Andrew Gee (Calare, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 3, page 4 (after line 30), after subparagraph (c)(iv), insert:

(iva) securing and further developing domestic food processing and agriculture industries; and

(2) Clause 10, page 13 (after line 10), after subparagraph (3)(a)(iv), insert:

(iva) securing and further developing domestic food processing and agriculture industries; and

I have moved these amendments because I believe that this bill could be of much greater benefit to our nation, and, in particular, country Australia, if areas of priority were expanded to include food processing and agriculture. We saw during COVID how vulnerable nations were when their supply chains were cut and put at risk. Food security must be a key priority of our country, and food processing is one area in which Australia does have a very strong competitive advantage. We've heard about that, time and time again in this debate—competitive advantage. Our processing plants are in close proximity to our primary producers, and it's one area of our economy which requires strong support.

I mentioned in this House, on a previous occasion, the enormous food processing industries that are operating in the Central West, from Chiko Rolls at Bathurst and canola oil at Manildra to Tic Tacs and Nutella at Lithgow. Our area, in the Central West of New South Wales, is a powerhouse of food processing, and it is of concern to me that this sector has been inexplicably overlooked in this legislation. Food processing needs all the support it can get. Our manufacturers need all the support they can get. They're a huge employer in our area, and it really surprises me that food processing has not been identified as a key area of national priority and support. This package will deliver tens of billions of dollars, but none of it will go to ensuring that Australia has food security and the associated jobs that go with it. It's a glaring oversight of this bill.

Another glaring oversight of this bill is the lack of support for agriculture. The wealth of our nation has to be based on production. Australia has the best produce in the world. The food basket of our country is located in regional Australia and, in particular, in central western New South Wales, and it defies belief that the agriculture sector has not been identified as an area of priority for this bill. The gross value of agricultural production has increased by 51 per cent in the past 20 years to $94.3 billion in 2022-23, and, if you look back to the global financial crisis and the crisis brought on by the pandemic, you will see that one of the key sectors which carried us through was agriculture. It is a vital plank in the economic foundations of this country, and we must support it.

There are some exciting developments happening in agriculture, which I've previously outlined for this House and which the member for Kennedy enthusiastically endorsed, including initiatives that benefit both farmers and the environment, such as the conversion of atmospheric CO2 to soil carbon, which not only increases yield but allows farmers to make an extra dollar as well. So it's highly surprising that agriculture has not been a part of the conversation surrounding this bill. Our farmers and our food processors deserve much better, as do the supply chains that support them.

Food processing and agriculture need to be areas of priority for this bill and for the billions of dollars that it will deliver, and it will be very disappointing if these key amendments aren't supported. I'm reserving my position on the bill until I hear what the Treasurer has to say, but, if the answer is that maybe food processing and agriculture can be included sometime in the future, that would be very disappointing and would be a real shame. We need to pin the colours to the mast now and come out and emphatically back agriculture and food processing. Let's not wait. Let's not think about it. Let's back these amendments and get it done now.

To members of the Liberal and National parties, I would say to you: back these amendments. Tomorrow there are going to be farmers right here in Canberra from all over the country, so I ask you to stand up for them, stand up for our food processing industries and support these amendments. I urge all members of this place to stand up for agriculture and stand up for our food processors. I also urge all members of this House to stand up for the men and women who feed and clothe our nation and the world. I urge all members of this House to back these amendments and support agriculture and food processing in regional Australia.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Calare be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Clause 9, page 10 (after line 25), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) The Minister must, as soon as practicable, cause a copy of the report to be given to the Parliamentary Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.

(2) Clause 9, page 10 (line 27), omit "30", substitute "7".

(3) Clause 9, page 10 (line 29), omit "The Minister may", substitute "For the purposes of laying a copy of the report before a House as mentioned in subsection (2), the Minister may".

(4) Clause 14, page 15 (line 14), omit "The annual report", substitute "(1) The annual report".

(5) Clause 14, page 15 (after line 17), at the end of the clause, add:

(2) The report must include:

(a) the total amount of Future Made in Australia supports provided during the period; and

(b) for each of those supports, details of the following:

(i) the recipient of the support;

(ii) the purpose of the support;

(iii) the kind of support provided;

(iv) the amount of support provided;

(v) the amount of that support that was spent during the period.

I want to be clear. I support this bill's intention because I support measures to get to net zero emissions by 2050. We must focus on this goal if we are to have any hope at all of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change. The Future Made in Australia plan put forward by the government is an important pillar to reaching this goal by helping to unlock renewable energy resources and future-focused manufacturing. My community sent me here as their Independent to work towards strong action on climate change but they also sent me here to be a strong legislator, to be their champion for integrity in government decision-making and spending. While in principle I support the bill as a measure towards net zero, I have deep concerns about integrity when it comes to this program because we're talking about tens of billions of taxpayer dollars—$22.7 billion to be exact. In anyone's measure, that is an enormous amount of money.

Right now, the bill as drafted does not give the public a clear and timely line of sight on where their money is going. Instead, the government have only given a vague outline of how the money might be spent, and, when it comes to the fine print, the guardrails, the rigour, they say, 'That will come later; please trust us.' But without this fine print, without an oversight and transparency framework, there is a risk that money will be awarded to industries and companies without merit because of lobbying efforts, because it could win votes in certain electorates. With that concern comes an erosion of public confidence in the Future Made in Australia Bill itself. The government have not shown us they are putting integrity right up front when planning to spend this money.

In order to lead the nation through the momentous transformation to net zero, this government needs public trust above all else. And I'm not alone in raising these issues. The recent Senate inquiry into this bill uncovered the following from respected organisations and businesses. The Grattan Institute said that the bill doesn't currently have enough guardrails to prevent the risk of pork-barrelling. The Australian Chamber of Industry and Commerce specifically raised concerns about processes under the bill. They said there absolutely needs to be public confidence that the system is not being used for the wrong purposes.

The amendments I'm putting forward aim to address some of these concerns. They are simple and straightforward, yet they would give the public greater assurance about how their money is being spent. My amendments would, firstly, require the minister to give unredacted sector assessments to the parliamentary Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit so there is a fulsome parliamentary mechanism to ensure Future Made in Australia supports are given to sectors where it is appropriate to do so. Secondly, they would require sector assessments to be tabled in parliament within seven sitting days of the minister receiving that assessment. Currently the bill says '30 sitting days'. In practical terms this means that, if the minister were to receive a report on 2 December 2024, it would not be required to be tabled in this parliament until around 25 June 2025, some 127 business days after the minister has received it. In my view this is far too long for tabling a report in order to serve its transparency and accountability function.

Finally, my amendments would specify what should be included in a Future Made in Australia annual report. I acknowledge that the Treasurer intends to move a government amendment that goes to this point, and I'm grateful for that, but this amendment has less detail than my amendments. Again, it is not nearly enough to achieve its intended transparency objective. My amendment would require annual reports to specify the total amount of Future Made in Australia supports, the recipient of these supports, the purpose of the support, and the kind of support provided and the amount of support provided to and spent by that recipient. These transparency measures are missing from the government's proposed amendments.

As I said, these are simple amendments, and I thank the Treasurer and his office for engaging with me in the way that they have, but I must say I am disappointed that my amendments and those of my fellow crossbenchers, which all speak to this issue of transparency and accountability, have been responded to in a rather piecemeal fashion. If the Future Made in Australia plan is indeed going to seize the opportunities of the move to renewable energy, then the government has work to do to shore up taxpayer confidence and trust in its plans to spend $22.7 billion of the very same taxpayer money. I would argue that my amendments will help fix the holes in the government's current plan, and I urge the government to support my amendments.

Question negatived.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to this bill and the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024. I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (5), as circulated, together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1) Clause 3, page 4 (after line 28), after subparagraph (c)(iii), insert:

(iiia) supporting First Nations communities and traditional owners to participate in, and share in the benefits of, the transition to net zero; and

(2) Clause 8, page 10 (after line 22), at the end of subclause (6), add:

Note: The Commonwealth entities the Secretary may consult with for the purposes of paragraph (a) include (without limitation) the following:

(a) the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission;

(b) the Climate Change Authority;

(c) the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation;

(d) Infrastructure Australia;

(e) the Net Zero Economy Agency;

(f) the Productivity Commission.

(3) Clause 10, page 13 (after line 8), after subparagraph (3)(a)(iii), insert:

(iiia) supporting First Nations communities and traditional owners to participate in, and share in the benefits of, the transition to net zero; and

(4) Page 14 (after line 3), after clause 11, insert:

11A Reporting on provision of Future Made in Australia support

Reporting by Commonwealth entities

(1) The accountable authority of a Commonwealth entity must ensure that an annual report prepared under section 46 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 for a reporting period for the entity complies with subsection (3) of this section if the entity provides Future Made in Australia support (including on behalf of the Commonwealth) during the period.

Reporting by Commonwealth companies

(2) The directors of a Commonwealth company must ensure that the documents given to the responsible Minister under section 97 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 for a reporting period for the company include a report that complies with subsection (3) of this section if the company provides Future Made in Australia support during the period.

Content of report

(3) A report described in subsection (1) or (2) that relates to a Commonwealth entity or Commonwealth company must include:

(a) for each person to whom the entity or company provides or commits Future Made in Australia support during the reporting period:

(i) the name of the person; and

(ii) the amount of support provided or committed in the reporting period; and

(b) the amount of all Future Made in Australia support provided or committed by the entity or company in the reporting period.

Definitions

(4) The following expressions have the same meaning when used in this section as they have in the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013:

(a) accountable authority;

(b) director;

(c) reporting period.

Note: See also the definitions of Commonwealth entity and Commonwealth company in section 5 of this Act.

Application

(5) Subsections (1) and (2) apply in relation to a reporting period that ends on or after the commencement of this section.

(5) Clause 12, page 14 (line 19), omit "Section 11 does", substitute "Sections 11 and 11A do".

I want to very genuinely thank the members of the crossbench for the way that they have engaged with us on the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024. That engagement has taken a number of forms, but I know that it is well motivated and I know that we share with the crossbench the objective to make sure that the Future Made in Australia Bill's supporter regime is transparent and rigorous and delivers maximum benefit for our community.

I'm also grateful that a number of crossbench colleagues have noted that what we've tried to do with these five government amendments is pick up as many of the good suggestions put forward by members of the crossbench as we can. Where that has not been possible—for example, in relation to the member for Calare's contribution a moment ago—it's because we think that the objectives which the amendments are written to serve are already possible under the Future Made in Australia regime that we are seeking to legislate.

The five amendments from the government that are before the House are largely about three things. Firstly, they make projects supported by the Future Made in Australia even more transparent. The companies delivering the support will have to publish the value of that and list their beneficiaries each year. Secondly, the amendments will make the sector assessments more rigorous. They will put in legislation the recommendation for Treasury to consult expert bodies when making these assessments, and this will help Treasury consider what impact or benefit individual industries will have on our net zero transformation. Thirdly, they clarify the importance of First Nations Australians participating in and sharing the benefits of our transition to net zero, with an extra community benefit principle ensuring the benefits of projects on those communities are always properly considered. We're also proposing a minor amendment to the omnibus bill to ensure that the Australian Renewable Energy Agency is considered a public authority of the Commonwealth.

These bills are all about helping to make Australia a renewable energy superpower, making sure that it's Australians who benefit from our transition to net zero. Making our future here in Australia is about making the most of our nation's potential and making sure everyone shares in the benefits. This legislation will help us maximise the economic and industrial benefits of international move to net zero, and secure Australia's place at the forefront of the changing global economic and strategic landscape.

I thank the crossbench for working closely and collaboratively with us on the amendments and on these bills. Their thoughtful and creative suggestions will strengthen the Future Made in Australia legislation, and I move these amendments in lieu of their constructive proposals. These two bills together are a major step in implementing the Albanese Labor government's Future Made in Australia agenda to deliver our country's next generation of prosperity, and that's why I commend the bills to the House.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to briefly rise in support of several of the amendments moved by the government, particularly those which go to consultation transparency requirements. The government amendments indicate that Treasury will consult with the Productivity Commission and others when conducting sector assessments under the National Interest Framework. This is a positive step, and aligns with the amendments I put forward during the second reading debate, as well as those put forward by the member for Kooyong.

I recognise the government has legitimate reasons for retaining ownership of the sector assessment process within Treasury; however, I'm very glad that the government has acknowledged that the Productivity Commission has deep expertise and experience in conducting similar kinds of analyses. For instance, the PC's annual trade and assistance review covers much of the same ground as the sector assessments proposed in this bill, and the commission have established a robust and road-tested set of methodologies for looking at the consequences of different forms of government intervention. The commission will also, I believe, contribute a healthy degree of independence and scepticism to the process. Again, I note the comments that its chair, Danielle Wood, has made in relation to some of the announcements made regarding the Future Made in Australia legislation so far. The Productivity Commission are experts, and we would be foolish not to consider their views. Embedding consultation sends a strong signal of the robustness and independence of the sector assessment process, and should prevent a situation where this or any future government could bypass their feedback in favour of their own pet projects.

I thank the government and, particularly, the Treasurer and his staff for engagement on these issues, and for a very constructive set of amendments in relation to these areas.

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

I have a couple of questions for the Treasurer, if I may, in relation to the government's amendments. In regard to the duration of any support given under the Future Made in Australia legislation, how will these amendments ensure that funding recipients are competitive and self-sufficient in the market once support ends?

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Goldstein for her question and for her engagement. One of the key considerations, as the Treasury does this work independently for public release, will be to make sure that any public investment that is being proposed is not done instead of private investment or private viability but in addition to it. The considerations that the member mentioned in her question will be a part of the Treasury's considerations.

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

Further on the community development principles—through you, Deputy Speaker, to the Treasurer—as they stand currently, are they sufficient to ensure that women and girls are included in the implementation of FMIA supports? You'll recall, Treasurer, that I moved an amendment to this effect out of genuine concern about women and girls, particularly, being included in the renewable energy revolution. Are you confident that the legislation, as it stands, addresses this?

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To the member: I am. As a demonstration of our bona fides here, a big part of our skills agenda, for example, when it comes to the energy transformation, is a focus on women. When we say that we want communities to benefit from the additional investment that we will leverage in the net zero transformation, we don't mean 49 per cent of those communities; we mean everyone. We want to make sure that women are big beneficiaries of what we're proposing here. While I've got the microphone: we're also very grateful for the encouragement from the member for Goldstein when it comes to the First Nations community benefit principles.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, through you to the Treasurer: a great many people in the community would have been concerned to see that the government and the opposition voted against my amendment. To remind you, Treasurer, it was a very straightforward amendment. It was simply that it be explicitly excluded that this funding arrangement provide any funding for fossil fuel, carbon capture and storage, or nuclear projects. Although the government did not support my amendment, are you able to, here and now, put into the record of the parliament a categorical statement that no funding will be available for any fossil fuel, carbon capture and storage, or nuclear project or proposal?

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to the honourable member for his engagement and for his question. The way that we have tried to come at this issue that he has raised in good faith is that the explanatory memorandum now makes it clear that the independent sector assessments in the National Interest Framework will take into consideration the role the sector will play in the net zero transformation, including its direct emissions impact and its role in net zero supply chains. I assure the member that the Future Made in Australia legislation, and the policy more broadly that I announced from this dispatch box at budget time, is focused very firmly on the net zero transformation, on making Australia a renewable energy superpower and on tens of billions of dollars being invested in renewables and industries which are central to that transformation. I believe and the government believes that we can make ourselves indispensable to that global net zero transformation, and the legislation reflects that.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again through you, Deputy Speaker, to the Treasurer: am I right then in understanding that the government is open to funding being provided for, at least, gas projects?

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, that's not the intention of the $22.7 billion that we announced and the rigorous frameworks that we're seeking to legislate. The focus here is not on gas. The focus is on renewable hydrogen. It's about value-adding in critical minerals. It's about looking at sustainable aviation fuels, green metals and the industries that we have identified. We haven't said that gas is a priority when it comes to this investment we're seeking to legislate and impose rigour on.

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

Again through you, Deputy Speaker, to the Treasurer: can you confirm whether the government's agreement with PsiQuantum falls under the Future Made in Australia legislation? How does quantum computing contribute to national economic resilience at this time?

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the honourable member for Goldstein is aware, the PsiQuantum investment predates the regime that we're seeking to legislate here, but that doesn't mean that there has been an absence of rigour. There has been an abundance of rigour when it comes to that investment of $470 million—a combination of different kinds of investments—in PsiQuantum, and that's because quantum computing is an absolutely essential part of the future economy, and we want to make sure that Australia is part of that. As the honourable member rightly identifies in her question, there is an economic element to it but also an element around national security and resilience. In the future economy, quantum computing will play a very big role, and we want Australia to play a role in that as well.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that government amendments (1) to (5) be agreed to.

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

Proposed section 10(3) of the bill establishes so-called community benefit principles which a person or body deciding whether Future Made in Australia support should be provided must have regard to. Will the person or body be required to evidence how they have had regard to the principles? If yes, how will this be documented? If no, why not? Further, one of the so-called principles established in subclause (3) is:

(v) demonstrating transparency and compliance in relation to the management of tax affairs …

How exactly will the government demonstrate transparency, and how will this be measured? Will applicable metrics be established in the annual report? How will these metrics be decided? Will the minister have to report on the performance of the person or body against the metrics?

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lyons is not in his seat, first of all. Just to assist the member for Casey: we have moved past the detailed amendment stage, the time for back-and-forth questions. The question before the House is that the bill as amended be agreed to. Whilst there is no standing order preventing a member debating—

Order! We don't need commentary. We have gone through a series of detailed amendments, one by one, through the crossbench and now through the government. We've finished the detailed amendment stage. We just voted on the final stage of detailed amendments from the government. If there are extra detailed amendments, have they been circulated and have they been—

Member for Petrie, I understand where you're coming from. Just so you're clear: with consideration in detail, when the Treasurer is going back and forth and answering questions regarding detailed amendments, that is detailed amendments before the House. We've finished the detailed amendments. I don't think the member for Casey has detailed amendments; he has questions. Those are two different things, detailed amendments and questions. Where we're at in the stage of dealing with the bill is that we've agreed with all of the amendments. So the question now is that this bill as amended be agreed to.

Under the standing orders that can occur. There is no prohibition on that.

Member for Petrie, we're just going to handle this in a systematic way.

Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House is that the question be put.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill as amended be agreed to.