Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do welcome this day, in being able to speak on this legislation, the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024. Since July 2023, the average global temperature has consistently exceeded one 1.5 degrees Celsius, above preindustrial levels. I would like to remind all members and our broad community that 1.5 degrees is not just a target and not just a goal. It is a very important threshold that all within the scientific community have recognised as a threshold beyond which major consequences will occur that impact all of us: all of our communities, our children and their children and our environments—everything that we take for granted in our lives.

It's very important to keep in mind the 'why'—why it is important that we supercharge our transition towards clean technologies and clean energy and ensure we develop that capacity. This is a new industrial revolution. This is an opportunity to be part of a global race. Unfortunately, we are behind. I'm a very competitive person, with my background in sport, and it's frustrating to think of where Australia is in this race and the opportunities that we are still reaching for. So we must rapidly develop and supercharge new technologies to rapidly reduce emissions. We must be mindful of that 1.5-degree threshold.

What do we know needs to happen for that to occur? We need to keep up and accelerate the momentum to net zero, and that also means having a net zero economy in the face of what is occurring around the world. We know there is a race on. We now are on the starting line, but we have to accelerate. Progress is possible, but it's not guaranteed. We must have policies that look to the future and that underpin the transition that has to happen.

So I do commend the government. The Future Made in Australia proposal in front of us is a major piece of the economic puzzle that will get us through that transition to a more prosperous future. Whilst we are at record temperatures, there are also records and inflection moments in our economy. There continues to be those who want to delay the transition to clean technologies, to achieving net zero. They want to hold on to the past and they want to stop progress. They want to continue with fossil fuels. They want to continue to spread falsehoods and lies, to give reasons for delay, instead of embracing the opportunity that this global race represents—the move to net zero and to an economy that is sustainable and that will nurture not just our prosperity but also our health and wellbeing and environment.

We know that we need strong, new domestic and export industries. They will be essential to Australia's prosperity. By embracing the race to net zero, we can have an outsized impact on global emissions. This is the bit that always just bewilders me: deniers and people condoning delay who keep talking about what the rest of the world is doing. But the reality is that our environment and our atmosphere does not recognise country borders. As global warming occurs, everyone will be impacted. So what we do with our scope 3 emissions, through our export industries, matters. It will have a direct consequence on every one of our communities.

The fact is that Australia is the second highest contributor to global emissions through its export industries, but we cannot wipe our hands of that. You cannot on one hand say, 'Show me the money and look at all that export funding and revenue,' but then say, 'The problems of global warming and the cost that is coming are just things we can't tackle.' Whilst we don't account for those scope 3 emissions, we will pay the price of them, in their consequences and in the impact on global warming.

I repeat: Australia is the second highest contributor to global emissions through its export industries. The carbon released in the downstream processing of many Australian commodities is huge. According to the Sunshot Alliance, emissions associated with the transport and processing of iron ore is estimated to be around 900 million tonnes annually. That is nearly double all the domestic emissions in Australia. Just pause to think about the scale of that. In working on our clean energy future, we must also address transitioning our export industries and having something more positive to contribute to the world.

That is where the Future Made in Australia program will help us achieve that. Our biggest competitors are already miles ahead of us in this clean energy bonanza and focus, and we need to catch up fast. That's why I commend the scale of the commitment by the government over the next 10 years in supporting that development of clean technologies domestically and through our export industries.

The core aim of this legislation is that Australia needs to rebuild and modernise our export and manufacturing sectors in a climate focused, sustainable way. Embracing this trajectory means we will see hundreds of thousands of well-paying industrial jobs created, support regional and rural economies, and contribute significantly to decarbonisation actions not only in Australia but, importantly, globally. We must do our job as global citizens.

This year's budget included $22.7 billion towards targeted measures for renewable hydrogen, critical minerals processing, and battery and solar manufacturing. Upping the government's investment means a long-term, ambitious package can deliver at least $300 billion a year to clean export revenue by 2035, with about 700,000 direct jobs estimated, mainly, again, in rural and regional Australia.

Australia has been a laggard on climate action. It's what brought me into this place, when the people of Warringah and so many others around Australia were so frustrated at politics being played rather than opportunities being embraced. We're starting to catch up, but we need to pick up the pace. We need to get the car started. We need to keep supporting the transition. We need to accelerate decarbonisation, as the world is reaching dangerous temperature points. We know there are many races happening at the moment. There is a race happening when it comes to the temperatures, but we also have a race—a global one—for skills, industries and investment.

I hosted a roundtable just yesterday to acknowledge climate risk, and the loud and clear message that came out of it was that we will not be able to insure our way out of climate risk and disaster. It is not going to be economically feasible. So the incentive, loud and clear, is to focus on mitigation of emissions and on transition in all aspects of our systems and economy.

The US, since passing its Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, has seen a huge growth in green technology investment. It has drawn, as if it were a magnet, so much investment and focus on manufacturing opportunities to the US. The EU met that challenge by passing the European Green Deal. It has also focused on developing its own capacity and support for manufacturing and export industries. But we have been slow, and I have been critical of the government. We needed a fast response to the Inflation Reduction Act and the European Green Deal.

For us to keep in that race, there are three key, important things in this legislation. Firstly, it will supercharge clean industries, the exact industries we need to reach our emissions reduction goals: batteries, electric vehicles, solar panels, wind turbines, and clean ways of making steel, aluminium and other key materials needed for a net-zero economy. These industries are all scaling up. Our sun, wind and mineral wealth right here in Australia means manufacturing can play a crucial part in cutting climate pollution here and around the globe.

Secondly, it will build on the progress we have made. Since 2022, there have been a number of significant pieces of legislation passed through this House by the government, relating to the reformed safeguard mechanism, the Emissions Reduction Fund, the Renewable Energy Target scheme, the Renewable Energy Agency, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Capacity Investment Scheme and the Net Zero Economy Authority. Some of these schemes and agencies are working towards a clean energy economy, but it would be remiss just to give a pass mark. I say to the government that that is not enough. Those pieces of legislation are pieces of the puzzle, but they are all brought together, overwhelmingly, by what targets, incentives and direction we set and what message we send out to investors and the global community when it comes to Australia's commitment to emissions reduction.

There is a moment coming up in just a few months for the Albanese government to really say if it is fair dinkum about emissions reduction, limiting climate change and doing our bit in keeping to 1.5 degrees, and that will be when we determine what our target will be for the nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement. We have to lodge our contribution for 2035 in a few short months. We have heard absolute silence from the opposition. They still have not come to grips with the fact that we must have strong interim targets that keep us within safe temperature goals. The government has a challenge on its plate. It must step up to the plate with a strong 2035 target. I am strongly urging the government to commit to a floor of a 75 per cent emissions reduction by 2035. That sets the trajectory and the road map and sends the message loud and clear to all investors in the global technology race that Australia is fair dinkum when it comes to reducing emissions. Underpinned with pieces of legislation like Future Made in Australia, Australia can get ahead in this race.

This bill is part of an emerging consensus that government must play a role in the net zero transition. In the budget the government nominated five priority areas for Future Made in Australia: renewable hydrogen, green metals, low carbon liquid fuels and clean energy manufacturing. I'd urge the government to also keep a focus on our domestic emissions to make sure that we are electrifying households, fast-tracking the transition to clean transport and looking at technologies like vehicle-to-grid charging. We need to make sure that we are using all the tools in the toolkit to get us there. In practical terms, the Future Made in Australia Bill establishes the National Interest Framework, which will guide decision-making when public-sector investments are made. There are two streams of the National Interest Framework: the net zero transformation stream and the economic resilience and security stream. There will be community benefit principles embedded in all of those aspects, and they are designed to ensure that public investment and the investment that it generates lead to a benefit for communities impacted.

But there are still some details that need to be worked out. I have been engaging with the Treasurer and many of my colleagues around guardrails and greater clarification to be certain of the direction this Future Made in Australia will take us. We are well positioned in our region to take advantage of the transition that is happening globally. As a key trading nation in the Asian region, we can leverage this investment. It's a strategic national-interest focused response, and it can be bold and ambitious. The old economic consensus is shifting. Markets remain central to making it happen, and we need to acknowledge that relying on traditional competitive advantage in that transition to net zero is difficult. But a US$4.6 trillion annual investment opportunity exists globally, and it is there for the taking. We must be key players and participate in it.

So I urge the government to get ambitious and to make sure that we focus on the right sectors to get bang for buck when it comes to public investment. We need to focus on technologies that are genuinely focused on 1.5 degrees and emissions reduction, not just offsetting or kicking something down the road. It must be focused on that. We also have to make sure we engage with communities and that First Nations have a true voice in this process and are considered.

This bill establishes a road map for the future. This is an investment for future generations. It will directly impact the prosperity of the next generations, so we need to make this transition to clean energy as effective and efficient as possible. That means no more gas exploration. This is where the government is again just so conflicted, with their focus on a future gas strategy. You cannot continue to have more gas exploration. We have enough gas. We just need to prioritise where we use it and where it's applied. We need no more coal. The consequences of continuing down those roads and not mitigating climate change will decimate our economy. There's no point in investing in the future if you continue with old technologies that undo all the good work and keep making the problem worse.

I commend the bill to the House, I support the government on the Future Made in Australia, I commend the Treasurer, and I ask him to consider the amendments put forward in good faith to make sure that this bill is robust and delivers its purpose.

Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in favour of the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024.This legislation is a supportive and measured response to the global climatic and international economic circumstances that the government must respond to. Failure to take action and respond to these circumstances would be a failure to govern. I note that the Liberal and National parties appear to intend to vote against this legislation. That would be a failure to grapple earnestly with the challenges of our time and, for the students up in the gallery here today, this would be a missed opportunity for their future that will be made here in Australia. If all the coalition can do is carp from the sidelines and indulge in spurious nuclear fantasies then they will not be fit to govern for some time. They need to accept the science where they haven't, come to understand the international efforts by our trading partners in the space and realise that it would be dangerous for us as a nation to fail to maximise our opportunities in what is a new economic paradigm. Whether the coalition can do all of this without some sort of root-and-branch renewal of their parties is perhaps the most interesting question posed by this debate. What seems possible at the moment is that the coalition will only catch up with the world in 10 or 20 years time. Certainly the world can't wait for the coalition and neither can this parliament.

The Future Made in Australia Bill is a simple and efficient bill that runs to 15 clauses. It does five simple things. Firstly, it creates a national interest framework to guide the federal government's consideration and decision-making in relation to the way public support encourages private investment at scale. That framework has two streams. The first is directed towards the net zero economy and the second towards economic resilience and security. There will be a significant and increasing overlap between these streams as time goes on. For the net zero economy stream, we seek sectors that can provide a sustained comparative advantage and for which public investment is likely to be needed. For the resilience and security stream, the domestic production must be a necessary or efficient way to deliver the outcome and unlikely to occur without government support. I note that it is 'necessary or efficient', not 'necessary and efficient'. This government takes security in all its forms, including supply chains, seriously.

Secondly, it directs certain matters to be considered in sector assessments in determining the role that a sector can reasonably play in a future made in Australia. Not every sector, industry or product will be one for which domestic production makes economic sense. As an example, we may find that the production of wind turbine blades is better done offshore whilst nevertheless supporting a local company developing wind turbine gearboxes here and eventually exporting those to the region.

Thirdly, importantly, it outlines the community benefit principles which must be applied in making decisions about the provision of support. The legislation provides that the support needs to lead to safe and secure jobs, skill development, positive benefits for local communities, including Indigenous communities, strengthening local supply chains and transparency in tax affairs. Further community benefit principles can be provided for in the rules.

The fourth thing that this bill does is provide for certain investment programs to be identified as Future Made in Australia supports. The legislation does not limit the nature of those supports, which may include grants, loans, equity investments and others. Regardless of the nature of the support, what is important is that the community benefit principles do apply.

Fifthly, it requires plans to be provided by recipients of support that outline the way in which the projects will meet those community benefit principles. Clear commitments to meeting the community benefit principles will always be required.

So these are five simple things, but through this legislation we create an overarching framework within which the interface between the federal government and private sector investment, both domestic and international, will be encouraged, supported and governed. It is a framework for a future made in Australia.

We're not doing this, though, in a vacuum. Indeed, we are playing catch-up. Two years ago, the Inflation Reduction Act in the US created great hope and a great challenge. The Albanese government's policies on climate change and energy and nation-building are meeting that challenge. The executive summary of Building a Clean Economy, the policy paper issued by the White House in January 2023, states:

The Inflation Reduction Act's $370 billion in investments will lower energy costs for families and small businesses, accelerate private investment in clean energy solutions in every sector of the economy and every corner of the country, strengthen supply chains for everything from critical minerals to efficient electric appliances, and create good-paying jobs and new economic opportunities for workers.

There are clear parallels in the current bill.

The US challenge has been met in Europe. Just this month, Germany's cabinet provided 57.6 billion euros for green investments in 2025, increasing subsidies to help the country become net zero by 2045. The allocation includes 18.9 billion euros for construction, 12.6 billion euros for renewable energy, 4.0 billion euros for EV charging infrastructure, 4.1 billion euros for local production of renewable components and 4.0 billion euros for semiconductor production. Much of this investment is directed not only to net zero but also to resilience and strengthening local supply chains.

In the face of what is a global movement, the contribution so far by members of the opposition parties to this bill has been disappointing. The member for Mallee made a reference to Disney and then made a Fantasia-level error of calling green hydrogen 'experimental'. That would come as a surprise to many companies around the world manufacturing green hydrogen today, like Linde and Shell.

The member for Riverina referred to what he called a 'rush to renewables' as if that was a bad thing. That language indicates that perhaps the member doesn't understand the gravity of our urgent need to move to renewable energy. He also raised the coalition's three-eyed nuclear red herring. The coalition has been talking about nuclear power in opposition for the last 30 years or more—never in government, just in opposition.

The member for Riverina may be interested in a recent study from the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems in Germany. The study found that solar and battery systems are now much cheaper than coal or gas power plants or new nuclear—much cheaper.

And the member for Hume, true to form, raised integrity concerns and used the word 'pork-barrelling'. I'm sure the member for Hume is capable of writing a book on the subject, but it is a strange thing to raise as an objection to a bill that quite clearly sets out a framework with legislative community benefit principles. Sometimes it feels like the member for Hume lives in an alternative universe only somewhat similar to our own.

The member for Hinkler thinks it's wrong for the government to want to use something called the National Interest Framework to guide decisions. The member for Casey complained that government members were spending too long talking about the opposition in this debate, and he could be right, but the opposition is certainly the gift that keeps on giving in this space. The member then calls renewables a single technology. Renewables aren't one technology. The hint is in the plural. Renewables are many and varied and complementary, and they include solar and wind, both on and offshore, geothermal and hydro and others, and they're supported by all different kinds of storage. I invite the member for Casey to seek to correct his error.

We are in a transition. We need to wean ourselves, over time, off coal and reduce our need for gas, which will nevertheless play a firming role for the foreseeable future. We need to take action to help our trading partners do exactly the same thing. Transitions take time and need to be planned, which is something the Greens unfortunately don't seem to understand. This bill is a crucial part of the Albanese government's plan, which began with climate change legislation two years ago and has already seen a record investment in renewables. But a transition requires something else, too. It requires a long-term commitment. I hope it can be a shared commitment. I want to see the coalition come on board, not with nuclear pretence but with real policy.

The Commonwealth Bank's commendable early announcement last week to stop funding fossil fuel projects is the first in a series we will see from like banks and other finance companies. In fact, some years back, the ANZ Bank stopped funding coal. I acknowledge their leadership in this space. In the parliament, we also need to lead. As Prime Minister, Scott Morrison brought a lump of coal into this place and brandished it in a silly way, thus indicating he wasn't on board with any transition. Even today, Senator Babet has a lump of coal in his office window. These absolute failures are on show.

But the coalition needs to take a step forward now. It's time for them to acknowledge that we need to engage with the transition, either due to the threat of climate change or, at the very least, due to the economic imperative that squarely faces us. To do anything else would be to fail to lead. The government seeks to create the conditions whereby we can become a renewable energy superpower within the transition to a global net zero economy. There is no reason why the Liberal Party and the National Party can't engage in that effort too. In fact, I know they will, but I hope they will start today. I expect they will start shortly after the coming election. I fear, however, they will continue to leave it for years and years, when they've already caused years and years of delays—10 years of delays, in fact, that we could ill afford. We need to attract investment. We are in a global race for this. Over the next few decades, we need to replace our fossil fuel industries with green industries. We need to start now. Indeed, we are late to start, and we are playing catch-up.

Back home in Hasluck, however, industry isn't waiting for the coalition to catch up. BGC is an example of a company in Hasluck in a high-emitting sector: concrete and bricks. They recognise that some of their products are emissions intensive and see it as their responsibility to reduce their emissions profile. They are watching developments elsewhere in WA, like the Collie renewable energy hub supported by the Cook state government, and looking for partners in their endeavours. Taking action now is surely a better course than to continue emitting and waiting for a fantasy of a Collie nuclear power plant to be ready in 30 years time. BGC have also set up their material innovation hub to conduct research and development work, aligning with their commitment to reduce scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions to net zero by 2040.

Earlier this year, ARENA announced funding of $15.8 million to assist Centurion in Hazelmere in Hasluck to roll out 30 battery electric trucks and 15 dual-port chargers to cut emissions from its depot there. Centurion aims to operate Australia's first 100 per cent renewable energy off-grid electric truck fleet. This is just phenomenal and an example of the change that is rapidly coming, and we need to be on board.

Hofmann Engineering in Ashfield operates across the fields of mining, defence, transport, energy, manufacturing and agriculture. It is a splendid example of our ability to rise to the challenge of a future made in Australia. Hofmann Engineering has been repairing and improving the life expectancy of wind turbine gearboxes since 2008.

Fortescue Future Industries in Hazelmere, among other projects, have been designing and testing groundbreaking 100 per cent carbon-free green hydrogen haul trucks and battery electric haul trucks. They've also investigated renewable green hydrogen, green ammonia and battery power for trains, ship engines and surface crawler drills.

We do already have energetic, forward-looking companies that are willing to be part of the solution. They are putting the money into investing in these solutions and working in partnership with our government. However, the challenges before us to address climate change and meet our targets and to transform our economy to one which is net zero at home and exporting as a green energy superpower require investments of a greater magnitude, and this bill sets the grounds for the attraction of that investment. It outlines a careful attitude on the part of this government and an acknowledgement that Australia will not manufacture all things in all sectors; rather, we must play to our strengths.

The Albanese government is up to this task. The people of Hasluck and of Australia can be proud that they have a government, at last, that is prepared to confront this in a serious and realistic manner, take action to get us to net zero, take action to ensure our supply chains are solid, work with our international partners, attract investment and back in innovative Australian companies.

As it is on topic, I'd like to remind all members that Mr Till Mansmann, the German Innovation Commissioner for Green Hydrogen, will address the Australia-Germany interparliamentary group. All interested members, senators and staff are welcome from 10.30 am tomorrow in the committee room 1S3 to discuss green hydrogen and the opportunities that we have before us for international cooperation.

Angie Bell (Moncrieff, Liberal National Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Cooper stood at the dispatch box and delivered a speech where she declared that the government is the party of working people. We on this side say that the government is the party of working poor people. Under this government, Australians feel poorer simply because they are. Prices are up by 10 per cent, and for working households prices are up over 18 per cent, and Australians know it. They can feel it in their hip pockets every time they go to the supermarket. Personal income taxes are up by 20 per cent, real wages for employees have collapsed by nine per cent, living standards have collapsed by eight per cent, household savings are down by 10 per cent, and a family with a typical mortgage of $750,000 is $35,000 worse off. Where are they getting their money from? That's the question they're asking. The Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 does nothing to alleviate the pressures on struggling families and small businesses. In fact, the big spending agenda is likely to keep inflation higher for longer.

I also particularly enjoyed the member for Adelaide's contribution, where he seamlessly admitted that the great Liberal and Country League premier Sir Thomas Playford was an undeniable visionary for creating the manufacturing satellite city of Elizabeth in South Australia. I've spoken before in this place about my very special connection to Elizabeth and the manufacturing sector. It was where I was born and grew up for the first eight years of my life. There were three generations of Holden workers in my family. Both my brothers, my father and my grandfather—a couple of them got gold watches—were working at General Motors-Holden. My mother was an machinist—an award-winning machinist, I might say; she worked very hard—at Levi Strauss in Elizabeth. It was the vision of Sir Thomas Playford to set up Elizabeth as a satellite city for manufacturing. with affordable houses through the South Australian Housing Trust, that gave me my start in life and gave my family the opportunity to save a little bit of money—to save that deposit for a house. They bought a small house in the northern suburbs of Adelaide. I remember it was about $25,000 back then. They moved from social housing—from the Housing Trust commission home—into their own home, and that certainly helped my education opportunities as a young person. It's because of that background that I really understand the significance of manufacturing.

Also, in my current home—as a Queenslander for almost 30 years and a proud Gold Coaster for 23 years—the local statistics for manufacturing on the Gold Coast from June 2023 tell us that it has been growing at a pace of 1.1 per cent per year for the last 10 years, which is actually higher than the Queensland figure and, indeed, the national figure. The manufacturing sector on the Gold Coast is worth $3.6 billion in exports for Gold Coast businesses. That's $132,018 of productivity per worker, with a total output of—wait for it—a whopping $9.2 billion through sectors such as food, metals, transport, machinery, non-metallic mineral product, beverages and others like, of course, boat-building, of which we are so proud on the Gold Coast. That's just a local snapshot of how important manufacturing is to this country.

Of course, the coalition supports those manufacturers. But, speaking to this bill, the coalition will indeed oppose it, not because we oppose manufacturers, manufacturing or the jobs that they represent but because we oppose bad policy that has not been properly thought out. The role of the opposition is, indeed, to oppose bad policy. That's what good oppositions do. So we are poking holes in the government's legislation to make sure that Australians can see the light on the other side, and this bill has plenty of those holes.

The member for Wentworth, in her contribution from the crossbench, said, 'The bill fails to deliver the framework needed for a renewables future,' and she has brought forward a number of amendments that she thinks will improve the bill. She also outlined that the government should focus on tax reform and cutting red tape. I think we agree on that. I think they are very sensible measures. Perhaps she and all of those others on the crossbench will vote with the opposition on this bill, if they agree that it's all spin and no substance. We'll see after the speeches in the second reading debate.

This is another bad policy from the Labor government, which is out of its depth. It sounds like it's saying all the right things, which Labor loves to do, with headlines like 'national security', 'sovereign capability', 'clean energy' et cetera. It's saying all those things that it thinks it needs to say in order to stay in government. 'A future made in Australia,' it shouts from the rooftops. 'More things made here,' we hear being said. But we ask this government, whose wheels really are falling off at the moment: when will it focus on the right things for Australians right now? When will it focus on delivering all those promises it made before the last election—those promises that we're yet to see materialise, like the promise of affordable, reliable energy? The government should be focused on flexible workplaces—less regulation, not more—and on an incentive based tax system, not billions of dollars on pie-in-the-sky policies.

The government needs to be focused on getting our country back on track and getting those basics right in the economy so that all Australians will benefit from lower inflation, lower grocery prices, lower energy prices and lower mortgage repayments. That's the only way to get this country back on track, and this government simply is not focused on those areas. Their policies on energy, industrial relations and tax are all making Australia a less attractive place to do business, and the facts are very, very clear.

Business insolvencies are up. Productivity is down; it was less than 0.1 per cent in the last quarter. Businesses are struggling to keep their doors open. I know this because I've got about 32,000 of them in my electorate, on the Gold Coast. Hospitality providers are struggling at the moment. We had the Pacific Airshow last weekend, which reportedly brought 400,000 people to the beach in Surfers Paradise—it's a big number, but that's what was reported. Of course, all of the local businesses gobbled up all of that beautiful business that came to the Gold Coast, business that's very, very important for our families on the Gold Coast.

Economist after economist has criticised this policy, and every day we hear more stories about dodgy processes, the lack of economic security and the double standards that apply to this program. The government won't solve the cost-of-living crisis by throwing hard earned taxpayer money around, which is what they're doing—$315 billion of extra money in the economy is keeping your interest payments higher. They're not working with fiscal policy and monetary policy; they're working against them.

The Prime Minister might want to pick winners, but Australian families will lose from Labor's reckless spending and their bad policies, of which this, of course, is one. The Prime Minister has revealed his plan to spend even more money and make productivity worse, and that's failed to gain any support from mainstream economists. With this policy, the government is taking from household budgets to bolster business balance sheets. This is not responsible economic management. I'll take the scoffing from the other side. They think there's something funny about this, but there's not. People are hurting across the nation.

They can't pay their bills, Minister. In fact, this big spending agenda is likely to make inflation, as I said, worse. Just like households, governments need to manage their budgets and live within their means. The Albanese government has shown weak economic leadership.

These bills expand the role of Export Finance Australia and ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, and establish a national interest framework that retrospectively underpins the government's Future Made in Australia policy. The accompanying omnibus bill expands Export Finance Australia's remit to fund domestic industries and nominates the Minister for Finance as an additional responsible minister.

The omnibus bill also expands ARENA's functions from purely R&D and demonstration to the support of manufacturing, deployment and commercialisation. This legislation fundamentally changes the purpose, duties and roles of ARENA. ARENA has always been a research and development agency. This is clear in its remit, in the explanatory memorandum and the second reading speech. When in opposition, Labor opposed the expansion of that remit to cover sensible net-zero-related R&D expenditure, including into carbon capture and storage and blue hydrogen. How times have changed. Now they are expanding that remit even further into deployment and manufacturing because it suits the interests of their donors. If ARENA is doing deployment, why is the Clean Energy Finance Corporation even needed? If these industries are commercially viable, why do they need government funding? Labor's changes are still more insidious—

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

Focus on detail.

Angie Bell (Moncrieff, Liberal National Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

because the bill gives the Minister for Climate Change and Energy the ability to boost its funding at a stroke of a pen. That's detail, Minister. No parliamentary oversight—that's detail.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Minister! The member is entitled to be heard in silence.

Angie Bell (Moncrieff, Liberal National Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No scrutiny, Minister—with just some delegated legislation, the government can roll up to $3.98 billion out the door in an election year. It's a slush fund, plain and simple.

Australian taxpayers are already on the hook for Labor's inflation, and you know it. Labor has spent $315 billion in new spending since the election. That's how much they've spent. They've spent over $30,000 per Australian household. How is that not keeping inflation higher for longer under this irresponsible and recklessly spending government? It has fuelled inflation, and Australians ultimately pay for that. Australian families are already paying the price with 12 interest rate hikes, some of the most stubborn core inflation in the developed world and the higher taxes that come with it. You're paying 20 per cent higher taxes under this government. Australian families just should not be paying that.

Now, don't take it just from me or from others standing here on the coalition side; take it from Danielle Wood, the head of the Productivity Commission. The government's key economic adviser, appointed by the Treasurer, has said:

If we are supporting industries that don't have a long-term competitive advantage, that can be an ongoing cost.

It's baked in. That is what that means. She said further:

It diverts resources, that's workers and capital, away from other parts of the economy where they might generate high value uses.

We risk creating a class of businesses that is reliant on government subsidies, and that can be very effective in coming back for more.

She has also said:

Your infants grow up, they turn into very hungry teenagers and it's kind of hard to turn off the tap.

When asked whether Future Made in Australia contained tax reform, Ms Wood explicitly said it is 'not tax reform'. On alternative policies, including lowering the corporate tax rate, Ms Wood offered it would 'make us more internationally competitive'.

The coalition's alternative is that we must get back to economic basics. The coalition is working to ensure that Australia can play to its strengths. We'll steer our nation out of our current domestic crisis. We'll not just talk about the challenges of our time but meet them head on with action to carve out a more secure future for Australia. Most importantly, we'll make the decisions that set up our nation for success for generations to come. It requires strong economic management, not slogans or handouts, with a plan to get back on track and back to economic basics.

First we'll reign in inflationary spending, as I talked about. Second we'll wind back Labor's intervention and remove regulatory roadblocks, which are suffocating the economy and stopping businesses from getting ahead. We'll condense approval processes and cut back on Labor's red tape, which is killing mining, jobs and entrepreneurialism. Third we'll remove the complexity and hostility of Labor's IR agenda, which is putting unreasonable burdens on business. We'll revert to the former coalition government's simple definition of a casual worker and create certainty for our 2.5 million small businesses across the country, who are employers and who are being tied in knots by this government. Fourth we will provide lower, simpler and fairer taxes for all because Australians should keep more of what they earn. And that's our line, not Labor's. That's what they do; they take a line and they own it. No, we are the party for small business. That's us. We are the party for working Australians. Fifth we'll deliver competition policy which gives consumers and small businesses a fair go, not lobbyists and big corporations. And sixth we'll ensure Australians have more affordable and reliable energy.

Our economic plan, with its tried and tested principles, will restore competitiveness and rebuild economic confidence. The policies that we seek to implement are not just about the next election cycle. They're not just about that election that we're due within eight months. They are a foundation for forging a better Australia and a better future for all Australians, for small and family business in particular and for our country.

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

The contrast couldn't be clearer. This side of the House is about avoiding and learning from the mistakes of the past. That side is about repeating them. It's as clear as that. This debate is all about that. The Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 is about recognising the experiences we've had and the challenges we confront. It is about making more things here. It's about playing to our natural advantages. It's about creating secure, well-paying jobs. It is about correcting our economic course so the blunders and bluster of Liberal governments don't define our economic future.

If the pandemic taught us anything, it taught us that our economic resilience is simply not equal to the boasts of our predecessors. It showed us the danger of placing our economic wellbeing in the hands of just one or two other countries—putting all our eggs in one basket. We relied on supply chains that weren't up to the job when tested by a crisis. In the pandemic, the things we needed just weren't there when we needed them the most. Our economic resilience has been absolutely at the mercy of our anti-manufacturing agenda and we cannot have that. We cannot have that agenda define our future prospects.

The truth is that the Liberal and National parties old way of thinking has robbed us of sovereign capability. It's simplified our economy to a dig and ship mentality, and it sent our know-how offshore along with our raw materials. It disrespected science and our ideas and, worst of all, it decimated our industrial base, which generations of Australians spent their blood, sweat and tears building.

We want a stronger economy, not a weak one and not one that is vulnerable to the next global shock or to the whims of another country that wants to turn on or off supply, affecting our prospects. Strong economies possess strong manufacturing capabilities and these capabilities can be used to help respond to national challenges.

The big challenge we face is making the transition to net zero. What our Future Made in Australia legislation aims to do is to build up and mobilise Australian manufacturing to make the things that reduce emissions, using Aussie know-how, that will create a lot of secure, well-paying jobs in the process, especially in our regions. With this bill, we are charting a better and stronger direction to continue the task of rebuilding our industrial and manufacturing base and restore our manufacturing prowess.

We are supporting the quiet contributors to our economy, who for too long have been disrespected and sidelined by the Liberal and National parties. That includes our scientists and researchers, who consistently rank among the top in global ladders in fields such from medical science to robotics to quantum technologies. Our mineral processors and manufacturers can also be scaled up, but are being fed the lie that being the world's quarry should be the limit to our economic aspirations. Most of all, our workers—the welders, the riggers, the technicians, the machinists and the electricians themselves—should all have a better future and not be talked down by turning the economy simply into a services economy with no manufacturing muscle to it whatsoever.

Where others see the mathematics of subtraction, we see addition. The bill commits almost $23 billion to the idea that the right co-investment at the right time in the right area can multiply our advantages, and what advantages we have. For example, we supply half the world its lithium, but we only make one per cent of its batteries. How is it that we have some of the best battery and solar know-how in the world and yet import so many foreign products made for foreign conditions? Why, when we have the best sun and wind resources in the world, are we not capturing and storing that energy with Aussie solar panels, wind turbines and batteries? These are not conundrums that inaction and ideological laziness can answer. It takes a government—this government—committed to action, and backing that action with investment with the private sector to multiply benefits throughout the economy.

We've dedicated $400 million to our industry growth program to support emerging manufacturers through the early stages of their growth to create new industries; more than half a billion dollars for the Battery Breakthrough Initiative to kickstart energy storage manufacturer backed by Australia's first National Battery Strategy and $1.7 billion for the Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund to invest in the know-how coming out of our labs and unis that can help rebuild manufacturing. We have dedicated a billion dollars to the Solar Sunshot project that can employ potentially more workers making next-generation solar panels at New South Wales's old Liddell power station, than what were employed at the old coal-fired power station. They will use Australian technology, Australian ideas—stuff that's being done nowhere else on the planet—to produce more efficient solar panels that give us an edge in manufacturing.

There's $9 billion to develop our critical mineral supply chains, focused on processing and refining through efficient and effective production tax credits with the simple proposition in the tax credits: you make it, you get it. That's the basis on which the credits operate. There's billions in hydrogen production tax credits invested into electrolysers like those being made in Gladstone, Queensland, to scale up green hydrogen for industrial use. There's a green metals plan designed with our steelmakers to give our industrial heartlands in the Illawarra, the Hunter, Gladstone, Whyalla and Collie a sustainable future.

These and other investments we are making in our Future Made in Australia plan work together so everyone will benefit across the country from: secure, well-paid jobs for working families, especially in our regions; secure supply chains so we can confidently confront economic uncertainty; a strong industrial base of skilled workers and cutting-edge technology which will be the foundation for a strong, thriving, modern economy; and plentiful, cheap, clean power and lower emissions, positioning us as a green energy export powerhouse.

Nothing encapsulates our approach to a future made in Australia like an initiative close to my heart, the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund. This is the one that the scorched earth economic theorists who have driven the agenda in this country struggle with the most. They call it picking winners. (Quorum formed) It's called that by those opposite, whose friends have an anti-manufacturing mentality.

The coalition says it's pro manufacturing and then votes against every single thing that supports manufacturing. They drove out 100,000 manufacturing jobs in their time in government. They pushed out auto-manufacturing firms and all the jobs that went with them. They vote against the National Reconstruction Fund. They also voted against energy price relief to help manufacturers. Then they come in here and bemoan energy prices. When they had a chance to do something about it, they voted against it. The coalition doesn't have a plan on energy prices. They won't be able to stump up and deal with the challenges manufacturers face, but they want to pretend. They want to turn up with the cameras and the hi-vis gear to look like manufacturing but then do nothing but sellout manufacturing in the process. Nothing could be clearer, particularly with Queensland members of the LNP refusing to back Queenslanders building frontier technology in this country.

We are in a race in the world to build the first fault-tolerant quantum computer that can be used by industry to crack problems that current computing power can't crack. We had two Queenslanders who are recognised as global leaders step forward. There are countries way bigger than ours that are chasing this technology, and we, Australians, are in front to be able to do that. Queenslanders want to come back to Australia and build this thing that will supercharge our economy. This is in a heritage where we were one of the first countries in the world to build a digital computer, and we shipped it off and never manufactured it here, and that would have made a difference to our economy. We were approached by Intel, the maker of chips, who wanted to set up their fabrication here, and John Howard said, 'Not interested.' Wow, that decision aged well. And now, with PsiQuantum, formed by two Queenslanders, all we've had from those opposite, particularly Queensland LNP members, is criticism.

I get that you have a North Shore Sydney MP in Paul Fletcher, the member for Bradfield, criticising it. But I can't believe this line-up of Queensland LNP members who've chipped it. These are Queensland LNP members who refuse to back their own. They bag out Queenslanders who had to leave the country because, when they were in office, they didn't understand the importance of the technology. They want to come back to Australia and help our country be on the map to create high-paying jobs, build up research capability and strengthen our country's economy. It's unbelievable that the LNP from Queensland, who refused and criticised the deal to work with the Queensland government and invest in this, wouldn't. They were criticising us on the grounds of the way we worked, which is exactly the way they worked when they brought Moderna to Australia. They consulted and negotiated with Moderna while doing a call for an expression of interest in building mRNA manufacturing in this place. They criticised us, saying we backed PsiQuantum instead of local firms, and yet they chose Moderna over CSL, an Australian firm. They did that. And their investment in Silicon Quantum Computing was also delivered as a result of similar processes that delivered these decisions.

I mention this because frontier technology will mean a lot to future economic growth. It will position us in a way where we make the technology to build a stronger economy. Our Future Made in Australia plan is all about building up our capabilities, making more things here and creating good jobs. This is about avoiding the mistakes of the past. That side is about repeating them. We think we can do better.

Phillip Thompson (Herbert, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The future of Australia depends on a sound economic plan built upon free market principles that allow businesses to thrive and working individuals to get ahead. It depends on a plan that allows small businesses to have a fair go without being punished or pushed out of the market by government funded enterprises. It would allow Australians to keep more of what they earn, not deprive them of their hard-earned income. The Albanese Labor government's so-called Future Made in Australia Bill goes against all sound economic judgement and threatens to cripple the economy. This bill would overwhelm small businesses with more government intervention that will crush the private sector, and it will punish hardworking taxpayers by driving up the cost of living even further through reckless inflationary spending. Labor's Future Made in Australia Bill might be designed to score political points in the short-term, but it will cost Australians severely.

We've already witnessed the disastrous effects of Labor's economic policies on businesses around Australia. Since Labor came to office, 19,000 businesses have entered into insolvency—a record 25-year high. The number of businesses at risk of collapse has increased by 20 per cent since last year. Worker productivity has plummeted, economic growth has stalled, and the cost of doing business has skyrocketed. These hardships have reverberated around the country and are felt in regional towns like Townsville, where small businesses have been hit hard by rising energy bills, insurance costs and commercial rents. I can't visit a business in Townsville without the owner bringing up how much harder it is to make a decent living since the government has taken over. As their expenses mount, they have become less able to invest in growth and sustain job creation, creating a vicious cycle of economic uncertainty in the community. Labor's economic mismanagement has devastating implications on small businesses, and this new bill only promises to deepen this crisis.

This bill will also inflict more cost-of-living pressures on working individuals by unleashing inflationary spending on the economy. This comes at a time when Labor has already shown itself incapable of controlling the inflation caused by its own economic mismanagement. On Labor's watch, prices for working households have skyrocketed by 18 per cent. Workers are now paying 20 per cent more in income tax, and households are losing an average of 10 per cent in savings. The Prime Minister promised that mortgages would go down under his government. They've only gone up. We throw around numbers in this place every day, but behind every statistic is a real person experiencing real financial pain. Families are wondering how they can keep up with their mortgage payments which are rising by tens of thousands of dollars. Working individuals are struggling to keep their heads above water, digging into their savings and taking on extra jobs to make ends meet.

The results are clear. This Labor government has proven itself inept and untrustworthy when it comes to managing the economy of today, let alone the economy of the future. The fact is that Australia is the only G10 economy where core inflation has gone up since December. Labor has spent $315 billion in new spending since the election, with disastrous results for the Australian people. You'd think it would be time to re-evaluate the strategy, but instead Labor is pushing forward with the same plan: to ramp up more inflationary spending to a tune of $22.7 billion through this poorly drafted bill. It's Australian families, working individuals, who will pay for it. They'll be forced to shoulder the resulting tax burden and the cost-of-living pressures.

Regional Australians, in particular, are suffering from the economic failures of this government. Three-quarters of regional Australians, including people in Townsville, are saying that the skyrocketing cost of living is already their biggest concern. Forty-one per cent of regional Australians have said they are experiencing financial difficulties, according to the recent Mood of the Bush survey. A major manufacturing business in the electorate of Herbert wrote to me a few months ago, telling me that the cost of power has more than doubled. The owner said to me, 'Government policy is driving inflation,' and they are exactly right. Another local resident told me how their power bills have gone up by 37 per cent. They are age pensioners. It's not an increase they can afford. What's the government's solution to this national problem? It's not to solve the underlying supply issues in the electricity network. Labor's economic mismanagement has inflicted a real cost-of-living crisis on hardworking Australians, and Labor's Future Made in Australia Bill promises to take even more from them.

This bill expands the power of the government to pick and choose those who get to be winners in a government directed economy. This begs the question: if these industries are already commercially viable, why do they need to be bankrolled by the government? Under this scheme, the Treasurer will get to decide which businesses are worthy of investment. But the Treasurer has never owned or operated a business, and his bureaucrats already have a track record of suffocating the entrepreneurial spirit that has made our nation prosperous.

Meanwhile, through this bill, you can be sure the friends of Labor will receive a big slice of the cake. Labor is promising $22.7 billion to the so-called national interest sector but refuses to be transparent and specific about who stands to benefit. We've already seen Labor breaking their own rules to invest in pet projects, like Minister Husic's decision to bankroll PsiQuantum without any departmental consultation, bypassing the National Interest Framework. Likewise, the Treasury was not consulted about the decision to back solar manufacturing, which it later concluded was not a sound investment. Even when Labor has attempted to subsidise the mineral industry through its production credits for nickel factories, price pressures still spiralled out of control thanks to rising energy costs, increased taxes and overbearing workplace laws. If Labor has been unable to empower the industries of today, how can we expect it to advance the industries of tomorrow?

Economists across the board are already sounding the alarm that Labor's poorly designed Future Made in Australia Bill will do more harm than good. The Chair of the Productivity Commission, the government's key economic adviser, appointed by the Treasurer, has said, 'We risk creating a class of businesses that is reliant on government subsidies'. If we are supporting industries that don't have long-term competitive advantage, that can be an ongoing cost. A former chair of the Productivity Commission has said that the Future Made in Australia bill is a 'fool's errand' that will risk repeating the mistakes of the past by propping up 'political favourites'. It's not just the economists who are sceptical. Even Labor's union backers at the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union have been reported by the ABC as saying they don't want the Treasury to have a central role in Labor's economic plan because the Treasury has 'limited expertise'. So, while the Future Made in Australia Bill allows Labor to pick and choose who gets to benefit in a state commanded economy, small businesses and working individuals will ultimately be the biggest losers.

Australians deserve an economic policy that secures a future where small businesses can thrive and working individuals can prosper. The coalition will ensure that into the future, and we will do so by rejecting Labor's damaging policies and implementing sound economic principles that benefit all Australians. We won't revert to quick political stunts like handouts and empty slogans. We will advance a plan to get us back on track and back to basics.

We will start by reining in the crushing inflation that Labor has inflicted on the country through its reckless government spending. We will ensure affordable and reliable energy for businesses and households. We'll make Australia an attractive place to do business by cutting back the government intervention which is stifling entrepreneurship and suffocating the economy. We want to get out of the way of business, not in its way. We will allow small business to fairly compete without having to worry about market dominance by government funded corporations. We will champion critical industries such as mining, manufacturing and agriculture to be able to do business without overbearing regulation and red tape. We will promote healthy market competition, not the interests of lobbyists and the government's pet projects. We will ensure that every Australian has the ability to own a home and not be locked out of the housing market because of cost-of-living pressures. We will get back on track and back to basics. Labor might be scheming to solve the cost of living by throwing taxpayers' money around, but we will make it easier to do business, and we will lower taxes so hardworking Australians can keep more of what they earn. The Labor government's Future Made in Australia is a political stunt designed with the next election in mind, but our policies will be built upon sound economic principles that will set up this nation for success for generations.

Businesses around the country have been reaching out to local members saying how tough they're doing it. Just yesterday, I was stopped in the hallway by someone who was a big supporter of the government and the Labor Party and who told me that this bill will cripple them; this bill will not support them. How can this bill do what it claims to do, which is to make the future better in Australia, when it doesn't even look after the industries that we have here? I think that has reverberated around the country in all of our electorates. For that reason and many others, the coalition will not be supporting this bill.

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government believes that Australia's future should include Australian manufacturing, and we believe that Australia should shape its own future. I don't think either of those propositions is particularly surprising. I think those are propositions that would be broadly supported right across the Australian community. Australia should be a place that makes things. We have been in the past; we should be in the future. Australia should be a nation that can shape the way that we proceed into the 21st century, not have a different kind of future inflicted on us, not be at the mercy of inevitable change, and not miss out on opportunities or fall behind.

It is strange that those opposite say no to all of those things. It's strange that those opposite say no to Australian manufacturing and to Australia shaping its own future. They, in essence say no to the future. That's been a consistent theme of the opposition over the last two years. Their most consistent theme has been that they say no to everything. They certainly say no to Australian manufacturing. That's not a change in direction for the coalition, those opposite. In their nine years of government, they presided over the loss of 100,000 manufacturing jobs in Australia. They dared the Australian car industry to shut up shop and leave, and it did. They say no to Australian innovation and new business opportunities and jobs, and no to the investment that we need to sustain those things as part of how we move into and through a period of change. That would be disastrous for Australia. If Australia has ceased to have the capacity to make things and to take new opportunities to shape our future in the region in which we live, that would affect everyone's prosperity. It would affect households and businesses alike. Change is inevitable. Whether it's technological change, climate change, regional change or geopolitical change, change is inevitable. If we don't have the steady resolve to manage and embrace change, we will be left behind as the world moves on. We will see other countries succeed while we miss out. We'll find ourselves less prosperous, less secure and less sustainable.

This Future Made in Australia package—the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024—is something we were very clear about when we came into government. It is something that the minister and Prime Minister have worked on, and it has two sensible priorities. The first is the net zero transformation stream, and the second is the economic resilience and security stream. Each has a strong and commonsense logic. They are also obviously related.

The world is changing, as energy systems change and as we deal with the risk and threats and costs of climate change. The move to a low-carbon economy—a net zero economy—is essential for our wellbeing. Making sure that, in that part of the economic and social transition, Australia is properly supported is a vital responsibility of government. The idea that we would abandon that, the idea that we would let Australia be buffeted by the winds of change, by the choices and interests of other nations rather than take charge of that process is, frankly, ridiculous. Needless to say, our own economic resilience and security is vital, and it's interesting that the other side—the coalition that likes to beat its chest when it comes to matters of national security—seems to take no interest in the challenges of making sure that we are, in fact, securing future when it comes to energy and when it comes to a number of other parts of our lives.

We believe that Australia should control its own future and that the best way of doing that is to make sure that we step up into and take advantage of the energy transformation and the net zero transformation that countries around the world are rightly focused on—and that we have a good, hard look at what it really means to be economically resilient and to have our own sovereign and self sufficient capacity in a range of areas. The pandemic was a reminder of how important that is. It was a reminder that there are tendencies sometimes in the way that we operate economically, as part of a global market, that don't necessarily put resilience and sovereign self-sufficiency high enough up the priority list. If you move towards a just-in-time inventory approach, you will find yourselves fragile and vulnerable to supply shocks—and we're still dealing with some of those.

Australia has an enormous amount to look forward to and to benefit from in terms of being a leader when it comes to decarbonisation, renewable energy storage and energy efficiency, and as we reflect on those lessons of the pandemic and the challenging nature of our geostrategic circumstances we are compelled to make sure we shape our future, rather than having the future shape us. We're going to achieve that by focusing on areas where we do have a competitive advantage and a comparative advantage. The member for Herbert was somehow suggesting that that won't be the focus of this program and this bill and the things it enables—of course it will. But, as other countries have shown, if you think that those comparative and competitive advantages will just naturally lead to the kinds of transition that we need to see—which are complex, which need to be coordinated and which depend to some degree on investment that comes from outside Australia—if you think that those things will just happen by themselves, you are kidding yourself. I don't really know why those opposite would think that. They tried that approach for nine years, of literally taking their hands off the wheel and letting it spin round and round, and we saw what occurred. We saw that in our energy system—we literally had a decrease of one gigawatt of generation capacity during that period because there was no focus or no imperative coming from those opposite to make sure that this country had what it needed.

There's talk from those opposite about picking winners, as if they question whether our country has any winners, whether we have any advantages. You can't talk about the importance of comparative advantage and competitive advantage without at least being prepared to see that we have some. We're blessed to have the best renewable energy resources in the world. We're blessed with an incredible range of critical minerals, with innovative and entrepreneurial businesses, with talented scientists and researchers, and an energised, highly educated population that should be unleashed. That potential should be unleashed in order for us to achieve our potential, which is among other things to be a renewable energy superpower. Nobody should think other countries are taking a different approach. The great home of free market, entrepreneurialism and technological development—the United States—has not introduced the Inflation Reduction Act and a number of other measures just for fun. They've introduced those measures because they want to make sure that the United States is at the cutting edge of the energy transformation of the net zero economy, and they want to make sure that they don't see a further drift out of manufacturing in that country with the consequences that it has for their resilience and their self-sufficiency. So if the United States is looking at doing that—and, of course, many other countries, especially throughout the OECD—why would we think that the best approach is to follow what those opposite did for nine years and literally take our hands off the wheel and do nothing? We're not going to take that approach. We believe Australia deserves to shape its own future.

We know that our businesses and our workers and their representatives are ready to be part of that, but they expect leadership from the government. They expect the government to do its bit. They expect that of government and our incredibly high quality Public Service, which those opposite seem to come up to the dispatch box or stand in their seats every day to denigrate as some kind of pastime. All of those parts of what makes Australia distinctively well placed in this time of challenge should be applied to our best interests, and that's what we're going to do.

We're going to make sure our investments unlock private investment at scale. That's what has happened through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. I remember that, when I was first elected, one of the things of the then coalition government in the middle of 2016 was to once again try and get rid of the CEFC and ARENA, two things that the former Labor government established that have been enormously successful and have delivered a return to the Australian taxpayer while making sure that there is investment for the kind of change and innovation that every economy, including ours, needs.

We will achieve the change in the two streams I mentioned by applying community benefit principles. We want to promote safe and secure jobs. We want to deliver skills development and industrial capacity that is flexible and endures. The things that those opposite have put forward as their propositions for achieving a little bit of progress or momentum in these areas are almost the opposite of that. I've heard a number of speakers get up and say, 'Actually, what we need is to make sure'—they use tricky phrases like 'that wages are competitive' and 'that working conditions aren't unduly onerous or burdensome'. I think Australians see through that. They see through that kind of language. What the coalition is really saying is that they'd like to go back to their approach, which was stagnant or falling real wages and unfair working conditions. They say that that somehow is the one key dynamic element that will generate change. We don't see it that way. We're going to work towards the revitalisation of Australian manufacturing. We're going to make sure that Australia faces up to global challenges with optimism and energy and shapes them to our needs, but we're not going to do that by sacrificing the interests of the community, particularly the interests of workers.

I know that this is an approach very welcome in my community. I talked about comparative and competitive advantage. The truth is that the appetite for a future made in Australia, the energy and the entrepreneurialism exist right around our country and in businesses small, medium and large. What it asks for from people in this place is that we unlock and unleash that energy and that potential. In my electorate of Fremantle, we have one of two national shipbuilding precincts. I've got industrial precincts with an emphasis on the new energy economy, batteries, energy system innovation, the production of graphene, high-purity alumina and robotics—all of these things that Australia shouldn't keep telling itself that we can't be part of.

There are important national stories, but there can also be self-defeating stories. The idea that the era in which manufacturing did depend on relatively low-skilled labour, and quite a lot of it, has passed. We are not in that era and haven't been in that era for some time. If a country with the same population as Australia, 25-million-odd people, such as Taiwan, can go and be the leader in chip technology, why should Australia say to itself that all we can do is be a country that focuses on primary production and the earlier parts of the minerals and resources production process? We can do anything and everything. The moment that we acknowledge that—the moment that we actually make that an object of our national story—we begin to move down the path to making it real.

Those opposite, as I've said, are going to say no to this bill. That's not a surprise. I can't think that they've said yes to anything in the last two years. They say no to energy price relief, no to relief households and no to the responsible management of a budget that has delivered two surpluses after nine years in which there were eye-watering deficits as far as the eye can see, the tripling of the debt, the doubling of the debt before COVID occurred, unbelievable waste in programs like JobKeeper that blew $20 billion up against the wall on companies whose profits rose through the pandemic. There was every kind of bad governance that you could possibly imagine. Now that they're no longer sitting behind the wheel as it just spun aimlessly around, they say no to every single thing we do to try to clean up that mess, put Australia back on a sound budget position and guide Australia towards the future that Australians deserve: a high-quality future, an optimistic future, a future that does involve manufacturing, that does allow us to be a regional—in some cases, global—leader on the big challenges, on the net zero economy translation, on the energy transformation, on tackling climate change. That's what people want. That's what this government is delivering.

On the other side, it would be nice if one of these days the relentless negativity and the relentless hypocrisy made way for something else. I won't hold my breath. The Albanese Labor government is going to get on with guiding a future made in Australia.

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

I rise to speak in favour of the shadow Treasurer's second reading amendment and commend his contribution on behalf of the coalition on the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 to the House. As he articulated, we indeed do not support this legislation whatsoever. It is completely against the DNA of the Liberal Party and, frankly, where modern Australia has been heading for decades and decades. From the government, this is all about politics. From memory, we saw the Prime Minister announce this policy just after the Dunkley by-election up in Brisbane in a speech about a future made in Australia. Whilst we're only debating this legislation in this chamber right now, the government has already been out there picking their winners and selecting businesses that are going to get special treatment and the largesse of the government if this legislation passes through the parliament.

Of course, the principles of the Liberal Party are very simple and very clear when it comes to the management of our economy. We want government to be as small as it can be; we want taxes to be as low as they possibly can; we want everyone to be on a level, equal playing field; we want businesses to be encouraged to take risks, to put their capital on the line; we want capital to go where the market determines that it should go, where the best ideas and the best opportunities within our economy are; and we want those businesses to be paying the lowest possible tax to give them the best chance to succeed. We don't want businesses to be making different decisions than they otherwise would have made because a government policy skews them, skews where the money flows, skews the benefit in the economy from one particular industry to another particular industry, from one particular business to another particular business, from one type of activity in the economy to another type of activity in the economy. What we have in this bill is exactly that: attempts to dramatically interfere with the sensible, natural market forces; natural, merit based decision-making; and the success and failure of good and bad ideas in a free market, capitalist economy. In the coalition we will defend those principles very strongly, very bitterly at every opportunity we get. The opportunity before us today is to speak against this bill and to seek to defeat this bill.

Ever since the Second World War, there has been an international consensus that there is a need to have open economies and open markets and that doing so not only leads to economic prosperity but also stops wars from happening, because a lot of the tensions that led to many of the conflicts in the preceding centuries, particularly the First and Second World Wars, were about locked-up markets, an inability of different economies to trade with and access other economies, and those economies having no interlinking whatsoever, so that, when tensions and pressures got to a certain point, the only course taken was that of warfare and bloodshed. The consensus that emerged at the end of the Second World War, particularly learning from the mistakes of the Treaty of Versailles after the First World War, was that we needed to have an international framework of open markets and low tariffs and let economies trade with other economies, produce what they were good at producing, sell the surplus of that produce because they were the best at making it, and, equally, import products that were more competitive from other economies.

Australia has been a great beneficiary of those fundamental principles, because our economic prosperity and success, as a nation of nearly 27 million people, come from exporting our surplus product. We have a trade surplus, beyond question. It is not disputed that we earn more money selling to other countries than we spend buying product from other countries, and there are not a lot of countries that can say that. For us, that's because industries, particularly in the resources sector and the agricultural sector, produce an enormous surplus and sell that into other economies, and they have benefited from the fact that we have an international trading regime that has brought tariffs down in the decades since the GATT and, more recently, the WTO frameworks were put in place. People can invest with confidence in our competitive advantages in our own economy, and they can sell that surplus to great profit.

I am, frankly, concerned about what other countries are doing, which the government is citing as examples to be followed, because we're going backwards on the metric of open, free markets. Now we have a variety of economies around the world saying, 'Let's get back into subsidisation, protectionism, government interference and government intervention in economies.' It is a very dangerous path to go down. If we've learnt nothing from history about what that leads to, I deeply lament that, because we know where we will end up. For Australia in particular, which has a massive trade surplus, the consequence of our participating in and encouraging a return to dramatic protectionism and trade barriers is going to be a collapse in our standard of living in this country.

When the Treasurer handed down the budget, it became clearer and clearer that this policy is all about politics and the next election. The best example of that is that in the appropriation for this policy is a $45 million taxpayer advertising campaign. If this is a great set of policies and a great idea for the nation, why is it that the government has to spend $45 million on an advertising campaign to tell people that it's great? I might add that the key measures in this bill are not ones that involve consumers having to make any decisions or do anything at all. Why would you have to have a television ad in the middle of the AFL Grand Final talking about the Future Made in Australia when everything to do with this suite of policies involves industry and business decision-making? Why would anyone need to learn about that when they're watching the television after getting home from work? The only reason is that the government are using this to try and look like they have an economic agenda and a plan for the future of our economy. It is very regrettable that such a spectacular amount of taxpayer resources is being put on the line through this legislation, purely to try and concoct an argument and create the mirage that there is an economic agenda underpinning what this government is doing.

The facts and the reality are very much the reverse. Australians have never done it tougher. They have never found it more difficult to make the household budget ends meet, and people are making difficult decisions and sacrifices because their mortgages, rents and power bills are going up. That's not just happening to Australian families; it's happening to Australian businesses. This government has a policy to pick winners and dole out taxpayer funds to particular businesses. If you say to a business, 'We'd love to give you tens of millions of dollars,' they will take it. Of course they will. They will probably also agree to be at a press conference, put a hard hat and a high-vis vest on you, stand next to you and say, 'This is a fantastic policy for my business.' It's no surprise that the businesses getting millions of dollars through this program would say that it's a good thing.

People that are interested in the broader economy—like, I don't know, the Productivity Commission, helmed by someone appointed by this government; and senior, significant, respected economists—have a very different view. They have the same concerns that I've just outlined, about a government that is using taxpayer funds to pick winners, concoct press conferences and run television ads in the lead-up to an election. The consequence is that the money that is being spent on this program is coming out of the pockets of Australian families and off the P&L of Australian businesses. Every dollar, let alone the billions of dollars in this program, that is spent on picking winners means that taxes have to be higher for everyone else.

There are not many economists or economy-wide industry groups that will tell you that, as it is, it's easy to meet the high costs of doing business in this country. That's not just taxes. It includes taxes, but it's all the other inputs that businesses have to face: power bills, payroll taxes and local government charges. All the different costs of doing business are very significant in this country. If you wanted to help manufacturers, and you asked a fair spread of manufacturers what we could do to help them, they would say: 'Try and get our costs down. Help us get our costs down.' An individual manufacturing business might say, 'Yes, I'm more than happy to take tens of millions of dollars from you if you want to give it to me,' but, if you put all the businesses together, who are obviously not collectively getting tens of billions of dollars, they will say: 'Can you cut my power bill for me? Can you help get other input costs down?'

We're out there competing against economies with much lower electricity charges. I worked in a manufacturing business for a long time. We had one plant in Adelaide and a replica plant doing exactly the same thing in Suzhou, China. We were running the exact same business in two jurisdictions, and the input costs were the difference. As much as labour costs in other countries are, of course, always going to be lower than in Australia—and we're not seeking to dispute the excellent higher living standards and higher real wages in this country—power bills shouldn't be any more expensive in Australia than for our major competitors. When you're competing in manufacturing and your major input is your power bill, why don't we do something about getting power prices down in this country? The opposite is occurring. This bill, and the expenditure of billions of dollars on this 'picking winners' strategy to try and convince people in the lead-up to the election that there is an economic plan, pales into insignificance if there were an actual plan from this government to help get business costs down like electricity generation.

There are fundamental principles at stake here. I've talked about the position of the coalition. Obviously the government is bringing forward something that is against the DNA of our party. There is an opportunity for members in this chamber to reflect deeply on going down this path. What we're doing is supporting those that are already going down this path and encouraging our major competitors to do the same thing. This is us contributing to a global trend to re-protect and to put barriers and walls back around economies across the planet. Looking at the ABS statistics on trade: effectively, if you want to measure the impact on the Australian economy of that, just remove our trade surplus completely from our current GDP, and from the living standards that that currently supports for every single Australian.

I know the government don't want to bring back protectionism. I acknowledge the Hawke and Keating governments' work on recognising and understanding the benefit to Australia and our economy in getting rid of trade barriers rather than bringing them back. But once we get into the business of doling out big licks of taxpayer funds to the businesses that we like and that we want to help compete against other businesses, there will only be retaliation against that. We won't be the winners of that. The end of that cycle just means a reduction in global trade. As a nation of 27 million people, we are absolutely dependent on producing more in this country than we consume and selling the surplus to other nations to grow and expand our wealth. There was a consensus on those fundamental principles from both major parties thanks to the changes that Hawke and Keating achieved within their own party's attitudes to those things. Now we have a situation through this bill where one of the two major parties is reversing their position on the open markets, free trade and global competition that has a demonstrated record of success for the Australian economy. I urge the House to defeat this bill.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I applaud— (Quorum formed)I get to my feet very positively supporting the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024. It really is a wonderful statement providing a wonderful process by which this government will support Australian manufacturing, which I have to say is thriving in my electorate of Macarthur—which is, by population, the biggest electorate in the country. The many people who live in Macarthur need high-paying, well-qualified jobs, which are what this bill will promote.

We are very excitedly looking forward to the opening of Western Sydney Airport, which is just to the north of my electorate. It's actually in the electorate of Werriwa, which borders Macarthur. The Western Sydney Airport will be the most modern and most high-tech airport in Australia, and one of the best in the world. My eldest son is the lead engineer on the rail project that is delivering public transport to the airport, and I'm very excited about it, as are the many people in my electorate, who will have very high-tech, well-paying and very satisfying jobs in the businesses that are already springing up around it. It is a signature policy of the Albanese Labor government and I support it 100 per cent.

All I've heard from the other side is negativity, some very stilted views of Australian history, and no policies. They had a decade of watching our manufacturing industry decay. They'd previously allowed one of our biggest manufacturing industries, the motor vehicle industry, to leave Australia. They shut it down, and they had no view of the future. Unfortunately, 20 years later there is no difference. All we get from the opposition is negativity, no policy and no view of the future.

That's exactly right. They just want to dig things out of the ground, grow things on the land and export it. They don't understand the importance of manufacturing and sovereign capability in our country.

I'm the proud member for Macarthur and I've had the privilege to visit and see some of the incredible work of the over 650 manufacturing companies in my electorate. They range from construction manufacturing, defence industry and high-tech printing. In my electorate, we have the wonderful DECO group at Minto, which produces the non-flammable coatings that you see on buildings, which are really taking over from imported products. They can do wonderful powder coating, they do wood panelling and they do anything you want coated onto metal or other products for industries including the medical manufacturing industry, the construction industry, all different industries. DECO is led by the amazing Ross Doonan, who is a manufacturing engineer producing his own robotic equipment in Macarthur for his business, which is rapidly expanding. Interestingly, in an industry that is traditionally a high energy user, over 60 per cent of DECO's power is now renewable energy thanks to the renewable energy project Ross has done on his own factories. It is amazing to see and it gives me huge hope for the future.

There are a whole range of other businesses, like the Platt company, producing for the defence industry, and Noumi, the company that now produces different forms of milk—almond milk, soya milk, all those things—in a high-tech factory in Ingleburn which I've visited several times. I am impressed with the manufacturers of Macarthur. I really see the quality of the products being produced in Macarthur and I'm continuously impressed.

I'm not the only member of this House of course who can say they are proud that they know that there's Australian manufacturing in their electorate, and we are seeing this renaissance around the country supported by the government with policies like the Future Made in Australia Bill, as well as our commitment to renewable energy. As well as being chair of the Health, Aged Care and Sport Committee, I'm also on the Agriculture Committee and I've had the benefit of visiting many innovative industries in agriculture around the country that are using new technologies to produce food and other agricultural crops without the use of pesticides or the high use of fertilisers. That is all for export and all making the lives of Australians better.

Obviously my first and main interest is in the health industry, and I have seen some absolutely amazing things. One thing in particular, which I've seen several times, even though their present manufacturing hub is not in my electorate, is Cochlear. They have their manufacturing plant in Australia in the electorate of Bennelong, which is Jerome Laxale's electorate. When you visit their factory, you cannot help but be impressed by the quality of the workers and the quality of the things that they produce there with cochlear implants. Professor Graeme Clark, who developed the cochlear implant, grew up in my electorate of Macarthur. It is incredible to think that his vision and his foresight have led to a company like Cochlear. To visit their plant is amazing. They have other manufacturing plants around the world, but their highest quality and most modern technology is produced in the Australian plant in the electorate of Bennelong and is exported all over the world. It is just so impressive to see. They have a huge research group that is looking at further advances in things like bionic eyes and other high-tech medical developments. As an Australian I'm very proud of what they can do.

Another fantastic Australian medical company is ResMed. ResMed was developed through the efforts of Professor Colin Sullivan at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney. I knew him as a young resident and a medical student. Because of his developments in sleep and sleep technology, we now have another fantastic Australian company. ResMed produces in Sydney, but some of its products are also developed and produced in my electorate of Macarthur, particularly through the DECO Group. They are another fantastic Australian medical manufacturing company that this government is supporting. We'll continue to support innovative companies like this through the Future Made in Australia program. It's not about picking winners; it's about giving companies the ability to develop their products in Australia for Australian use and for export.

We learnt in the pandemic that, if we let our manufacturing industry continue to run down, we run the risk of not having products that we use every day in health and agriculture et cetera. So it is important that we have that sovereign manufacturing capability. Because we have lost the ability to manufacture many things in Australia, we've lost the ability to produce a lot of the pharmaceuticals which we are using every day. In my time as a medical student, Australia produced its own antibiotics. We no longer produce the really high-level antibiotics that we use in our hospitals; we rely on imports. We need to reverse that. There are already shortages that have developed over the last five years, and it is very important that we develop sovereign pharmaceutical manufacturing, and Future Made in Australia will help support that. It will give companies the confidence to invest.

That includes companies like Moderna, which is developing an RNA vaccine manufacturing plant in Melbourne. It is important that the government supports these things, not only for our sovereign manufacturing and the fact that we need these things in Australia but for the fact that we can now export overseas. Many international companies like Moderna are learning that, with the philosophy of this government and the policies this government is putting in place, they can invest in Australia confidently, knowing they have a government that will support their efforts not just to produce in Australia but to produce things for export all around the world. There are many examples of innovative companies which have changed the lives of many Australians and many people overseas. Our near neighbours are huge, with high populations, and they are going to want the high-tech products that our manufacturers can produce.

I am very optimistic about our future. I know that my children and my grandchildren will have positive futures because of government policies that encourage manufacturing in and exports from Australia. I have no hesitancy in standing here and speaking about the Future Made in Australia Bill, because that gives me confidence, not just for myself but for my children, my grandchildren and future generations. We are a country that is resilient. We have many inventors. Unfortunately, over decades, we've lost the ability to support them by manufacturing in Australia. We now have an opportunity to compete on a global scale in the global economy, particularly in things like our transition to net zero.

This bill steps out how we will put the discipline and the rigour established in the Future Made in Australia Bill into practice by expanding the roles of Export Finance Australia and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. I'm very excited about it. I'm very positive about this bill. We have a government that at last sponsors manufacturing and is doing its best to prepare Australia and future generations for a prosperous future.

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

I want to make a small contribution to the debate on the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and try and just outline, in the simplest terms I possibly can, why we will be opposing this bill. We hear those from the government come in and say that members of the coalition are opposing this because we don't believe in a future made in Australia. Well, that's simply not true.

I want to give, primarily, a shout-out to those manufacturers here in Australia who are doing amazing things for our country, providing the services and the products that we need and, in some cases, exporting them all around the world. I want to share with you some of the comments I hear when I talk to the Australian manufacturers about what we could do if we were to redeploy those $22.7 billion earmarked in this bill, the second largest budget item of this government's spending. I want to share with you what they would prefer to see happen instead of this bill.

Both sides of the House are equally committed to making sure that we have long-term manufacturing capability in this country, because it does give us sovereign capability and it does give us security into the future. Both sides of this House have an enthusiasm to make sure Australia can manufacture products into the future, but we have basically fundamental differences in the approach and how we should get there. Hopefully, at the end of this brief contribution, that will become clearer.

To start my contribution and to give you a sense of how those on this side of the House think: we predominantly think like businesspeople and manufacturers because, for all intents and purposes, those on this side of the House do come from a small-business or manufacturing background, did employ people and did make contributions to our nation. I myself, after my banking career in agri-finance, started a small transport express courier company. I had 14 depots around the state of Queensland and employed over 100 permanent staff and contractors, of which I'm very proud. The member for Leichhardt, behind me, was a prominent pastoralist in northern Australia. He had a crocodile farm, and his business was one of the first Australian businesses to start exporting crocodile skins to a little-known company called Louis Vuitton.

The stories of our comprehensive understanding of the needs of businesses and manufacturers in this country are endless on this side of the House because we are them. We are those businesses. There are exceptions on the other side of the House, where there are some who come from a small-business background, and to them I say, 'Hurrah!' But the vast majority of those on the other side are in this House as a result of a relationship that they have with the union movement. And there's nothing wrong with that; it's just a point of difference. But when we stand here and try to make a point around a future made in Australia, those listening should not believe for one minute that the coalition is not committed to a greater Australia and a greater manufacturing capability.

I take everyone's minds back to nearly half a century ago, to a small village then called Gladstone in Central Queensland—it's a port city. It was built predominantly by the Bjelke-Petersen era on the back of an emerging coal industry, where the government of the day borrowed money from the Japanese government to develop the mines in partnership with them and build a railway line. We can look at the mega-manufacturers—our aluminium capability, our powerhouse capability, our steel manufacturing—through that one postcode, and we can look at what fundamental settings needed to be in place for that community to strengthen and to grow and to prosper over many decades. Fundamentally, like any small business, the same as large business, we cannot—like the member for Sturt rightly pointed out—be in pursuance of low wages of international competitors such as China because we just cannot match that low-rate input cost. But there are other input costs, that in we can address in this room through our fiscal settings that will return that competitive pendulum back towards us on a global stage. Sadly, those are missing from within the contents of this bill—such as lowering our company tax rate.

Everyone in Australia remembers the commitment made on several occasions by this Prime Minister before the election: 'My word is my bond when it comes to the implementation of stage 3 tax cuts. My word is my bond.' It doesn't get any more concrete than that. But as soon as they got in, they crab-marched away from it. They had done a couple of polls. It's like a Robin Hood tale: they took money away from those who make these very contributions—the manufacturers and those on higher wages—and gave greater tax cuts similar to that of stage 1 and 2 to low- and middle-income people.

I'm just pointing out the differences in our tax policies. We seek in this nation to provide a lower tax competitive rate so we don't have our 108,000 manufacturers in this country seeking to move offshore. Why would you manufacture here in Australia, where this bill and government do nothing to reduce our company tax rate, when you could be going up to Singapore and paying around eight to 10 per cent, or any other jurisdiction where it's lower. In America at the moment, they're hungry for investment through their IRA investment footprint. Some economists have said that this is a very poor imitation of that policy, and it has been belittled and bemoaned by economists. I'd only be reading from my speaking points to enter that into HansardI'm sure they're already there.

We've heard those on the other side make the contribution about our Australian manufacturing that we hounded and dared the motor companies in Australia to leave the country. I just remind those in the chamber that, whilst I was a great supporter and still am of both Ford and Holden, at the time they exited the Australian motor market, they were respectively No. 13 and 11 on the top car sales in Australia. Those on the other side of the chamber would make the argument that we dared them to leave the country. Hockey, the then Treasurer, said that. We have those conversations about: 'Why aren't you doing more to support the car industry? What type of car were you driving?' The top five cars were either made in Japan in the country or Korea with the Hyundai Accent or the Mazda. The reality is that the Australian market had changed its appetite from the large six-cylinder vehicle to something more practical in Australia, and the large manufacturing companies failed to accommodate those changes.

This is going to be a failed bill. It'll get through the House, but whilst the intent is noble, wanting to secure a future made in Australia, it's fundamentally flawed because it picks winners over other winners—for example, within the green hydrogen space. Hydrogen is for all intents and purposes the vehicle that is going to fill the energy void between renewables as coal exits the market, but we don't know how much it's going to cost. Deputy Speaker Georganas, you'd be well aware of committees in this place that have travelled the country looking at green energy substitutes. Actually, no, we're on a different committee. Other committees have travelled the country looking at such. If this Future Made in Australia Bill was fair dinkum, it would have included all of the hydrogens—the grey hydrogen, the blue hydrogen and the pink hydrogen—rather than just the green hydrogen. When you look at the hydrogen industry in its complete state, you can pick the winners out of those, and then green hydrogen will float to the top. Without a doubt, it's the most expensive.

We're not prepared to inflict additional costs onto the Australian taxpayer that already exist as a result of the fiscal settings of this government. Under this government, there have been 12 progressive interest rate rises. For those with mortgages, the pressure on households lies squarely at the feet of the inept mismanagement of inflationary pressures. I'd also like to put into Hansard,since this government has come to office, the no less than 19,000 businesses that have ended in insolvency since Labor came to office. How is it that 19,000 businesses in Australia have entered into insolvency, the highest on record since the Australian Securities and Investments Commission began collecting data? It's because of the input costs that are being asked of businesses. When you transfer those input costs to those manufacturers here in Australia, they are all looking for cheaper energy.

So, as our coal mines, who provide the cheapest baseload power at the moment, look to access this Future Made in Australia Bill funding of $22.7 billion, they're precluded from doing so. It's that picking of winners—I'm not going to say pork-barrelling—that this bill has done that precludes the real essence of what we should be looking for in this country, and that is to give every Australian manufacturer the opportunity to access this, not just those friends that may share the same political ideologies of this government. If they were fair dinkum about a future made in Australia, they'd be sitting down with the manufacturing sector representatives of the 108,000 manufacturers here in Australia, and I sing their praise.

When I was the assistant minister for transport, PACCAR, at Bayswater in Victoria, were manufacturing Kenworths and assembling DAF trucks. They're little known to most Australians. I sing the praise of Mack and Volvo, manufacturing right here in Australia, at Wacol in Brisbane. Do you know how many government subsidies both of those companies put their hands up for? None. That's in contrast to the many billions we subsidise the car industry.

I say well done to the Australian manufacturers persisting in an environment where insolvency rates are through the roof. I say to you: the coalition is committed to reform. The coalition is committed to getting the government out of your way. The coalition government is committed to lower taxes and lower input costs to make Australia an attractive place to invest in and employ people. We cannot compete on low wages like our input partners out of China and other small countries, so we need a competitive difference, and that has to come through other line items on our expenditure balance sheet. But I acknowledge our manufacturers. I praise them. Continue to make a contribution to Australia, and hopefully at the next election, we will be back supporting you in the hardest way we can.

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

I rise today to speak in opposition to Labor's Future Made in Australia Bill 2024. There is nothing wrong with industry policy. The question before the House is whether the policy put forward by the Albanese government is good policy or bad policy, and I stand here today to assert that it is bad public policy. In fact, the Future Made in Australia Bill is a vile ruse. It's trickery, it's deceitful and it will not achieve what Labor purports it to be able to achieve. We always have to remember, when it comes to this Albanese government, not to take them at their word, because that word gets broken time and time again. Don't listen to what they say, but look at what they do. This bill reflects the depth of cynicism to which this government is prepared to go.

Let's take the very phrasing of 'Made in Australia'. This is a cynical misuse of a brand that has been built over decades on the part of Australia. Personally, I spent much of my 20-plus years in business in overseas markets ahead of coming to this place. I know firsthand how men and women of Australia have built the Made in Australia brand in international markets. They have sweated. Many of them have lost their shirt trying to get deals over the line, but what they always had was the pride in Made in Australia. Indeed, there are companies today who are going through the process with government so they can use the label Made in Australia on their own products. We have legislated in this very parliament how that must be done. Despite having that Made in Australia brand built over many years by team Australia—successive governments of all stripes, the private sector, the men and women of this country—the Albanese Labor government has decided to steal that brand for themselves. They are taking that brand from team Australia and giving it to team Labor in this belief that they will con the Australian people. It's a vile ruse. It's trickery. It is deceitful.

People might say, 'Yeah, but what's in the title?' The title goes to the heart, the cynicism of this government. If you look at the detail, you will see the Treasurer entered this parliament to table this law and made very grand comments about how any funding going from the federal government to a sector of the economy or to a project must 'apply to strict policy frameworks'. Gee, that sounds good. Think about that: 'strict policy frameworks'. It sounds even better when you go to what those frameworks are.

The first criteria in the National Interest Framework is:

Australian industry is expected to have a sustained comparative advantage in a net zero global economy …

So, in order for a sector of the economy to be prioritised to get government money, it has to have a sustained comparative advantage. That is criteria No. 1. It sounds good. Anyone who has studied economics understands that comparative advantage is one of those foundational principles. It's David Ricardo stuff from the early 1800s. So that's great—tick. Sounds good.

What has this government done? The first project it announces under this scheme is for $1 billion to manufacture solar panels. Think about that. Is there a problem with using solar energy? No. Is there a problem with solar panels? No. But, if this government were true to what its framework suggests, then it would have to be an area of comparative advantage. Australia does not have a comparative advantage in the manufacture of solar panels.

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

These are different solar panels.

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

I'll take the interjection from the minister at the table. He now thinks that Australia does things—what—relative to China and relative to the main producers around the world? There is no manufacturing. This is the problem with this government. Even the industry minister thinks that suddenly Australia actually has an opportunity cost advantage over China on solar panels. This is the cluelessness of this government, but I don't think it's cluelessness. I don't even give him the benefit of the doubt of not knowing what he's talking about. I actually think it's deceitful. I think it's all part of the vile ruse of the Labor Party.

Here they talk about comparative advantage of a nation, and their first announcement is actually about something that China has the full advantage in. Even this industry minister does not know that, or is he, like his colleagues, being deceitful because he knows Australia does not have a comparative advantage on the manufacturing of solar panels relative to other countries? That's what a comparative advantage is.

Why don't we go to quantum computing? That was their second announcement. Who are the beneficiaries of this? Is it really a company that is Australian, or is it an American one? It's an American one. So how about that? The first two announcements actually don't even go to Australia's comparative advantage, and the industry minister here, which I think is quite funny, actually thinks all of these are an advantage. I don't know; what's the third biggest advantage, Minister?

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

Quantum computing.

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

No, that was your second. He doesn't even have a third, so there you go.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! All remarks will be through the chair.

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

Members of parliament, this minister believes solar panels and quantum computing are our comparative advantage.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Fairfax will resume his seat. The member for Macarthur, on a point of order.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The shadow minister is somehow regaling the minister and other members of parliament, not addressing himself through the chair at all. It was quite hysterical. He surely is out of order.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Macarthur will resume his seat. I've raised that with the member for Fairfax—that all comments must be through this chair. I'll ask people on the other side to stop interjecting. This is the chamber; it's not a playground. The member for Fairfax has the call.

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

Through you, I refer to this minister, and I refer to all of the members on the other side of this parliament, the government, because this is a vile ruse, a deceit of the Australian people. Let's go to criteria No. 2 in their National Interest Framework. It says:

Public investment is needed for the sector to make a significant contribution to emissions reduction at an efficient cost.

That sounds good. Yet again, it sounds great. But don't listen to what they say; look at what they do.

It has since been confirmed that technologies recognised around the world and resources recognised around the world to reduce emissions, to achieve net zero, are excluded by this government, by this policy. So is CCS, carbon capture and storage, included? No, it's not. Ideologically, they disagree with it. Blue hydrogen? 'No, we don't want that either,' says the Albanese government, 'let alone uranium and nuclear technology. There's not a chance in the world.' This again contradicts their own National Interest Framework, which is why you have to look at what they do and not at what they say.

We also know that, once you look at the detail of the flow of money coming through this policy, there is $3.9 billion unaccounted for and it is not stated on what that will be spent. But here's what we do know: that nearly $4 billion will be used, or at least announced, over the next 12 months—in an election year. This is a cynical slush fund from the Albanese Labor government to try to set them up for an election. Here they are, coming in with all the motherhood statements of 'made in Australia'. This is made for the Labor Party. This is made for their election campaign. There is $3.9 billion. I invite any member of the Labor Party who is prepared to come into this House, including the minister at the table, to clarify what that $3.9 billion is going to be used for. But they will not say so, because it's a slush fund. This is not about team Australia. This is about team Labor and this is why it is cynical. It's a vile ruse. Don't listen to what they say. Look at what they do. It is typical Labor big government. They pick winners. But, when you have a bunch of losers trying to pick winners in the marketplace, it's the Australian people who will always pay. That's been the case to date with this Albanese government and it will continue to be the case if this so-called Future Made in Australia Bill passes this House.

What this really is is an attempt to mop up failure in policy. I would love an extension of time if the minister would allow me because I'd like to go through the failures in his policy. But let me focus on the policy for which I am shadow minister. That is climate change and energy. Such is the failure of this government that we have seen a tripling of insolvencies in the manufacturing sector since it came to office. The feedback from the manufacturing sector is that one of their key problems is the cost of energy. This government, including this minister and other members of Labor in this House, looked the Australian people in the eye and promised them a $275 reduction in household power bills. They promised $275 coming off household bills. Today there are areas of Australia where households are paying up to $1,000 more than what Labor had promised.

But the impact on business, especially on manufacturing, is far more long term because we have manufacturers closing down. We have major energy-intensive manufacturers looking to relocate to the likes of China and India. Is that a criticism of China and India? No. But why are they relocating? Energy prices are too high in Australia. Why are energy prices too high? It's a direct consequence of government policy. Why is government wanting to increase the cost of energy? Because it's coming from technologies they don't like, especially coal and gas. So work this one out. The policy settings of this government are all about reducing emissions, so they're bumping up the cost of energy, which is what is happening, and the companies that get stung go to China and India. In the manufacturing sector alone, emissions from those countries are three to four times what they are in Australia. So they are in fact making emissions worse globally through the policies they are introducing. That's before you even talk about the collapse of industry, the shedding of jobs and the fact that regional communities are becoming weaker and poorer as a direct consequence of this government.

What's the relevance here to the Future Made in Australia? The relevance is that the pork-barrelling which is going to be going on through this policy will be doubling down on those same failed energy policies. They know full well that the 82 per cent renewable target by 2030 is an unmitigated disaster. It won't be achieved. It's driving prices up. And industry knows that. The government knows that because industry tells them. So what's their solution? They double down on it and introduce the so-called Future Made in Australia Bill when, in truth, it is going to lead to the closure of industry. It would be more honestly rephrased as a 'future made in China'. That is the fact of this bill.

Can I again say, in closure: do not listen to what the Labor Party say; look at what they do. This policy is nothing but a vile ruse to help the Labor Party—certainly not 'team Australia'.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's hard to believe I left my office, where I was listening to former president Barack Obama make an inspiring speech about hope, to come in here to listen to a shadow minister make a less-than-inspiring speech, following many others from those opposite. They drive down hope. Speaker after speaker from that side, when speaking on this piece of legislation, is showing Australians what they are really about. They don't trust Australians. They don't believe Australians can do things. What they're demonstrating is that they don't believe Australians can make things. After 10 years in government, driving manufacturing out of our suburbs, out of our regions and out of our country, they come in here to criticise a piece of legislation—the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024—that is deliberately made to build hope in our suburbs and our regions—legislation about a future made in Australia and about the return of manufacturing.

I remember the dark days of the pandemic. I remember lots and lots of planning and talking about sovereign capability. There were lots of woeful moments where we realised that we were at the bottom of the supply chain and we couldn't get our hands on things that we needed in this country. I was listening yesterday to people on the other side who talked about increased costs of housing, without factoring into that the shortages of things that we need to build things in this country because we are at the bottom of the supply chain and, for decades, we have allowed ourselves to not build, create or make the things we need here to ensure we are safe in dangerous times.

This piece of legislation is about just that. It's about building hope. It's about building things. It's about Australia returning to a place of sovereign capability. It's about Australia returning to being a country that actually believes in its people and believes its people can innovate, can create and can make things here. For two days now, I've seen those opposite walk through the door and come in here, and I've listened to them making speeches about this legislation, and they need to understand that all I hear is their absolute lack of faith in the Australian population to do the things we need to do.

Unlike those opposite, we believe in Australians. We believe in our capacity to innovate. We believe in our capacity to get things done. We believe in our capacity to collaborate, most importantly. We believe in our capacity to collect around an idea and to make things happen, and that's what this legislation is about. It is about a plan for a future made in Australia. It is very simple. We want Australia to be a country that makes more things here because it will grow our economy and create good jobs. That's what drives us. It means we'll be a country standing on our own two feet and spreading opportunity. It means that we'll be making the most of what we have and making more things here. It means that we will be more than a farm and more than a quarry. As the member for Macarthur said earlier, those opposite are quite happy to dig things out of the ground, but they don't have the faith, the drive or the energy to believe we can value-add to those minerals and create new markets. We just heard from the member for Fairfax, who doesn't believe that we can compete.

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

Not with cheap energy, you can't.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He doesn't believe that we can compete on the international stage. He doesn't believe that we can do it.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Fairfax has had his go.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I heard him say it. It came out of his mouth. He doesn't believe that we have a competitive advantage, he doesn't believe in Australian ingenuity and he doesn't believe in Australian capacity. That's what I heard the member opposite say, and it's a litany of members opposite saying just that. Day in, day out this week, that's what we've heard. They don't believe in Australian ingenuity. They don't believe in our workforce's capacity. They do not believe that we can do things here. They believed that we needed to close down car manufacturing in this country. They believed we had to close it down, stood in this chamber and dared General Motors to leave, knowing full well that, if General Motors closed down in Australia, it would be the death of the car industry. They knew it. They knew full well what they were doing that day.

Honourable members interjecting—

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kennedy on a point of order?

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order: the member is misleading the House. It was Keating that took a 25 per cent reduction and started off—

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will resume his seat. The member for Lalor has the call, but, before I give the call to the member for Lalor, I warn everyone in this House. As I said earlier, this is not a playground. You're not to throw comments across the floor with your loud voices, disrupting the procedure. I ask you, for the benefit of this House, to calm down and keep it quiet. Everyone gets a go. If you want to speak, you put your name down on the list and you speak. The member for Lalor has the call.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Companies using Australian minerals to manufacture solar panels to put on our roofs are what this legislation is about. It's about researchers making breakthroughs in science that will lead to new medicines. Under Labor, we're generating 25 per cent more renewable energy and we've ticked off enough renewable projects to power three million homes. On this side of the chamber, we believe in Australian ingenuity, we believe in Australians' capacity to work together and, most importantly, we believe it is our duty to respond to the crisis of global warning and to be part of the solution. This is an opportunity for Australia. We're compelled to do it because it's the right thing to do; why wouldn't we grab that opportunity with both hands and drive manufacturing in this country? It will create opportunities in our regions and our suburbs, in our factories and our labs, in our TAFEs and our unis.

It is mind-boggling to listen to those opposite this week express a lack of faith in Australia's competitive capability. That lack of faith reflects what they truly believe about our country. What they truly believe about our country is that we're second rate. They believe we're second class. I don't. I believe this is the best country in the world. I believe in the capacity of Australians. I've spent my life working with young people in this country. I know what they're capable of; I taught them. I know them. They are capable of anything. I wish those opposite believed the same. I wish they believed that we were capable of leading the world as we have done time and time again. I wish that, when we celebrated the gold medals of our athletes, those opposite believed we could win gold medals in manufacturing, but they don't. They don't believe you can pick winners, because they don't believe we are winners. That's the bottom line and what I've learnt in the two days of this debate. That is what I've heard.

The Labor government is about creating opportunity in our regions, and I would think the member for Kennedy would want to talk about our regions and creating opportunities in our regions, because the member for Kennedy represents an incredibly large region in this country where ingenuity has been demonstrated for decades. We need a government prepared to step up and do its part, and this legislation is this government saying that that's exactly what we will do, that we will fund the apprenticeships, attract the investment to build the infrastructure, boost the industries and back the ideas of Australians.

In closing, I find it incredibly disappointing those opposite, from opposition, want to stand in the way of Australia moving forward. I know that that's echoed in the place I represent. They want to move forward. They want to be a place where manufacturing occurs. They want a better life for their children than you left them after a decade in office.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted. In accordance with standing order 43, the debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.