Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was previously remarking, the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024 also set up the processes for the Treasury to undertake sector assessments as part of our Future Made in Australia laws. Critically, these sector assessments will be done in consultation with the experts. They'll be done in consultation with workforce and with business, with people on the ground. But we want to make sure that the economic dividends of a future made in Australia are genuinely felt in the community and are genuinely felt across the economy. To do that, these bills will establish our community benefit principles to ensure that, when the government is making Future Made in Australia decisions and when companies are benefiting from Future Made in Australia support, there are safe and secure jobs that are well paid and have good conditions too; that these investments contribute to more skilled and inclusive workforces; that this work is done consultatively with local communities impacted by the net zero transition; and, in particular, that the role and perspectives of First Nations communities and traditional owners are respected, listen to and acted upon.

To do that, we are introducing a specific community benefit principle recognising the unique role of First Nations people in our country and in our economy. Through our community benefit principles, we will ensure that the benefits of our investments contribute to stronger domestic industrial capabilities and stronger local supply chains too and, importantly, that companies benefiting from Future Made in Australia support are also transparent and compliant in their tax affairs. When public support is delivered, when we support projects to deliver a future made in Australia, we expect, and the community expects, to see those benefits returned and shared with the community.

These bills, our Future Made in Australia bills, are all upside, so it's difficult to comprehend why those opposite oppose these bills and oppose a future made in Australia. Do they oppose the community benefiting from the net zero transformation? Do they oppose the community benefiting from the good, secure jobs that should come with the net zero transformation? If they don't want a future made in Australia, where do they want it made? Do they want it made offshore instead?

We know that the coalition have form on this issue. They drove the Australian car industry off a cliff. What we don't want to see is that happen again. What we want to see is good, secure Australian jobs created in the communities that need them most, regional communities, so they can benefit from the net zero transformation. That is exactly what these bills are about. That's exactly what the Future Made in Australia is about, yet Peter Dutton's coalition oppose these bills and oppose a future made in Australia.

The evidence to the Economics Committee inquiry into these bills, which I chaired, could not have been clearer. There was so much support from industry for these bills that, again, it is confounding as to why the coalition oppose these bills and oppose a future made in Australia. Industry, miners, workers, unions, investors, environmental groups, academics and many more told us that these bills are needed. They told us that the parliament need to pass these bills, that we need to set up this framework for a future made in Australia. We heard, from the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union:

We are in a global race for the jobs of the future … and we've missed the starter's gun. The Future Made in Australia Act is an opportunity that will not only build social licence domestically by giving workers some reassurance that their future is going to be looked after … but also find Australia its natural place in the world.

The ACTU gave evidence to our inquiry, and they told us:

We see it as a really vital piece of economic statecraft that will help Australia lock in decades of new, good jobs …

But it's not just the union movement supporting the Future Made in Australia and supporting the good, secure jobs that it will create; industry is supporting it too. The Australian Industry Group said in their evidence to the committee:

Ai Group also welcomes and strongly supports the degree of rigour that FMIA introduces to industrial policy in Australia.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry told us:

… we support the overall thrust of the bill.

…   …   …

We don't see this as a fundamentally politically controversial bill. It should not be. It should be one where the parliament can do its work.

Beyond Zero Emissions, in their evidence to the inquiry, said that Australia needs this bill and:

Delaying the passage of the bill will harm Australian industry, particularly small to medium enterprises.

…   …   …

They're the ones who will suffer if this bill does not pass.

Again, it is those opposite who want to stand in the way of this bill. It's those opposite who want to create that harm for Australian industry, particularly for small and medium enterprises, according to the evidence that was given to the committee. We heard really interesting evidence from Liontown Resources, an Australian lithium producer, who said:

We support the Future Made in Australia framework and what it is seeking to achieve …

The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies also supported the bills, telling the committee:

We are strong supporters of the Future Made in Australia framework …

These bills are important to Australians now. They are important to creating good, secure jobs across our country and in our regions. They are important to Australian communities harnessing the benefit of the net zero transformation that we are currently experiencing and that we are driving as a government.

By ensuring a future made in Australia and establishing this framework, we are taking a proactive step to capitalise on our national, natural advantages. We want to strengthen those advantages, and we will strengthen and modernise our economy and transform ourselves into a clean energy superpower and become an invaluable part of the net zero global supply chain. This policy is suitably ambitious for the times. It meets the moment that we find ourselves in today. In conclusion, through this policy we will be able to make the most of our advantages and transform ourselves to meet the needs of the future as well.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to talk on the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024. Again, we have an Orwellianly named bill from this Labor government, although attributing it to George Orwell is probably incorrect. We should probably give it to those fine creatives at Working Dog Productions because it's much more like The Hollowmen, isn't it? 'Future Made in Australia'—this was a slogan thought up out of focus groups that the Labor government then hunted around to attach a policy to. How can we know that? Because the very first project announced under this Future Made in Australia approach was to an American company. For goodness sake, you couldn't put it in a Working Dog script. You couldn't put it in a Hollowmen script. It would be laughed out of town as a comedy. But that's what this government serves up. This government serves up legislation that would be better in an ABC comedy than used for the future growth of the Australian economy, because this is a highly interventionist model.

The previous speaker, Senator Walsh, belled the cat when she referred to the car industry. Every Australian should remember—and, sadly, I am old enough to remember—that what killed the car industry in this country was the Button car plan.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You killed it. Your government killed it.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Farrell, I'll give you a reminder. I know you don't need a history lesson, because you were around at the time, but what did the Button car plan do to the Australian automotive industry, Senator Farrell?

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Farrell!

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a ridiculously overreaching government intervention that forced the car companies to swap bodies and drive trains. So, if you bought a Nissan ute, it was the same as a Ford Falcon ute. If you bought a Holden Commodore, it was the same as a Toyota Lexcen except for the badge. If you bought a Nissan Pintara, that was the same as the Ford Corsair. A Nissan Pulsar was the same as the Holden Astra. A Toyota Camry was the same as the Holden Apollo. A Toyota Corolla was the same as the Holden Nova. And a Nissan Patrol was the same as a Ford Maverick. This was the sort of government intervention into our car industry that undermined it. It made Australians not want to purchase Australian made cars, and it led to the decline and eventually the death of the car industry. It was government intervention that led to the death of the car industry.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It didn't have to die. You killed it. You put a bullet in its head.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was the Button car plan that led to the death of the car industry, and we are seeing echoes of this again in this Future Made in Australia—a thought bubble, a focus group developed title. I bet it polls well, Senator Farrell. I bet it polls well in those focus groups. But, when you look at the detail and see what it does to the Australian economy, you will know that the last thing you want is this heavy-handed Labor interventionist government getting their hands on this kind of power.

This is absolutely the wrong thing to do at this time. The priorities of this government should all be around the cost of living, improving flexibility in our economy, improving growth in our economy and improving productivity in our economy. When was the last time you heard this government talk about productivity in our economy? They can't, they won't, they don't. They have absolutely nothing positive to say on productivity because they are running the set of instructions that was handed to them when they got into power by the union movement. They are following those instructions blindly, regardless of what the negative impact is on the Australian economy over time.

As I've said, this Future Made in Australia Bill is a slogan searching for a policy, but we do know what that policy will be in the end. It will be a heavily interventionist policy, which is governments picking winners, which is the last thing the Australian economy needs. It doesn't need the amount of waste that will be involved in the spending inherent in this bill. It does not need the level of government involvement that is inherent in this bill. And it certainly does not need the first project, the first cab off the rank, of Future Made in Australia being a future made in America, which is what the first commitment was—it was to an American company. It is quite extraordinary, when you hear the platitudes and the motherhood statements coming from those opposite about how this is about promoting Australia, that the first commitment out of this policy was to an American company.

We need to see a serious plan to combat inflation. We need a serious plan to get productivity improving and increasing in this country. We need a serious plan to get more flexibility into the workplaces in this country. And we need a serious plan to get more incentives into our tax system in this country. The fact is that this bill does absolutely none of those things. It harks back to an old, tired, sad interventionist model that has failed in the past and will fail in the future.

Economist after economist has criticised this policy approach, and I'll go on to talk about that a little bit more in a moment. But this policy, first and foremost, is the wrong policy to take in a cost-of-living crisis. It demonstrates that Labor has its priorities all wrong. After spending the whole of 2023 talking about the Voice instead of the cost of living, Australia was hopeful that in 2024 this government would actually wake up and focus on what it needed to, and that is to get the cost-of-living crisis that is affecting every household in Australia under control. Instead, this is a plan to spend even more money. There's no part of it that makes productivity better. In fact, it probably will end up making productivity significantly worse. And, as I said, it has not gained support from any mainstream economists.

Labor has plenty of handouts for lobbyists and overseas corporations, many of whom have ways to raise finance other than the bank of the government. It's not like these companies do not have other sources of investment. Yet Labor are doing this. They are handing this money out in the first instance to an American based company at a time when Australian families and Australian small businesses are doing it really, really tough. And what will this plan do for those struggling families and small businesses? Absolutely nothing. All those households and all those small businesses who are doing everything they can just to keep their heads above water at the moment would look at this and despair. They would despair that this is the priority of this Labor government—for goodness sake!

We have a government that is failing on the economy. We have a government that had no idea and left all the heavy lifting on inflation up to the Reserve Bank. As a result, we saw the fastest and hardest rise in interest rates certainly in my lifetime if not a heck of a lot longer than that. Living standards and disposable per capita income have gone backwards by 8.7 per cent under this government. That's an 8.7 per cent decline in living standards. That's real disposable income. That's what people really have in their pockets to spend. There's been a decline of 8.7 per cent.

Perhaps even worse than that—and it's hard to believe there's anything worse than that—is the fact that productivity has collapsed by 6.3 per cent under this government, with no plan to see an improvement in that. There's absolutely no plan in this particular bill and in fact a promise of actually making that number even worse. It's quite extraordinary.

Household savings are down 10 per cent. Personal income tax is 25 per cent higher under this government in terms of the total tax take. Interest paid on mortgages has almost tripled under this government. The economy has experienced the slowest GDP growth since the 1990s outside the pandemic. We've seen six consecutive quarters of negative per capita growth. That's the longest per capita recession in 50 years. That is my lifetime—50 years. It's quite extraordinary.

I'm conscious of the time, and I do want to talk about what others have said about this particular piece of legislation. Danielle Wood, the Productivity Commissioner, the government's key economic adviser, appointed by Jim Chalmers, in fact, said:

If we are supporting industries that don't have a long-term competitive advantage, that can be an ongoing cost. It diverts resources, that's workers and capital, away from other parts of the economy where they might generate high value uses.

Again, what's that criticism all about? It's about picking winners. It's a concept that everyone out there understands. It's about a government saying: 'Senator Cadell, I favour you, but, Senator Bragg, your business will get nothing.' It means that Senator Cadell's business gets a leg up in the economy regardless of its economic efficiency, regardless of its productivity and regardless of what it's delivering, and Senator Bragg's business will go down. It will go under because of the government's choices. This is a problem. It's been a constant problem with governments who think that they understand better than markets what the drivers are of economic growth and what the preferences are within the economy. Preferences in the economy are revealed preferences, and picking winners is a recipe for destroying capital and destroying productivity over time.

Danielle Wood went on to say:

We risk creating a class of businesses that is reliant on government subsidies, and that can be very effective in coming back for more.

She went on to say:

Your infants grow up, they turn into very hungry teenagers and it's kind of hard to turn off the tap.

You get businesses dependent on these government handouts. With businesses that are potentially in a marginal seat is any Labor government going to say, 'No, we're going to turn off the tap now'? Do you really think that is going to happen? Of course they're not. So you get inefficiencies in the economy that a Labor government will be too gutless to get rid of. It will inevitably breed a reliance on government among the business community which is counterproductive and has been seen through generations to be significantly counterproductive. You will see an unseemly linkage between business and government that in a Western democracy should not exist. It creates a sense of reliance that is the breeding ground for corruption, and we need to be extraordinarily careful in this country that we do not go down this path. Governments picking winners is never going to have a good outcome.

I say again that this was a slogan dreamt up before it had a policy behind it. It's very clearly something that should have been in an episode of The Hollowmen. Sadly, though, instead we see it coming out of the mouths of this Labor government—a government that doesn't have any clue about the economic management of this country.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Future Made in Australia bills and foreshadow a second reading amendment circulated in my name. The Future Made in Australia package goes to an issue at the core of Australia's future: our place in the global transition to renewable energy and the industries of tomorrow. The framework is an opportunity to build stronger industrial base, transition our economy and reduce emissions. But it is not enough to have a framework; we must ensure that it works in practice to benefit Australians. A future made in Australia must operate with transparency, accountability and a clear commitment to decarbonisation.

We are in a time of global transformation, where the choices we make now will determine whether Australia thrives as a renewable energy superpower or misses the boat. We have seen countries like the United States and the European Union act decisively, investing hundreds of billions of dollars through initiatives like Inflation Reduction Act and the European Green Deal. Australia is clearly lagging, and it's time to catch up.

There's a significant piece missing from the Future Made in Australia package, and that is electrification. Electrification presents an incredible opportunity for Australian households and small businesses, at a time when they are doing it so tough, to lower energy bills and reduce their carbon footprint. It's a commonsense solution to both our cost-of-living crisis and our climate crisis, yet the government has again failed to seize this opportunity. In the United States under the Inflation Reduction Act, we've seen the success of household electrification: billions of dollars in rebates and subsidies have been provided for rooftop solar, batteries and energy-efficient appliances. The result has been significant cost savings for households and a meaningful reduction in emissions. It's well beyond time for the Australian government to put forward a substantial package to supercharge household electrification, particularly for low-income households and rental properties and for people living in social and affordable housing. A separate and ambitious package is needed for electrification—one that places Australian households and small businesses at the centre of our transition to a renewable energy future.

There's a clear need in this FMIA legislation for more transparency and accountability in sector assessments. Even just looking at the framework as it stands, there is significant room to improve the bill and give Australians confidence that it will deliver on the promise to transform Australian industry. When it comes to government spending on industry, public trust is critical, particularly when we're talking about spending on this huge scale—$22.7 billion has been flagged under the FMIA framework. Australians deserve to know that this money is being spent wisely and that it is delivering value to our communities.

But recent allocations of billions to quantum and solar manufacturing without sector assessments have clearly shaken public confidence. They underline a case for funding decisions to be informed by independent, robust sector assessments, not captain's calls. These assessments should draw from a wide range of expert opinions, including the Productivity Commission, the CSIRO and the Climate Change Authority, among others. This will help us avoid the policy traps of short-term thinking and overreaching. I'll propose a series of amendments to add transparency and integrity to the framework.

There is also a case to look harder at the economic benefit for Australia. With such a significant investment of taxpayer dollars, Australians also deserve to be sure that the economic benefits flow primarily to Australians and Australian businesses, not to foreign corporations. Under the current Commonwealth Procurement Rules, foreign companies operating in Australia are often treated as Australian businesses. This is a massive loophole that we must close. The government should develop a very clear definition of what constitutes an Australian company, ensuring that at least 51 per cent of the ownership and the governance is actually by Australians. When I get out and talk to people about our procurement rules and the way the government and departments think about Australian businesses, the fact that any multinational can come here and get an ABN and be a dinky-di Australian business is appalling. It is not up to scratch, and this needs to be addressed. We have to ensure that the benefits of our transition to renewable energy remain within our borders and strengthen our national economy. We have to ensure that we're not having a future made in Australia made by foreign multinationals, who are minimising their tax and siphoning billions offshore. We've seen that happen with the gas industry. We have to ensure it doesn't happen in the transition.

Emissions reductions also need to be at the heart of the framework. Climate change is not just an environmental issue; it is a profound economic threat and economic opportunity. The FMIA framework must place emissions reductions at its heart. The legislation should be explicit. This framework exists to help decarbonise our economy and meet our emissions reductions targets. This isn't just about creating new industries; it's about ensuring these industries contribute to reducing their own climate impact. For this reason, sector assessments should include an analysis of emissions, ensuring that we are meeting obligations under the Paris Agreement.

We also need to reject fossil fuel funding as part of the FMIA framework and legislation. With emissions reductions at the heart of the framework, it makes no sense to allow funds to flow to the fossil fuel industry. The door to fossil fuel subsidies must be closed, and the FMIA framework must be clear that it is supporting the industries of the future, not the industries of the past, who are desperately trying to extend their social licence at a time when Australians recognise we need to be cracking on with the transition. It's no surprise that they're pouring millions into sponsoring our favourite sporting teams and arts events; they know that they've had their time. They know that the government should be showing leadership to truly transition our economy, not to try to have a bet each way, not to try to say: 'We're doing all this great stuff—the FMIA, building economy of the future—and also we're going to continue to expand coal and gas. We're going to tick off another three coalmine extensions. Give us your list of gas approvals that you need. We're going to facilitate those with legislation through this place and with the relevant approvals.' This needs to end, and with legislation that comes through this place we need to start being more explicit that it's about the future. It's about building a future economy and doing right by young Australians—and Australians yet to be born. We have to lift our gaze and think longer term than we currently are.

The Future Made in Australia framework is a step in the right direction, but, as I've highlighted, I think it's far from perfect. It needs stronger governance, it needs greater transparency and it needs a sharper focus on emissions reduction. Most importantly, we need to ensure that economic benefits flow to Australian households and businesses, not to foreign owned entities or outdated industries. Now is the time for decisive action. Australians want their government to be braver, to actually take on the big challenges we face. Australia cannot afford to fall behind in the global energy transition. I call on the government to seize this opportunity to create a future that is made in Australia—truly made in Australia—by Australian companies, powered by renewable energy, driven by innovation and benefiting all Australians, present and in the future.

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

Lets cast our minds back to the COVID-19 pandemic. International supply chains were collapsing. Our sovereignty and national security were placed under incredible pressure as countries around the world were competing for masks and vaccines. Australia's former chief economist David Wood said in 2022 that disruptions to global supply chains and transport networks were driving costs higher and prolonging the global imbalance between constrained supply and a growing demand for goods. In an inquiry into the effects of COVID-19 on Australia's foreign affairs, defence and trade, we heard from Dr Jeffrey Wilson, from the Perth USAsia Centre. He said that, given the complexity of global value chains, Australia has faced many unexpected importation supply shocks in the last three months alone, including manufacturers struggling to secure packaging materials from China and South-East Asia. That's why this government wants to safeguard us against the next global shock and use our competitive advantages to create good jobs in the regions.

Our regional and remote communities are at the forefront of the economic shift that will come from the global race towards net zero. Five coal power stations are likely to close before 2030, and Australia's remaining coal power stations are likely to close by 2040. Communities in Lithgow, Collie, Biloela and the Latrobe Valley need us to act now to create jobs that go back into the regions, not leave them to the wolves like the former government did with the closure of the Hazelwood Power Station. Unlike the former government, we're embarking on an agenda to build a future made in Australia, supporting workers to access employment, skills and the opportunities for our next generation of prosperity. The Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the related bill will enable the government to provide tax production credits to industries such as renewable hydrogen, green metals and low-carbon liquid fuels.

Independent modelling commissioned by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources and undertaken by the PwC found that increasing the export of critical minerals and energy transition minerals could create more than 115,000 new jobs by 2040. The report also estimates that the number of jobs could increase by 262,000 if Australia builds onshore capability in refining and processing. Industries like critical minerals already provide thousands of good jobs in our regions, but our future made in Australia agenda will supercharge that in the coming years. For example, in April 2024 the Commonwealth and South Australian governments jointly announced $185 million for the graphite project in South Australia. Of course, the LNP's opposed to that. They're opposed to a future made in Australia. They're opposed to real jobs in South Australia on a jointly announced project. Stage 1 will deliver around 150 construction jobs, and 125 jobs once operational, in Arno Bay on the Eyre Peninsula. Stage 2 will deliver a further 225 construction jobs, and more than 120 jobs once it's operational, in Bolivar, near Port Adelaide.

Also in April 2024 the Commonwealth and Queensland governments jointly announced $400 million in new loans for Australia's first high-purity alumina processing facility in Gladstone. That processing plant, the Gladstone project, is expected to create around 490 jobs during construction and more than 200 jobs on completion. An article in the Australian on 3 July 2024 reported that the Gladstone project would use a new process to turn mined aluminium into high-purity alumina, which can be used in semiconductors, lithium-ion batteries and LED lighting. The article estimates that this process will increase the value by 10,000 per cent, from 35c a kilo to $35 a kilo. That's the kind of onshore value creation that will attract capital investment and rebuild our manufacturing sector. Of course, the Liberal and National parties are against these sorts of initiatives. The Liberal and National parties are against these jobs in regional Australia.

The Future Made in Australia agenda is about productivity as well and backing innovative technology as a driver of productivity. Amendments put forward by the government to this bill require decision-makers to consult with the Productivity Commission before an investment can be made. This has been welcomed by the Productivity Commissioner, Danielle Wood. This bill and the overall $22.7 billion funding package show that our government are putting our money where our mouth is.

It is not just we who are moving. Countries around the world are making huge investments in critical minerals and renewables and tying that to fair labour standards. The United States has invested $551 billion in Australian dollars as part of their Inflation Reduction Act. The European Union has invested $509 billion through its green deal. Canada has invested $102 billion through to 2035 through its clean energy tax credits. To claim these tax credits, Canadian employers must meet labour standards, including prevailing wages, and apprenticeship requirements. That's a good thing.

But the opposition leader, Mr Dutton, thinks he has more foresight than our closest allies. In their dissenting report, the coalition said that:

'Future Made in Australia' represents a risky and potentially wasteful expenditure of tax-payers' money …

Recently, the shadow Treasurer, Mr Taylor, vowed that, if they win the election, the coalition will salt the earth on our plan for manufacturing and tax production credits. He said on ABC's RN Breakfast in August that our agenda to rebuild manufacturing was nothing more than a corporate welfare initiative. He said on Insiders in May that there's 'no case for subsidies' for critical minerals. That's because they don't want Australians to make things here. They made that clear when they chased the car industry out of the country. We have taken a different approach. This government is investing in a future made in Australia and the workers who will make it happen right across this country and right across our regions.

It's here in black and white. On a practical level, this bill is built on three pillars. The first is a national interest framework which will help us identify sectors where we have a sustained comparative advantage in the new net zero economy or an economic resilience and security imperatives to invest. Dr Rod Sims, former chairperson of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, has backed the national interest framework, saying that it will put 'a lot of discipline around the Future Made in Australia policy so it doesn't go off the rails'. Secondly, there's a robust sector assessment process to help us better understand and break down barriers to private investment in key areas of the economy. This bill embeds into the law strict criteria and robust processes that will guide decision-making by Export Finance Australia and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. Thirdly, there's a set of community benefits principles that will help ensure that public investment and the private investment it generates is channelled to promote safe and secure jobs that are well paid and have good conditions.

Working people across Australia have welcomed this bill. Steve Murphy of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union told the inquiry into the bill that we are:

… well positioned with renewable energy, as well as shifting to green metals and new industries, to supply to our region and trading partners decarbonised steel, decarbonised metals and decarbonised products that they can use in their supply chains.

Thomas Mortimer from the Australian Workers Union told the inquiry that:

… investing in lower-emissions production now can see Australia leverage a suite of comparative advantages in resources, low-cost renewables, and existing infrastructure and supply chains to build world-leading capabilities.

Michele O'Neil from the Australian Council of Trade Unions said:

Future Made in Australia is our chance to seize our own natural advantages and realise our own renewable superpower—

She said that we need to ensure:

… that these industries deliver well-paid, safe and secure jobs for the workers that drive them and material benefits for the communities that host them, be they those regions that have powered our country for so long or First Nations communities.

The business community also backs this plan. In an article in the Financial Review on 26 June this year, the Business Council CEO Bran Black said:

… we need a Future Made in Australia to work, and to work well. We cannot sit still while other nations are acting.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry offered their support for the objective of achieving sovereign manufacturing capability and maximising Australia's comparative advantage in decarbonisation as part of a future made in Australia. The Chamber of Minerals and Energy Western Australia said that our agenda would 'strategically unlock private investment at the scale in the national interest'.

Lastly, in May this year, 77 economists signed an open letter supporting the Future Made in Australia policy. The letter said:

Using the full suite of policy levers available to government, a Future Made in Australia strategy could rebuild a strong, sustainable manufacturing sector, with spill-over benefits that spread throughout the economy and society. We strongly support this important shift in emphasis and vision. We firmly believe that sustainable manufacturing must play a vital and strategic role in Australia's economy.

The world is changing, but those opposite don't change. They're opposed to every group in the Australian community that wants to turn around and make sure that we have a future made in Australia. This is crass politics. This is a low-life attempt to turn around and make sure that we don't have the opportunity to rebuild a manufacturing base that gives good jobs in our communities, that's supported by our regional communities, that's supported by business and that's supported by those in industry that have real experience in making sure that jobs are created, because those opposite really hate the idea of government, business and the workplace through their unions coming together to start building a better Australia. Whenever those opposite hear that happening, a red flag goes up, because they want to have a constant battle, to complain about people not wanting to get along. What they do is oppose every opportunity for the community to get along, to get policies to change in this country, to get policies that build a future made in Australia, because they can't help themselves. They just don't like it when people get along and get along to build this country.

Those opposite want division. They want opposition. They want to say no to every good policy that this country, when it comes together, builds up and puts forward. This bill is worth voting for, and I dare those opposite to back Australia.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak after such a magnificent speech about the benefits of a good policy to make stuff in Australia. Unfortunately, it isn't this policy. What you heard was the views of what a good policy would do, not what this Labor government has presented to us. We hear about all the magnificent things a great policy can do to make stuff in Australia, but this is the government that put $10 billion into a housing fund and, one year later, has not built a house. That takes a special level of incompetence that only this government can show.

Let's get down to what this bill, the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, has done in reality so far. The Future Made in Reality quantum computer is about paying an American company to build a cybercomputer in Australia. That doesn't sound like 'Made in Australia' to me. Then we had the big Solar Sunshot launch at Liddell in the Hunter Valley where I'm from. What does this government do where we're going to be building green energy, where we're going to be responsible? They fly not one but two private jets to Scone airport—one for the Prime Minister and one for the environment minister. They land their two private jets at this airport that isn't rated for aircraft that heavy, so, instead of the $16,000 landing fee that's meant to be paid, they pay $600 to the local council. They take their motorcades to the electorate, and they stand by best principles. If you're launching a policy that's meant to be marvellous, you put your best companies next to you and you shine in their glory. Who do they put next to them? SunDrive. SunDrive stands there and says: 'This is the greatest policy. We're going to build many solar panels. We're going to electrify and green the entire environment. It's made in Australia, right here.'

But what have we found out since? Approximately half that company's employees have been fired or retrenched since that announcement. They're down to 22 staff. They are lobbying AGL, the company that owns the land, not only to give them the land, give them the water, give them the connections and give them the energy but to build the shed for them because they can't fund the shed at the moment. They are going out there, and they've got a staged plan now. They will import components and assemble in Australia. One day they may be well off enough to actually manufacture in Australia. So are we talking about a future made in Australia or a future assembled in Australia? These actions, of the two things we have committed to, are nothing like what Senator Sheldon was talking about—a good, responsible, promising policy.

This government has an amazing ability to turn great ideas into poor execution and great feelings into rubbish outcomes, and this is just another one. This side of the house is not opposing this bill because we don't believe in the stated outcomes; we're opposing this bill because we know this government won't get it right.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You don't believe in Australia.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take the interjection from the minister over there, who's talking about a wind farm I opposed in Port Stephens, the offshore wind farm out there. We're talking about the 3,000 welding jobs that will be caused by constructing this in the Port of Newcastle. There's only one problem: the licensee that got the viability licence for that wind farm is the only one that doesn't have an Australian made component in their bid. The only licence application to get the go-ahead is the only one that didn't have an Australian made component. This is how we fail. We come in here and say good things, but the rubber never meets the road. This isn't a policy. This isn't legislation. This is a slogan, and that is all you're delivering here today.

Take the concept of green hydrogen and where we go there. Industry is running away from it at a million miles an hour. Just last week, Origin Energy pulled out of the Hunter Valley Hydrogen Hub because they say it's unviable. They do not want to invest more than the millions they already have invested in a pipedream. We've seen other companies across Australia doing the same, because it is not real.

When we're driving through these regions—when the Labor members opposite drive through these regions—do something. Stop. Pull out. I know, Acting Deputy President Sterle, you've been there in your long-haul trucks. Talk to these people. They don't want these hifalutin hopes. They want some rubber on the road. They want some action. They want something happening, because it's not at the moment.

We see industry running away from green hydrogen, but that is the only thing that this bill really wants to do at the moment. It wants to put money into something that industry is saying doesn't work. Fortescue is slowing its operations. Origin is pulling out. There are long talks about comparative advantage on the other side. It's a year 9 concept. What comparative advantage do you need to be more productive and have better returns than another country? We don't have it in this area. We don't have it in these things. How is a company meant to build solar panels in the Hunter Valley when there is indentured labour in foreign countries, when there is slave labour in foreign countries and when there are lower energy prices in foreign countries? How do we expect to compete, producing against those guys? We're going to—

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Give up! It's all about giving up.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the interjection here, because this is what it is. The answer of Labor is: do it our way or give up. That's always the answer it is, and it shouldn't be. It should be to find areas where we do have comparative advantage. I put it to you that solar panel manufacturing is not it. The industry is saying that green hydrogen is not it.

But there are things we can do. Senator Pocock spoke here—and in this chamber there is no bigger supporter of green and clean energies than Senator Pocock, who would normally love a bill like this—and he said he doesn't believe this has the scrutiny. He doesn't believe this has a selection process that will work correctly. He said—and I just heard him minutes ago—that the government is trying to pick winners. Ladies and gentlemen, if this government is at the racetrack, follow who it's betting on and bet on someone else. They couldn't pick a winner if it stared them in the face. This is just another bill that goes there.

Comparative advantage is all about productivity—putting your units of resource, labour and capital into things you do better. And the stats don't lie. This government, since it's come in, has overseen a 6.3 per cent fall in productivity in the country. Every one of us, every Australian—there are a few words in here, and I'm not sure people are saying their 6.3, because there are rubbish words as well—has been contributing 6.3 per cent less to the economy since this government has been in.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's just economically illiterate.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There you go. What's happening? We are producing less with greater levels of income. What this is about is a long-term handout to their big company friends. Once again, Senator Pocock, the great cheerleader of green energy, was talking about the Australianism of it. Any multinational can come in and set up an ABN. Go down to your local accountant and apply for an ABN—even go online and do it yourself—and suddenly you're an Australian company and you're qualified to do this.

When we look at every policy this government rolls out, we see good intentions turn into bad legislation and then into rubbish outcomes. This is just another step of that. The government should not be able to pick favourites. They're not going to pick winners. They've never picked a winner in their life. They can't pick their favourites in the seats they want to win. From the businesses that do the right deals with the unions, to the businesses that have the right shareholding in industry super funds—that is what this is about. This is about putting your taxpayer dollars in the hands of people that will do the right thing by the Labor Party and the unions. It is nothing more than that. I wish we were looking at a bill that did exactly what Senator Sheldon said, earlier today, it was going to do. This bill is not it. It is a poor shadow. It is the Temu knock-off of a bill for building in Australia. That is what this bill is. The Australian people deserve better.

If we go through everything we've got in here, we're talking about using taxpayer dollars for companies that are not able to compete on the world stage and that will require ongoing subsidies that then require people to pay more. You pay in your tax, you pay in your bills—you pay forever, under this policy. If we look at the amendments that are about bringing some sort of scrutiny, some sort of honesty, to how things are selected, they don't miraculously fix it. They make it better. The rort might not be as 'rorty', but the failure will still be just as big.

We need to get Australia doing the things we do well. The transition has to happen in an orderly fashion, and I agree with those sentiments of Senator Sheldon, but it is not this bill. When you go around today and look at everything wonderful in Canberra and out there in your world, remember the four big things that bring money to this country by trade: coal, iron ore, agriculture and other mining services. They are the big winners here. They are the things we do well. The alumina improvements—adding value to it—are a good idea. I'm not going to stand here and say that is a bad idea if we can do that. If we can do the same with bauxite—process it and turn it into pebbles—that is a good idea. When we find the comparative advantages we have, to make Australia a more competitive place, that is what we should be spending money on.

And we can find the emerging technologies we have the advantage in. At the energy festival in Newcastle, there was a printed solar panel, and they had to go to the UAE to get capital funding to develop it. When we look at these things that are out there, let's not produce the same thing more expensively than someone else and think we're going to have capability. Let's look at the innovation that we have. We have MGA Thermal, in the Hunter, producing energy-holding bricks that you can heat up, when energy is cheap, and use to produce heat and other things at other times. Look at these emerging technologies we have going on.

There are all of these wonderful areas we can go to. But no, we just sit here with a bill that says: 'If you back us, we'll give you taxpayer money. If you're in the right seat, we'll give you taxpayer money. We don't care about the productivity of it. We don't care about anything; we care about a slogan and staying elected, not a future made in Australia, a future assembled in Australia.' Australians deserve better.

Barbara Pocock (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Future Made in Australia bills—the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024. A future made in Australia must be built on the clean, green industries of the future. It cannot build a future for coal, oil and gas. The science is clear: we can't open any new fossil fuel projects if we want to limit our global heating to 1.5 degrees. What Labor is doing here is creating a future made in Australia that is actually one that offers an expansion for coal, oil and gas past 2050. The government's dangerous Future Gas Strategy can be delivered through this Future Made in Australia legislation, hastening the expansion of fossil fuels and accelerating the collapse of our climate system.

While the Greens support positive government intervention in our economy and a strong industry policy that offers good-quality jobs, we have real concerns about what's on offer with these bills. These bills would establish a framework to inject more than $22 billion of capital over the next decade, aiming to capitalise on a clean energy transition. Labor talks about these bills as a way to maximise the economic and industrial benefits of the move to a net zero emission economy and to secure Australia's place as an indispensable part of the changing global landscape. However, in truth, under these bills, there are no limitations on what will be funded by Treasury or Export Finance Australia as necessary to advance our economic security and resilience. This is a very wide definition. This could mean manufacturing weapons to send into occupied territories and war zones. It could finance the building of import LNG regasification terminals in developing countries so that they can become hooked on Australian gas. It could mean kickstarting a petrochemical industry that locks in dependency on new gas fields for decades to come. It could become an election slash fund for more coal and gas. Public funding to expand the coal, oil and gas industries cannot be supported in the middle of a climate crisis.

Another issue with the Future Made in Australia bills is the composition of the seven-person industrial decarbonisation and green metals advisory panel. The government advisory panel consists of some worker representatives as well as mining lobby heads, such as Rebecca Tomkinson from the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, Mark Kane at the Australian Steel Institute and the Australian Aluminium Council's Marghanita Johnson. And then there is Mr Paul Howes.

Mr Howes was previously, of course, a union official; however, he is now the national managing partner of consulting at KPMG, the second most powerful partner behind CEO Andrew Yates, the very same Paul Howes who recently told the KPMG workforce that he is planning to half KPMG's consulting work by 2026 by shifting jobs offshore to lower-cost work hubs based in Australia and overseas. I'm not sure how Mr Howes's approach at KPMG aligns with the goal of a future made in Australia that creates and protects onshore manufacturing jobs. Paul Howes, recruited to its advisory structures, is an architect of a future not made in Australia. It greatly concerns me that there is a managing partner of KPMG on this honeypot advisory committee, with all his consultancy firm's revenue goals, history of 'land and expand', and aggressive 'opportunity mapping', which this Senate has exposed over the past 12 months through the course of its current inquiries. Mr Howes won't need a map; he's been given the keys to the front door of the Future Made in Australia, when he has a personal track record of a future for KPMG that is not made in Australia.

Along with giving jobs to consulting mates, Labor is at the beck and call of the coal and gas cartel. Labor took hundreds of thousands of dollars in political donations from Chevron, INPEX, the Minerals Council of Australia, Santos and Woodside in the 2022-23 financial year alone. In turn, Labor is spending almost $50 billion in coal, oil and gas subsidies over the forward estimates, turbocharging climate destruction. Labor has approved at least 23 coal and gas projects in a climate crisis. Is it any wonder that Labor's pathetically weak climate agenda is actually seeing emissions go up?

For anyone out there watching, we are not solving the climate crisis. Many Australians voted for us to do exactly that in this current parliament, and we are letting them down. Labor is letting them down with this bill. The Future Gas Strategy, which appears inherently linked to Labor's Future Made in Australia agenda, has a great big dream—a great big fantasy—underpinning it. That is the dream and fantasy of opening up the Beetaloo basin, as well as Scarborough and Browse, and of fracking the Kimberley, Perth and Surat basins. That's the dream. That's the fantasy of a future gas strategy which is enabled by Labor's Future Made in Australia legislation. And that is all wrong. It betrays the safe future of our kids, our region and our planet.

Labor's Future Gas Strategy was almost universally condemned by environmental and climate groups. It's been labelled as a revival of Scott Morrison's 'gas-led recovery' plan. Despite gas being as dirty as coal, Anthony Albanese is as captured by the gas corporations as Scott Morrison was, having already given eight new gas approvals since coming to power.

The Greens will continue to fight the government's Future Gas Strategy and their push for more coal and gas. With Labor and the Liberals now backing more coal and gas past 2050, we in the Greens are fighting for real climate action. It is possible to stop this addiction to coal, oil and gas; if we truly want a future for our kids and our planet, then we must.

My home state of South Australia is aiming for 100 per cent renewable energy by 2027. We lead the world in the integration of wind and solar power. Currently, South Australia generates more than 70 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources and almost one in two households have solar panels installed. People are on the job; they get it, and they want a safe future for their kids. We've got the first power system in the world where rooftop solar can sometimes exceed the entire state's electricity demand. This is something to be incredibly proud of and the kind of future that Australia and the Greens want.

Right now, our future is jeopardised by climate change and it's undeniable that our planet is in trouble. We're witnessing the consequences of human-made climate change around the world, in our region and in our own country. We're no longer in the era of global warming but are in global boiling, in too many places, and 2023 was the warmest year in recorded history. We're paying a big price for treating our environment and our climate as mere fuel for our economy.

I'm here in the Senate today because of the evidence in successive IPCC reports and because I've listened to the scientists studying climate change. We need to directly address and tightly target that climate crisis with strong industry policy and quality jobs that make the difference. I'm here in the Senate so that I can look those future generations in the eye and say, 'I did everything I could.' We know the solutions to climate change; we've got the tools we need to implement them. We have to invest. We have to have the right industry policy to move in the right direction.

I recently met with the Safe Climate, Equal Future delegation visiting this parliament, with members from the Solomon Islands, the Philippines, the Kimberley and Kununurra. Thank you to Tanya, Grace, Eduardo and Peter, who shared their stories. They've all been personally impacted by climate induced disasters, like rising sea levels, typhoons, heatwaves and changing weather cycles. They showed me photos of the destruction of their homes and their communities. For them, climate destruction is here now. I heard their clear message that, despite these communities contributing the least to global emissions, they are at the front line of the climate crisis.

Our First Nations communities are clear, our Pacific neighbours are clear, the UN is clear and the science is clear. We have to stop opening new coal and gas fields, and we have to act on climate change. Investment in our industries and our industry policy must be aligned to that future. We've got to put the future of our kids before the interests of a small group of fossil fuel profiteers, mostly foreign owned, who are paying too little in taxes and are determined to wring their last fortunes out of extraction while putting our futures at risk. We must not subsidise that extraction. We've got to restore confidence in our democracy by excluding fossil fuel money from politics and rooting out corruption.

When I think of Australia's future, I want a future that all our kids can comfortably live in and I want them to have the same opportunities we did. There can be no doubt that fossil fuel expansion puts the climate, our future and our frontline communities at risk. The jobs of the future are in renewable economies and industries. We need urgent transition out of fossil fuels and into renewables, and that's what industry policy should be delivering. We support government setting an agenda and investment and investment incentives that give that direction to our economy. We've got real concerns that, hidden within this framework and this bill, a future made in Australia's actually a dangerous future of coal, oil and gas beyond 2050.

The Greens made nine recommendations in our dissenting report to these bills. We want the government to redirect billions in federal subsidies for the proposed Middle Arm gas and petrochemical precinct to support clean industries instead. We want the government to guarantee that public investment won't go to coal, oil and gas projects or infrastructure in other sectors that would lock in long-term dependency on fossil fuels, and we want the government to stop approving new coal and gas projects. That is what our regions and our workers in fossil fuel industries are looking for—an active industry policy to accelerate our transition to a clean energy future and a safe planet.

We want the government to end the fuel tax credit scheme for mining projects. We want the government to make the electrification of homes and businesses a priority. We want the government to use industrial policy to invest capital in manufacturing and processing jobs in Australia and to not keep on exporting our wealth overseas and damaging our planet. We want the government to better define and expand 'community benefit principles' to ensure that First Nations people benefit from the projects delivered under Future Made in Australia that protects our planet's future.

The Australian Greens support government intervention in our economy, and we want strong industry policy that drives public and private funds into productive parts of our economy. We need that strong policy, and we need the quality jobs that will come from it. But we need to do it in ways that ensure and protect a habitable planet where the climate's not breaking down around us and ecological collapse has been averted. We need intervention in the market to make it work in the interests of people, nature and climate, as well as the jobs and the industries of the future. We need to stop new coal, oil and gas if we're to preserve a liveable planet and a future for our kids.

Jana Stewart (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Future Made in Australia is about creating new jobs and opportunities for Australians and Future Made in Australia is for every part of our country by maximising the economic and industrial benefits of the move to net zero and securing Australia's place in a changing global, economic and strategic landscape. Australia is an incredibly beautiful place. I might be a little biased when I say the Murray River in particular is the most beautiful place in our country. But, in Australia, we don't just have an incredible landscape; we are also abundant with opportunities to harness renewable energy. But these opportunities are locked behind the upfront public and private investment needed to build the infrastructure and to train the workers to harness, store and fuel our homes with cheaper, cleaner energy.

The rest of the world can see the unique position of Australia. As the world rapidly transitions to renewable energy, private investors are lining up, knocking on our doors and relocating their top minds to Australia to be part of our journey to becoming a renewable energy superpower. However, they need clarity, certainty and cooperation from the Australian government to commit to building and developing renewable energy projects here.

This is precisely what the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 is about—providing that clarity and unlocking opportunities for all Australians to benefit from the global shift to renewable energy. This bill does this by giving the government the authority to ask Treasury to evaluate an industry and decide if Australia should invest in it and how to attract private investment. The bill sets up a clear and open process for these evaluations, making sure our decisions are well-founded and transparent, outline what Treasury will look for when making these assessments.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. It being 1.30 now, the debate is interrupted.