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

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (11) on the sheet revised 15 August 2024, as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Preamble, page 2 (lines 16 to 17), omit "economic resilience and security", substitute "economic and climate change resilience and security in a net zero economy".

(2) Clause 3, page 4 (line 12), omit "economic resilience and security", substitute "economic and climate change resilience and security in a net zero economy".

(3) Clause 3, page 4 (line 33), at the end of the clause, add:

and; (d) to ensure that the National Interest Framework and Future Made in Australia support are consistent with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C and achieving net zero emissions by 2050.

(4) Clause 4, page 5 (lines 1 to 24), omit the clause, substitute:

4 Simplified outline of this Act

This Act establishes the National Interest Framework, a framework to:

The National Interest Framework consists of the net zero transformation stream and the economic and climate change resilience and security stream.

The Minister may, after consulting appropriate Ministers, direct the Secretary to conduct a sector assessment. A sector assessment is an assessment of a sector of the Australian economy conducted for the purpose of analysing the extent to which the sector aligns with the National Interest Framework in one of those streams, as well as opportunities to address barriers to private investment, in the national interest, in relation to the sector.

A person or body deciding whether certain support (known as Future Made in Australia support) should be provided by the Commonwealth, a Commonwealth entity or a Commonwealth company must have regard to the community benefit principles. Such support may include a grant, loan, indemnity, guarantee, warranty, investment of money or equity investment.

An applicant for, or recipient of, Future Made in Australia Support must have a Future Made in Australia plan in effect in the circumstances prescribed by rules made under this Act.

(5) Clause 7, pages 8 to 9 (lines 24 to 8), omit "economic resilience and security stream" (wherever occurring), substitute "economic and climate change resilience and security stream".

(6) Clause 7, page 9 (line 11), omit "economic resilience and security", substitute "economic and climate change resilience and security in a net zero economy".

(7) Clause 8, page 9 (line 27), omit "economic resilience and security", substitute "economic and climate change resilience and security in a net zero economy".

(8) Clause 8, page 9 (after line 30), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) A sector assessment must also:

(a) include analysis of the contribution by the sector to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and net zero transformation; and

(b) consider the direct emissions impacts of operations at scale by the sector; and

(c) consider the decarbonisation potential in global supply chains.

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

(iiia) ensuring that First Nations communities can participate in and benefit from Future Made in Australia support; and

(iiib) ensuring that recipients of Future Made in Australia support have the free, prior and informed consent of relevant First Nations communities; and

(10) Clause 10, page 13 (after line 13), at the end of paragraph (3)(a), add:

(vi) promoting the achievement of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, including by investing in the lowest emissions intensity operations and technologies available to the sector; and

(vii) considering and incorporating climate adaptation; and

(viii) requiring the use of best available energy efficient and low or zero emission technologies, materials and fuels; and

(11) Page 15 (after line 17), after clause 14, insert:

14A Information that must be made publicly available

(1) The Minister must cause the following information to be made publicly available:

(a) a copy of each annual report given to the Minister under section 14;

(b) details of application processes for Future Made in Australia support;

(c) details of Future Made in Australia support provided.

(2) Information made publicly available under subsection (1) must not include:

(a) confidential commercial information; or

(b) personal information (within the meaning of the Privacy Act 1988); or

(c) information the disclosure of which is prohibited by or under another law of the Commonwealth; or

(d) information that should not be disclosed because it would be against the public interest to do so.

This is important. Whilst I support this bill, it can go further and be much clearer. A future made in Australia is vital for our future. I do support the intent of this legislation, but we must be very clear about the detail. The world is decarbonising, with demand growing for commodities and products that will enable global decarbonisation. Australia, with its abundant natural resources and capacity for innovation, can capitalise on this demand and strengthen our economy through green exports. While the opportunities are great, the opportunity cost is even greater. By failing to seize this opportunity to develop green exports, the world will decarbonise, and demand for our traditional commodities of coal and gas will decline, undermining our economy. I acknowledge that. So we need to be very clear, when we say 'a future made in Australia', just how we are going to deliver the intention and the goal that is stated.

The policy is welcome, but it must be central to and the cornerstone of our economic policy for decades to come. It must be clear what it is aligned to, and that is a net zero world—clean energy, clean resources and clean technology. That is vital. We must play to our natural advantage, support both existing and new players and ensure funding is targeted and fiscally responsible to ensure a return on investment. It must also be focused on decarbonising our own domestic operations and enable global decarbonisation.

The amendments that I moved today focus on ensuring that decarbonisation remains the focus of this Future Made in Australia policy. The government has considered my amendments, and I thank the Treasurer and his team for the discussions that we've had in that respect. I believe part of one of my amendments will be offered up as part of a government amendment, which will address some concerns but not all of the concerns that I've expressed. I understand the government will adopt, in part, one of my amendments, which is in respect to First Nations communities and traditional owners being able to participate in and share the benefits of the net zero transition. This is important, and I welcome this move.

However, I understand they're not going to accept the amendments around making sure emissions reduction is at the core of a future made in Australia. They believe it's already implicit in this bill, but, as we see too often in this place, there is no such thing as being implicit in legislation. It must be explicit. Specifically, the amendments I've moved to the preamble and objects of this act make reference to the Paris Agreement in keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees of warming. We must ensure an investment of the scale of Future Made in Australia is in line with that commitment; it must be linked to that.

The current bill considers decarbonisation and the net zero economy considerations in only one stream, with the second stream referring to economic resilience and security. But you cannot have economic resilience and security unless you are operating in a net zero economy. Therefore, my amendments expressly state that support under this stream is for economic resilience, climate resilience and security within a net zero economy. These amendments will not only safeguard against the Future Made in Australia supporting fossil fuel projects, which absolutely should not happen, but also ensure that any support under the legislation, whether it be for medical manufacturing or defence manufacturing, is given to a project and business aligned with net zero goals.

My amendments also mean that sector assessments must take into account direct emissions and decarbonisation potential, recognising that some projects, such as critical minerals value-adding, may add to Australia's emissions but, ultimately, lead to a substantial net decrease in emissions over their life cycle through the decarbonisation that they will enable—for example, electric vehicles and batteries. We must integrate decarbonisation in every aspect of legislation, especially when we are talking about the substantial spending of public money.

I commend the amendments to the House.

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

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 7, page 9 (line 14), at the end of subclause (4), add:

; and (c) the circumstances set out in the rules apply in relation to the sector, such as to justify investment in the sector.

(2) Clause 8, page 9 (after line 30), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) A sector assessment must also consider each of the following matters:

(a) the impact of any relevant international trade agreements;

(b) current Australian stockpiles and supply of sector goods and resources;

(c) the need for Australia to maintain a diversity of resources.

(3) Clause 8, page 10 (lines 18 to 22), omit subclause (6), substitute:

(6) For the purposes of conducting a sector assessment, the Secretary:

(a) must consult with each of the following:

(i) the Productivity Commission;

(ii) the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation;

(iii) the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission;

(iv) Infrastructure Australia;

(v) the Climate Change Authority;

(vi) the Net Zero Economy Authority;

(vii) a person or entity specified in the rules; and

(b) may:

(i) consult with any other Commonwealth entity; or

(ii) arrange for any Commonwealth entity to provide assistance or support.

In this legislation, the Treasurer commits to improving government decision-making on significant public investments to help industry develop the technologies necessary to decarbonise our economy. It's true that we all want to be sure that the government will not sponsor businesses which will never be internationally competitive or will create long-term dependency on public support at a significant cost to the wider economy.

Within the next two decades, the world will stop buying fossil fuels and other countries will enforce carbon border adjustment mechanisms. If we're still then dependent on being a petrostate, we will tank economically. We have clear competitive advantages in our sun, our wind and our critical minerals. We have the ability to become a green energy superpower, exporting decarbonised and value added strategic metals and critical minerals which will simultaneously earn income for Australia and contribute to global decarbonisation.

Before we jump to subsidising new technologies in nascent industries, we have to identify those in which we have a demonstrable current or future competitive advantage and determine how best to support them, while minimising risks to the taxpayer. All industry assistance comes at a cost to those who are not supported. There's always an opportunity cost in subsidising manufacturing and industry. In recent decades, much of our manufacturing has gone offshore. Supply chains are affecting us every day. We have not been effective enough in diversifying supply, stockpiling, forging alternate arrangements and switching technologies to minimise supply chain disruptions. We need to determine where supply chain issues really do, genuinely, require local manufacturing and where other means might be more economical. We should also remember those areas in which we have a genuine sovereign risk and the potential to develop both a domestic surety and a significant export market.

In some ways, this act acts as an umbrella to better coordinate the suite of existing initiatives and funds aimed at the decarbonisation of our economy, but the means by which it will intersect and interact with other entities in this space, whether that be the Productivity Commission, CSIRO, ARENA, the CEFC or others, is not yet clear. To ensure value for money, any government assistance should be based on an independent, transparent and evidence based assessment of the risks and the potential benefits associated with each proposal. There should be tight criteria specifying the outcomes to be achieved and mandated performance monitoring against those specified outcomes. The secretary should be compelled to consult with the relevant authorities and entities undertaking those assessments. Only those entities meeting strict criteria for funding in the national interest should receive public support. We want to streamline assessments, minimise duplication and increase accountability.

Early indicators unfortunately have cast some doubt on the government's preparedness to adhere to these standards under this legislation. The government has already started to allocate funds under the scheme, and, in some cases, there are real questions around the integrity of the decision-making with those grant decisions. So the amendments I've moved today to this bill will increase clarity regarding sectoral assessments and the extent to which they will consider such questions as relevant to international trade agreements, current national stockpiles and resources and the need for diversification of our resources.

There is more to national resilience than spending. We can achieve and address supply chain security in ways other than insourcing. I move here an amendment to ensure that funding under the FMIA framework does not proceed unless all other alternatives have been exhausted. We deserve more transparency over fund allocation. This should include processes which don't include NDAs, closed ministerial diaries and redaction of FOIs, processes which involve open calls for tenders, not lobbying firms and negotiations facilitated by former Labor Party staffers, which don't waste the time, money and effort of other companies and which don't cause a loss of trust in government. The amendments I move here address those concerns, and I commend them to the House.

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

The question is the amendments moved by the member for Kooyong be agreed to.

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

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

(1) Clause 6, page 8 (after line 19), at the end of clause, add:

(6) If a sector assessment has previously been conducted for a sector and Future Made in Australia support has been provided in relation to the sector, the Minister must, by notifiable instrument, direct the Secretary to conduct a supplementary sector assessment for the sector at least once every 5 years.

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

11A Requirements before providing Future Made in Australia support

Future Made in Australia support must not be provided to a person in relation to a sector unless:

(a) a sector assessment for the sector is conducted in accordance with section 8; and

(b) the sector assessment report recommends that the support be provided.

I'm supportive of the intention of the Future Made in Australia Bill but, as I said in my second reading speech, in order for this to be successful we need to know that the right people are making the right decisions for the right reasons. The government has set out a framework for future investments, intended to provide reassurance that taxpayer money will be spent sensibly so we can prosper in a global net zero economy, but I have some concerns about whether this framework is strong enough to provide that reassurance, so I'll be supporting all amendments that increase the transparency and integrity of this framework, including the two amendments that I'm proposing here.

I recognise that the government needs to be nimble and respond to opportunities, but when making investment decisions under the Future Made in Australia, it will be investing our hard-earned dollars, so it needs to have a clear and direct mandate. If the government tells Australians that an investment is being made as part of the Future Made in Australia package, that should be shorthand for, 'We have undertaken a rigorous assessment and acted on the best advice available.' If any old investment can be shoehorned into this Future Made in Australia thing, it becomes a slush fund. It's always tempting for the government to have it both ways—to try to provide assurance about a rigorous process but maintain the discretion to ignore the process that it's putting in place. The amendments I'm proposing are designed to limit the government's ability to avoid using the processes that it's going to great pains to design.

One of the amendments I'm proposing makes it clear that, if support is labelled as being part of the government's Future Made in Australia package, it must be linked to a sector that has actually been assessed as part of the National Interest Framework. In other words, the government can't say, 'We've got this great rigorous sector assessment process, but we don't have to use it.' Currently the bill requires the government to identify sectors that align with the National Interest Framework and would benefit from government investment to address barriers to private investment, but there's no requirement for the government to only provide support in sectors that have been identified in this way. So the government can stick a Future Made in Australia label on anything it wants, even if it's not in a sector that's been assessed as being worthy of government investment.

Allowing government to use taxpayer funds for industry policy requires a leap of faith that the government will make good investment decisions. Unfortunately, governments don't have a great track record of making good investment decisions in situations of uncertainty. I recognise that, with the way other countries are responding to rapid economic transition towards decarbonisation, we do have to take some risks, but this amendment is designed to reduce that risk and prevent stupid things from getting through. If the government backs the process it has designed for sector assessments, it should be willing to commit to using it.

My other amendment recognises that this is a rapidly changing space. In setting industry policy, we need to be acting on the best and most current information we have about where the global opportunities lie. For example, certain critical minerals have a bright future now, based on promising developments in different battery technologies, but in a few years some may hit brick walls and others flourish. I recognise that good decisions made now on the best available information may not look like good decisions as technology changes.

As the bill is currently drafted, sector assessments are conducted on the direction of the minister within a period defined by the minister, and a report is delivered as required by the minister. The sector assessment then remains in operation without recourse to review. My amendment requires that sector assessments be reviewed every five years to ensure that they continue to be the appropriate areas of investment for Australian taxpayer dollars. While regular assessment may be part of the intention of the government, it's not explicitly required in the bill, which may result in one sector being available for investment long after that's appropriate.

I thank the Treasurer's office for his engagement on these amendments and acknowledge the work that he's done on their own amendments to improve the transparency of this bill. If the government is not going to accept these amendments, I'd appreciate any reassurance that the Treasurer is willing to give about the circumstances in which Future Made in Australia support could be granted to a sector that has not been assessed as needing public investment. If there are no examples of that then I urge the government to adopt these amendments to help taxpayers believe that their money will be well spent to build a resilient future economy.

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

The question before the House is that the amendments be agreed to.

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

I move the amendment circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 41, page 57 (after line 6), after subsection 24EA(1), insert:

(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the statement must include recommendations for any sanctions (including parliamentary sanctions) to be imposed on the respondent.

(2) Schedule 1, item 41, page 58 (after line 6), after subsection 24EB(1), insert:

(1A) If the Privileges Committee's decision is not consistent with any recommendations made by the decision-maker or review panel (see subsection 24EA(1A)), the report mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) must:

(a) be made in writing; and

(b) set out the reasons for not following those recommendations; and

(c) be tabled in the House at the time the Committee reports it decision.

The Future Made in Australia Bill is a welcome step in the right direction from the government, one which establishes strong foundations for world-leading Australian renewable energy, manufacturing and export industries. However, at present, there is a glaring loophole in the bill that needs closing—that is, that despite being touted as a game-changing investment in clean energy industries, jobs and exports, under this legislation there is no requirement for these investments to be clean and green. The Australian Conservation Foundation notes this in their submission to the Senate inquiry into the bill. I thank them for working with me to redraft this amendment which closes the loophole by ensuring that neither stream of the national interest framework can be used to invest in or support fossil fuel, nuclear power or carbon capture and storage.

My constituents in Tasmania and, indeed, millions of Australians right across the country, know we're running out of time to reduce emissions and mitigate the worst of the impacts of climate change. As I said before many times, the fossil fuel industry is rapidly strangling our planet and it is past time this government acted with urgency on the climate emergency. It is simply unconscionable that Australia is currently one of the largest exporters of fossil fuels in the world. In fact, we are currently third behind Russia and the United States. It seems all this government has done so far is double down, but most Australian know it makes neither environmental nor economic sense to continue to approve and invest in fossil fuel exploration, exploitation and infrastructure. Even the International Energy Agency tells us that oil, gas and coal demand is expected to peak this decade, which means fossil fuel projects are rapidly becoming stranded assets. At the same time, at COP-28 just last year, world leaders agreed to accelerate efforts towards net zero in a just, orderly and equitable way.

It has become all too clear that neither the climate crisis nor the economic reality leave room for continued misguided investments in fossil fuels. That's why my amendment ensures that they aren't eligible for support and investment under the Future Made in Australia framework. The same goes for carbon capture and storage. To be clear, I don't object to the technology in principle but do I hold concerns that, in its current state, it's unproven, and, in too many cases, it is used an expensive smoke screen to hide the continued extraction and burning of fossil fuels.

The last issue my amendment deals with is nuclear power. It's increasingly clear that when talking about a clean net zero future made in Australia, nuclear can't be a part of the solution. We have seen report after report saying nuclear is too slow and too costly to play any significant role in Australia's transition to net zero, not to mention the risks associated with waste management. No. Instead, we need to be prioritising our efforts and seizing on our natural advantages to ensure we don't throw good money after bad. I'm optimistic about these advantages and I'm optimistic about our ability to pull off a just transition and meet our net zero commitments.

Australians know there is so much opportunity for us in the energy transition because we're blessed with abundant clean energy resources and we have a highly skilled and educated workforce. In other words, we have what it takes to be a clean energy super power and to lead the world in this economic and environmental transition. The potential benefits for job creation and skills development, local communities and the environment are obvious to anyone paying attention. We in this place need to make sure it's set up and powered by renewable energy industries and not off the back of continued investment in climate-wrecking fossil fuels or greenwashed non-solutions such as nuclear and carbon capture and storage.

I would love to believe we can trust this and future governments not to use this legislation to prop up climate-damaging industries but I've been around long enough to know that trust in government is built on solid mechanisms of transparency and accountability. That's exactly what my amendment provides for, and I urge all members to support it.

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

The question before the House is: the amendment moved by the honourable member for Clark be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (9) together as circulated in my name:

(1) Clause 3, page 4 (line 24), omit "workforce participation", substitute "the participation of underrepresented groups, including women, in Australia's net zero workforces and economy of the future".

(2) Page 8 (after line 19), after clause 6, insert:

6A Sector assessments — Treasurer initiated

(1) The Treasurer may conduct a sector assessment.

(2) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) applies whether or not a sector assessment has previously been conducted for the sector under this section or under section 6.

(3) Clause 7, page 9 (after line 2), after paragraph (a), insert:

(aa) the sector contributes to reducing Australia's reliance on fossil fuel production, power or energy sources or contributes to reducing global reliance on fossil fuel production, power or energy sources; and

(4) Clause 8, page 9 (line 17), after "sector assessment", insert "conducted under section 6".

(5) Clause 8, page 9 (after line 30), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) A sector assessment must also:

(a) detail the intended objectives or outcomes of its recommendations for government investment in that sector, and include measurements of success to track a sector's progress towards achieving its objectives or outcomes; and

(b) review whether there are barriers to success that may impede a sector from achieving the objectives or outcomes mentioned in paragraph (d); and

(c) consider what types of Future Made in Australia supports are appropriate for the sector, including the duration of those supports, and how those supports contribute to overcoming the barriers identified in paragraph (e).

(6) Page 10 (after line 22), after clause 8, insert:

8A Conduct of sector assessments — Treasurer initiated

(1) A sector assessment conducted under section 6A must consider:

(a) such of the matters mentioned in paragraphs 8(1)(a) to (e) as the Treasurer considers relevant to the conduct of the assessment; and

(b) the objects of this Act.

(2) The Minister must not:

(a) give directions to the Treasurer in relation to a particular sector assessment; or

(b) seek to influence a particular sector assessment in any other way.

(3) For the purposes of conducting a sector assessment, the Treasurer may:

(a) consult with any Commonwealth entity; or

(b) arrange for any Commonwealth entity to provide assistance or support.

(7) Clause 9, page 10 (line 24), after "sector assessment", insert "under section 6".

(8) Page 11 (after line 9), after clause 9, insert:

9A Reporting on sector assessments — Treasurer initiated

(1) After conducting a sector assessment under section 6A, the Treasurer must prepare a report on the assessment and cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 30 sitting days of that House.

(2) The Treasurer may redact information from the report if the Treasurer is satisfied that:

(a) the information is personal information; or

(b) release of the information would, or could reasonably be expected to:

(i) divulge information that is confidential or commercially sensitive; or

(ii) cause damage to the security, defence or international relations of the Commonwealth; or

(iii) cause damage to relations between the Commonwealth and a State or Territory.

9B Delegation by the Treasurer

The Treasurer may, by writing, delegate any or all of the Treasurer's powers under this Act to:

(a) the Secretary of the Treasury Department; or

(b) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Treasury Department.

(9) Clause 10, page 13 (line 4), omit "workforce participation", substitute "the meaningful participation of women and underrepresented groups in Australia's net zero workforces".

I'd like to begin by welcoming the government's circulation of amendments to the Future Made in Australia Bill in response to concerns raised by myself and other members of the crossbench. The government's amendments represent some improvements to the integrity and robustness of this legislation and ensure it is future proofed from politicisation. First Nations communities must be included in the benefits of our transition to net zero, and a new community development principle is a small step forward to this end. No community development principle explicitly provides for the role of women, though, in Australia's future net zero economy workforce, as my amendment does, which I'll address in a moment. It is critical for government to consult widely if sector assessments are to be a genuine partnership between government and industry. Mandatory consultation is positive, and the government's second amendment, a requirement for just one consultation, goes some way to this but leaves more to be desired. And the government's third amendment, additional annual reporting requirements, is another step but, again, a small one.

Australians must have confidence in their public spending. This means robust financial reporting which details how supports intend to be implemented as well as the duration of those supports. My amendments therefore would address each of the issues addressed by the government in the amendments that they plan to table but go further towards a legislative package with integrity and robustness.

My first amendment proposes a new standalone community development principle to guide the implementation of FMIA supports towards the inclusion of women in our future net zero workforce, which is critical to our net zero transition. I'm concerned that the absence of such a principle to drive the participation of women in our net zero economy will leave 50 per cent of our population uninvolved and unempowered and create yet another high-vis male workforce.

My second amendment would empower the Department of the Treasury itself to initiate sector assessments. One need only look to the Productivity Commission—indeed, in the Treasurer's own portfolio—to a model which possesses an element of independence and protection against ministerial interference. The Productivity Commission, while taking direction for assessments by its minister, can determine areas of the economy to conduct research in, as it deems appropriate. I can't see anything in this bill to prevent a future minister from simply not directing the Department of the Treasury to conduct sector assessments at all should it not be in the political interests of the government of the day.

My third amendment would add an additional eligibility criteria to the net zero transformation stream to ensure that FMIA supports are committed only to projects which would substantially contribute to climate change mitigation and net zero. Projects that receive Commonwealth support must be able to substantiate precisely how they would implement this funding towards what should be the primary goal of this legislation—that is, net zero by 2050.

My fourth amendment addresses the vast gaps of accountability and financial reporting the Treasury and funding recipients would be expected to produce once the funding has been delivered. Treasury would be expected to detail the intended objectives that each of its recommendations in sector assessments would intend to achieve, including how success would be measured, review potential barriers to these objectives and, importantly, specify a duration for these supports. It is vital that the renewable industries which the legislation seeks to build are sustainable and able to be competitive in the market once their Future Made in Australia support has ceased. I commend these amendments to the House.

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

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

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

I move amendment (3) as circulated in my name:

(3) Page 12 (before line 4), before clause 10, insert:

9A Requirements before providing Future Made in Australia support

Future Made in Australia support must not be provided to a person in relation to a sector unless:

(a) a sector assessment for the sector is conducted in accordance with section 8; and

(b) the Minister has considered the sector assessment report and has recommended that support be provided for the sector.

There are clear reasons to be optimistic about Australia's economic opportunities for the global transition to net zero. Market failures in green industries, including a lack of a universal carbon price, the need to move faster in the transition, and spillover benefits of new technology, mean that there are clear reasons why government has a role to play. But it's fair to say that Australia has a mixed record when it comes to industrial policy, and stakeholders from across the political spectrum have raised a number of concerns about the government's proposal to date—about the risk of picking winners, about the degree of ministerial discretion and about how ill-defined phrases like 'economic security' could be used to justify every future minister's pet projects.

These are valid concerns. They don't mean that we should not act; they just mean that how we act is really important. We can't afford to make the mistakes of the past, where money was wasted on failing industries that never had a chance of standing on their own two feet. Instead we need to provide support where there are market failures and where Australia can have a sustainable competitive advantage, and we need a robust and transparent framework to guide these investments, with decisions made wherever possible at arm's length from government. This bill provides for some of that, and I welcome the government's amendments, which will go some way to addressing these concerns. However, there remains a concerning loophole in this legislation which I believe needs to be closed, and my amendment seeks to do this.

This bill creates a national interest framework and the sector assessment process which are intended to provide discipline and rigour around government spending under the Future Made in Australia. Sectors should not receive support until this process identifies a clear need for it. That is a good thing. But, whilst the government has lauded this new sector assessment process, you don't need to conduct a sector assessment before a sector can receive support under the Future Made in Australia. In the current legislation, the sector assessment process is essentially optional. This creates the potential for the framework to be bypassed by a future government and for taxpayer money to be invested in industries and pet projects without clear justification. This point has been highlighted by stakeholders as diverse as the BCA and the ACF—and by many parliamentarians during the second reading debate.

My amendment will help close this loophole. It will require that the sector assessment is conducted and that the results are considered by the minister before support for the sector can be made available under the Future Made in Australia. This is a commonsense amendment which strengthens the guardrails around government spending under this bill and is aligned with how the Treasurer has said the process is meant to work. It does not unnecessarily constrain government investing. It does not prevent the government from acting quickly. It does not create an unrealistic expectation that every sector which is assessed will get government support. It simply seeks to legislation the guardrails the government has already told us they want to follow. I therefore urge the government and the opposition to support it.

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

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

Milton Dick (Speaker) 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.