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

I have received a letter from the honourable the Manager of Opposition Business proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

This government's decision to give American company PsiQuantum almost one billion dollars of taxpayers money.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of member required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In April this year Australians learnt of a remarkable decision taken by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Industry and Science that Australian taxpayers would have almost $1 billion of their hard earned money tipped into an American company called PsiQuantum, which is supposedly going to build the world's first fault-tolerant error-corrected quantum computer in Brisbane. Since that time the opposition has sought to hold this extraordinary bet with public money up to the scrutiny that it deserves, and the government has trenchantly resisted that scrutiny at every stage.

Yesterday the government was forced to release documents following an order for the production of documents we initiated in the Senate. As the Australian Financial Review reported this morning, the Chief Scientist sent an email indicating she was highly sceptical about PsiQuantum's ability to deliver on its promise to build a world-leading supercomputer in Australia. The documents revealed in the order for the production of documents only add to the many questions raised by this very curious decision.

The Albanese Labor government has chosen to bet a very large amount of public money on one particular company, pursuing one particular technology path within the broad field of quantum, a field in which people working for 20 or 30 years cannot say with certainty which of the many paths being explored is likely to achieve a successful outcome. In any view it will be at least several years and very possibly longer before the technology being developed by PsiQuantum is proven to work—if it can be proven to do so at all.

We know that a very poor process was followed to get to this decision. The Albanese government agreed to assess an unsolicited proposal from PsiQuantum as early as November 2022. The Department of Industry, Science and Resources entered into a non-binding agreement with PsiQuantum in June 2023, yet the government points to an expression of interest process which commenced only in August 2023. It was an expression of interest process in which companies were invited to participate by one email only. There were no follow-up telephone calls and there was no second email. Those who were invited to participate were told they could not speak with Australian government officials. This was after PsiQuantum had been speaking for more than eight months with Australian government officials up to and including the minister, who had visited their premises in California and had met with them directly. We now know the terms of the expression of interest, because that is amongst what was revealed, which essentially ask respondents to match the promise made by PsiQuantum of building a fault-tolerant error-corrected quantum computer by 2030. Many in the sector are extremely sceptical that this can be done, but scepticism is not welcome in Minister Husic's regime.

We know that Minister Husic has a particular interest in venture capital firm Blackbird. In October 2022 he appointed Clare Birch of Blackbird to the National Quantum Advisory Committee. In December 2022 he appointed Kate Glazebrook of Blackbird to the Industry Innovation and Science Australia board. In May 2023 he launched the National Quantum Strategy with Nomad Atomics, a Blackbird funded company. On 30 April this year he announced the almost $1 billion in funding for PsiQuantum, a Blackbird funded company. Blackbird and the many other investors in this company of course greatly benefited. It is on the record that there is a close friendship between the minister's senior adviser Ellen Broad and Blackbird's Kate Glazebrook. I have written to the Auditor-General requesting that the Australian National Audit Office undertake an investigation into the Australian government's investment in PsiQuantum, and the Auditor-General has responded that a potential investigation is being considered.

This decision raises many questions, which is why I've called on the Auditor-General to investigate. Why was the much-trumpeted National Interest Framework, which we've heard about a lot, not used in arriving at this decision? When did the government reach its decision to make this investment? How did the government assess PsiQuantum's claims, including but not limited to PsiQuantum's technology being able to deliver at scale in the timeframe that PsiQuantum claimed. Let's remind Australians what the minister has promised. When this announcement was made, the minister said that this will 'bring us close to getting that fault-tolerant computer, which, by most assessments, is 2026-27'. So mark your calendars to see whether the minister's claim that we're going to get this technology and this fault-tolerant error-corrected computer by 2026-27 comes to fruition. When you speak to most people across the sector, there is deep scepticism that that is going to be achieved.

One of the obvious questions here is why this government, if it wanted to invest money in quantum—let's be clear, quantum is an important field. There's been bipartisanship support for quantum and consistent funding of quantum under both sides of politics. But, curiously, quantum companies other than PsiQuantum, such as Australian companies Silicon Quantum Computing from UNSW, Diraq from UNSW, Quantum Brilliance from the Australian National University and Q-CTRL from the University of Sydney, were told by this government that there was no money for quantum. They were directed to the National Reconstruction Fund, which of course has not yet put out $1, and they were told there was no program under which funding could be provided.

If this government was going to fund quantum at this massive scale, why did it not decide to establish and announce a program to fund investments in quantum companies with publicly announced guidelines, and why did it not invite any interested company to put forward an application to be assessed against the guidelines? Why was that good process not followed? Why did government officials advise companies other than PsiQuantum prior to the expression of interest that there was no dedicated funding available for Australian companies? Why did the government have such extensive engagement with PsiQuantum prior to the EOI process? Why was this American company in the fast lane for engagement with this minister? Why was that opportunity not given to any Australian company? Why was the expression of interest conducted through the sending of a single email with no follow-up by the department to even ascertain whether the recipients of the email had seen it and opened it? Why were the companies which participated in the expression-of-interest process not given the same opportunities as PsiQuantum for direct engagement and discussion with Australian government officials and representatives up to and including the Minister for Industry and Science? Why were the companies which participated in the expression-of-interest process specifically directed, as a term of participating, that they could not directly approach nor speak with Australian government officials? Was the negative impact on Australian based quantum companies considered when the decision was taken to allocate funding to this American company?

It is clear that the message that the Australian government is sending to international investors is that, having assessed a range of companies, it's chosen not to invest in Australian based companies, and that is a very curious decision to have taken which is making it more difficult for Australian companies to go to the private market and secure funding.

Why was such weighting given to the requirement in the expression of interest to deliver the quantum computer at the earliest possible time, rather than considering a weighted assessment of factors like the amount of production in Australia, the likelihood of the technology being approved and other relevant factors? Isn't it the case that, when you look at the expression of interest—which a number of those who participated are reported to have expressed their concerns about—it was written with a view to giving the money to PsiQuantum because the decision had already been taken?

This was nothing but a reverse engineered sham in which a minister who had been dazzled by the particular technology promises of one particular company took a decision that money was going to be spent and directed his department to reverse engineer a process to try and construct some kind of veneer of respectability. A deputy secretary who advised against this subsequently left the department after being on gardening leave for a considerable period of time. Export Finance Australia was directed to commence work on providing the funding even before the expression of interest had concluded. This was nothing but a sham, and, as a consequence, Australian taxpayers have got almost a billion dollars of their money put at risk in what is a remarkably speculative venture.

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

One hundred and sixty-four days after this was announced, we finally get an MPI out of the member for Bradfield on this issue. We had about 50 FOIs, the bulk of them from the member for Bradfield; no questions in question time; no MPIs; and, on this final day, they've decided to put an MPI on and the member for Bradfield can't even sit in here to hear the response. This is a classic case of asking all the questions and not listening to the answers—refusing to do so.

I really would love it, I would absolutely love it, if there was a member of the coalition that could prise that conspiracy tinfoil hat off the member for Bradfield, because, I've got to tell you, it is clouding his perspective. He keeps trying to retrofit smoke into a gun that never fired a bullet. He used his whole moment here to make a series of allegations, none of which could stack up. But the worst thing, friends, is that there are conventions in this place, and there are red lines. One in particular is that you don't go after the people that work for us. And yet nothing stops the member for Bradfield, in a grubby, smear-laden claim, suggesting that members of my team had done something inappropriate—people that I regard as having the highest integrity and character that I've ever had the opportunity to work with. Yet the member for Bradfield will do it.

If that's what the opposition are saying now—'the people who work for them are in the firing line'—they should just say it. But, I tell you what, the way the member for Bradfield has conducted himself is a poor reflection on him, because I know it's not the standard by which a lot of those opposite operate. It was a desperate attempt to smear people and find something that doesn't exist in terms of what we are trying to do.

What we are trying to do is very important. We're investing in one of the most powerful computers on the planet, which is to be based in this country, will be able to be used to benefit our economic and national security and will create a lot of important jobs in Brisbane. This is a company—and bear this in mind—that was set up by two Queenslanders, trained in Queensland, who left this country because, frankly, the coalition never backed these type of firms under their term. If they did back these companies, the coalition gave them small amounts of money. What is ignored in this debate is that the coalition funded Silicon Quantum Computing by Michelle Simmons. We welcome that commitment, and we as well backed it in our budgets when coming into government. We have backed the development of quantum strategies through the National Quantum Strategy that was released by us and has never been done before. We have set up a $1 billion critical technology fund in the National Reconstruction Fund and put that money there. We also went through a complex legal, technical, commercial probity process to make the decision about the investment of—let's get it right, please—$500 million out of the Commonwealth matched by $500 million out of the Queensland government. Roughly half of that is a loan that gets repaid, and half is an equity investment which will make double digit returns for the Commonwealth.

I get that the Liberal Party doesn't understand the whole notion of investing in companies, because anything the Commonwealth does under the coalition gets sold off. But we're actually trying to build something here that is important for the economic and national security of the country. That process is not about one person. It's not about being able to have a minister or prime minister make the decision. It goes through an expenditure review committee, the National Security Committee and cabinet processes. It's not the decision of one; it's the decision of many based on the work of the public service, done in ways that broadly align with the way they have made decisions. For example, when they made the investment in Silicon Quantum Computing, they also brought together departmental officials, just like we did, to make the investment. The coalition made an investment in Moderna of $2 billion to set up mRNA manufacturing. The only thing I criticised was how long it was taking, in the middle of a pandemic, to secure that capability. The coalition conducted a process where they put $2 billion in. And by the way, since you're suddenly big supporters of Australian industry, why didn't you back CSL, an Australian firm, to do that in Victoria? They never did that, and they never talk about it. While we're at it—because we've had the smear put on us saying that Labor lobbyists influenced this—the lead negotiator on the Moderna deal just happened to donate $20,000 to the Liberal Party after he did the deal. You never talk about that, but you're quite happy to smear people. We have gone through a process to make sure that the decision is made properly.

Also, I've got to tell you, I am absolutely loving the member for Bradfield talking to us about proper process. This is a Morrison government minister that signed off on a Leppington land deal that cost the Commonwealth 10 times more than it needed to for land that, by the way, happened to be owned by Liberal Party donors. And this is a person telling us about probity, integrity and proper process after we subjected this to a lengthy process that also involved the Chief Scientist. This is just how cute and sneaky the member for Bradfield is! He quotes the Chief Scientist from the Financial Review today. But he doesn't mention that the Chief Scientist did actually go on a process of starting with scepticism but, through her own analysis—doing what a Chief Scientist does, which is analyse, assess, check the facts and make a decision with other people—then said this deal was our 'Taiwan moment'. This was our moment to build capability that would be important for long-term economic and industrial capability. The member for Bradfield didn't quote that today. He just quoted the bits that suited him. I'm quite happy to acknowledge the Chief Scientist was sceptical, but I'm happy also to acknowledge that all those folks, at arm's length from government, make their own calls and make the advice accordingly, and that's how we act. The problem with the Liberal Party in particular is that they believe that everyone works like them. This government does not. We don't do the coalition 'donate now, decide later' approach in the way that they make decisions on public policy. We make it on the basis that people give the advice as to whether or not things stack up and whether or not those decisions should be made. We do not act in the way that the Liberal Party or the coalition do in the way that they make their calls.

The amount of hypocrisy in the way in which this has been approached over time has been completely staggering. Despite all efforts from the member for Bradfield to, as I say, retrofit smoke into a gun that never fired a bullet in the first place, he has never been able to come up with why this has been bad and why this has been wrong. There are a whole series of questions. For instance, he made a reference to the Australian National Audit Office, which I have said we would welcome if they make that decision. We're quite happy for that level of transparency; we've said that.

What did the member for Bradfield do when the ANAO didn't respond? He decided that he would come into parliament and call for a parliamentary committee. He hasn't brought that on yet, but we will be more than happy for the ANAO to assess that deal—and to take on board quotes from people like Andrew Horsley, who was awarded one of the PM's prizes for innovation this week. He set up Quantum Brilliance, one of the firms quoted by the member for Bradfield today. Dr Horsley said:

You need these billion-dollar scale investments to help build the critical mass. There's a whole supply chain and set of infrastructure around any activity here that needs to be built up.

That's what people in the sector are saying. People in the sector are also receiving record amounts of investment interest that they didn't have before, as a result of the spotlight that's been put on our capability.

In closing, we are doing this because we believe that our economy should be strong, modern and future facing. We need to invest in capability and to not be vulnerable to dependencies on others. We want to be the global frontrunners in this race. It's important for the country, long term, and it absolutely is vital for our economic and national interests. We will not play games the way that those opposite do when it comes to these types of vital investments. However, all you will see is smear, innuendo, a failure to back up their claims and conspiracy theories galore from those who, when they had the chance to make these investments, ignored them and didn't back them. They also bag out Queenslanders and always claim it's an American company, when it's Australians that made this firm what it was. (Time expired)

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

I appreciate the opportunity to contribute on this very important topic. In doing so, I recall that it was about six months ago when the Prime Minister gave that speech—which I think was up in Brisbane—outlining the great vision he had for his policy, A Future Made in Australia. It was on the eve of the budget and, in the theatre of politics, all part of building great momentum around the purported concept that this government had some exciting new agenda to invest in and to develop capability for Australian manufacturing. As my good friend the member for Casey—who might be angry with me for stealing a line he's about to use again, but I credit him—has said, quite cleverly, the first thing that they did under the Future Made in Australia was to invest in the future made in America, and to make a decision to put a billion dollars into this American company, with the—obviously—lost opportunity of enormous investment, were that same investment going into local firms and local Australian businesses in the same sector.

On the way up to that speech, I think he made the solar panel announcement which we might remember—that's been really successful in Newcastle—and the PsiQuantum computing decision that I hear might be being looked at by the Auditor-General. We're very pleased to hear that. I'm pleased that the minister has given his permission for the Auditor-General to have a look at it! It's good of him to do something that's absolutely irrelevant to him whatsoever, because the Auditor-General doesn't need to know that the minister would welcome having this looked at or that the minister is happy for that to happen. The Auditor-General will look at what the Auditor-General chooses to look at. As the member for Bradfield has articulated to the chamber, there are very significant grounds which we hope will justify the Auditor-General making the decision to have a look at this. If the minister says he's got nothing to fear, so be it. We don't really care whether he does or doesn't support or give his permission for the Auditor-General to look at this matter, because hopefully the Auditor-General does look at this matter. Hopefully, other integrity bodies are looking very closely at what has happened in this deal.

As I said, when I heard the Prime Minister's announcement back in April, or it might have been May, about Future Made in Australia, I had assumed that the announcements that were being made, like the great solar panel one and the PsiQuantum American billion dollar investment one, were actually part of a new policy position that he was announcing and that was going to be in the budget. What we have found out since the announcement is that quite a stark and concerning set of circumstances led to a billion-dollar decision being made in this way, as the member for Bradfield has pointed out. It seems to be very clear that this was a captain's pick. This was a political decision and one that maybe they thought would garner them a bit more significant successful political coverage than it has turned out to, but this always happens when you do the dodgy. Then they reengineered the process to try and make the decision stack up and seem logical and robust after it was made.

It's completely against the principles of what a Future Made in Australia purported to be. It's not about investing in Australian capability and Australian businesses. It's not about having a merit based process where a whole range of people are given the opportunity to bid for taxpayer funds and to compete with each other and having the most meritorious option of government support being chosen. This was an unsolicited process. There was a lot of murkiness, which the member for Bradfield has pointed out, around the links between different people associated with that approach to government to people in government—good things for the Auditor-General and maybe other integrity bodies to have a look at, I might add, about how this decision was made.

Instead of the great businesses of Australia, particularly the great technology businesses, looking upon this overarching faux 'made in Australia' policy position and agenda of the government and thinking, 'This is something that we could be a part of and something that gives us some confidence that our government supports us and backs us and wants us to get ahead,' they give a billion dollars to an American company. Because of that the decision, the confidence of the sector is at absolute rock bottom.

We look forward to a number of important inquiries by the appropriate integrity bodies of this nation looking very closely at this whole thing, because, as the member for Bradfield has pointed out, there are a lot of significant questions to be answered. The minister just had the opportunity to do so and regrettably did not take that opportunity. (Time expired)

Andrew Charlton (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Both of the previous opposition members have warned that they are writing to the Auditor-General on this matter. The Manager of Opposition Business is picking up the pen; he's writing to the Auditor-General. The member for Sturt wants to write to the Auditor-General. There is a lot of letter writing going on. I hope when they write those letters that the members opposite mention in their correspondence to the audit office, and tack on an apology for, the Community Health and Hospitals Program that they presided over. Members will remember that this was the Morrison government program the Auditor-General found 'fell short of ethical requirements'. This was a waste of $2 billion. In its scathing report, the Auditor-General assessed 63 major projects under the scheme. Of those 63 projects, guess how many the Auditor-General found had been assessed properly by the then Morrison government? Two—two of those 63 projects. The other 61 missed the mark. In the words of the ANAO:

The Department of Health and Aged Care's administration of the Community Health and Hospitals Program was ineffective and fell short of ethical requirements.

I hope when the member for Sturt is writing to the Auditor-General, he tacks on a little apology for that program. I also hope that in the member for Bradfield's letter to the Auditor-General he pops in a quick apology for the sport rorts program. Everyone will remember that before the May 2019 election then sports minister Senator McKenzie and her office funnelled a hundred million dollars to coalition electorates. The Auditor-General found that Senator McKenzie and her staff used public money to look after their own side's naked self-interest. The ANAO reports states that their private judgements were inconsistent with the published guidelines that applicant organisations had carefully obeyed in their own submissions. So I hope that, as they write to the Auditor-General, they remember to tack on apologies for all of the rorts and maladministered programs under their government.

Unfortunately, their letter-writing campaign so far hasn't borne fruit. It's an unrequited letter-writing campaign! Not since Christmas-time at the playgroup have there been so many letters sent that haven't been returned! It's disappointing, but maybe they'll get a reply someday soon.

The biggest problem with their suggestions that the Auditor-General should look into this is that they were the government that tried to gut the ANAO. Through successive budget cuts and budget pauses, the Morrison government tried to cut the funding and reduce the resources of the Auditor-General, and the Auditor-General, in an astounding public remark, an astounding rebuke of the Morrison government, said that the ongoing cuts to his office 'will continue to reduce the ANAO's capacity to deliver performance audits into the future'.

Now, the possibility of reducing the number of audits that the ANAO could do was of great concern to the Morrison government—in fact, they wanted to reduce the number of audits that the ANAO could do, because they had delivered so many scathing reports about Morrison government programs. They had delivered scathing reports about their health program, about their sports program, about the $30 million of taxpayers' money funnelled to a Liberal donor for Western Sydney airport land worth no more than $3 million. In report after report, the Morrison government kept the ANAO busy looking into poorly administered and unethical programs that were consistently run by their government.

The Labor Party didn't need to write a whole lot of letters to the ANAO to get them to look into these things. It was blatantly obvious that they were rorts, that they were inappropriate uses of public funds, and the Auditor-General was consistently scathing in his review of those programs. So I'm glad the Liberal Party have re-found their love of the Auditor-General. I'm glad they're back on good terms and back in communication. But when they write to him, they should make sure they include a couple of apologies for all the awful programs that they themselves ran.

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

The member for Parramatta—I will give him credit: a very smart man—did not mention PsiQuantum once, did not seek to defend the Minister for Industry and Science once, did not seek to defend the process once. He spent his five minutes talking about the opposition. Let's be clear: he's been around this place for a long time. He's a very smart man. He knew exactly what he was doing, because he knows this process is not defendable—he knows this process cannot be defended. So I understand the member for Parramatta—as he walks out—didn't want to defend it.

But it wasn't even just the member for Parramatta who didn't want to defend it. The minister for industry had 10 minutes to answer the questions that the member for Bradfield put to him, and he didn't. He spent 10 minutes talking about the opposition. As to what he did say, he said one thing repeatedly, multiple times: 'This went through a process.' Well, the minister is correct. And that's not the charge. The charge is not that it went through a process. The facts are that the process was set up to make sure PsiQuantum won this bid. Late last year, I received a phone call from someone in the quantum industry who was upset for a couple of reasons. They had been asked to be part of this EOI and, as soon as they read it, they knew the fix was in. So in November last year in the Federation Chamber, I raised concerns—their concerns; the industry's concerns—that the fix was in. And, lo and behold, in April 2024, it came to fruition that PsiQuantum won the contract. So we know it went through a process, Minister, but we know it doesn't stack up.

I also know, from speaking to those in the industry, about the email that the PsiQuantum ownership sent to venture capitalists in April last year. It talked about the agreement that they had with the federal government, when they were seeking more funding to bridge the gap as they ran out of capital until the federal government money came in. The industry is well aware of this email. I've spoken about this before. The minister has never given an answer about this email, because, as I said, this process does not stack up.

He also talked about the Chief Scientist. Let's quote the Chief Scientist, and in fairness to him I'll quote the first thing—

Sally Sitou (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a female.

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

In fairness to the minister! If you'd let me finish—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She's a woman.

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

Maybe the member for McEwen could sit in his own seat and let me finish.

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

Just a moment please, Member for Casey.

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

Well—

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

I'm asking you just to take a breather while I get the House in order. It's not fair that you are having interjections, and I want them to stop. And I would like to hear what you've got to say.

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

For the record, I was referring to the minister for industry. Last time I checked, the minister for industry was male. He talked about how the Chief Scientist made a quote at the start of the process and at the end of the process, and I said, 'In fairness to the minister, I'll quote both.' She said—the Chief Scientist, Cathy Foley:

I was also put off by the "salesman" push and lack of detail in the information provided and how it was presented.

I really dug in and was very negative giving the company a pretty hard time about this as an investment and where their capability had got to.

She also said:

This is a high risk, high return venture …

That is what we're talking about. Picking one company as a winner is high-risk. It's like going into the casino and putting everything on black. What the minister should have done, what the industry wants and what the industry needs, was have a testbed strategy where you invest that money in the whole quantum industry.

We go to the Saturday Paper and how they quoted Minister Husic. This is from an industry insider, who said: 'This is a minister who is a conviction politician, who gets very excited and very enthusiastic about big ideas that can potentially change the nation. But the downside is that when this same minister is presented with advice that goes against one of those big ideas, he really loses his mind.' And that's what has happened in this situation. Minister Husic got dazzled in Silicon Valley when he was over there. He decided that PsiQuantum was the place to go. He was prepared to put it all on black. He did not listen to any advice once he'd made his decision. He then set up a process to make sure that that decision was ratified. When there's a billion dollars of taxpayer money being used, you need more than a sham EOI process.

Sally Sitou (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too would like to quote the Chief Scientist, Cathy Foley. She has done a remarkable job as Australia's Chief Scientist, and I want to pay tribute to her extraordinary reign. She says of this announcement of PsiQuantum:

This investment shows that Australia is serious about its quantum industry development by ensuring we are at the front of the pack in the global race to build the first useful quantum computer.

I just wanted to make sure, if we are going to quote the Chief Scientist, like everyone in this chamber seems to want to do, that we also put that quote on the record.

Deputy Speaker, it is very clear that where a government directs its funding is where it directs its priorities. It shows us what governments prioritise in this place. With the announcement earlier this year, when he announced the Future Made in Australia policy as well as this investment in PsiQuantum, the Minister for Industry and Science clearly demonstrated that we prioritise Australian industry and manufacturing, prioritise Australian jobs, prioritise Australian researchers and innovators, and prioritise Australian scientists.

If we are to follow that same logic, what do those opposite prioritise? They have put up so few policies that it is really difficult to be clear about what they do prioritise. We can only go on the one policy that they have given us, and that is nuclear energy. They have decided to prioritise nuclear energy.

According to the Smart Energy Council, the coalition's nuclear energy proposal could cost taxpayers up to $600 billion and deliver only 3.7 per cent of the energy we require. On the side of the House, we are backing Australian jobs, Australia manufacturers and Australian scientists. On that side of the House, they are backing a nuclear energy fantasy that could potentially cost taxpayers $600 million. You've got to wonder: who are they backing? Are they backing Australian consumers? Unlikely. The CSIRO has said that the most expensive form of energy is nuclear energy, so they're not backing Australian consumers. Are the backing Australian taxpayers? Again, unlikely. This nuclear fantasy of theirs will cost—I'm going to repeat the number because it is so ridiculous—up to $600 billion. To steal a quote from Griffith University's Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe, the coalition's nuclear energy proposal is 'legally impossible, economically unachievable and environmentally irresponsible'. I couldn't have put it better myself.

Given the mountain of evidence from experts, I'm a bit surprised that those opposite continue to back nuclear energy. What I'm not surprised by, though, is their opposition to our investment in PsiQuantum, because it continues their anti-science attitude. They won't back Australian scientists and innovators and they won't back Australian industry. PsiQuantum wants to build the world's first commercial-scale quantum computer in Brisbane and establish its Asia-Pacific headquarters here. It will advance research and education, create industry opportunities and establish a dedicated climate research centre, so of course they don't want to back that. They don't listen to scientists when it comes to climate change and they don't listen to scientists when it comes to concerns about their nuclear energy proposal, so why would they listen to scientists when it comes to the importance of quantum computing? Quantum computing is going to be essential for the use of artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and medical research into the future. Again, this is another example: when we need the opposition to rise to meet the moment, they always fail; when we need them to think big, they can only think small or fantastical.

Cameron Caldwell (Fadden, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's very interesting getting up to speak on this MPI today, because it is a matter of public importance. There is a significant quantum of public money at stake, and we're talking about a genuine process of allocating that public money—somewhere, somehow—for an outcome that is meaningful. Honestly, I am bewildered but unsurprised that each of the speakers on the other side have wanted to talk about everything but PsiQuantum. In fact, they've hardly mentioned the word.

The member for Reid clearly has an obsession about nuclear energy. It's interesting that she talks about that today, on a day when the government has itself decided to—we hope—genuinely investigate nuclear energy through a select committee. It actually makes me wonder who is afraid of the science. For decades the Labor Party have been telling us to trust the science on climate change, and we have. Now, when presented with nuclear energy as a potential solution, they run the other way. Perhaps it's because of the leadership in this portfolio. Quite frankly, I would have thought that the Minister for Industry and Science, having had, as he said, 164 days to prepare an answer to this MPI, would have done a bit better than he did. Then again, I'm not surprised, because it was in this place, in question time, that he said, 'We've got a constant supply of sun and wind that blesses our continent.' Now, the last time I checked, there's no sun at night-time. Is this serious?

This is the same guy who is trying to run this process, with a billion dollars of public funds. That is why this matter of public importance today deserves to be thoroughly examined: $1 billion; an American company; and, quite frankly, a process that absolutely smacks of a predetermined outcome, completely reverse-engineered in order to get one proponent to be successful. What we've seen in the past 164 days is an absolutely shameless cover-up by the minister. I walked in here today thinking: 'I'm a fair-minded guy. Maybe I'll hear something from this minister that actually puts my mind at ease. Maybe he'll step us through the process, his thoughts; he'll explain exactly how the value-for-money proposition was contemplated.' But no: we got absolutely nothing but bluff and bluster. There was no explanation.

What's interesting to me as a Queenslander is of course that we've got a partner in crime in this little situation: the Queensland state government. The feds and the Queensland state government are in this for $470 million each. So, in addition to my interest federally, as a Queenslander—with an upcoming state election—I am very interested as to how the Miles-Palaszczuk government have been spending our hard-earned money. On the Queensland Treasury website they are so keen to link us—such a tenuous link—to the Australian element:

While the company is headquartered in Palo Alto in California, PsiQuantum has deep roots in Australia. Two of its co-founders, CEO Professor Jeremy O'Brien and Chief Architect Professor Terry Rudolph, were both born and raised in Australia.

Well, that's absolutely wonderful, but our billion dollars is floating away across the Pacific to 700 Hansen Way, Palo Alto, California 94304.

I just wonder how on earth this Labor government hasn't explained this so far today. Where are we getting value for money from this proposal? And how on earth can any Australian have any faith in the way this government will go about making investment decisions in the future?

Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can't help but feel that the debate today is a debate on science and whether the government accepts science or not. Sometimes people talk about science as though it's a religion. It's not a religion; it's about facts, it's about methodology and it's about doing things that are evidence based Guess what? The future is coming. And the future is quantum computing.

What I hear from the other side is that they want to be stuck in the dial-up internet era, or to be using the brick Nokia phone, which had predictive text. The truth is, these were technologies that were groundbreaking at one stage but aren't used today. Quantum computing has amazing benefits for society. We are at the precipice of amazing breakthroughs. I'm also really grateful because in Swan I have a supercomputer that is using quantum, which is very exciting.

With this decision, the Albanese government, along with the Queensland government, committed to investing $470 million in equity and loans to build a fault-tolerant computer with PsiQuantum. This is not just a tech upgrade. This is about making computing transformational. It is the future. It is the next big thing in computing. And it is exciting that Australia can be at the forefront of this.

We can make it happen, but we need a government that will make this a priority, and that is exactly what this government is doing. This isn't just about making things faster. It's about solving problems that classical computers can't even touch. We're talking about breakthroughs in medicines. We're talking about making strides in artificial intelligence and even tackling climate change—which reminds me: we are a government that accepts science; we accept the science of climate change. The former member was talking about an obsession with nuclear, but, I don't know, $600 billion sounds like a pretty big obsession to me! Using the words of the member for Reid, it is a nuclear fantasy.

That's not the kind of fantasies that I have. I have dreams of a net zero emissions world where we have amazing medicines and wellbeing for all of our society. And Australia is in it to win it. This deal was a massive milestone, and now the real work starts. Soon we will see why it's so important to invest in quantum technology. It's about securing our future both economically and from a national security standpoint. This investment will help Australian industries and researchers get the tools they need for the coming decades.

We didn't jump into this blindly. We did the homework. Our public servants tested the market. They looked at more than 20 companies to find out what could be delivered. It was a rigorous process. And this wasn't just about building a computer—although building computers is fun. This was about seeing how many jobs it would create and what benefits it would bring to the Australian economy. And guess what? PsiQuantum came out on top.

This is a huge opportunity, and it is a chance to lock Australia into the technology frontier and to reshape industries around the world. We've missed out before. Remember, we could have had Intel in the 1990s. We're not missing out this time. This project isn't just about keeping tech. It's about keeping Australian talent—no more brain drain. We want the best and the brightest. We don't want them going overseas to commercialise ideas; we want them to be doing it here. This is a part of the reason that this is part of a suite of policies, such as building a future made in Australia. This project has a chance to build an incredible future for Australia.

Some people might have doubts. That's fine. Reviews are welcome. Unlike the opposition, we're doing everything out in the open. We're transparent. We're not operating in secret, like the former government did. Remember when the former member for Cook appointed himself to secret ministries? That's not how we do things. This process went through rigorous due diligence. The future for Australia is exciting. Quantum computing— (Time expired)

Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 18 August 2022 the Prime Minister said, 'The Australian people deserve accountability and transparency, not secrecy.' Well, I certainly agree with the Prime Minister on that point. But this recent decision of the Albanese Labor government to invest almost $1 billion of taxpayers' money into an American company raises several serious questions that cast doubt over the deal. I've heard in this place some suggestions from those on the other side that for some reason those on our side are not people of science or don't believe Australia is really committed to a future around technology and innovation. I say to those who have spoken on this MPI today: that is precisely what we on this side have been saying with respect to the debate that is underway—about the future of our energy supply, for example. We are looking at Australian technology that we have already developed—in my electorate, at ANSTO—and how we can use that and innovate into the future to determine the best way to continue to supply Australians with cheaper and more-affordable electricity.

But I'll return to the matter at hand. It is the process that has been undertaken by the government on this that is causing those on our side the most difficulty. It's a deal that's been cloaked in secrecy from the beginning, where both Labor and the Minister for Industry and Science have gone to great lengths to avoid scrutiny and transparency—the complete opposite to the thing that the Prime Minister, two years ago, said that Australians deserve—and it has followed a terrible process. There are many details around the commercial arrangement which have still not been disclosed.

This first came into the public domain when the funding was announced. The funding was announced on 30 April, and then, during Senate estimates, and through many freedom of information requests—and for that I think that the honourable member for Bradfield really needs to be congratulated—it was revealed that this deal is nothing more than a captain's pick. It's a reverse-engineered process designed to benefit PsiQuantum.

It's still clear on the available evidence that this investment does not meet the normal standards of contestability, fairness and probity that would be expected from a funding decision of this size: $1 billion. That is a sizeable amount of money, even in 2024. The Albanese Labor government, though, has chosen to bet a very large amount of money on one particular company, pursuing one particular technology path within the broad field of quantum—a field in which people who have been working for 20 or 30 years cannot say with certainty which of the many paths being explored is likely to achieve the most successful outcome most rapidly. On any view, it will be at least several years, and very possibly longer, before the technology that is currently being developed is proven to work—if it can be proven to do so at all.

What is particularly troubling is that so much funding has gone to an American incorporated and based quantum computing company, with a large ownership stake in the company being held by venture capitalists, including American venture capitalists, rather than to any of the outstanding Australian based quantum computing companies and researchers. It would be a particular tragedy if this decision by the Albanese Labor government—to allocate, alongside the Queensland government, almost a billion dollars of taxpayers' money to this particular American company—ended up making it more difficult for other Australian based quantum computing companies to compete for and attract global investment because of a perception that their own government, having surveyed the field, does not believe in them and considers that their work is inferior to the work of this American based company.

The Prime Minister was right: the Australian people do deserve transparency and accountability, and that is not what has happened in this instance. (Time expired)

Jerome Laxale (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At every turn in this parliament, the coalition have made clear that their priorities for the nation are totally disconnected from the needs and aspirations of everyday Australians. Let's just have a little shopping list here. They oppose action on housing. They oppose action on climate change. They opposed our fairer changes to Scott Morrison's tax cuts. They oppose a future made in Australia and bringing manufacturing back home. They oppose elements of our cost-of-living relief. They oppose energy rebates, and they oppose renewable energy rollout. Here today, with this MPI, they're opposing reasonable action by this government to ensure that we have a competitive and world-leading quantum sector here in Australia.

Quantum computing isn't just the next step in our natural technological evolution; it's a leap into the future. What have the coalition done? Instead of embracing it, they've turned their backs on a technology that could create thousands of jobs, drive billions of dollars in investment into Australia and position Australia where it should be: at the cutting edge of global tech innovation. Let me be clear: when the coalition opposes quantum and our investment in this technology, they're not just opposing a technology; they're opposing Australian jobs and Australia know-how. They're opposing a brighter future for our tech sector, and they're opposing Australia becoming a world leader in this technology. We should be an economy that does more than crops and rocks. We need to have a diversified economy. If you look across the world, what sector brings wealth to economies? What sector drives better jobs and better living standards? It is the tech sector. It brings well-paid jobs. It brings flexible working conditions. It builds rewarding careers. And with the investments that we have said we would put into the tech sector, we're saying to them—not only here in Australia but across the world—'We want the tech sector; we want quantum technology to be developed here in Australia.'

With this investment, we've listened to the experts. We've run a rigorous and detailed process that's gone through every angle of scrutiny—economic, technical, commercial and, importantly, in terms of our national security considerations. It concluded that investing in quantum is the right decision for our nation. PsiQuantum, co-founded by two brilliant Australians, Jeremy O'Brien and Terry Rudolph, is a globally leading firm in the quantum computing space. Our investments, partnering with the Queensland government, will mean that this technology will return to Australia and be developed right here.

In partnership with the Queensland government, we've committed $470 million in equity and loans to PsiQuantum. It will mean that Brisbane will be soon be home to the Asia-Pacific headquarters of one of the world's most highly valued quantum computing companies. That means jobs for Queenslanders. It means jobs for the tech sector. The investment aligns perfectly with our first ever National Quantum Strategy, which our government announced just one year ago.

The difference between us and them is that we have a vision for the tech sector and we have a vision for quantum. PsiQuantum and this investment are a core part of that vision. Since our announcement, understandably, everyone has got a bit excited, and they've hit the ground running. They've formed research education partnerships with the Queensland universities. They've opened a research development lab, and they've begun building their Australian team.

This week our government released the advice from the Chief Scientist which underscores the importance of this investment in local industries, and this is the kind of future that we, as part of the Albanese government, want to build. We want to make things here. We want to develop things here. We want to tap into our potential in the tech sector as much as any other. And the rewards, if we get this right, will be transformational, both economically and scientifically. With this investment, we could become a global leader in an industry that will shape the next century, just as others did with semiconductors in the 1970s. If we shy away now, we will miss an opportunity that could never come again. While the coalition continue to oppose our vision and continue to oppose investments in jobs and technology, on the side of the House we'll continue to invest in the industries that will make our country richer and safer.

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

The discussion has now concluded.