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

I move:

That the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024, the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Charges) Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 be referred to the Standing Committee on Economics for consideration and an advisory report by 2 December 2024.

For the benefit of all members, I want to explain the motion that I'm moving here. I'm moving this motion in accordance with standing order 143. This standing order provides for a motion concerning a bill to be referred to the Federation Chamber or to a committee to be put after the first reading, but before the question on the motion for the second reading is put—that is, before we conclude debate on the second reading. Clause (b) of this standing order allows for the motion to be moved without notice and allows for a bill to be referred to a committee for an advisory report. That is the simple objective of this motion: to seek the agreement of the House.

Let me be clear: the opposition will always work with the government in good faith to pass legislation. Last sitting, we saw this in practice. We supported the introduction of aged-care legislation and various migration amendments. In my position as shadow minister for climate change and energy I have supported government bills—recently, the Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Regulator bill, the GEMS bill.

It is notable that this bill has been wrapped within the government's broader Future Made in Australia plan, which, as we know, has more economic holes than a block of Swiss cheese.

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Which tends to have a lot of holes.

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

Swiss cheese does have a lot of holes; indeed, so too does their plan. It is a plan for more government, not for more business investment. The more we hear Labor talk about a future made in Australia, the more it simply does not stack up.

Australia requires strong economic management that gets our economy back on track by getting the basics right: affordable and reliable energy, flexible workplaces, less regulation, fewer market interventions and less red tape. Labor's policies on energy, industrial relations and tax are all making Australia a less attractive place to do business in. The facts are clear: insolvencies are up, productivity is down, and businesses are struggling to keep their doors open. Just last week, we saw a major energy company abandon its plan for green hydrogen—a key focus of this bill. We know this bill shows bias, prompting a renewables-only approach in contrast to similar schemes being established by the UK and the EU—a bias that will directly impact longstanding Australian companies. We on this side of the House know that the future made in Australia bumper sticker is more about spin and delivery, and therefore this bill should be scrutinised in detail. I make this point following the government's gagging of debate, in the last sitting of the parliament, during the consideration in detail phase of the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024.

The bill to which this motion I put today refers has implications for domestic industries. Referring this bill to the Standing Committee on Economics will allow for a detailed examination of its potential economic impact on various sectors, particularly manufacturing and energy-intensive industries, which may be hit with additional costs related to the Guarantee of Origin scheme. Through the imposition of any additional regulatory and certification costs on energy producers, this bill may lead to higher energy prices. This could hurt Australian households and businesses at a time when they have been gripped amidst a cost-of-living crisis.

Referring the bill for further scrutiny will allow for a proper assessment of potential energy price increases and their impact on consumers. As shadow minister for climate change and energy, I strongly believe a bill such as this should be closely aligned with economic policies, and thus the importance of the committee to which it is being referred. The importance of job creation and economic growth is included in some of those economic considerations. Labor has stood behind CSIRO estimates that an Australian clean hydrogen industry could create more than 8,000 jobs. How do these numbers stack up after recent withdrawals from green hydrogen by Fortescue and Origin? A referral can evaluate whether the bill would further support or hinder job creation in light of these changes in the marketplace and would suggest modifications that better serve our national interest.

As we know from other Future Made in Australia legislation, there are loopholes that create a pathway for foreign companies to extract economic benefits from Australia without adequately supporting domestic businesses. Referring the bill for further scrutiny will help to ensure it is focused on the genuine economic interests of the Australian people and the Australian economy. That's why I stand today to call on the House to refer this bill to the economics committee for an advisory report. As I mentioned earlier, the committee would operate as it would when undertaking an inquiry into any other issue of concern or interest. The committee would be free to convene public hearings and invite submissions. It could provide this House with an advisory report to help inform members as to the merits or otherwise of this bill. This would enhance the House's consideration of the bill and certainly not undermine it. Importantly, the work of this House committee would be entirely separate to whatever work the Senate is currently considering via its own processes. To anticipate an argument from those opposite about there being two concurrent inquiries into this bill being run, I say this: if the minister has nothing to hide in this legislation, then surely more scrutiny, not less, is a good thing.

There is an important consequence to passing this motion which I want to ensure is understood by members. Under standing order 144—and this is detailed further in practice—the House cannot proceed to the consideration in detail stage of debate until such a time as the committee has reported to the House. The opposition deems this necessary to ensure extensive economic assessment by all members in consultation with stakeholders. This should not be a controversial proposition. The opposition is not proposing to push this bill into the never-never. We are not running interference or seeking to block the government's legislative agenda. What we are doing is asking the government to work constructively with the opposition and all members to ensure that this bill is given the scrutiny it plainly deserves. This motion is, in itself, an acknowledgement of this fact. I hope those opposite will support what is a simple, straightforward request. If indeed the government has nothing to hide and is not afraid of scrutiny, then it would support this motion without hesitation. I commend this motion to the House.

Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion with great joy. It's a very sensible motion put forward by the very sensible member for Fairfax. We seek every opportunity to work with the government on sensible policy. We seek the opportunity to provide scrutiny to the government's agenda. That is our job as the opposition. It's a job that we take very seriously, and we do that in an open manner. We seek the opportunity only to do our job and provide scrutiny to the government's agenda.

I want to get to one point that very much supports this motion, which is the work of the committee and the value that it does provide across this parliament. The economics committee has been a veritable beacon of bipartisan cooperation by working very well together. Unfortunately, none of the members are present, so I'll have to praise them in their absence. But I will acknowledge very openly, as I have on many occasions, the stewardship of this committee by the member for Fraser, who has always been willing to allow a bipartisan approach to any discussions that we've had on that committee. The fruit of that work has been borne out multiple times. I refer particularly to the work we did in the inquiry into competition and productivity, where we heard from the small banks about the need for a regulatory grid to be brought into the Australian banking system, much as it has been in the UK. We heard that multiple times. Before we even got the report out—the primary recommendation of which was to implement a regulatory grid—to their credit, the government implemented a regulatory grid, and that is now part of how Australia operates. That came from Liberal members bringing it into that committee. It was discussed, it was debated, and it came through. This is an example of working together. This committee works.

I would also point out the work the committee has done raising the issue of capital and liquidity requirements that APRA have brought into question and seek to change. It is through the work of that committee that we've put pressure back onto APRA and called their overreach into question. This committee works. It is a good committee. I praise the members of it. I praise again the leadership of the member for Fraser and the work that he does. This is the right committee to send something like this to. These bills should be given full scrutiny, and I will repeat the point that the member for Fraser made. Why are we on this side of the House concerned about this? It's because we saw consideration in detail gagged for the Future Made in Australia Bill. Our ability to do our job, to hold the government of the day to account, was withdrawn from us. The Australian people lost out. The simple workings of democracy were denied the Australian people. We seek the opportunity to provide that scrutiny. We seek to do it through processes that are already in place, processes that are strong and proven.

There are a lot of questions that we would like to have answered. I would love for the committee to hear from the Chair of the Productivity Commission, Danielle Wood, to understand why she feels that 'We need to be very cautious when stepping into this space.' That was her comment on the Future Made in Australia Bill. I would like to understand what's behind that comment. I think it would be great to have that brought out—for those questions to be explored and to form a part of a report provided by this committee. I would like to hear from the CSIRO and understand whether the 8,000 jobs that it said would be provided by the green hydrogen industry still stand, when multiple organisations are running away as fast as they can from this. Do those 8,000 jobs now need to be publicly funded? Has that number declined, as we suspected it would? I would like to hear about that. I think that would form sensible scrutiny of these bills. I would like to hear from Fortescue and Origin to understand why they walked away from green hydrogen, why they are turning their backs on this. These are questions that would inform our deliberations, and this committee would be perfectly placed to deal with. I'd love to hear from the resources council. I'd love to understand what the impact of these bills will be on jobs and growth in our resources sector, and I'd like to hear about the capability of our resources sector to match these investments.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's sensible.

Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These are eminently sensible suggestions. It would impress even the member for Deakin how sensible these measures are. We have the opportunity to use the proven systems of this parliament to provide scrutiny to a bill that—let's be honest—has really struggled to find support in the media. Even that bastion of right-wing thought the ABC is happy to report on the 'vague and difficult to interpret' guidelines that make it very difficult to understand how this bill would be implemented. They report Australian Industry Group's chief executive, Innes Willox, questioning the community benefit principles that sit within this legislation and commenting that they may reduce policy certainty and increase investment risk: 'This runs'—a somewhat obvious statement here—'counter to the objective of increasing investment in targeted sectors.' Gee, that doesn't sound good. That's not a ringing endorsement. The media has not been behind this. And that's the ABC. I'm starting with the ABC. I could go to the Guardian if I felt like jumping too far to the left. The Sydney Morning Herald goes down much the same lines; Shane Wright refuses to give this legislation a green pass. No-one's happy about where this is going. It has not received support. For all of those reasons put together, this suite of bills deserves scrutiny. It deserves to be sent through to the economics committee.

On a final point, I'm old enough to remember the last election—maybe the member for Fairfax and the member for Deakin are as well—and there was a really important word ringing through the campaign, and that was 'integrity'. When you gag debate in consideration in detail, you are lacking in integrity as a government. This government is running at an integrity deficit. In good faith, we are offering an opportunity to recover that. Show the Australian people that you're not afraid of scrutiny. This is a bill that the minister himself describes as 'the biggest transformation since the industrial revolution'. That's from the minister's own press release. That sounds like something we should be having a good, hard look at. That sounds like something that does deserve an extra set of eyes going across it. Who better than the economics committee to do that?

In closing, I'm very happy to support this motion. It is very sensible. In choosing not to support this, the government would be walking away from scrutiny, going further and further into that integrity deficit. We are trying our hardest to offer the government a way out. I hope they take it.

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

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