Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Science. I believe it's Senator Watt. The Albanese government has earmarked up to $3 billion from the National Reconstruction Fund for investment in renewables and low-emissions technologies. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation's investment mandate for its $10 billion is to invest in 'renewable energy, low-emissions and energy efficiency projects and technologies'. My question is: what can the National Reconstruction Fund's $3 billion for renewables invest in that the CEFC can't already invest in?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Tyrrell. As I understand it, you are yet to finalise your position in relation to the National Reconstruction Fund, so I hope that the information I provide you can convince you that this is something worth getting behind. From the little I know about you—we haven't spent a lot of time together—I know that you're a big supporter of manufacturing, particularly in your home state of Tasmania, and the National Reconstruction Fund will be a key way to take manufacturing in that great state forward. I know Senator Urquhart has a lot of history in Tasmanian manufacturing. I'm sure, Senator Tyrrell, you will support that as well when we come down to it.

The short answer to your question, Senator Tyrrell, is that the National Reconstruction Fund is going to be very focused on manufacturing. A good example of that in the renewable space might be a smelter, whether it be in Bell Bay or anywhere else in Tasmania, or another manufacturing facility that might wish to change its energy sources to become more reliant on renewable energy as a way of reducing their energy costs. That is the type of thing for which we would expect a company would be able to apply to the National Reconstruction Fund for co-investment. If the right rate of return is available, then the NRF would be able to support that.

It's a bit different to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, I guess, because that is much more focused on funding new innovation in the renewable energy space. It's around the production of renewable energy and how we can do that through new and innovative means. The National Reconstruction Fund is much more focused on manufacturing facilities, how to upgrade them, how to bring more value adding and how to reduce their energy costs; whereas the CEFC is more about how we can develop more renewable energy which could then be used to supply manufacturing facilities. As I say, Senator Tyrrell, we think it will make a massive difference to manufacturing in our country and in your state of Tasmania, so I do hope that when it comes time for the vote you will support us.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Tyrrell, your first supplementary?

Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Medical Research Endowment Account is investing $3.5 billion in health and medical research. The $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund invests in commercialising those new medical technologies. Can the minister give an example of the National Reconstruction Fund's $1.5 billion for medical science can invest in that the government's other investment vehicles can't already invest in?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Tyrrell. My understanding, bearing in mind I'm the representing minister, is that the answer is essentially the same. If what I'm about to say is not entirely correct, I'm obviously happy to give you the precise information later.

My understanding is that, just as with clean energy, the National Reconstruction Fund will be focussed on medical manufacturing—whether that be the manufacturing of pharmaceuticals, of medical devices, of vaccines or the actual manufacturing process and how that can be done more efficiently, generating more jobs and more profits in states like yours—whereas the medical research fund that you were talking about is more focused on funding the research for discovery of new vaccines, of new medicines and things like that rather than actually manufacturing them.

I guess the National Reconstruction Fund can take those discoveries one step further and, rather than having a great medical discovery here in Australia that then get manufactured overseas, we can make more things here in Australia, which we agree with. Unfortunately, there are a few people over there who don't.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary?

Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Albanese government has earmarked a further $1 billion from the NRF towards advanced manufacturing, and a separate $1 billion for critical technologies. But your critical technologies list includes advanced manufacturing as a category of critical technology—it's the first category. You've decided to set up separate buckets of money for different things, but a dollar spent in the first counts as a dollar spent in the second. Do you see how that may be confusing?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Tyrrell. Again, I might need to get a little bit more information to fully answer your question, but my understanding is that the critical technologies list is under review. It hasn't been finalised. There is obviously a consultation process that it's been going through in the creation of this fund. The settling of guidelines as to the types of things that it can be used to invest in. I'm sure that if there is any lack of clarity there, that will be tidied up through the review process.

While I am on my feet though, I do want to point out that this is going to be a really important vote for our country when we come to vote on this legislation. I'm pleased to see that the Greens have now announced that they will be supporting that legislation. I think the crossbench are still working out their position, and we'd be happy to work with you on that.

There are actually two groups, the Liberals and the Nationals, who are completely opposed to this. And for all the time they run around dressing in high-vis pretending to care about manufacturing and smearing a bit of grease on their face, when it comes to the crunch, they vote against it. That's a disgrace, and they should hang their heads in shame. (Time expired.)