made in Australia package and knowing full well that this legislation would institute a new National Interest Framework and so-called independent sector assessments and community benefit principles, why did this government choose to power ahead without these three key pillars being applied to the aforementioned spends? It looks dodgy to me. They are failing their own standards before they even legislate them.

We also have serious questions about what this all means for the National Reconstruction Fund. What will happen to the independent investments by the National Reconstruction Fund if they're subject to the Future Made in Australia additional assessments? We're in a position whereby the department of industry will have a sector assessment via co-investment plans, as will the Treasury via a sector assessment, and so too the NRF Corporation with their investment considerations. That's three lots of assessment from three different entities. Have they even considered how that would work? How can the NRF be independent if government-initiated advice curtails or supersedes their investment decisions? Who is in charge here? Is it the Treasurer or is it the minister for industry? The problem for Australians is, if you ask them, they will tell you it's both, because even though those two don't like each other, they do share the same trademark arrogance. While I can appreciate why the government have removed ownership of this legislation from the inept and incompetent industry minister, the member for Chifley, this transfer to treasure Treasury poses more questions than answers.

It also remains unclear how exactly the new frameworks in this bill will interact with existing frameworks such as the National Reconstruction Fund priority areas or, indeed, ARENA's publicly listed priorities. In the Treasurer's second-reading speech he boldly claimed that this bill reflects a new economic orthodoxy, yet economists have come out in droves backing in the coalition's approach—stick to the economic fundamentals, the basics which our manufacturers demand. This is the whole problem with this Treasurer—while he's out there trying to remake capitalism, Australians just want him to do his job.

Labor have failed on the fundamentals. They failed to provide the skilled workers in the industries that need it. Anthony Albanese was elected on a simple promise—that he would skill more Australians. Yet, since Labor took office Australia has 85,000 fewer apprentices and trainees—a loss of one in five—and new training starts have dropped by 39 per cent. The last grandiose promise—the National Reconstruction Fund—was sold as a $15 billion fund to support manufacturers, but as manufacturers continue to go bust the fund, which has not committed a dollar to a single project, has instead topped itself up in this last budget with $18 million more for this new bureaucracy.

We also see the government's industry growth program—a $400 million program—spend a quarter of its budget on bureaucracy, not manufacturers. They recently announced five recipients—just five—no doubt worthy ones doing worthy things, but cold comfort to the thousands of manufacturers struggling to make ends meet and keep the lights on. Instead, this government will do what it always does: issue media releases that might sound good but that offer little practical support.

We see a clear example of how Labor actually thinks about manufacturing when we look at what they do, not what they say. Labor was caught out ripping off the 'Australian made' logo for political profit. Many in this House would be familiar with the iconic green triangle with the golden kangaroo—an instantly recognisable symbol and guarantee of Australian-made quality. It's highly trusted, with 89 per cent of Australians more likely to buy a product if they know it is Australian made, thanks to the strength of that branding. The logo is a registered trademark, and as such its use is strictly controlled. We uncovered a calculated campaign from Labor to use the 'Australian made' logo in party political material to spin its Future Made in Australia policy. Disgracefully, Labor tried to deliberately profit off the trusted 'Australian made' brand. That is how they see Australian manufacturing; as something to win them votes.

That is what this whole exercise is about—Labor trying to win an election, not build an economy. That is why the coalition opposes this bill. Labor do not have a proper plan to get the settings right for Australian manufacturers. We will continue to stand up to the false promises offered by this bad Labor government and instead offer a better way with a focus on getting the fundamentals right to get Australia back on track. I thank the House.

Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my great pleasure to speak about the Future Made in Australia Bill today, but I do want to pick up on a couple of things that the previous speaker and a couple of others have said. The member for Farrer mentioned the Alcoa Kwinana refinery closure, and I know the member for Hume in his speech last night mentioned the temporary suspension of production at BHP's Nickel West refinery. Both are in Kwinana, and both are in my electorate. I emphasise how shameful it is that there is absolutely no matter that the Liberals and the coalition will not politicise in this House. A lot of people have lost jobs at Alcoa and Nickel West. There's no doubt about it. The truth is that those operations have come to the place that they are in now—in care and maintenance—because they are over 50 years old. They have been the backbone of the Kwinana Industrial Area for a long time. They have employed many people. Indeed, my father was employed at the BP oil refinery, which, I might add, those opposite oversaw the closure of with barely a murmur. But what is irresponsible of those opposite is to come in here—and to go elsewhere—and to repeat untruths and misrepresentations about why Alcoa shut down and why Nickel West BHP is going into temporary closure. It is very clear—and those companies have made very clear in all their public statements—that there is no policy of the government that has any effect on these decisions. It is about their ageing facilities. So, if they could stop treating Australian workers in the disgraceful manner in which they do, that would be an entirely good thing.

The Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, at its centrepiece, has emphasised the importance of critical minerals and rare earth elements and their processing here in Australia. A $17.6 billion production tax credit system will create more well-paid jobs, support local communities and build industries right here in Australia that will be critical for the future of the global economy. Underneath our feet and right across the country, we have all the critical minerals and rare earth elements the world needs for the energy transition. You can't have renewable technology like batteries, solar panels and wind turbines without them. There will not be a transition to net zero without the critical minerals of Australia. They are also vital for our defence and national security and for the defence and security of our partners and allies. As the world seeks to rapidly reduce its carbon emissions, the global demand will absolutely increase into the future. It would be a travesty if we didn't capitalise on this historic opportunity to grow this industry here in Australia for generations of prosperity to come.

We should try and do more than extracting critical minerals and exporting them to be refined overseas. Those opposite want an offshore critical minerals sector. This Albanese Labor government will not do that, because we believe in a future made in Australia. We should be processing the critical minerals here because we can do it. We need to create more value in Australia and add to our own supply chains and, importantly, those of our regional neighbours. Our traditional resources of coal, gas and iron ore will underpin the development of this new segment of the sector. All of them are needed, because the road to net zero runs through the Australian resources sector.

The production tax incentive is a game changer that will help achieve that. The investment is a no-risk approach. It is not a cash handout. If companies don't process critical minerals onshore, they don't receive a tax credit. Our critical minerals and rare earth industries will create those secure jobs of the future, but they need our support to get the industry off the ground. It is exposed to global markets. Global markets for critical minerals and rare earths are opaque, volatile and subject to manipulation. As we've seen in recent weeks, these price fluctuations are resulting in job losses, and that is what international market pressures are bringing to bear. But this government is committed to helping the sector weather these difficulties and grow for the future.

But what is standing in the way of this? Well, as always, it's those opposite—the Liberal and the National parties—holding this nation back, led by an opposition leader who's talking out of both sides of his mouth about the production tax incentive. The Leader of the Opposition says one thing in Western Australia and another when he's back here on the east coast. Here in Canberra the opposition leader opposes the production tax incentive outright and turns his back on Western Australia's resources sector. On the night the budget was released, the shadow Treasurer took mere minutes to oppose these credit systems. It was classified as 'welfare for billionaires'. Of course, on one of his rare trips to Western Australia, the opposition leader just last week was saying something else entirely. In Kalgoorlie the opposition leader said he was having respectful discussions with industry about support for critical minerals. But what would really help is if he actually said yes and supported production tax incentives that the industry itself has called for and calls for time and time again.

What we need to know from the opposition is, which is it? You have the shadow Treasurer on one hand saying, 'We don't support it,' and you have the Leader of the Opposition on the other hand having a think about it. You also have Senator Cash talking about some fantastical WA package but refusing to back in the shadow Treasurer and his staggering opposition to this policy that has the widespread support of industry. I look forward to the backflip we can expect from the shadow Treasurer in due course.

I want to talk a bit about what the opposition has proposed and the alternative to the government's proposition for production tax credits for critical minerals. The member for Farrer a minute ago said we need to get back to basics, and the coalition has claimed that all the government needs to do is go back to fundamentals and cut the red tape. So, let's look at their record on red tape. If there were a gold medal for approval delays, we might have propelled ourselves up to third on that ladder, on that Olympics table. If you combined it with the gold medal for backflips that I can expect to hear from the shadow Treasurer, we really would have done well—even better than our great Olympians have already done.

So, what is the truth on the approvals under the coalition, when they were in government? During their decade in power, approvals ground to a halt, because they cut the environment department's resourcing by 40 per cent. That meant there were no people to do the work to go through the approval process. So, that's their fault, and that is what their legacy is in the approvals space; that is their record. This government has spent $239 million in speeding up the environmental approval process. In our first budget we announced $117 million to clean up the mess and speed up approval times, and in our most recent budget we invested nearly $100 million to, again, speed up environmental approvals for renewable energy, transmission and critical minerals projects.

Their record—the record they say they want to use for getting back to basics, or getting back to fundamentals: across the previous Liberal-National government, only 46.6 per cent of decisions were made on time. Our record, under this Albanese Labor government, thanks to Labor's commitments and work on the approval processes: 84.3 decisions made on time. I'm much happier with that record than with their record over there. So, if this is all they've got—that they want to get back to basics on the approval process—well, it's not much, and it's certainly not enough to start the critical minerals industry in this country.

I might add that you cannot simply magic away, cannot just wave a wand at, the international market and geostrategic issues and the extraordinary pressure on this industry and think they will just disappear because you think it can. It goes to show just how out of touch the Liberals and Nationals are and how little they know about the resources sector in this country. I am staggered, time and time again, by their absolute ignorance and the way they take for granted the largesse of the resources industry, the support of them, and it has made them lazy in regard to policy in regard to the resources sector. Well, that is not what I do as the resources minister in this country.

I want to talk a bit about Western Australia, my home state, and the state that has vast deposits of critical minerals. I recommend that the shadow Treasurer might think to talk to some of the people who hold positions of leadership in Western Australia. He doesn't need to talk to the premier, Roger Cook, who of course supports a critical minerals strategy and the production tax credits. But he could speak to Libby Mettam, the leader of the Liberals in WA. She has said, 'We'll support this measure.' The leader of the WA Nationals and therefore the Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia, because of such underperformance of the Liberals, has said, 'It is essential not just for Western Australia and not just for Australia but for the Western world to pursue production tax incentives like this.' But the shadow Treasurer has never listened to anyone before.

We of course have other members in here from Western Australia. Their Liberal numbers are declining, and there's not been a Nationals WA member for a very long time. Maybe they should stand up for their own sectors, their own electorates, as well. I would hope that the members for Canning, Forrest, Durack and O'Connor are now speaking to the opposition leader and the shadow Treasurer to back the production tax incentive and support the sector that drives our state's economy and also drives their electorates' prosperity.

Instead of supporting Lynas, who are building a rare earths processing facility in Kalgoorlie in the electorate of O'Connor, the member for O'Connor has been distracted entirely by the Leader of the Opposition's nuclear sideshow. I see that the member for O'Connor is not on the speaking list for the Future Made in Australia Bill, which would greatly benefit his electorate. Perhaps he will find the time in his busy schedule to come in here and speak against the production tax incentives that the industry that fills his electorate supports.

Of course, there are other members in this House that have interests in the critical minerals sector in their electorates. The member for Durack will be speaking later and I look forward to her support for production tax credits. From New South Wales, the member for Parkes and the member for New England have rare earths and antimony in their respective electorates. They don't support it but they should, because it would create jobs in their electorates.

In Queensland, we have the member for Flynn, where there's a high-purity alumina refinery starting up that would benefit greatly from this production tax incentive. He was in here before saying no to this policy. I haven't heard from the member for Leichhardt but he has a tungsten deposit in his electorate that would be handy. Member for Capricornia, you have molybdenum, which you might be speaking about.

I haven't seen that, but I'm sure you'd want to help them out with the production tax credits.

We're looking forward to the contributions of the member to Gippsland and the member for Mallee. Of course, the member for Braddon will be speaking later too. He has the prospect of having a tungsten refinery in his electorate, and they will be depending on the production tax credit in order to move that along. If all of those members—and there may be some others—want to have a think about what the benefit is for industry right across the country, particularly for their electorates, they could come in here and try to get some support for it or, alternatively, call their leaders.

There are a few other people that have supported the production tax credits. Rob Scott from Wesfarmers has said the credits are a 'smart, targeted use of the tax system to solve big problems, leverage our competitive advantages and enhance Australia's prosperity.' Wesfarmers are of course building a lithium hydroxide plant. Janette Hewson from the Queensland Resources Council—a great supporter of Labor, but who we know is also a great supporter of the coalition—has said:

The Critical Minerals Production Tax Incentive, funding to progress common user facilities and $566 million to Geoscience Australia to develop new data are all important announcements that will benefit our critical minerals industry.

And they are not the only ones. We have AMEC as well, who represent the vast majority of junior miners that are set to benefit from the critical minerals industry. If these three groups are saying it, maybe have a listen to them instead of listening to the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer, who have no idea about the resources sector. Sure, you can fly into a private party in a private jet and have a few champagnes. That's jolly good, but it doesn't show your understanding of the industry one whit. It doesn't help this country to progress. It just shows you are ignorant, if you rely on shadowy gifts to make sure that you can keep doing what you're doing, which is create poor policy with poor results, into the future.

Labor understands the resources sector. One of the reasons we have a great advantage in the resources sector is that we represent the workers in that sector. They are the ones that I know stand to benefit. This will benefit generations of workers, moreover, because the production tax incentives will create generations of work in new industries right across the country, so we can have a Future Made in Australia.

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say I was looking forward, genuinely, to hearing what the minister had to say. Normally when we have to sit and wait, it's a backbencher that repeats the talking points—you could hear them from anyone. I thought it would be interesting to see the minister spend 15 minutes talking about the Future Made in Australia and their plan for the resources industry. What was interesting was the time allocation. We heard around three, maybe four minutes—if we're generous—of talking about the government and then about 12 minutes of talking about the opposition. That in many ways sums up the Albanese Labor government. After spending 20 of the last 30 years in opposition, they're institutionalised to opposition. They continue to talk about us. The member for Parramatta is new. He's been lucky enough to be in government for two years; he's okay. I see him laughing over on the other side. I think he did work at a senior level in the former Labor government, so he's had a good run. But many others—the senior leaders, the Prime Minister and others—continue to talk about the opposition. The Minister for Resources could not spend 15 minutes outlining the positive plan that the Albanese Labor government has for the resources sector or for this Future Made in Australia policy. That says a lot.

This bill, like many others, follows a very typical Labor formula. I spoke about this when I spoke about the National Reconstruction Fund and also the Housing Australia Future Fund. This bill hasn't let me down. It's followed the four tried-and-true steps of the Albanese Labor government when it comes to be policy announcements. Step 1: you need the impressive-sounding name. 'Future Made in Australia' is very impressive; no-one would disagree with a name like that. Step 2: you need a lot of money over a long period of time, so it is outside of the forward estimates because then the Treasurer, as the member for Parramatta knows, can shift the budget a little bit because we report only on four years and, if we talk about 10 years, it sounds very impressive. With $22.7 billion—tick—we follow that. The member for Parramatta will appreciate step 3 as well. You need to include off-budget spending—

He agrees with me! You need to include off-budget spending because the beauty of including off-budget spending is that the Treasurer can stand up and talk about being economically responsible even though they've committed over $45 billion into off-budget spending since coming to government. The reason he can pretend to be economically responsible is in the name. It doesn't sit in the budget. But guess what. The Australian people, the taxpayers that have to repay that $45 billion in debt that adds to the structural deficit—the real structural deficit, not that pretend budget one—have to pay that money back. That $45 billion also drives inflation, as Michele Bullock, the RBA governor, knows. This bill includes the National Reconstruction Fund so—tick—we've got our off-budget spending.

The fourth point is a real lack of detail in the bill, which, as the Minister for Resources, who just spent four minutes talking about the bill, shows—even the Treasurer's speech, which I thought I would read again, had no detail about what was actually in the bill other than his spin and talking points he does so well.

The real danger to this bill is that this is giving the government the opportunity to pick winners. I want to talk about an actual example of what has happened already under the Future Made in Australia fund. There has been over $400 million—$970 million if you include the Queensland government investment—into quantum. That's part of the Future Made in Australia plan. But let's actually talk about PsiQuantum and the process that this government undertook. The first thing we should know about PsiQuantum is that they're actually based in Silicon Valley. The last time I checked, Silicon Valley is in the United States, not in Australia. The second thing we should know about PsiQuantum is that they've got some good supporters, Brookline Advisory is the lobbyist for PsiQuantum, on the record. The two principals of Brookline Advisory are a former chief of staff to the now Minister for Defence and Deputy Prime Minister and a former senior adviser to the Treasurer. Those connections came in handy.

Let's go through the timeline of PsiQuantum and what's happened around this process. This is an important process to understand because, if it's happened in quantum, it can happen with every other initiative under the Future Made in Australia brand. The Minister for Industry and Science met with PsiQuantum between 1 and 31 December 2022. On 25 January 2023, Minister Husic travelled to the PsiQuantum headquarters in Silicon Valley. On 26 April—this is very important and very convenient—PsiQuantum registered as a company in Australia based in Brisbane. Then, amazingly, by pure coincidence, on 3 May 2023, Minister Husic released the National Quantum Strategy. Lucky they registered just a week before that was announced! I wonder how they knew that was going to happen.

This is where it gets really murky. We now know, through Senate estimates and FOIs, that Postquantum was engaging with the Department of Industry, Science and Resources for months, doing due diligence. There was $7 million spent on external advice in early 2023, directly looking at Postquantum, from the department of industry. In August 2023, there was an EOI process sent out to Australia based quantum companies and 21 applied. When this EOI was sent out, many in the quantum industry were so concerned that the fix was in—that it was set up so that Postquantum, a US based company, could succeed—that they contacted me and raised concerns about the process. They also contacted the media. I spoke in the Federation Chamber in November 2023 about the irregularities in this process and the concerns industry had that Postquantum would win that tender process. To be very clear, no announcement had been made at that stage. In November 2023 I raised that. We now know, through FOIs and Senate estimates, that the department assessed the 21 proposals from the Australian quantum industry in a matter of weeks, compared to the $7 million of external advice and months and months of processes for the US based Postquantum. Then, what do we know? Lo and behold, shock-horror, in April 2024 Minister Husic and the government announced that Postquantum won the process. Wow! I must be Nostradamus to have been able to predict that in November. How amazing that that could happen! That process is now before the audit committee. There have been letters written by our side to the Auditor-General. Being on the audit committee, I am going to follow that process with interest. If this is how those opposite treat the Australian quantum industry, where does it leave us with any other industry?

Just when you might think it couldn't get any worse—this deal with Postquantum to build a computer in Brisbane—it did. Just in the last month the City of Chicago, in the state of Illinois, announced that they have agreed to a $500 million package of incentives with Postquantum to build a quantum computer in Chicago. Suddenly we're giving $900 million to this company to build it in Brisbane and the City of Chicago, in the state of Illinois, are giving them $500 million to build it in America. You would have thought, if we were going to spend that money, the minister would have at least done the due diligence to get a non-compete clause or some level of exclusivity for the Australian people. The question is: how does this happen? Is it because of the connections of Brookline Advisory, or has the minister just decided that he'll pick the winners?

The SaturdayPaper recently had an article about Postquantum, including a quote from a department of industry insider. I'm going to repeat that quote, although I will change the last word because it is not parliamentary. This is a quote about the minister for industry: 'This is a minister who is a conviction politician who gets very excited and very enthusiastic about big ideas that could potentially change the nation, but the downside is that, when this same minister is presented with advice that goes against one of those big ideas, he really loses his mind.' This is a department insider saying that the minister for industry refuses to listen to advice from the department, and the government are telling us that this minister, along with his very good friend—as we know—the Treasurer, is going to sit down in a room and make these decisions. I'm very much looking forward to the Treasurer and the Minister for Industry and Science getting together over a cup of tea to make these decisions because it shows that they're not actually about delivering a future made in Australia for the Australian people.

I was just with Food and Agri Australia, a new group representing family owned food manufacturers in Australia. Every business needs productivity gains, which allow them to make more products at a cheaper price and bring their unit costs down. But there was not one word in the minister's speech about a future made in Australia about productivity. The minister has been missing on productivity for the last 2½ years. When he re-imagined the economy, he channelled his hero Paul Keating but didn't mention productivity. You need to drive productivity because it lifts opportunities for all industries. Food manufacturers, like those I met with today—those in the resources sector, those in agriculture, all across the country—are driving productivity. It makes a difference.

The other challenge when we talk about due diligence and proprietary is that, as I said, we already have $470 million of Australian taxpayer money tied up in PsiQuantum. I've gone through the farce of that process. We have already committed $2 billion to Hydrogen Headstart and $1 billion to Solar Sunshot, and we've seen the reports over the last few months that the wheels are already falling off. The government are refusing to put Hydrogen Headstart and Solar Sunshot through this process. They're saying we need this process moving forward, but not for the $3½ billion of taxpayer money we've already spent. That's the hypocrisy of those opposite. They'll talk about the importance of policy and due diligence but won't put it through what they've already spent. They know for a fact that the PsiQuantum deal won't stand up.

This isn't about delivering and competing on a global stage. The Prime Minister has talked about how the world has changed. Has he looked at the IRA in the US? He would understand that policy is technology agnostic. That actually backs nuclear energy as the only zero emissions baseload scalable technology that exists in the world. This policy selects one technology, renewables, and rules out others. In a world where we're going to see population growth in Australia—we've already seen the uptake of data centres that require significant energy—we're seeing new technologies like AI that require and consume a lot of energy. We're seeing the world and the government putting in policies, although those policies are already failing. We're seeing the world slowly move to EVs, which require more electricity. We have seen the government, those opposite, and the states try to electrify houses and take them off gas. So, at a time when we're pushing all these demands on the electricity system, we should be looking at all options, at nuclear, renewables and gas, to drive energy supply. As demand increases, if supply doesn't increase at the same time, prices will go up. That's economics 101.

As I said at the start, this Future Made in Australia policy ticks the four boxes of the Albanese Labor government playbook. It has an impressive sounding name. It has a lot of money over a long time. It's off-budget spending. There's a lack of detail in the bill.  And we know that 2½ years in, it ticks the fifth box. It's not actually going to deliver; it's going to make life harder for the Australian people, for Australian businesses, for those who want to have a go and for those who have already invested in business in this country.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not surprisingly, I rise to support this bill, the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024. For the benefit of the members opposite who don't support it, I want to tell them and this place why I support this bill—why we support this bill. We support this bill because, at the heart of these policies, is something that they have lacked in spades. That is leadership. It's a type of leadership. I notice they're laughing on the other side there. The member for Casey, you shouldn't laugh, because what was sorely lacking during the years of coalition drift was leadership.

What kind of leadership are we talking about when it comes to this bill and these policies? It's about showing leadership in two key areas. The first is our transition to net zero, a massive national undertaking that is important not only for Australia's future but also across the globe. The second is our leadership in restarting, revitalising and reshaping our national industries and our manufacturing and, with that, our economic resilience because of the circumstances that we face in the 21st century. That requires leadership. These are big undertakings. In doing both, we on this side of the aisle are backing Australian manufacturing, backing Australian industry and backing Australian workers, unlike those across the aisle. When they were in power, they tried to kill Australian manufacturing. They almost very much did it. When they were in power, they sought to end what had been a long and storied history of Australian workers in Australian manufacturing making things in this country.

This bill, the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, has three key components. Firstly we want to take a principled approach to drawing private investment into priority industries to again revitalise and reshape manufacturing in this country and our Australian industries. We're doing this by implementing the National Interest Framework, or the NIF. Under the NIF the government will be able to identify where Australia has a comparative advantage in the net zero transition and also where Australia needs to be resilient and self-sufficient. That goes to that point around our national interests and our national security as well. Secondly we're undertaking a robust sector assessment to improve our understanding of how government can best leverage private investment in areas of the economy aligned with the framework. This will help inform rigorous government decision-making. Thirdly we've defined a set of community benefits, helping us measure where the benefits of the Future Made in Australia are flowing. This ensures the Future Made in Australia plan is actually benefiting local communities, people on the ground, workers and businesses through the flow of that private investment.

The second bill, the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024, amends two previous acts to practically implement this government's plan for explicit public investment at scale to attract private finance in sectors that have a comparative advantage in a net zero global economy or where the domestic capability could deliver economic resilience and supply chain security. Economic resilience and supply chain security are two fundamentally important objectives of this government given the circumstances we face globally. First, the second bill amends the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act to enable Export Finance Australia, the EFA, to make domestically focused investments under the National Interest Account in alignment with the National Interest Framework. Second, it amends the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act of 2011 to expand the role and functions of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, ARENA, so it can support industries under the Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund and other programs. Through this amendment we're continuing to ensure that ARENA has $6 billion in funding so that the agency can continue to provide industry and investors certainty to deliver sizeable, long-lasting projects. Third, this bill sets up arrangements for the Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund to accelerate innovative technology deployment in priority sectors and makes necessary adjustments to the governance arrangements of ARENA.

Pretty much all the members on the other side of this chamber have questioned the need for government intervention in renewables and also in the supply chain security. They may be doing that from an ideological perspective or they may be doing it because they're playing politics with these issues. But they'd have you believe that it's okay to just leave it all up to the private sector and the market and to let the capital flow where it may choose to go. That is the purist free-market ideological view.

I will say very clearly that we fundamentally disagree, and it's important to understand why. The truth is that capital doesn't just flow wherever it desires due to a free market. Capital flows to where there is innovation as well, when you incentivise that innovation. There are all sorts of interventions in the free market, many of which were made by the previous government, despite their ideological protestations. The point, though, is where and how you make those interventions and how you try to incentivise innovation so that capital can flow there.

Other countries understand that innovation brings with it the prospect of higher returns, and other countries are making themselves more and more attractive investment destinations. In a world competing for capital, that is what we are faced with today. Two whole years ago almost to this day, in another great country, the United States, the US Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act, a $250 billion package focused on accelerating their transition to a net-zero economy. That is, in the land of the free, a massive energy transition that was undertaken. There's no free market there at all. You're seeing a massive investment by the US government and the US Congress to incentivise that innovation, and of course we need to do the same so that we can benefit as well and our workers and our industries can do what they do really well.

It's true that this country is blessed with raw materials. We're blessed with ample sun, wind and coastline. We have a choice about whether we continue to just rely on our historical success through digging up and mining or whether we also innovate, move forward and incentivise our innovation. That's important to note.

I turn to the second part of this, which is the security of global energy and supply chains. They've been under enormous pressure in recent years, as we know. Crisis after crisis overseas, including conflicts, has had an impact on these supply chains and on global energy prices. We know that, as well as causing a grave humanitarian crisis, Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has had far-reaching impacts on the global energy system, disrupting supply and demand patterns and fracturing longstanding trading relationships. We are committed to a national target of 82 per cent for renewable electricity generation by 2030, and the global demand for batteries is set to quadruple by 2030 as the world transitions to net zero. Even as we face the impacts of conflicts like the invasion of Ukraine and their impact on those supply chains, there is a move forward towards that transition because that is what is needed.

I ask those opposite: in the market for batteries, are Australians just going to keep buying batteries that are made elsewhere, or are we going to show leadership and nurture a highly innovative industry right here at home in Australia to capture part of that burgeoning market? That's a fundamental question. For us, the answer is firmly the latter, because of the opportunity. Our National Battery Strategy will set us up to meet this demand ourselves and build a world-leading battery-manufacturing industry in Australia.

Manufacturing batteries on shore will secure Australia's place in global battery supply chains, and why shouldn't we manufacture batteries? Despite the ideological views of those opposite or the political game-playing of the Greens political party, why shouldn't we be able to move into that manufacturing space when we have the people with the skills, we can incentivise the industry and we have the lithium, copper and other raw materials? Why shouldn't we be involved in that part of the supply chain as well? Our answer is: we should because it makes a big difference to the future of Australian workers, Australian manufacturing, our self-sufficiency and our self-reliance in a very uncertain world.

Importantly, it will make us more resilient to the further supply chain shocks that will inevitably occur. We don't have a crystal ball. We don't know where they will happen or what kinds of shocks they will be, but it's highly probable there will be more. We need that resilience. We need that foundation rebuilt. We need that manufacturing kickstarted again and revitalised. Whether the shocks come from—hopefully not—pandemics, war or simply belligerence amongst various countries as trade starts to become more and more difficult, it is important that we have economic resilience and self-sufficiency so that we can produce the things that we need going forward and be part of that global market. There is also the benefit of the massive creation of good, solid, stable, Australian jobs for generations of Australians.

The opposition, in 10 years, showed no leadership in realising that Australian industries, especially nascent industries, require incentives and business-friendly conditions. They had no vision. They had no foresight. They couldn't see beyond the tip of their own nose and the politics they played. The short-termism would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. The so-called party of low taxes and free markets wants us to be a net importer. They want us to buy from the world but never sell it to it.

The coalition turned their backs on Australian workers, on Australian manufacturing and on the very industries that could have propelled us into a new era of economic prosperity. On one level, they sat idly by and allowed our manufacturing base to wither, but they also pushed it and tried to kill it themselves, proactively putting policies in place to destroy manufacturing in this country. There was neglect, there was complacency and there was the outright undermining of manufacturing. We know the stories about car manufacturing and how they tried to kill it, and they did end a big chunk of car manufacturing in this country. We were making Toyota Camrys when the Australian dollar was high and we were selling those quality products to places in the Middle East, but they still tried to kill it.

They didn't just kill the car manufacturing; they killed all of the industries. The small and medium-sized businesses around that ecosystem that provided different parts, the small engineering companies that employed Australians—they killed them off as well. All that skill, all that knowledge, all that technical expertise—they just threw it away. Some of these small and medium-sized companies tried to evolve. They've struggled to survive and do other things, and we want to support that. But I tell you what: the days of neglect, complacency and outright viciousness towards manufacturing are over. The Albanese government is committed to a vision of a future where Australian leads the world in clean manufacturing, where our industries are not just surviving but thriving and where our workers are at the heart of our national economic success.

Let's be clear: the Future Made in Australia bills aren't just about policy. They're about people. They're about those Australians who deserve the opportunity to work in those industries—to make things in this country again, to develop and to work to make sure that we are economically resilient, self-sufficient and self-reliant and that we are not exposed to the risks that are likely over the horizon. That's why I support these bills. It's about the men and women who get up every morning, put on their workboots and head out to those factories, workshops and plants across this country. We will support them with this policy.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to be here debating legislation that's about the long-term future of the country. The Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024 could, if drafted and implemented well, provide a framework for Australia's transition to a new industrial prosperity.

I speak regularly in this House about the need for government to think beyond the electoral cycle and to make long-term policy decisions that will benefit Australia. I've long urged the government to respond to the US Inflation Reduction Act and the plethora of international financial incentives and investments in clean technology. Future Made in Australia has the potential to be that response. But—there is often a 'but'—in order for Future Made in Australia to be successful, we need to know that the right people are making the right decisions for the right reasons. This is essential if we want our communities to trust that the government is incentivising industries that are good for our long-term prosperity. I'll go into what I think those things need to look like, but, first, I want to say some things about why this is important and the role of industry policy generally.

We all know that Australia is lucky to have an abundance of resources, particularly in my home state of WA. Australia has built its wealth and prosperity off the back of the resources industry, from the discovery of coal in the 1790s to the gold rushes of the 1850s to discoveries of bauxite and nickel to the 1980s, when the enormous North-West Shelf project started exporting gas around the world. But the world has changed. The climate has changed, and the global economy has changed.

The US has committed $1 trillion to decarbonisation. China is responding by electrifying everything incredibly rapidly, spending $650 billion a year on cleantech, twice as much as Europe or the US. China is building as much hydro in a month as we build in a decade and is leading the world in installing renewables, responsible for 50 to 60 per cent of global battery installations, 70 per cent of wind turbines and 75 per cent of offshore wind. The race is on. Australia needs to pivot swiftly to capitalise on the resources that we have that can contribute to the new decarbonised global economy.

The Future Made in Australia Bill identifies two streams under which funding can be allocated: the net zero transformation stream and the economic resilience and security stream. With Australia's copious deposits of critical minerals and solar and wind resources, we are primed to be competitive in the net zero global economy. But after 10 years wasted on climate wars and political headwinds, we haven't entered the race.

Should government interfere with industry? In my lifetime, we've seen an opening up of the global economy, built on an understanding that free trade raises living standards across the world and inoculates us against geopolitical conflict. It's been a clear goal and a macro trend. For decades, the prevailing economic orthodoxy has favoured a hands off approach that leaves industry development up to the free market. Here in Australia, we largely dig and ship. We export our natural resources, almost always in their raw state, to countries with more sophisticated economies. Our economic complexity sits at No. 93 globally, between Uganda and Pakistan. But recent events like COVID, supply chain instability caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the looming challenge of the green transition have changed the game. It turns out that the free market is not very good at dealing with long-term challenges and doesn't necessarily prevent conflict. In this context, countries all over the world are taking a more active role in industry policy, steering future economic development by supporting key industries.

Australia's long-term prosperity now relies not just on exploiting our current comparative advantages but on setting us up to have strong industries in the future. With our narrow industrial base, exports that are heavily exposed to other countries' industrial transitions and a weak R&D and innovation system, we can't afford to be left behind, relying on the economic orthodoxy of the last generation. We desperately need a response with scale, speed and ambition. This has the potential to be it.

With industry policy, so much rides on how it's done. My overall impression of Future Made in Australia is that it's more of a vibe than anything you can put your finger on. Is it an approach, a strategy, a fund, a framework, a collection of programs or a retrofitted explanation of past investments? It's hard to see how all the pieces fit together. It looks like decisions will be made by ARENA, the CEFC, the Treasurer and maybe others, with not a lot of clarity about whether they will be made in a coordinated way. There's no funding specifically allocated for investment in line with the Future Made in Australia approach—it's more of a general plan for when other opportunities come up. There is the National Interest Framework, which is both targeted at contributing to a net zero transition and infinitely broad in pursuing economic resilience and security. There is a requirement for conducting sector assessments under the framework, but there's no definition of 'sector' in the bill, so this could also be as narrow or broad as desired. A Future Made in Australia obviously can't constrain investment decisions of future governments, so perhaps it works as more of a statement of intent with some guardrails for investment decisions—except when we have to take it on faith that they applied, like for the investments already announced. Perhaps these things will become clearer with time, and I'm due to have a briefing soon with the Treasurer to gain a better understanding of how all these pieces fit together.

It seems like a good idea generally but its success will depend greatly on whether the government can be trusted to use it well, and trust is a scarce commodity. I asked, 'What would it take for Australians to trust the investment decisions made under this Future Made in Australia theme?' To build this trust, Australians will need to believe that the right people are making the right decisions for the right reasons. I'll go through each of these in turn. The first point is about the right people. As the VCA rightly pointed out in their submission, any policy that involves the spending of taxpayer dollars should be expert-led, with expert advice provided to government as the starting point. We can only trust the decision-making if it's clear that experts are the heart of assessing which sectors and projects should be supported. I think the introduction of the National Interest Framework and requirement for sector assessments is a good first step, but I worry that in a worst-case scenario departments could be directed to produce a predetermined sector assessment at the whim of a minister. It's difficult to balance the need for expert advice with a desire for nimble and responsive decision-making, but in order to build trust in this process I think a transparent consultation with experts and stakeholders is necessary, and I'll be supporting an amendment to this effect. Tabling the sector assessments in parliament is a good first step to transparency, but I support the Productivity Commission's suggestion for the government to also make public the data and reasoning underlying each sector assessment.

Second is about the right decisions. It's hard to define in advance what the right decisions will be, but we know a few things about what they need to look like. Firstly, we cannot be using taxpayer funds to replace private sector funds. This will be a really tricky balance, because the government will want to back winners, but if government backs only the shore things then it's likely to be replacing private capital. We need to acknowledge that government should have a higher risk appetite than private capital. It needs to be crowding in private capital rather than crowding it out. It should be backing things that may not get up without support but that will ultimately be able to stand on their own two feet once established. It's about de-risking private capital, not replacing it. This is possible. Last year the CEFC mobilised four dollars of private capital for every dollar of public capital, and this is the approach we need to take.

While technology is changing so rapidly, especially around decarbonisation, this may involve placing some bets that don't work out but could be big wins if they do. For example, WA's iron ore deposits are largely haematite. The technology to use green energy to process haematite is not as progressed as the technology to use green energy to process magnetite, Australia's other type of iron ore, but if we can crack it, there are big wins. WA has huge deposits of haematite, and the best sun and wind and space for renewable energy projects. If we invest in solving this problem, we have the potential to punch well above our weight on decarbonisation, helping our trade partners with their decarbonisation challenge by sending them green iron instead of iron ore. There is some risk in this, but it's a risk worth taking. It's hard to see from the legislation what approach will be taken by the Treasurer and other relevant bodies to risk appetite. It's something we should be watching out for, ensuring that we're not replacing private capital but giving industries a leg up that makes a difference.

Secondly, we can reduce the chance of bad decisions being made by having robust guardrails and processes. I recognise that there's an inherent trade-off between strong processes and being able to act nimbly, but I have some concerns about how strong the current guardrails are. I'm very supportive of the net zero transformation stream, but I'm more concerned about the second stream: economic resilience and security. My concern is that this could be used to justify almost any investment. For national security reasons, we may want to be able to make batteries or solar panels or pharmaceuticals or anything so we have some domestic capabilities that we consider crucial. But, if we're paying more to manufacture something in Australia that will never be cost competitive, we need to be very explicit about the additional cost of this and why it's a good insurance policy. For this reason, I would like to see stronger guardrails on the economic resilience stream.

I'll be proposing some amendments about guardrails that I think will reduce the likelihood of bad decisions being made. Firstly, given that the world is rapidly changing, I'll be proposing an amendment that says that we need to reassess sectors every five years. Investments that make sense now may not make sense when we know more about which technologies are likely to dominate and what other countries are doing. I'd hope that this assessment is done continually by decision-makers, even if not formally, but having a formal requirement to reassess every five years will at least provide a backstop.

Another fairly fundamental problem is that there's no requirement in the legislation that an assessment be undertaken before Future Made in Australia support is given. The assessment process seems reasonable. Surely, if we're going to the trouble of laying out an assessment process, it would be more appropriate to use it for every project and not entirely at the discretion of the government. So I'll be proposing an amendment that prohibits Future Made in Australia support unless a sector assessment recommends the relevant sector for support. Observers should be able to assess how the government has come to a conclusion about our future comparative advantages and about which industries we're willing to subsidise for security reasons.

Lastly, for the right reasons, Australians need to believe that investment decisions are being made for the right reasons. Future Made in Australia cannot be used to fund politicians' pet projects. With a recent history of some pretty blatant pork-barrelling, Australian governments don't have a great reputation on this front, and trust is low. The government must be consistent in applying the National Interest Framework and communicating to stakeholders why and how decisions are being made.

So, in summary, we definitely need an industry policy to support the green transition and recognise the new global economic landscape. Future Made in Australia is a step in the right direction, even it's a bit messy and a bit vague, and I have concerns about whether this government can maintain trust in the decisions made under it. We have to do our best. We need greater clarity on what's in and out of Future Made in Australia and how all the different frameworks to support our energy transition fit together, including Future Made in Australia, ARENA, the National Reconstruction Fund, the CEFC and other relevant pieces.

Decisions need to be based on advice from experts with transparency about who has made them and why. The public needs to accept some risk so that public money is crowding in private money, not crowding it out. There need to be stronger guardrails around the economic resilience stream. Sectors should be reassessed at least every five years. No support should be given unless an assessment has been undertaken for the relevant sector and recommended it, and this cannot be used for pork-barrelling. If these issues can be addressed in some way, I think there's a chance that this could point us in the right direction towards future prosperity. It may not be perfect, but we cannot afford to delay.

Libby Coker (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We want Australia to be a country that makes more things here. It's that simple. It's not out of some rose-tinted nostalgia for the old days of Australian manufacturing. In reclaiming the idea of a country that makes things, there is the potential to reshape what we as a nation can achieve together, to reignite pride in our capacity to create and to reposition ourselves in the global marketplace. When we make things here in Australia, we reinvigorate our faith and confidence in Australian ideas and know-how. And that's why the Albanese Labor government will invest in our Future Made in Australia plan to bring new jobs and opportunities to communities in every part of our country. This is a plan that will bring so much opportunity, not just across the nation but to my regional electorate of Corangamite in Victoria. It will mean more jobs, more investment and more support for my amazing manufacturers, who are embracing new technologies and developing new innovative product solutions.

It is incumbent on all of us in this place to provide support to our smart, innovative manufacturers so they can flourish, develop commercially viable products for both the domestic and export markets and in turn become world leaders who we can all be proud of—like locally based Carbon Revolution. They have built a 600-strong workforce making cutting-edge carbon-fibre wheels for Ferrari and the aeronautical sector. Not long ago, Carbon Revolution was a startup in my electorate. Now, several years later, they are exporting innovative, high-demand products to the global marketplace.

We need to replicate this success, and that's why I stand to support these bills, the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia Bill (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024, which will make this plan a reality. These bills are built on three key components. Firstly, the National Interest Framework will ensure funding is delivered to projects that drive our nation, so we can become a renewable superpower while strengthening our local manufacturing industries. Secondly, sector assessments will identify which industries are best positioned to achieve these goals. And thirdly, community benefit principles will ensure our workers, our communities and our regions thrive as result of government investment.

These bills will be the catalyst to harnessing our natural advantages, be they wind, solar, hydrogen or our abundance of critical minerals. To drive these outcomes, the Future Made in Australia bills will combine these advantages in renewable energy with traditional strengths in resources and manufacturing to build new opportunities, including in critical minerals processing, green metal, clean energy technologies and low-carbon liquid fuels. Through this bill and our recent $24 billion budget investment, we're demonstrating our firm resolve to play a driving role in Australia's economic success and to move towards reaching our emissions reduction targets of 43 per cent by 2030 and net zero by 2050.

The National Interest Framework will support government consideration of significant public investment that will in turn unlock private investment. It will also identify which sectors will make a significant contribution to emissions reduction at an efficient cost. To be aligned with the framework, a sector must fit within one of two key streams. Firstly, there's the net zero transformation stream, where industries have a sustained comparative advantage in a net zero global economy. Secondly, there's the economic resilience and security stream, where domestic capability is necessary for our national security and economic stability. These streams will come with their own guardrails to guide where and how investments are made. This will ensure every dollar invested is contributing to our long-term goals of sustainability, economic security and resilience.

For example, the bills make clear that ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, can only provide financial assistance that aligns with its core mission to increase the competitiveness and supply of renewable energy in Australia. This focus guarantees that public funds are used to accelerate our transition to a greener future. Let me be clear: these bills will not enable investment in coal and gas projects. I should also make clear for the benefit of those opposite that the Australian government has always played a bipartisan role in facilitating private investment, especially when it generates new workforces, greater productivity and innovative products for export.

That's just a fact. That's what Australians expects of their government—to show leadership, to invest in our natural advantages, to build capacity to manufacture for the global marketplace and to build know-how and rewarding jobs. I make this point about the Albanese government's approach to manufacturing because this approach stands in stark contrast to that of the former coalition government. It was, of course, the former coalition government that booted the car industry from our shores. It was their mismanagement that left thousands of hardworking Australians unemployed and entire regions forced to navigate their own way through a challenging transition. Across my electorate of Corangamite and throughout the region, one steeped in manufacturing history, this decision hit hard. Ford was synonymous with Geelong. Generations of local families built the vehicles that powered our nation. We hosted International Harvester, producing machinery that kept our farms and industries thriving. Our wool mills were once the lifeblood of the textile industry and our die casters and shipwrights contributed to the backbone of our national infrastructure.

From paper mills to countless support industries, my region has always been a hub of production and innovation. And, despite the challenges, we have taken our rich industrial heritage and turned it into the foundation for a renaissance in manufacturing and innovation. We know have companies like Austeng, FLAIM Systems and Formflow that are leading the charge in advanced manufacturing, renewable energy and cutting-edge research and development. I'm proud of my region's story. It is one of resilience and renewal. We have proven that, despite the coalition government's inaction, my community has the strength, ingenuity and determination to thrive once again.

A Future Made in Australia will back in this renaissance, playing its role in supporting manufacturers and building our regional renaissance. Just last week, I was joined by the Minister for Industry and Science. I would like to take this time to thank the minister for his role in making this plan possible. We visited Waurn Ponds to announce $1.7 million in funding for Li-S Energy to develop next-generation battery technologies. Li-S is based out of ManuFutures at Deakin University, a manufacturing hub focused on supporting the innovative start-ups that will be the future of my region. Since its establishment in 2018, ManuFutures has helped to create more than $1 billion in company value, incubated more than 17 advanced manufacturing start-ups, helped companies establish export markets in more than 35 countries, hosted 500 student placements and created more than 120 advanced manufacturing jobs. My region is also home to the Geelong Manufacturing Council. This peak body is excited about the Future Made in Australia initiative. They're keen for their manufacturers to leverage from this opportunity.

It's all about driving our economy forward. We're talking about green hydrogen and green steel and the opportunities they present to create more local jobs for more Australians. These aren't just buzzwords; they represent the future of industries where Australia can lead the world. Green hydrogen will power our factories and vehicles without polluting our skies, and green steel will be forged in our plants, meeting global demand while reducing our carbon footprint. These sectors will be at the forefront of a new sustainable economy that benefits all Australians as we transition to a net zero emissions future.

We recognise the immense opportunities that come with the global commitment to net zero and we know that to capitalise on these opportunities at the pace required government must take the lead. We cannot afford to wait. The time to act is now. We're already rolling out the $10 billion National Reconstruction Fund, the Net Zero Economy Authority and the $2 billion subsidy for hydrogen fuel announced last year. The Future Made in Australia plan will complement these measures, creating a bold, forward-looking economy that ensures the jobs and industries of tomorrow are made right here in Australia, by Australians for Australians.

We know that those industries of tomorrow will need to play a key role in our transition to renewables. Our Reliable Renewables plan, through the Capacity Investment Scheme, is unlocking 32 gigawatts of reliable renewables between now and 2030. We're transforming Australia's energy system to a reliable 82 per cent renewable grid, backed by storage gas and transmission. We've given the safeguard mechanism teeth, requiring net emission reduction from our 215 biggest emitters of five per cent a year, the equivalent of taking two-thirds of the cars off our roads by 2030.

We've released the National Electric Vehicle Strategy and have passed new-vehicle efficiency standards to give Australians more choice to drive cleaner, cheaper-to-run cars. We're rolling out $1.7 billion to the energy savings program, providing real financial support to households, businesses and local governments to invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency to cut their bills and their emissions. And we're rolling out our $20 billion Rewiring the Nation fund to upgrade our electricity grid at lowest cost.

We've legislated to bring the Climate Change Authority back to play a meaningful role in providing independent, science based climate change advice and have properly resourced it to play this vital role. We've put net zero in the objects or foundation principle of the CEFC and ARENA acts to ensure that they keep this goal front of mind when making all decisions. We're implementing a plan for better community engagement on transmission, including what more we can and should do to improve social licence.

We've agreed with all states and territories to finally put emissions reduction into the national energy objectives so our energy regulators have emissions reduction and to put the provision of affordable and reliable energy as their overarching goals. We've passed the electric vehicle discount to make EVs more affordable, and electric car sales have increased from around two per cent when we came to office to nine per cent today. We've funded and commenced the rollout of the Driving the Nation charging program, which will see fast chargers once every 150 kilometres, on average, on our highways.

We're improving the carbon credit market to ensure that it's delivering real emission reductions. We're developing the Guarantee of Origin scheme so that Australian renewable energy and other clean energy source providers are able to vouch for the credentials of their product when promoting it at home and abroad. And we're developing detailed sector plans to inform an ambitious but achievable 2035 emissions reduction target.

This is all important work, and it goes hand in hand with what these bills will deliver for our manufacturing industries across the nation. Most importantly, it will bring us closer to achieving a more prosperous, sustainable future—a future made in Australia.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 sounds, based on its title, like a bill that everyone should get behind. But, as with everything in life, the devil is in the detail. We were once a great manufacturer of products, from cars to washing machines, particularly my state of South Australia. Unfortunately, we have seen a precipitous decline in our manufacturing capacity over the years. And while manufacturing remains one of Australia's largest employers, employing 904,000 Australians and representing around six per cent of all employment, this could and should be much higher.

In parallel, our economic-complexity ranking has declined from 55th position in 1995 to 93rd in 2021, reflecting a reduction in diversification of exports along with the decline in manufacturing. We sometimes hear Australia referenced as a 'sandpit', and this is obvious when you look at our export basket. In 2021 our exports were overly weighted in iron ore and concentrates, at 29.49 per cent; coal, at 12.07 per cent; and petroleum gases, at just over nine per cent. Our export destinations further illustrate what narrow trade relationships we have, with 41 per cent of exports going to China, 11 per cent to Japan and almost eight per cent to South Korea. Of course, there is nothing wrong with exporting products. They have made Australia a very wealthy country. In fact, we are ranked as the ninth richest economy, with a GDP per capita of $60,444. However, because Australia isn't as complex, growth projections suggest that growth in Australia will rank in the bottom half of the countries globally, and that's a concern.

So, based on this information, if Australia is to remain competitive and maintain our wealth, we need to improve our economic complexity and rely less on primary exports. Will this bill correct the decline in manufacturing or improve our economic complexity? I don't believe so. There are a few critical elements that are important for business growth: minimal government red tape, cheap and reliable energy, and business conditions that foster growth. Currently, all of these require significant improvement.

We have ever-increasing burdens placed on business via unnecessary government imposts, our energy costs are among the most expensive in the world and we have a cost-of-living crisis that is hurting both consumer and business confidence. Added to this, governments have never demonstrated success at picking winners at either the sector or the individual business level, yet this bill seeks to invest more than $20 billion into sectors that the government is gambling on—in being the future. It also is hoping that its investment will attract greater business investment. Experience would suggest that it will attract businesses, but they are typically of the rent-seeking kind, where, once the money runs out, they are gone.

Very recent examples have piqued my concern following the commitment of $1 billion by the government to manufacture solar panels at a US company called PsiQuantum ahead of any investment safeguards ever being introduced into the parliament. There are several areas where government should be investing money. At present, there are nationwide shortages of medicines, pharmaceutical precursor chemicals and other medical supplies.

Surely, if we are interested in securing a manufacturing future and strengthening our sovereignty, we should in the first instance be looking at areas where we have identifiable need. We should also be investing in areas where we have a competitive advantage, not in solar panels, where we will never realistically compete with countries like China that have few environmental controls, poor or non-existent workplace laws and very cheap energy, to name just a few competitive differences.

This bill completely overlooks food manufacturing, and that is an obvious advantage and an obvious area for growth in Australia, particularly our regions. We are known as being clean and green when it comes to our food. Australian Food is incredibly well placed around the nation and around the world. However, there is nothing in this bill about food production. Knowing that we have a growing middle class just to the north of us, it makes absolute sense that, if we were looking at manufacturing as a nation, we would be focusing on food production.

My region produces some of the highest quality foods that can be found in the world, whether it's cheeses, cherries or apples—and don't forget wine. We have a huge amount of wine in Mayo. I have six wine regions alone. We have so many growers that want to be able to value-add to their product, and they can't do that at the moment. It's very, very difficult to set up the manufacturing plants—to turn those cherries that are wasted into cherry liqueur. It's very difficult. So that is where I would like to see the investment. We need to be looking at value-adding, and we need to be supporting those small to medium sized businesses to grow, rather than looking at products such as solar panels. We are just never going to compete with China on these products, and, if we think we are, we're lying to ourselves.

I have wondered if the sectors were chosen due to their alignment with unions, rather than with what is good for the country. We've all read with concern about the increasing flexing of union muscle following the election in 2022. Bolstering industry sectors with natural associations to the strongest of unions reads like a play out of the union playbook. I do not support this bill. I want to support a bill that is going to get behind Australian manufacturing, but it has to be smart. If this government is serious about improving our manufacturing capacity, it would address energy prices and reduce government red tape.

I support a manufacturing future in Australia, particularly food manufacturing. That is particularly good for the regions. The regions, I feel, have been completely overlooked in this. I support a future that harnesses our natural competitive advantages and one that incorporates the regions. This bill does none of these things.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 is important legislation that establishes a vision for Australia and a road map for our future. It delivers on another Albanese government election commitment—to rebuild the Australian manufacturing sector. Manufacturing impacts on just about every other sector of the Australian economy and on Australian productivity.

As an island nation, it is so important for Australia, to the extent possible, to be self-sufficient in everyday life. It's important for our future security, particularly right now with so much uncertainty and insecurity throughout the world. The COVID pandemic was a wake-up call for all of us. We cannot continue to be complacent and reliant on overseas imports for our everyday needs and, even more importantly, for products and services that ensure and guarantee our security. Australia doesn't need to be at the mercy of overseas suppliers for most of what we need, because Australia is one of the few countries that could be largely self-sufficient. I accept that there may be some products that we will never be able to produce here, but generally we could be largely self-sufficient. We are indeed a lucky country. We are blessed with an abundance of natural resources—farmland and wide-open spaces, and renewable energy resources such as wind and solar. We have innovative industries and world-leading research institutions. If you put all that together, it gives you opportunities that most other countries can only dream of. Indeed, other countries, with less of all of those things that matter, have done exceptionally well, and yet we in Australia seem to be wasting opportunities that others would never waste.

In the post World War II years Australia became a manufacturing powerhouse. There was almost nothing that this country wasn't building or manufacturing. In the late 1960s, when it was at its peak, manufacturing accounted for over 25 per cent of Australia's gross domestic product and nearly one-third of the Australian workforce. Today those figures have plummeted to somewhere between six and seven per cent—less than a quarter of what it used to be. It is true that, towards the end of the last century, cheap overseas labour saw much of Australian manufacturing relocate overseas. However, today automation and robotics in the manufacturing sector have largely diminished the 'cheap labour' argument. There are many other advanced economies which don't have cheap labour but which have successfully developed their manufacturing industries, or have retained them and kept them going, and are able to compete with the so-called cheap labour countries when it comes to manufacturing products. They are doing that right now, without all of the other things that Australia has, including the many natural resources that I referred to earlier.

With so many natural advantages, Australia can also re-establish its manufacturing sector, and many Australian industries are already doing that. I have visited many myself and I've seen what they are doing. I've also seen many emerging industries that are becoming innovative and making that their advantage over their overseas competitors. With the global energy transition underway, right now is an opportune time for Australia to reinvest and rebuild Australia's national capability and manufacturing base, and that is exactly what this legislation aims to do. The legislation is the beginning of that process—a process that will, of course, take some time. For those opposite who raise individual criticisms of the legislation: I have no doubt that, as this policy is being rolled out, there will be oversight and changes made along the way if those changes are deemed to be necessary.

The Future Made in Australia policy provides funding that not only will attract private investor funds that will, indeed, invest in nation-building projects—just as Australia saw in World War II—but will, in fact, set a direction that gives confidence to both the private sector and other governments, whether it's state or local governments, to do the same. That means investing in projects that not only produce goods and essential services but, importantly, provide critical research and development, as well as projects that go to the heart of creating skills and innovation.

In years gone by, it was the manufacturing sector that played a critical role in skilling up our workforce and in providing traineeships and apprenticeships. As the manufacturing sector declined, so did the opportunities to skill-up our workforce. Right now, one of the key contributing factors to the national housing crisis is the shortage of skills and locally-made building products, which have to be brought in from overseas. Both of these factors are not only driving up costs but causing construction delays—again, all because we allowed what we had to slowly slip away.

Today, energy costs have become critical to competitive manufacturing, and that's been echoed by others in the course of this debate. It is a fact: energy costs are one of the critical inputs into manufacturing. With Australia's abundance of wind and solar energy, government investment in renewable energy is not only necessary but in the national interest. We will have an advantage if we take that opportunity and deal with it now.

Japan and South Korea are two of the world's leading manufacturing countries. They have both built modern, strong economies on their manufacturing sector—that's effectively what sustains their economies. Both countries are investing in renewable or low-emissions energy, and the governments of both countries financially support their manufacturing sectors. Both of those countries also acknowledge Australia's renewable energy advantage and are looking to Australia for things like green hydrogen.

My argument is that, instead of us sending Japan and Korea green hydrogen—and we should if we can—we could also do what they want to do with the green hydrogen and use it to power our own industries here in Australia and provide the cheap energy that they are looking for in their own countries. It's like everything else that we do in this country and that we export. We export the raw products but never look at what those raw products are then used for or continue to manufacture those products. Indeed, Korea and Japan, which are truly world leaders in manufacturing, both have a vertical integration system in most of their industries. With most of their industries—whatever they make—they then look at vertical integration, in order to make the next product and the next product that flows from whatever it is that they are doing. Australia could be doing the same.

Rebuilding manufacturing is not just good for the big cities in this country; it is good for regional communities. Many regional communities have their own local industries that would benefit from having an industry sector that supports them, because if they needed a particular component there would be another manufacturer here in Australia that they could go to, rather than having to wait for something to come from overseas. It would be good for our balance of trade because we wouldn't have to buy in the products that we buy in today, many of which we were manufacturing in this country only 30 and 40 years ago. It would mean we wouldn't be having the trade deficits that we have. It would be good for employment opportunities. Manufacturing was one of those areas that provided a job for everyone, whether it was a university graduate or someone with very low-education skills. There was a job for everyone, and there is no reason why that would not be the case again. I want to see the 'made in Australia' label on more products both here in Australia and overseas. Quite frankly, if we can rebuild our manufacturing sector, then we will again be able to export the very products that we are making here, as we used to do.

In my own state of South Australia—and the member for Mayo touched on this—manufacturing became critical to the state's economy. Manufacturing was built up in South Australia in the post-World War II years. The premier at the time was Thomas Playford, a conservative premier. He saw the vision and the importance of manufacturing to the South Australian economy, and he invested government money in a whole range of areas which underpinned the manufacturing base that we had there, including the car industry with GMH. This became the biggest industry in South Australia in terms of GMH and all the automotive component suppliers that it underpinned as well. The coalition government, unlike a former conservative government, did the exact opposite and destroyed the car industry after almost 100 years in existence, leaving Australia the only advanced nation that today does not build cars.

That industry was also probably the single biggest contributor to research and development in this country. Again, we have lost all of that expertise. We have lost all of that innovation. Manufacturing is indeed the glue that pulls every other business sector together, and we have an opportunity in this country to rebuild our manufacturing base because of the natural resources and the skills of the people of this country, and we do have some incredibly skilful people who are innovative in every sense of the word. We can be proud of some of that innovation, which, unfortunately, all too often is then shipped offshore for processing and manufacture rather than being made here in Australia. It is time that we took credit for what we can do, used the resources we have, used the opportunities we have and started investing in ourselves. And that's exactly what this legislation will do.

This legislation will ultimately make a huge difference to the long-term prosperity of our country. It has always been Labor governments that have shown leadership and brought major reform to this country. This is reform that is now needed, and, as I said earlier on, it goes hand in glove with our need transition to a lower-emissions energy source. We have the advantages, we have the resources, and right now is the right time to do it. I say to members opposite: sure, you can pick holes in the legislation if you want, and I have no doubt that there will be issues here and there that you can pick on. But look at the big picture of where this legislation wants to take us. Rather than pick holes in it, ensure that, once the legislation and the processes are underway, we adhere to the direction that we want to go. If we need to be steered back on track for one reason or another, that's the time to come back to this parliament and say, 'This could have been done better,' or, 'That should have been done a different way,' rather than throwing out the whole direction that this legislation would take us in. Frankly, I think this will be the biggest reform this country will see for years to come if we're able to pull it together, and we can only do that with the support of everyone in this parliament. I commend the legislation to the House.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That all words after "House" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading:

(1) notes that:

(a) the 2024-25 Budget allocated $22.7 billion in taxpayer funds to the Future Made in Australia program;

(b) this is the second largest Budget measure announced in this term of Parliament; and

(c) concerns have been raised by the Productivity Commission, the Grattan Institute, the Climate Council of Australia, BP Australia, and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry that the Bill contains inadequate transparency measures to ensure Australians know how their money is being spent on Future Made in Australia supports;

(2) recognises that my Accountability of Grants, Investment Mandates and Use of Public Resources Amendment (End Pork Barrelling) Bill 2024 provides the necessary framework to help ensure the Government's spending of taxpayer money to deliver the Future Made in Australia plan is transparent and fair; and

(3) calls on the Government to support my Accountability of Grants, Investment Mandates and Use of Public Resources Amendment (End Pork Barrelling) Bill 2024".

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will call for a seconder at the end of your speech.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024. These bills are the first pieces of legislation to implement the government's Future Made in Australia plan. According to the Prime Minister, this plan is all about 'seizing the opportunities of the move to renewable energy while becoming a country that makes things again'. What exactly does this mean, though, and how is the government going to achieve it?

The Future Made in Australia Bill before us establishes the National Interest Framework, under which the government will decide whether or not to target public investment in renewable energy resources and manufacturing things like solar panels and batteries. When the government goes to apply the framework, it must determine if the investment fits into one of two streams: the Net Zero Transformation Stream or the Economic Resilience and Security Stream. The bill also allows the minister to direct Treasury to undertake a sector assessment of areas of the Australian economy to determine if they align with the National Interest Framework and if they should receive public investment to contribute to emissions reduction. Finally, the bill requires the government to apply community benefit principles when deciding whether to publicly invest.

The Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill allows Export Finance Australia to perform national security and net-zero functions. This bill also amends the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act, the ARENA Act, to expand the role and functions of ARENA so it can support industries under the Future Made in Australia fund. ARENA plays a critical role in increasing renewable energy supply in Australia, and I support this bill to continue supporting ARENA's valuable work.

I want to be clear. I support measures towards reaching our international obligations under the Paris Agreement and towards reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. We must focus on these goals if we are to have any hope of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change. Fighting for climate action is one of the tasks my constituents set for me when I was elected. Unlocking renewable energy resources and manufacturing is a vital piece of this action. It's why I support amendments that ensure that the government must take into account climate targets when they're awarding supports and that the Future Made in Australia plan is not used to support any new fossil fuel projects, including carbon capture and storage.

My community sent me here as their Independent to represent regional communities and to work towards strong action on climate change, but they also sent me here to be their champion for integrity in government decision-making and spending. And, while in principle I support the bill as a measure towards net zero, I do have deep concerns about integrity when it comes to this program. While I take the member for Makin's point about a big vision, it's our job as legislators to make sure that we look to the detail as well. It's critical to write law that works. We're talking about tens of billions of taxpayers' money, after all—$22.7 billion to be exact—and I want to make sure the public knows where the money is going.

Before I address my integrity concerns that I have—in particular with the Future Made in Australia Bill—I want to briefly touch on the community benefit principles contained in that bill. The bill lists broad community benefits that Future Made in Australia supports may provide. They are jobs, a skilled workforce, the vague phrase 'engaging collaboratively and achieving positive outcomes for local communities', strengthening domestic industrial capabilities, and tax affair compliance. Now, again I want to stress that I support, in principle, policy measures that create more jobs and skills and strengthen supply chains. Of course I do. But when the government talk about community benefit in relation to the net-zero transition, as they're doing with this bill, they've got to show communities much more than this.

I'm not just talking about jobs and skills and supply chains, which are really the only community benefits that this bill and, indeed, the government cite when they're defining 'benefit'. When I talk about community benefit, I'm referring to a definition that's way bolder than that—a definition that's much more ambitious for local regional communities such as those who I represent, not just name-checking them and thinking that's enough. I'm talking about things that tangibly benefit communities for years to come, benefits that leave a legacy that we can point to. When I talk to my constituents about how they define benefits for their communities, I hear people talking about better roads and public transport, affordable and quality health care, aged care, available and accessible child care, community, and infrastructure that's meaningful like decent housing, swimming pools, parks and proper investment in our tourism sites. I've spoken about this type of community benefit many times in this place. I've talked at length about how, unless and until communities start seeing this benefit, they'll continue to question what is in the net zero transition for regional Australia. In some cases, they will oppose renewable energy projects completely.

I cannot be clearer to the government on this point: you must support regional communities to realise and deliver tangible benefits when hosting large grid-scale wind farms, solar farms, batteries and transmission lines and when mining the resources and manufacturing the materials that build this infrastructure. I want to see that, when the government considers whether a potential public investment under the Future Made in Australia plan will provide community benefit, they will look beyond jobs, skills and supply chains. And I want the government to really look at community benefit, not just in Future Made in Australia plans but in all the other work they do with the net zero transmission, whether that be the capacity investment scheme or the net zero economy authority, to name a couple.

My biggest concern with the bill as drafted is that there is a giant question mark where the integrity and transparency measures should be. The taxpayer—the public—does not have a clear line of sight on where $22.7 billion of their money is going. In anybody's language, this is an enormous amount of money. In fact, according to the Parliamentary Library, it's the second-largest budget measure announced in this term of parliament, only after $50 billion was committed under the National Defence Strategy program.

In this bill, the government has created a large bucket of money, with only a vague outline of how that money could be spent. When it comes to the fine print, the guardrails, the rigour, the government tell us, 'Oh, this will come later, trust us.' Well, for such a large amount of money, I think it's more than reasonable that the public should know how it's being spent. Without an oversight and transparency framework, there is a risk that money will be awarded to industries or companies without merit because of lobbying efforts and because it will win votes in certain electorates or for other reasons that generally lack integrity in government decision-making. With that concern comes an erosion in public confidence in the Future Made in Australia plan itself. What a pity.

I'm not saying that the Future Made in Australia plan is an exercise in pork-barrelling. To be frank, we don't know that yet. But the government also hasn't shown us that they are putting integrity right up front when planning to spend this money. It seems rather strange to me that, in putting forward this legislation, with billions of dollars to be spent by this government, not just this government but governments into the future, we're left wondering. I don't like to be left wondering with legislation. A transparency and oversight framework would give the public the assurance that billions of dollars of their money is being spent responsibly and with integrity. It would prevent any pork-barrelling from occurring under this government or, indeed, any future governments.

I know I'm not alone in these concerns. In submissions received by the Senate inquiry recently examining the bill, multiple well-respected, credible organisations have raised similar issues. So let's go through them. The Productivity Commission recommended the data and reasoning underlying sector assessments be made public and the community benefit principles should be applied transparently. I agree. The Climate Council made similar recommendations: that sector assessments should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and debate. I agree. The Grattan Institute noted the parliamentary oversight of the Future Made in Australia plan would be improved if an annual breakdown of Future Made in Australia supports, including expenditure, were published. I agree. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the ACCI, wrote:

… it is essential that all project receiving funding are appropriately scrutinised, so that it delivers real returns to the economy and the Australian public.

Importantly, the ACCI identified a lack of clear selection criteria for Future Made in Australia supports, stating:

If clear assessment criteria are not provided, there is a real risk that FMA funds can be redirected for other purposes or to meet political objectives.

Even BP Australia called for clear and transparent project selection criteria.

So there are clearly gaps in this bill if these organisations and companies, including companies who will surely seek to benefit from Future Made in Australia supports, identify shortfalls on key issues like selection criteria and transparency of funding and sector assessments. The solutions to fill these gaps are not hard to find. Earlier this year I introduced my Accountability of Grants, Investment Mandates and Use of Public Resources Amendment (End Pork Barrelling) Bill. It's a bill which provides a framework to ensure government spending of taxpayer money is done transparently by requiring clear selection criteria for grants and creating a parliamentary joint committee to oversee grant administration. The bill also provides additional oversight of government spending by setting out robust public reporting to parliament on administration, guidelines, selection criteria and approval processes for all Commonwealth grants programs. The bill now before us identifies grants as a major form of Future Made in Australia supports. If my end pork-barrelling bill were passed, concerns about the integrity of these Future Made in Australia grants would be alleviated.

Until the government supports my end pork-barrelling bill, however, there are some simple, straightforward amendments to the Future Made in Australia Bill that would ease integrity concerns. My amendments to that end would require the minister to give unredacted sector assessments to the Parliamentary Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit so that there is a fulsome parliamentary mechanism to ensure Future Made in Australia supports are given to sectors where it is appropriate to do so. They would require sector assessments to be tabled in parliament within seven sitting days of the minister receiving that assessment. Currently the bill says 30 sitting days. In practical terms this means that, if the minister were to receive a report on 2 December 2024, it would not be required to be tabled until around 25 June 2025, some 127 business days after the minister has received it. Obviously this is far too long for tabling a report in order to serve its transparency and accountability function. Finally my amendments would specify what should be included in Future Made in Australia's annual report. Currently under the bill it just says that the report should 'include a report on the operation of this act'. Again this is not nearly enough to achieve its intended transparency objective. My amendment would require annual reports to specify the total amount of Future Made in Australia supports, the recipient of these supports, the purpose of the support, the kind of support provided and the amount of support provided to and spent by that recipient.

I am yet to meet with the Treasurer to discuss the concerns I have with this bill and the amendments I'm proposing to improve it, but I'm really looking forward to having that discussion with him. We're getting it in the diary. I will be reserving my position on this bill until after I have that meeting with the Treasurer. In the meantime I want to emphasise to the government that, as we transition to a net zero economy, it is more important than ever to maintain the confidence of the people, including in this bill before us. This bill as currently drafted does not build enough trust. It does not do enough to promote integrity in government decision-making. It leaves way too much still to be determined. And when it comes to $22.7 billion in public funding, that is not good enough. Ensuring that the public can see where and how their money is spent through the measures I just outlined is one critical mechanism to achieving this confidence.

I expect the government to consider my amendments and other amendments to ensure the utmost integrity around this spending. If the Future Made in Australia plan is indeed going to 'seize the opportunities of the move to renewable energy' then the government has lots of work to do to shore up taxpayer confidence and trust in its plans to spend $22.7 billion of the very same taxpayers' money. If this government wants the public trust in this, a signature policy and a legacy, then it's got a lot of work to do.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Alicia Payne (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Future Made in Australia Bill and its omnibus amendments. One of the major policy commitments of the Albanese Labor opposition during the 2022 federal election was to drive a future made in Australia.

For too long Australian manufacturing and Australian industry have been in decline. The previous government failed to address this trend, and unfortunately even made it worse. Who can forget the former Treasurer Joe Hockey in this place daring Ford and Holden—the last remaining Australian car manufacturers—to leave? And that's exactly what they did. The former government left a policy vacuum in this space. They provided no incentives for industry development or value adding onshore.

That changed when the Albanese Labor government was elected because we know that a diverse economy is a strong economy and that there is so much unrealised potential for Australian industries to thrive.

Australian innovations have changed the world. As a country, we are incredibly good at developing ideas, but we are less good at commercialising them. Take photovoltaic solar panels, for instance. This is a homegrown product but not a homemade one. PV solar panels were invented at the University of New South Wales, but today 99 per cent of solar systems being installed on Aussie roofs are manufactured overseas. This is a technology pioneered here that Australians adopt more than any other nation in the world, yet we've let the huge economic benefits fall to other nations.

This is not a uniquely Australian problem. In the US the Inflation Reduction Act is seeking to incentivise growth in American solar manufacturing by up to 40 per cent. In two years, the act has driven the creation of 49 new solar manufacturing projects. Here, our government's one-billion-dollar Sunshot Solar program will support domestic production through investment in innovative manufacturing facilities across the PV supply chain. As the Minister for Climate Change and Energy has said, there is a pressing economic need for a local solar industry and we have an opportunity to build a greater sovereign capability.

This bill will ensure that Australia maximises the economic and industrial benefits of the global transition to net zero. It will secure our place in a changing global economic and strategic landscape. It will build a stronger, more diversified and more resilient economy powered by renewable energy. It will create secure, well-paid jobs and encourage and facilitate the private sector investment required to make Australia an indispensable part of the global net zero economy and become a renewable energy superpower. This is a long-term policy for the better future that this nation deserves.

Fundamentally, this bill is about taking advantage of both our comparative advantages in renewable energy and our traditional strengths in resources and manufacturing to build new opportunities such as critical minerals processing, green metals, clean energy technologies and low-carbon liquid fuels.

Australia is an exceptionally smart nation. Our minds lead the world, whether it be the invention of wi-fi, the Cochlear ear, the Hills Hoist or aircraft black boxes, we punch above our weight. Only on Monday, to mark the beginning of Science Week, the Minister for Industry and Science and I had the opportunity to visit a remarkable Canberra startup, Samsara Eco, which is based at the ANU here in my electorate. Founded by PhD candidates Vanessa Vongsouthi and Matt Spence, Samsara Eco is changing the way the world thinks about recycling. Globally, there are around 10 billion tonnes of plastic waste sitting in landfill or polluting the environment, but only nine per cent of this waste has been recyclable previously. Samsara Eco has developed an enzyme which when applied to polymers breaks them down to their original monomer form, which means that they have the capability for every plastic in the world to be able to be recycled using this technology and to be recycled infinitely. This is a real game changer. It is genuinely groundbreaking technology developed right here in Australia and right here in Canberra. Samsara Eco have already partnered with Woolworths, and this year, in partnership with lululemon, launched the first commercially available apparel made from the fully recycled polyester. Samsara Eco is an incredible example of what this nation's best and brightest can achieve.

This bill is about enabling more Australians to achieve their potential and help our nation become a renewable energy superpower, and we're doing this because our government has a vision for the nation—a vision for a better future. It is extremely disappointing to me that those opposite can't embrace this vision. Once again, for the sole purpose of saying no, they oppose good legislation that will make Australia better. They would prefer to keep Australia in the dark ages. Instead of embracing new technologies like renewables, they want to take Australia back to the past with the technology of the 1950s—nuclear. We have a different vision: a vision for the future, an ambitious vision—one in which Australian industries are able to reach their full potential, supported by a nation that not only cheers them on but provides the framework for their success.

This bill has three components. First, it embeds the government's National Interest Framework, which was announced at the budget, to help identify sectors where Australia has a genuine comparative advantage in the net-zero economy or an economic security imperative. Second, it establishes a robust sector assessment process to understand and remove barriers to private investment. Third, it establishes a set of community benefit principles that will make sure relevant Future Made in Australia investments create strong returns for local communities, workers and businesses.

We aren't alone in implementing a scheme like this. Whether it's the US Inflation Reduction Act or similar policies in the UK, Canada, Korea, Japan and others, the world is seeing the benefits of production tax credits like these, and we can either be left behind or pave our own way to a better future for our economy. The National Interest Framework will help to better align economic incentives with the national interest. Legislating this framework, as we are doing, will provide certainty to the investment community, which is critical to attracting private investment at scale.

This legislation codifies the two streams of the framework. The first is the Net Zero Transformation Stream, which covers sectors that could have a sustained comparative advantage in a net-zero global economy and where public investment is likely to be needed for the sector to make a significant contribution to emissions reduction at an efficient cost. The second is the Economic Resilience and Security Stream, which covers sectors where some level of domestic capability is a necessary or efficient way to deliver economic resilience and security and where the private sector will not deliver the necessary investment in the sector in the absence of government support.

Sector assessments will be made at the direction of the Treasurer and conducted independently by the Treasury. They will assess whether an area of the economy is aligned with the National Interest Framework and will help inform how government can reduce barriers to investment in priority areas. These assessments are also required to be made public, which brings extra transparency and rigour to government decision-making.

The government wants to ensure public investment and the private investment it attracts flow to communities in ways that benefit local workers and businesses. That's why a set of community benefit principles will be applied to Future Made in Australia supports identified in this bill. Specifically, we want to ensure that investments promote safe and secure jobs that are well paid and have good conditions; that they develop more skilled and inclusive workforces, including by investing in training and skills development and broadening opportunities for workforce participation; that they engage collaboratively with and achieve positive outcomes for local communities, such as First Nations communities and communities directly affected by the transition to net zero; that they strengthen domestic industrial capabilities, including through stronger local supply chains; and that they demonstrate transparency and compliance in relation to the management of tax affairs, including benefits received under Future Made in Australia supports. These principles will be implemented on a program-by-program basis, and the government will consult on how they are best applied and the specific requirements.

The bill also establishes Future Made in Australia plans as a mechanism that can be used to implement the community benefit principles as required. Further details of what will be required to satisfy the requirements of these plans will be subject to consultation.

The bill enables the identification of Future Made in Australia supports, which are the government investments that the community-benefit principles apply to. The bill identifies two initial supports: the Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund, and certain investments referred to government for funding consideration under Export Finance Australia's expanded national interest account. Other Future Made in Australia supports can be added by the minister under the rules.

This is a bill filled to the brim with ambition for the future of this nation—a nation where our scientists are able to create new technologies, like Samsara Eco here in my electorate. Our innovators are able to commercialise those technologies, and our workforce manufactures the products right here in Australia, value-adding to our economy and helping our nation become the renewable energy superpower that we know we have the potential to be. We can be more than just a resources driven economy. Australia is a resilient, diverse, intelligent place. Our people are pioneering and world leading. And this is a government that has their back, creating policy that will support our industries and encourage them to invest in their businesses here in Australia.

This is a world-leading reform for a world-leading nation. As one of the previous speakers, the member for Makin, was saying, we are one of the only developed countries that no longer manufactures its own cars. This is just one example of where our manufacturing industry has been neglected, with costs that may not be immediately apparent. Having that industry here was also important for the skills of the workers who were manufacturing those cars, so that they would have those skills to apply to other things. As we build the manufacturing industry, it has flow-on effects for other industries and capabilities. As I've said, we are a nation that is full of ideas, and we want to back the people who have those ideas. We want to back them to take the potential that we have to build a strong economy so that the transition to net zero that we need to have will be a great opportunity for Australia and so that we will create new jobs—good jobs, well-paid jobs with good conditions and strong futures for Australians to feel secure in.

This is a world-leading reform. It is always Labor governments that have that sort of vision, that are looking to the future, that want to implement things that build a positive future. We're focusing on our children and our children's children and what their future will be as our economy takes on probably the greatest transition it will ever have to take in transitioning to net zero. And it's one that we know local businesses, scientists and workers are totally up for. We are a government that are backing them in on that.

I absolutely support a Future Made in Australia. That's why I'm supporting this bill today. It is a game changer for our manufacturing industry, at a time when we really need a government that believes in Australian ideas and gets behind them. This important bill is also designed to ensure transparency and to ensure appropriate decision-making around those two streams, the net zero economy and the capabilities that we need in order to ensure that we are investing in the industries and ideas that will benefit the most from that government investment. That's why I'm supporting this bill today.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, which I have a lot of problems with, and the first is with the title. The title of this bill should be 'no future for made in Australia manufacturing under this Labor government'—none; absolutely none. And I'll go on to explain why that's the case and line up the facts that demonstrate it.

We should talk a little bit about what's on the line here. In this country, there are 909,100 Australians who are employed in manufacturing. Almost a million people rely on this sector—a million! And I can guarantee you that even this Labor government, as hard as it might try, can't subsidise every single one of those jobs. They cannot. For them to maintain their employment to continue to be able to pay their mortgages, they need businesses that are competitive to be able to employ them, and that is the fundamental problem right now.

I read through any number of the documents, including some of the consultation papers and everything else, and I thought: What is critical manufacturing right now? What is one of our biggest issues right now, and how would this bill apply to it? One of the biggest challenges right now is actually a shortfall in intravenous saline. It is a huge problem. There is not enough. It affects every single hospital, every GP practice and anyone that's doing theatre. I'm getting any number of complaints. Yet the application of this bill could not produce more saline manufacturing in this country—unless, of course, it's some wind turbine driven net zero fantasy that delivers more intravenous saline. It can't. This is a critical problem right now that this bill does absolutely nothing about—nothing. So all of those businesses that are out there who are trying to simply survive and keep those 909,000 Australians in a job can't do that, because this Labor government is killing their productivity, competitiveness and profitability, and no business that is not profitable can survive unless of course it has the largesse of this Labor government.

Here are the facts. There are 19,000 businesses that have become insolvent since this government came to power. It is the highest number since records commenced. Since this government came to power, 19,000 businesses have gone broke. That is because of the fundamentals of the economy, which are managed by this federal Labor government. The settings are completely wrong. They are wrong, and that is why the coalition will oppose this bill. We will oppose this bill because it will not deliver what this country needs. It is quite simple.

What else has happened that caused a lot of damage for those poor Australians who are out there trying to survive what is a cost-of-living crisis, whether they work in manufacturing or another industry? Their personal income taxes are up 20 per cent. So they have less of their own money to buy things that cost more, which are produced predominantly overseas, and nothing in this bill helps them. If you've got a mortgage, you're paying $35,000 more if it's a $750,000 average mortgage. But how does this bill help them? How does it help Australians? How does it provide more jobs? How does it make all businesses competitive? It simply doesn't.

The bill proposes changes to the way that ARENA operates. For those of us who have been in this place for quite some time, we know that the way Labor sets up these types of slush funds is to ensure that when there's a change of government—and there will be a change of government; there always is—it's almost impossible to get the money, the taxpayers' funds, returned. It's almost impossible to close them down regardless of what they are doing. We know the challenge we had with ARENA when the Abbott government first came in in 2013. It's still there. So ARENA is now going to do all sorts of things. It will move further into deployment and further into manufacturing. Why? Why do you need all of the other organisations, including things like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation? Why do they exist if you're now going to have ARENA doing this type of work? It is quite an incredible approach.

We keep hearing about the National Interest Framework. It's quite a convenient term. We have a treasurer who practically has never worked in industry. He has never run a business; that's absolutely definite. He has spent a lot of time here. He is currently running lots of businesses into the ground but is somehow going to use the National Interest Framework to make decisions. We've already seen some of the decisions which are proposed to be under this bill. The Solar Sunshot was one, manufacturing solar panels here in Australia. I saw the Prime Minister and Minister Bowen and everyone else making those announcements and how wonderful it was. But, in the last week or so, what have we seen? We've seen announcements from that company that they're actually standing down workers and sacking people. So, Solar Sunshot, under the National Interest Framework—which is apparently going to be achieved somehow—has already misfired. We've got fewer people working in that industry than before. That is where this federal Labor government is trying to drive this country.

Look at the things that are not included. Carbon capture and storage is not included. We hear the government rail against carbon capture and storage, but I'd suggest to every single one of them that they should go and read the CSIRO's report. They love the CSIRO and love reports from the CSIRO. The report says that the only way to achieve the carbon offsets that the federal Labor government wants to achieve is with CCS, because no other existing protocol can do it. It simply—physics, economics—can't deliver it.

We see nothing for uranium. We see nothing for nuclear, because they are opposed to it—unless, of course, it's a nuclear reactor being built in Britain, paid for by the taxpayer with some $4½ billion, to go into a submarine. It's apparently got nothing to do with nuclear, will go into Western Australia and be at HMAS Stirling. Other than that, they are opposed to nuclear. Obviously, it's different, but it looks like the same sort of reactor to me.

On the community benefit principles, we heard from the independent member for Indi about her concerns about integrity. We've long held those concerns. The ability of the unions, particularly the CFMEU, to reach into this government and get an outcome that they want is quite incredible. We only have to look at the changes demanded in industrial relations, which have made all major employers in this country less productive already. We have seen incredible decisions about the CFMEU's behaviour. Yet, they only represent 12½ per cent of the workforce in this country. So, an organisation of all the unions put together—this is from the 2022 ABS report—that represents just 12½ per cent of the workforce in this country now has the overwhelming control of a slush fund like this. The reach of the unions into this government is absolutely extraordinary. This is not the way to build a strong economy that will drive future opportunities for every single Australia.

Who else disagrees? There are any number of individuals out there who don't agree with the proposal, including some of the Labor government's own appointments. The Productivity Commission says that a $1 billion commitment to make more solar panels in Australia under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's Future Made in Australia program should be retrospectively subjected to a tougher national interest framework. So, it's opposed by the government's own appointment who, as an aside, actually supports death taxes, which I'm confident the Australian people will not support.

We can't get production on critical saline, but, apparently, we can do green hydrogen. I went back and looked at the Prime Minister's press release about this bill. When it comes to hydrogen, the proposal is to provide a subsidy of $2 a kilo. Why is $2 a kilo important? If you look back to the former report from the then Chief Scientist, the numbers were very straightforward. It's Economics 101: practicality, profitability, deliverability, competitiveness and international competitiveness. Right now, you can't produce green hydrogen for less than about $8 a kilo. To be competitive, it has to be $2 a kilo. The only way to come close is to get the feedstock from petrochemicals, from gas and coal—particularly brown coal, because it's cheap and there's a lot of it. In fact, there was a prototype in Victoria in partnership with Japan which, I'm told, has now shut down, unfortunately. This Labor government says that these proposals are all okay because physics doesn't matter, economics doesn't matter, and energy transfer doesn't matter. 'We'll give you a $2-a-kilo subsidy and, somehow, you'll go from $8 to $2 and be competitive.' It is nonsense. In fact, even Twiggy Forrest, with Fortescue, has now scaled back.

I've been to any number of the presentations around green hydrogen, and it's always the same. The technical experts—these are real ones: chemical engineers, physicists, the people who know what they're doing—put a big thing up on the PowerPoint screen.

It says we need a technological breakthrough in every stage of the production cycle to be anywhere near competitive. I tell you that is not going to happen. It is not, and yet we have billions being thrown at what is a pipe dream. We heard from the Prime Minister today about Gladstone. We've heard from other speakers about the Gladstone proposal. That would be 2½ thousand square kilometres of solar panels. That is ludicrous. It will not happen. Can you imagine, in order to deliver what's proposed for Gladstone, that this federal Labor government will get an approval from the Minister for the Environment to level and clear 2½ thousand square kilometres of this country in order to put solar panels on it? It just won't happen. It is nonsense. So let's get back to things that matter, things that are practical, things that work.

The alternative is very straightforward: get back to the fundamentals. The fundamentals ensure that every single manufacturing business is competitive—not just the ones that are handpicked by the unions and the federal Labor government but all of them. That means you need affordable, reliable energy, whether that is electricity or gas. You need an available workforce that has the skills needed to deliver what your business needs. You need government to get out of your way. You need to cut red and green tape. And look at what this federal Labor government has done to businesses across this country already. We have already seen proposals around the safeguards mechanism, the green police, 'nature positive', industrial relations laws and pattern bargaining. None of them address productivity. All drive down the competitiveness of Australia's manufacturing sectors.

Fundamentally, we have to get energy prices down, in particular gas and in Victoria, because in some kind of miracle the Victorian state Labor government prohibited gas production, and now they have run out. The Bass Strait is in decline. That has been a known quantity for a long time. There are opportunities to get more out of the Bass Strait, but we're not seeing those approvals. We're not seeing onshore approvals. You cannot run gas from Gladstone all the way to Victoria and have it be competitive with the Bass Strait. You just cannot. That is physics and economics. And yet we see nothing here to support the gas sector and the manufacturing jobs in Victoria that need that affordable and reliable gas.

We see a new Minister for Skills and Training, who did an extraordinary job as the previous minister for immigration. We all know what's happened there. I'm not sure what the apprentices of Australia have done to the federal Labor government—I'm really not—but they've really upset them!

You need to ensure that every business can compete. As I said earlier, 19,000 of them have gone insolvent since this Labor government came into power. The numbers are clear. Business cannot survive under the policy settings of this government, and this bill does not help them. It will help handpicked, union selected, localised individual groups, and so far they've been complete misfires. Sunshot already looks like a failure; they're already firing people. PsiQuantum is a US company, and we've seen all sorts of reports about the selection process already. What is wrong with the Australian companies? They have been working for decades in Sydney at NICTA and other organisations to deliver quantum computing, and yet the priorities of this Labor government are simply wrong.

If you cannot drive down the fundamentals, all businesses go broke. If you cannot get your energy costs under control, all businesses go broke. If you cannot ensure that your labour force is paid well and can afford to live, they're not there either.

This bill is wrong. We will not be supporting it. The coalition will not support this madness. This is another bucket of union-run money which should not be delivered by the taxpayer. Once again it is up to the coalition to stand up to this madness being delivered by this Labor government. Unfortunately, it continues. I'm sure there will be a deal with the Greens, and they'll all sing kumbaya and do it anyway.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was quite something to listen to! The Albanese Labor government is committed to growing our economy, building new industries and creating new jobs. It's why the plan before this parliament for a future made in Australia is all about building Australia into a country that makes more things here, particularly in those areas where we have a natural advantage and where for security reasons—whether they are national security reasons such as security of supply—we cannot afford not to act.

It's an economic plan for a better future, making Australia wealthier, more secure and more independent. We'll put the talents of our people and our natural resources to work by making things here so that we are not simply shipping things overseas and importing them back as finished products. Companies are already using Australian minerals to manufacture solar panels to put on our roofs, but we could be doing more. Our Future Made in Australia plan is about giving a boost to projects like these and making sure that they have what they need to compete into the future.

More than anywhere in the world, Australia has the opportunity to create new jobs, new industries and new skills. But we need a government that is willing to step up to partner with the private sector to build a stronger economy made right here. That's exactly what the Albanese Labor government is doing. A key pillar of the Future Made in Australia plan is the development of a low-carbon liquid fuel industry. This will help hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and heavy haulage to reduce their emissions while creating new jobs and opportunities across the country, from growers to refineries. This policy will be a boost for regional Australia, creating new income streams for farmers and new job opportunities for workers.

Right now, much of our farmers' feedstock, including 60 per cent of our canola, exported to Europe is used to produce biofuels. We export 400 kilotonnes of tallow to Europe each and every single year for the same purpose. We should be doing this here and, through our Future Made in Australia plan, we will be.

Renewable fuels have an essential role to play in our net-zero journey and in creating new Australian industries, which is why I have championed their development ever since we came to government. One of my first speeches as minister of this portfolio back in July 2022 was focused on renewable fuels, particularly for the aviation sector. In that speech, I committed to establishing the Australian Jet Zero Council because I knew that not only was the development of a renewable fuels sector in Australia important; it was critical that we partnered with industry each and every step of the way. The Australian Jet Zero Council was established in June 2023, bringing together industry stakeholders to advise the government on the aviation industry's transition to net zero, including through the domestic production of biofuels. Through this work, we are now in a position to fast-track support for a low-carbon fossil fuel industry with an initial focus on sustainable aviation fuel and renewable diesel to support emissions reduction in the aviation and the heavy-vehicle, rail and maritime sectors, which are hard to abate. The technology does not exist at this stage or in the short, medium and, so far, long term to abate these sectors.

Through the Future Made in Australia plan, we will deliver funding for innovation, certification and processing. This includes, as we saw in the budget, $18.5 million to develop a certification scheme for low-carbon liquid fuels in the transport sector by expanding the Guarantee of Origin scheme. There's $1.5 million to undertake a regulatory impact analysis of the costs and benefits of introducing a mandate or other demand-side measures for low-carbon liquid fuels and we're investing over $1.7 billion over the next decade through the Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund to support the Australian Renewable Energy Agency to commercialise net-zero innovations, including low-carbon liquid fuels. This is a plan that is supported by industry and our agricultural stakeholders. Bioenergy Australia says our policies:

… will create jobs in regional Australia, boost economic growth, bolster energy security, and future proof our tourism and transport industries.

GrainCorp says federal budget funding for low-carbon fuels initiatives is:

… playing into its strategy to become a major player the renewable fuels supply chain.

The National Farmers Federation said it:

… has long supported the development of the Australian bioenergy and Low Carbon Liquid Fuels (LCLF) industries, with Australian agriculture playing an important role in the supply chain …

Industry knows that this is good policy and our farmers know that this is good policy as well.

Industry is already getting on with it. BP are working to establish a renewable fuels site in the Kwinana industrial area in Perth. GrainCorp, Ampol and IFM have already signed a memorandum of understanding to explore establishing Australia's own integrated renewable fuels industry. A feasibility assessment of a renewable fuels facility in Brisbane, including a supply of local homegrown feedstocks, will be an initial priority under the MOU.

You would think that growing new Australian jobs and industries would unite this place, but no. It's all opposed—as we've heard in speech after speech—by those opposite, who've confirmed that they won't be supporting the Future Made in Australia legislation. Of course we know that in their hearts the National Party does support a plan for low carbon liquid fuels because they know it is good for our farming community, good for the agriculture sector and good for regional communities. But they can't convince their coalition partners to stop saying no to every single initiative.

The shadow Treasurer dismissed this policy as 'billions for billionaires', demonstrating a failure to understand the importance of working with the private sector to build these new industries and to create more jobs at home. While we on this side of the House are supporting Australian industries, those opposite call support for Australian industries and our regional communities 'a wasted effort'. Through all of this, it appears the National Party is being silenced. In his second reading speech, the shadow Treasurer called the Future Made in Australia plan 'a plan for pork barrelling and wrong priorities'.

The shadow Treasurer should go to northern Queensland and tell that to our sugarcane growers and he should go to the Wheatbelt in WA and say that to our canola growers. He should tell that to the workers in the Kwinana industrial area in Perth and to the Lytton refinery in Brisbane. He could even go down and say it in Geelong, where they see this as very much part of the jobs for the future in their industry. But of course we know he won't do that because those opposite have got no interest in WA and they don't care about our regions. All they care about is saying no.

On this side of the House we care about the local jobs that the Future Made in Australia plan will bring and we care about manufacturing. The coalition simply wants to see all of these jobs stay overseas. While we're trying to build new industries here in Australia, we saw—of course—the coalition close them down. We know they killed the local car manufacturing industry here in Australia and that they are opposing production credits that will grow the critical minerals industry, which is something very, very important for Western Australia. They had a defence minister who said we couldn't 'build a canoe' and then they killed railcar manufacturing here in Australia as well. Now they have a shadow Treasurer who spent his pre-parliamentary career advocating against local jobs.

On this side we support Australian industries. We have local content rules in infrastructure and we have local job and training requirements. On their side they have a shadow Treasurer who calls support for Australian manufacturing 'a wasted effort'. That's what he said to the Minerals Council of Australia when he was advocating the scrapping of all local content policies and the closure of aluminium refining in Australia. Whilst we on this side of the House are working to deliver a future made in Australia, the coalition wants a future made overseas. Whilst we want more jobs, they want to close down the industries that regional communities have relied on for generations.

It's frankly time for the National Party, particularly when it comes to the pillar of low carbon liquid fuels, to decide where they stand and when they're going to stand up to their coalition partners. The Nationals need to decide whether they're going to stand with our farmers, our grain growers and our regional communities by supporting this legislation. We know that in their hearts they support it, but the test for the Nationals is whether they have the courage and influence over the coalition party room to stand up to the Liberals. Are they going to support new opportunities and new markets for our Australian farmers? Are they going to support new industries in our regional communities? Or are they, once again, just going to capitulate to the Liberal Party, who can't stop saying no for no's sake?

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

This is a critical time for our country. The decisions we make now will determine the economic future of generations to come. We're facing a crucial decade in which we must deal with the impact of climate change, cut climate pollution in line with the Paris Agreement, build the technology and manufacturing capacity to become a global leader in clean exports and create generations of prosperity for Australians. It's a time in which we must re-evaluate our industrial base, manufacturing capability and our economic sovereignty.

This Future Made in Australia legislation aims to establish policy frameworks to ensure that Australia has the sovereign capability necessary for our security interests and that we can develop the technologies necessary to decarbonise and to further industrialise our economy. The bill reflects a global trend towards increasing government interventionalism. In releasing a trillion dollars of clean energy funding, the US Inflation Reduction Act drew capital in from all around the world and made it harder to fund similar ventures in Australia. In the EU, Japan, China, South Korea and Canada, the heavy lifting of economic transition and industrial transformation is being facilitated and enabled by governments. The FMIA Act therefore reflects a significant shift in our national economic approach. It has caused some economists some alarm—with good reason.

There is an opportunity cost in subsidising manufacturing and industry. All industry assistance comes at a cost to those who are not supported. Let's face it, Australian governments' track records of picking winners are often poor. The Productivity Commission has raised concerns that attempts by government to reshape or diversify Australia's narrow trade and industrial structure, based as it is on primary commodity exports, could fail—that our government may sponsor businesses that will never be internationally competitive and will create long-term dependency on public support, at a significant net cost to the wider economy. These are valid concerns. The past decade has seen low productivity growth and business investment as well as narrowing of our economic foundations. Australia's ranking in the Harvard Atlas of Economic Complexity, which measures the diversity and knowledge intensity of a country's export mix, has now fallen to 93rd in the world, sandwiched uncomfortably between Pakistan and Uganda.

We're left very vulnerable to commodity price cycles. At the same time, much of our manufacturing has gone, resulting in the supply-chain issues that affect us every day. During the COVID pandemic we struggled to access PPE and toilet paper. Right now, today, our country has significant shortages of many medications. We've even got a shortage of intravenous saline. We have not been effective enough in diversifying supply, in stockpiling, in forging alternative arrangements or in switching technologies to minimise supply-chain disruptions.

Australia has been extraordinarily fortunate, with its endowment of some of the most valuable deposits of fossil fuels and minerals in the world. Australia is the world's largest exporter of coal and gas combined, but we have not reaped the full benefit from our coal or our gas. We weren't smart like Norway, which imposed a 76 per cent resource rent on excess profits from its fossil fuel industries. We were slow and maladaptive, like Britain, and we're paying the price for that now. Our government gets less from the PRRT than it makes from students from their HECS debts—from an incredibly lucrative but finite resource, the value of which is soon to fall globally.

The world is waking up to the fact that if we want to stop global warming we have to stop burning fossil fuels and we have to switch to renewables. The move to net zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 is already, in countries like China, resulting in the biggest and fastest structural economic changes the industrial world has ever experienced. We can choose to join China and the US at the forefront of this new industrial revolution, or we can be left behind and suffer the consequences for decades. Within the next two decades the world will stop buying fossil fuels. Other countries will enforce carbon border adjustment mechanisms. If we're still basing our economy on fossil fuels at the time, it will tank. We have to plan for a future in which our gas is worthless and the massive plants that are still being approved by this government have become stranded assets.

Where we do have a comparative advantage is in the sun and the wind as well as in critical minerals, but we have to stop digging up those resources, dispatching them elsewhere and then paying top dollar for the refined product when it returns home from overseas. We have to focus on energy cost and security. And we have to harness the extraordinary potential of the sunniest continent in the world, which has an average offshore wind speed of eight metres per second. We have to stop exporting our minerals, and we have to transition to the onshore production and refining of ammonia, steel, iron, aluminium and critical minerals.

The potential scale of the energy transition is huge. The critical minerals industry alone has already created 13,463 direct jobs. The 100 projects currently in its development pipeline will create up to 21,365 ongoing jobs and another 42,743 construction industry jobs. That's far more than our gas industry does at this point. In the coming zero carbon world, we should cease exporting iron ore, metallurgical and thermal coal and gas because it will be cheaper to make green iron in Australia, using green hydrogen, produced from our sun, our wind and our water. It could be the cheapest green iron in the world. It could be the same for green aluminium, green fertiliser, green silicone and green aviation fuel.

Rather than exporting coal and gas for refining, we could export surplus renewable energy embedded within that suite of available products. Doing so would cement not only our economy but also our geostrategic position within the Asia-Pacific. But we have to be careful. An abundance of rare materials does not necessarily translate into an advantage as a manufacturer. Before we jump to subsidising complex products using Australian resources, we have to consider all the costs that are potentially involved: tax, logistics, labour, and the important materials required to establish those manufacturing processes. Then we have to consider whether it remains reasonable to assume that higher Australian costs can be outweighed by the cheaper energy and the access to the component materials that we have from here.

We also have to remember that red tape and industrial unrest stifle productivity. The Future Made in Australia initiative will be successful only if it helps manufacturing and industry with regulation. It decreases the complexity of planning and permitting; it improves state and federal collaboration on these projects, reviews uncompetitive tax arrangements and cuts red tape. Australian innovation, research and development are chronically underfunded relative to international benchmarks. There were 182 line items for innovation and research and development in the recent federal budget, and yet businesses are telling us they feel unsupported.

The challenge for us as a medium-sized, commodity-rich but remote democracy is to identify those industries in which we have a demonstrable current or future competitive advantage and determine how best to support them while minimising risks to the taxpayer. We have to determine where supply chain issues generally require local manufacturing and where other means might be more economical. We know that government interventions can distort markets, and the projects that deliver immediate political and employment benefits can often prove costly and ineffective over time. We also know they can be inflationary. And we know they can fall victim to cronyism and corruption. In such a context, it's appropriate that we start as we have, in those areas in which we do have a demonstrable advantage, clean energy and critical minerals. We should also remember those areas in which we have genuine sovereign risk and potential for development both of 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 that are aimed at the decarbonisation of our economy. These include the National Skills Agreement, the National Reconstruction Fund, the Net Zero Authority, Rewiring the Nation, ARENA, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, Export Finance Australia and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. These bodies are already operating under their own investment mandates and guidelines. We have to ask how this scheme is going to engage with those existing initiatives. Australia has a long tradition of excessive red tape and poor regulatory structures, and this bill provides insufficient detail regarding how this initiative is going to interact with those other bodies.

Any government assistance has to be based on independent, transparent, evidence based assessments of the risks associated with every proposal to ensure future value for money. There should be tight criteria specifying the outcomes to be achieved and mandated performance monitoring against those specified outcomes. While the National Interest Framework provides detailed criteria on the types of projects that might qualify for public support, it provides very little detail on the form and quantum of what that public support might look like. It includes minimum detail on the community benefit principles on which that support should be contingent.

The legislation should be more explicit. It should detail what forms of support will be offered, how that support will be provided and the timeframes for spending allocations within each sector. Providing that detail would increase policy certainty and investor confidence. We should expect non-performing projects that don't meet those commitments will be wound up and clarity around how performance will be assessed and oversight provided. And we need an annual breakdown of expenditure under the act and of the outcomes of that expenditure.

I have to say that early indicators cast some doubt on the government's preparedness to adhere to those standards. The government has, unfortunately, already started to pick winners. It's allotted $1 billion to solar panel supply chain manufacturing for production of solar panels in the Hunter Valley. This is an industry in which China is globally supreme and in which prices are falling very quickly. The government has also already committed $2 billion to green hydrogen and $4 billion for the mining and processing of critical minerals. Then it's kicked in $840 million for a rare earth company. If the Future Made in Australia investment goes solely to industries in which we lack a competitive advantage—industries like solar panels, wind farm components, batteries and electrolysers—we will waste money, we will waste the manpower which goes into those industries and we will waste the opportunity to do better elsewhere.

Even more concerning is the $470 million invested by this government in the quantum computing firm PsiQuantum. It seems that the decision to invest in PsiQuantum was made prior to the completion of an EOI process to which the company was not invited and in which it did not participate. There were 21 other companies engaged in that EOI process—an EOI process in which they had no chance of success, even though they had no knowledge of that. The processes around this fund allocation are utterly opaque. We deserve more transparency. We deserve tendering processes which don't involve NDAs. We deserve for ministerial diaries to be open. We deserve to receive FOIs which are not highly redacted. We deserve open calls for tenders, not calls mediated by lobbying firms and negotiations facilitated by former Labor staffers. We deserve processes which don't waste the time, money and effort of other companies and which don't cause a loss of trust both in the processes and in our government. If the Future Made in Australia investment goes solely to companies with special relationships with this government, we have a problem.

The amendment that I move here and further amendments which I will move in the consideration in detail stage of this legislation will address those concerns. I move:

That all words after "reading" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"notes that:

(1) the Future Made in Australia National Interest framework should be configured as the foundational reference for Australia's industry policy;

(2) a robust governance structure for the framework must be ensured;

(3) clear criteria for national funding in the national interest should be established; and

(4) there should be periodic, independent reviews to ensure that industry policy remains effective and relevant".

Australia is fortunate to have another chance to get its policy settings right on this most existential challenge of climate change and energy. We do have an opportunity to establish the industries and jobs of the future in a global market which is estimated to be worth as much as $10 trillion by 2050. But we can't just be a lucky country. We have to be a clever country—adept, agile, transparent and honest. I ask the government to commit to the steps necessary to achieve that to restore faith in this bill.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the bill that is before us today, the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024. I come from a very proud manufacturing electorate, the electorate of Bendigo, which has been manufacturing for many decades. It is a place of much innovation, going back to the harvester. People remember and know the Sunshine Harvester dispute because that is how we have the living wage in this country, but that particular piece of farming equipment was first manufactured in my electorate before then being manufactured in Ballarat, and then its manufacture was moved to Sunshine in Melbourne. So manufacturing in my electorate goes back well over a century.

This bill and the Albanese Labor government's commitment to A Future Made in Australia have many in my electorate excited—excited by the opportunities it presents and excited by the commitment of this government to reinvest in and commit to manufacturing and to being a country that makes things again.

As those on my side of the House have recognised and said in their speeches on this bill, this particular bill looks to unlock private investment in future industries, bringing new jobs and opportunities to areas across our country—particularly to the regions. It's all about maximising economic and industrial benefits from the global transformation to net-zero, and securing Australia's place in an changing economic and strategic landscape, while at the same time helping to secure the supply chains that we have, ensuring that we will build a stronger, more diverse, more resilient economy that is powered by renewable energy, and creating more secure, well-paying jobs and a future made in Australia.

This bill recognises that our future growth prospects lie at the intersection of industry resources, skills and energy if we are to remain globally competitive. Specifically, what we want to see with a Future Made in Australia and the supports identified in this bill is: to promote safe and secure jobs that are well-paid and have good conditions. We want to develop a more skilled and inclusive workforce by including investment in training, skills and development and by broadening the opportunities for workforce participation. We want to see an engagement in collaboration to achieve positive outcomes with local communities such as First Nations communities—communities that are affected directly by the transition to net-zero. We want to see strengthened domestic industrial capabilities and stronger local supply chains. We know that supply chains are under pressure and continue to be under pressure, and it's not just in areas identified by other speakers like in medical supplies—it's in our housing industry and it's in our heavy metal manufacturing industry. Our supply chains continue to be under pressure with increasing fragmentation and global commendation.

New opportunities in clean energy industries will also be present into the future, and we need to be ready to tap into those and to make the best of those opportunities. Australia is ideally placed to benefit from the global transition that is under way, owing to our natural resources, our capabilities, our competitive advantages and the base of manufacturing that we already have in our trade partnerships. Key to unlocking those opportunities is being able to better facilitate private investment and to respond to those opportunities. This is something that comes up a lot in my electorate. Many manufacturers that I have met with over the last 10 years have raised their frustration—they've got a great idea, they want to expand, there's new equipment, they need to expand their plant to introduce new equipment, but they struggle to get access to capital. It comes up over and over again. That is why they are looking for the future opportunities, not just in this bill but in all of our commitments towards local manufacturing.

I want to take a moment to outline for the House the local manufacturing superstars that I have in my electorate. I want particularly to draw attention to Hofmann Engineering. Most people know them as being a Perth-based manufacturer—they are also in my electorate of Bendigo. They are going through their own transition. Some of their current work is for heavy metal manufacturing and refurbishment of machinery used in coalmining, and they acknowledge that it is an avenue of income for them. But they are diversifying and looking to tap into clean energy refurbishing and manufacturing.

On one of my visits to their facility, they were refurbishing a wind turbine. They are one of the only places in Australia that are able to ensure that our wind turbines are functioning at their full capacity. They spend a lot of time rebuilding and recalibrating poor product that has been imported from overseas and that doesn't really work well in the Australian climate. They're also well placed to take on new work with Snowy Hydro and the opportunities that present themselves in Tasmania with hydro energy. In my electorate of Bendigo, we have the capacity to refurbish, rebuild and manufacture the big gears, gearboxes and machines that are required for hydro energy.

Hofmann is already doing outstanding work for our state Labor government in terms of rail manufacturing, but they see an opportunity in renewable energy, and they are a company that we can all be proud of. Over one in 10 of their employees is an apprentice. They recruit locally, and everybody that you meet in the company acknowledges that it's a bit of that old school job for life. Once they start, they stay, and they enjoy their work environment. They are introducing new equipment, like robotic welders. It's still a fitter and turner who is using that machine, but it's a young fitter and turner who is applying their skills to the robot to do that work.

Another fantastic manufacturer in my electorate who's doing great things is Australian Turntables. Paul Chapman would never forgive me if I did not mention his company and the work that they are doing when we talk about a future made in Australia. They have a unique product. They manufacture big turntables. Whether it be for overseas, for restaurants, for car showrooms or for safer road access to construction sites and mines, they are involved in the manufacturing of turntables. There are also turntables that go into our arts precincts to ensure that orchestra pits and stages move effectively. But what's extraordinary about Turntables is the investment that they make in engineering and skills. Whilst they're a small company, they export a product all over the world. It's a family business, and Paul often talks about ingenuity and thinking forward. He talks about the next opportunity and is excited by the idea that we have a government that is committed to a future made in Australia and is a proud champion of the fact that you have to have that core industry to underpin an economy. As he recognises, and as we recognise, the world is changing. We want to tap into that opportunity.

Both Hofmann Engineering and Australian Turntables are members of the Bendigo Regional Manufacturing Group. I raise the Bendigo Regional Manufacturing Group because it is unique in the sense that it brings a diverse group of manufacturers together around what common interests they may have. For as long as I've been involved in the local community and engaged through my work as the local MP, they have been campaigning for cleaner, greener energy. They have been wanting to be part of the solution. They get that gas is a necessity at the moment, but they are really keen to see that transition and the establishment of a greener fuel to help power their businesses and their industries.

The Bendigo manufacturing community is a really good example of that fracturing that we have within manufacturing across Australia. We have heavy metal manufacturing, as I mentioned. I haven't even mentioned Thales, the home of the Bushmasters; I'd better do that. But we also have building supplies. We have food manufacturing. We have really diverse industries that I have to say have survived the worst of it. They've survived the decades of, I guess you could say, neglect from policymakers and lack of support for local manufacturing. They've survived the continuous challenges that come with the reduction of tariffs that we've had. They've survived all of that, and now they're hoping to thrive and hoping to really look at ways that they can build and grow. Any focus on manufacturing by our government will help regions like mine. It will help and encourage the growth of manufacturing, embedding in the government's National Interest Framework, which was announced in the budget—

Debate interrupted.