Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Well, there's nothing surprising here, is there? The opposition are opposed to a future made in Australia. Why doesn't that surprise anyone? The opening comments from their frontrunner on this debate say, 'We don't want transparency, and we don't want opportunity for Australian business.' They also go further, to say: 'Not only do we not want transparency and opportunity but we don't want business and community to take advantage of a future made in Australia. We don't want everybody in the entire community to take the advantage of having a future made in Australia and the national opportunity that that gives.'

This legislation complements existing marketplace operations, and it also establishes a hydrogen production tax incentive worth $2 per kilogram of renewable hydrogen produced and a critical minerals production tax incentive worth 10 per cent of relevant processing and refining costs for 31 critical minerals—a measure which also doubles as a national security initiative. We all remember COVID and all the problems we had then. We know the challenges we have in the modern world. This is a national security and national interest initiative. But really this bill is an investment in Australian jobs, Australian businesses and Australian communities. We aren't taking the Liberal approach of showering businesses with money and just hoping it trickles down to Aussie families and communities. We aren't spraying out cash to people like Gina Rinehart to have taxpayer funded long lunches. Get this: the opposition leader Mr Dutton's idea of national interest is a $20,000 Gina Rinehart fun pack for a party, because nothing says support for small businesses like tax breaks for billionaire lunches.

Unlike Mr Dutton, we are making sure that every cent spent is supporting Aussie families, Aussie communities and Australian businesses that help with that initiative. We're doing that by requiring businesses receiving this funding to comply with community benefit principles so we all share the benefit—everybody in the community shares the benefit. Those principles are straightforward. They are things that ensure that money does what it's intended to do.

The first one is promoting safe and secure jobs that are well paid and have good conditions. Heaven forbid! Those opposite don't want that. They've just criticised it in their opening arguments about why a future shouldn't be made in Australia. The second one is to develop more skilled and inclusive workforces. Those opposite spoke just now against the whole concept of having a more skilled and inclusive workforce. That skilled and inclusive workforce means equipping regional communities and young people with the skills they need to take full advantage of the net zero transition.

The third principle is to engage collaboratively with and achieve positive outcomes for local communities. That means more economic opportunities and ensuring communities have an active say over their regions. Those opposite don't want the regions to have a say. They don't want the communities to get the economic benefit. We can do this collectively together as a community and benefit the market, the business communities and those doing those jobs. The fourth is to support First Nations communities to participate and share the benefits of the net zero transition. That means real tangible economic opportunities for First Nations peoples. The fifth principle is to strengthen domestic industrial capabilities through local supply chains. As I said before, we all remember COVID-19 showing how vulnerable international supply chains are and how important it is to strengthen sovereign capability. Those opposite are opposed to it. The final principle is to demonstrate transparency and compliance in relation to tax.

Every cent in this program will go towards better national security outcomes, well-paid secure jobs, upskilling and strengthening domestic manufacturing, improving tax compliance and working with local and First Nations communities. It's similar to schemes that already exist in the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Japan, South Korea and Canada. Who would have a problem with that? Those opposite. Businesses love it. The bill is supported by a long list of employer groups like the Minerals Council, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Business Council. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry, ACCI, said that these measures make it easier for new industries to establish and become competitive. Working people love it, and, yes, unions love it too. Everybody is together, except those opposite.

The Australian Workers Union told the Senate inquiry that it would support the pipeline of proposed hydrogen and critical minerals projects creating 160,000 jobs in the construction phase and 41,000 ongoing jobs. That's 200,000 well-paid jobs, with most of them in regional Australia. The National Party and the Liberal Party—particularly the National Party sometimes—pretend to support the regions, except when it comes to jobs and well-paid jobs, except when it comes to working with local communities, except when it builds Australian businesses, and except when it makes a future made in Australia. They stand for nothing and support nothing in their communities.

The two different visions for Australia that voters have to choose from at the next election are very clear. The Albanese Labor government supports a future made in Australia. We support Australian jobs, Australian industry, and investing in Australian communities. Or you've got the Dutton opposition who abandoned the car industry, who opposed every cost of living measure this government has introduced, whether it was tax cuts for every Australian, energy bill relief, cheaper medicines, cheaper child care, free TAFE, record pay rises or reducing student debt. Mr Dutton has opposed every single one, because his vision result is a poorer, weaker Australia. That's the result. It's one where you work longer for less and the only thing the government is good for is a taxpayer funded lunch for bosses. That's their proposal. No matter which way you look at it, you'll be worse off under Dutton.