Division Description Changes — Bills — Future Made in Australia Bill 2024; Consideration in Detail — 9th Sep 2024

Change	Division
representatives vote 2024-09-09#5 Edited by mackay staff on 2024-09-18 16:56:51	Title Bills — Future Made in Australia Bill 2024; Consideration in Detail Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 - Consideration in Detail - Sector assessments Description ~~<p class="speaker">Kate Chaney</p>~~ ~~<p>by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together:</p>~~ The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-09.38.1) introduced by Curtin MP [Kate Chaney](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/curtin/kate_chaney) (Independent), which means they failed. ### What do these amendments do? Ms Chaney [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-09.38.1): > One of the amendments I'm proposing makes it clear that, if support is labelled as being part of the government's Future Made in Australia package, it must be linked to a sector that has actually been assessed as part of the National Interest Framework. In other words, the government can't say, 'We've got this great rigorous sector assessment process, but we don't have to use it.' Currently the bill requires the government to identify sectors that align with the National Interest Framework and would benefit from government investment to address barriers to private investment, but there's no requirement for the government to only provide support in sectors that have been identified in this way. So the government can stick a Future Made in Australia label on anything it wants, even if it's not in a sector that's been assessed as being worthy of government investment. > > Allowing government to use taxpayer funds for industry policy requires a leap of faith that the government will make good investment decisions. Unfortunately, governments don't have a great track record of making good investment decisions in situations of uncertainty. I recognise that, with the way other countries are responding to rapid economic transition towards decarbonisation, we do have to take some risks, but this amendment is designed to reduce that risk and prevent stupid things from getting through. If the government backs the process it has designed for sector assessments, it should be willing to commit to using it. > > My other amendment recognises that this is a rapidly changing space. In setting industry policy, we need to be acting on the best and most current information we have about where the global opportunities lie. For example, certain critical minerals have a bright future now, based on promising developments in different battery technologies, but in a few years some may hit brick walls and others flourish. I recognise that good decisions made now on the best available information may not look like good decisions as technology changes. > > As the bill is currently drafted, sector assessments are conducted on the direction of the minister within a period defined by the minister, and a report is delivered as required by the minister. The sector assessment then remains in operation without recourse to review. My amendment requires that sector assessments be reviewed every five years to ensure that they continue to be the appropriate areas of investment for Australian taxpayer dollars. While regular assessment may be part of the intention of the government, it's not explicitly required in the bill, which may result in one sector being available for investment long after that's appropriate. ### Amendment text > (1) Clause 6, page 8 (after line 19), at the end of clause, add: > *>> (6) If a sector assessment has previously been conducted for a sector and Future Made in Australia support has been provid*ed in relation to the sector, the Minister must, by notifiable instrument, direct the Secretary to conduct a supplementary sector assessment for the sector at least once every 5 years. > > (2) Page 14 (after line 3), after clause 11, insert: > >> 11A Requirements before providing Future Made in Australia support >> >> Future Made in Australia support must not be provided to a person in relation to a sector unless: >> >>> (a) a sector assessment for the sector is conducted in accordance with section 8; and >>> >>> (b) the sector assessment report recommends that the support be provided. <p class="italic">(1) Clause 6, page 8 (after line 19), at the end of clause, add:</p> <p class="italic">(6) If a sector assessment has previously been conducted for a sector and Future Made in Australia support has been provided in relation to the sector, the Minister must, by notifiable instrument, direct the Secretary to conduct a supplementary sector assessment for the sector at least once every 5 years.</p> ~~<p class="italic">(2) Page 14 (after line 3), after clause 11, insert:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">11A Requirements before providing Future Made in Australia support</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">Future Made in Australia support must not be provided to a person in relation to a sector unless:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(a) a sector assessment for the sector is conducted in accordance with section 8; and</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(b) the sector assessment report recommends that the support be provided.</p>~~ <p>I'm supportive of the intention of the Future Made in Australia Bill but, as I said in my second reading speech, in order for this to be successful we need to know that the right people are making the right decisions for the right reasons. The government has set out a framework for future investments, intended to provide reassurance that taxpayer money will be spent sensibly so we can prosper in a global net zero economy, but I have some concerns about whether this framework is strong enough to provide that reassurance, so I'll be supporting all amendments that increase the transparency and integrity of this framework, including the two amendments that I'm proposing here.</p> <p>I recognise that the government needs to be nimble and respond to opportunities, but when making investment decisions under the Future Made in Australia, it will be investing our hard-earned dollars, so it needs to have a clear and direct mandate. If the government tells Australians that an investment is being made as part of the Future Made in Australia package, that should be shorthand for, 'We have undertaken a rigorous assessment and acted on the best advice available.' If any old investment can be shoehorned into this Future Made in Australia thing, it becomes a slush fund. It's always tempting for the government to have it both ways—to try to provide assurance about a rigorous process but maintain the discretion to ignore the process that it's putting in place. The amendments I'm proposing are designed to limit the government's ability to avoid using the processes that it's going to great pains to design.</p> <p>One of the amendments I'm proposing makes it clear that, if support is labelled as being part of the government's Future Made in Australia package, it must be linked to a sector that has actually been assessed as part of the National Interest Framework. In other words, the government can't say, 'We've got this great rigorous sector assessment process, but we don't have to use it.' Currently the bill requires the government to identify sectors that align with the National Interest Framework and would benefit from government investment to address barriers to private investment, but there's no requirement for the government to only provide support in sectors that have been identified in this way. So the government can stick a Future Made in Australia label on anything it wants, even if it's not in a sector that's been assessed as being worthy of government investment.</p> <p>Allowing government to use taxpayer funds for industry policy requires a leap of faith that the government will make good investment decisions. Unfortunately, governments don't have a great track record of making good investment decisions in situations of uncertainty. I recognise that, with the way other countries are responding to rapid economic transition towards decarbonisation, we do have to take some risks, but this amendment is designed to reduce that risk and prevent stupid things from getting through. If the government backs the process it has designed for sector assessments, it should be willing to commit to using it.</p> <p>My other amendment recognises that this is a rapidly changing space. In setting industry policy, we need to be acting on the best and most current information we have about where the global opportunities lie. For example, certain critical minerals have a bright future now, based on promising developments in different battery technologies, but in a few years some may hit brick walls and others flourish. I recognise that good decisions made now on the best available information may not look like good decisions as technology changes.</p> <p>As the bill is currently drafted, sector assessments are conducted on the direction of the minister within a period defined by the minister, and a report is delivered as required by the minister. The sector assessment then remains in operation without recourse to review. My amendment requires that sector assessments be reviewed every five years to ensure that they continue to be the appropriate areas of investment for Australian taxpayer dollars. While regular assessment may be part of the intention of the government, it's not explicitly required in the bill, which may result in one sector being available for investment long after that's appropriate.</p> <p>I thank the Treasurer's office for his engagement on these amendments and acknowledge the work that he's done on their own amendments to improve the transparency of this bill. If the government is not going to accept these amendments, I'd appreciate any reassurance that the Treasurer is willing to give about the circumstances in which Future Made in Australia support could be granted to a sector that has not been assessed as needing public investment. If there are no examples of that then I urge the government to adopt these amendments to help taxpayers believe that their money will be well spent to build a resilient future economy.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p>~~ ~~<p>The question before the House is that the amendments be agreed to.</p>~~ ~~<p></p>~~ ~~<p></p>~~

~~Kate Chaney~~
~~by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together:~~
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-09.38.1) introduced by Curtin MP [Kate Chaney](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/curtin/kate_chaney) (Independent), which means they failed.
### What do these amendments do?
Ms Chaney [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-09.38.1):
> *One of the amendments I'm proposing makes it clear that, if support is labelled as being part of the government's Future Made in Australia package, it must be linked to a sector that has actually been assessed as part of the National Interest Framework. In other words, the government can't say, 'We've got this great rigorous sector assessment process, but we don't have to use it.' Currently the bill requires the government to identify sectors that align with the National Interest Framework and would benefit from government investment to address barriers to private investment, but there's no requirement for the government to only provide support in sectors that have been identified in this way. So the government can stick a Future Made in Australia label on anything it wants, even if it's not in a sector that's been assessed as being worthy of government investment.*
>
> *Allowing government to use taxpayer funds for industry policy requires a leap of faith that the government will make good investment decisions. Unfortunately, governments don't have a great track record of making good investment decisions in situations of uncertainty. I recognise that, with the way other countries are responding to rapid economic transition towards decarbonisation, we do have to take some risks, but this amendment is designed to reduce that risk and prevent stupid things from getting through. If the government backs the process it has designed for sector assessments, it should be willing to commit to using it.*
>
> *My other amendment recognises that this is a rapidly changing space. In setting industry policy, we need to be acting on the best and most current information we have about where the global opportunities lie. For example, certain critical minerals have a bright future now, based on promising developments in different battery technologies, but in a few years some may hit brick walls and others flourish. I recognise that good decisions made now on the best available information may not look like good decisions as technology changes.*
>
> *As the bill is currently drafted, sector assessments are conducted on the direction of the minister within a period defined by the minister, and a report is delivered as required by the minister. The sector assessment then remains in operation without recourse to review. My amendment requires that sector assessments be reviewed every five years to ensure that they continue to be the appropriate areas of investment for Australian taxpayer dollars. While regular assessment may be part of the intention of the government, it's not explicitly required in the bill, which may result in one sector being available for investment long after that's appropriate.*
### Amendment text
> *(1) Clause 6, page 8 (after line 19), at the end of clause, add:*
>
>> *(6) If a sector assessment has previously been conducted for a sector and Future Made in Australia support has been provided in relation to the sector, the Minister must, by notifiable instrument, direct the Secretary to conduct a supplementary sector assessment for the sector at least once every 5 years.*
>
> *(2) Page 14 (after line 3), after clause 11, insert:*
>
>> *11A Requirements before providing Future Made in Australia support*
>>
>> *Future Made in Australia support must not be provided to a person in relation to a sector unless:*
>>
>>> *(a) a sector assessment for the sector is conducted in accordance with section 8; and*
>>>
>>> *(b) the sector assessment report recommends that the support be provided.*
(1) Clause 6, page 8 (after line 19), at the end of clause, add:
(6) If a sector assessment has previously been conducted for a sector and Future Made in Australia support has been provided in relation to the sector, the Minister must, by notifiable instrument, direct the Secretary to conduct a supplementary sector assessment for the sector at least once every 5 years.
~~(2) Page 14 (after line 3), after clause 11, insert:~~
~~11A Requirements before providing Future Made in Australia support~~
~~Future Made in Australia support must not be provided to a person in relation to a sector unless:~~
~~(a) a sector assessment for the sector is conducted in accordance with section 8; and~~
~~(b) the sector assessment report recommends that the support be provided.~~
I'm supportive of the intention of the Future Made in Australia Bill but, as I said in my second reading speech, in order for this to be successful we need to know that the right people are making the right decisions for the right reasons. The government has set out a framework for future investments, intended to provide reassurance that taxpayer money will be spent sensibly so we can prosper in a global net zero economy, but I have some concerns about whether this framework is strong enough to provide that reassurance, so I'll be supporting all amendments that increase the transparency and integrity of this framework, including the two amendments that I'm proposing here.
I recognise that the government needs to be nimble and respond to opportunities, but when making investment decisions under the Future Made in Australia, it will be investing our hard-earned dollars, so it needs to have a clear and direct mandate. If the government tells Australians that an investment is being made as part of the Future Made in Australia package, that should be shorthand for, 'We have undertaken a rigorous assessment and acted on the best advice available.' If any old investment can be shoehorned into this Future Made in Australia thing, it becomes a slush fund. It's always tempting for the government to have it both ways—to try to provide assurance about a rigorous process but maintain the discretion to ignore the process that it's putting in place. The amendments I'm proposing are designed to limit the government's ability to avoid using the processes that it's going to great pains to design.
One of the amendments I'm proposing makes it clear that, if support is labelled as being part of the government's Future Made in Australia package, it must be linked to a sector that has actually been assessed as part of the National Interest Framework. In other words, the government can't say, 'We've got this great rigorous sector assessment process, but we don't have to use it.' Currently the bill requires the government to identify sectors that align with the National Interest Framework and would benefit from government investment to address barriers to private investment, but there's no requirement for the government to only provide support in sectors that have been identified in this way. So the government can stick a Future Made in Australia label on anything it wants, even if it's not in a sector that's been assessed as being worthy of government investment.
Allowing government to use taxpayer funds for industry policy requires a leap of faith that the government will make good investment decisions. Unfortunately, governments don't have a great track record of making good investment decisions in situations of uncertainty. I recognise that, with the way other countries are responding to rapid economic transition towards decarbonisation, we do have to take some risks, but this amendment is designed to reduce that risk and prevent stupid things from getting through. If the government backs the process it has designed for sector assessments, it should be willing to commit to using it.
My other amendment recognises that this is a rapidly changing space. In setting industry policy, we need to be acting on the best and most current information we have about where the global opportunities lie. For example, certain critical minerals have a bright future now, based on promising developments in different battery technologies, but in a few years some may hit brick walls and others flourish. I recognise that good decisions made now on the best available information may not look like good decisions as technology changes.
As the bill is currently drafted, sector assessments are conducted on the direction of the minister within a period defined by the minister, and a report is delivered as required by the minister. The sector assessment then remains in operation without recourse to review. My amendment requires that sector assessments be reviewed every five years to ensure that they continue to be the appropriate areas of investment for Australian taxpayer dollars. While regular assessment may be part of the intention of the government, it's not explicitly required in the bill, which may result in one sector being available for investment long after that's appropriate.
I thank the Treasurer's office for his engagement on these amendments and acknowledge the work that he's done on their own amendments to improve the transparency of this bill. If the government is not going to accept these amendments, I'd appreciate any reassurance that the Treasurer is willing to give about the circumstances in which Future Made in Australia support could be granted to a sector that has not been assessed as needing public investment. If there are no examples of that then I urge the government to adopt these amendments to help taxpayers believe that their money will be well spent to build a resilient future economy.
~~Milton Dick~~
~~The question before the House is that the amendments be agreed to.~~
~~~~
~~~~