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

Change	Division
representatives vote 2024-09-09#8 Edited by mackay staff on 2024-10-06 09:21:27	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">Allegra Spender</p>~~ <p>I move amendment (3) as circulated in my name:</p> The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-09.44.1) introduced by Wentworth MP [Allegra Spender](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/wentworth/allegra_spender) (Independent), which means they failed. ### What do the amendments do? Ms Spender [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-09.44.1): > In the current legislation, the sector assessment process is essentially optional. This creates the potential for the framework to be bypassed by a future government and for taxpayer money to be invested in industries and pet projects without clear justification. This point has been highlighted by stakeholders as diverse as the BCA and the ACF—and by many parliamentarians during the second reading debate. > > My amendment will help close this loophole. It will require that the sector assessment is conducted and that the results are considered by the minister before support for the sector can be made available under the Future Made in Australia. This is a commonsense amendment which strengthens the guardrails around government spending under this bill and is aligned with how the Treasurer has said the process is meant to work. It does not unnecessarily constrain government investing. It does not prevent the government from acting quickly. It does not create an unrealistic expectation that every sector which is assessed will get government support. It simply seeks to legislation the guardrails the government has already told us they want to follow. ### Amendment texts > (3) Page 12 (before line 4), before clause 10, insert: > >> 9A 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 Minister has considered the sector assessment report and has recommended that support be provided for the sector. <p class="italic">(3) Page 12 (before line 4), before clause 10, insert:</p> ~~<p class="italic">9A 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 Minister has considered the sector assessment report and has recommended that support be provided for the sector.</p>~~ <p>There are clear reasons to be optimistic about Australia's economic opportunities for the global transition to net zero. Market failures in green industries, including a lack of a universal carbon price, the need to move faster in the transition, and spillover benefits of new technology, mean that there are clear reasons why government has a role to play. But it's fair to say that Australia has a mixed record when it comes to industrial policy, and stakeholders from across the political spectrum have raised a number of concerns about the government's proposal to date—about the risk of picking winners, about the degree of ministerial discretion and about how ill-defined phrases like 'economic security' could be used to justify every future minister's pet projects.</p> <p>These are valid concerns. They don't mean that we should not act; they just mean that how we act is really important. We can't afford to make the mistakes of the past, where money was wasted on failing industries that never had a chance of standing on their own two feet. Instead we need to provide support where there are market failures and where Australia can have a sustainable competitive advantage, and we need a robust and transparent framework to guide these investments, with decisions made wherever possible at arm's length from government. This bill provides for some of that, and I welcome the government's amendments, which will go some way to addressing these concerns. However, there remains a concerning loophole in this legislation which I believe needs to be closed, and my amendment seeks to do this.</p> <p>This bill creates a national interest framework and the sector assessment process which are intended to provide discipline and rigour around government spending under the Future Made in Australia. Sectors should not receive support until this process identifies a clear need for it. That is a good thing. But, whilst the government has lauded this new sector assessment process, you don't need to conduct a sector assessment before a sector can receive support under the Future Made in Australia. In the current legislation, the sector assessment process is essentially optional. This creates the potential for the framework to be bypassed by a future government and for taxpayer money to be invested in industries and pet projects without clear justification. This point has been highlighted by stakeholders as diverse as the BCA and the ACF—and by many parliamentarians during the second reading debate.</p> <p>My amendment will help close this loophole. It will require that the sector assessment is conducted and that the results are considered by the minister before support for the sector can be made available under the Future Made in Australia. This is a commonsense amendment which strengthens the guardrails around government spending under this bill and is aligned with how the Treasurer has said the process is meant to work. It does not unnecessarily constrain government investing. It does not prevent the government from acting quickly. It does not create an unrealistic expectation that every sector which is assessed will get government support. It simply seeks to legislation the guardrails the government has already told us they want to follow. I therefore urge the government and the opposition to support it.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p>~~ ~~<p>The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to.</p>~~ ~~<p></p>~~ ~~<p></p>~~

~~Allegra Spender~~
I move amendment (3) as circulated in my name:
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-09.44.1) introduced by Wentworth MP [Allegra Spender](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/wentworth/allegra_spender) (Independent), which means they failed.
### What do the amendments do?
Ms Spender [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-09-09.44.1):
> *In the current legislation, the sector assessment process is essentially optional. This creates the potential for the framework to be bypassed by a future government and for taxpayer money to be invested in industries and pet projects without clear justification. This point has been highlighted by stakeholders as diverse as the BCA and the ACF—and by many parliamentarians during the second reading debate.*
>
> *My amendment will help close this loophole. It will require that the sector assessment is conducted and that the results are considered by the minister before support for the sector can be made available under the Future Made in Australia. This is a commonsense amendment which strengthens the guardrails around government spending under this bill and is aligned with how the Treasurer has said the process is meant to work. It does not unnecessarily constrain government investing. It does not prevent the government from acting quickly. It does not create an unrealistic expectation that every sector which is assessed will get government support. It simply seeks to legislation the guardrails the government has already told us they want to follow.*
### Amendment texts
> *(3) Page 12 (before line 4), before clause 10, insert:*
>
>> *9A 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 Minister has considered the sector assessment report and has recommended that support be provided for the sector.*
(3) Page 12 (before line 4), before clause 10, insert:
~~9A 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 Minister has considered the sector assessment report and has recommended that support be provided for the sector.~~
There are clear reasons to be optimistic about Australia's economic opportunities for the global transition to net zero. Market failures in green industries, including a lack of a universal carbon price, the need to move faster in the transition, and spillover benefits of new technology, mean that there are clear reasons why government has a role to play. But it's fair to say that Australia has a mixed record when it comes to industrial policy, and stakeholders from across the political spectrum have raised a number of concerns about the government's proposal to date—about the risk of picking winners, about the degree of ministerial discretion and about how ill-defined phrases like 'economic security' could be used to justify every future minister's pet projects.
These are valid concerns. They don't mean that we should not act; they just mean that how we act is really important. We can't afford to make the mistakes of the past, where money was wasted on failing industries that never had a chance of standing on their own two feet. Instead we need to provide support where there are market failures and where Australia can have a sustainable competitive advantage, and we need a robust and transparent framework to guide these investments, with decisions made wherever possible at arm's length from government. This bill provides for some of that, and I welcome the government's amendments, which will go some way to addressing these concerns. However, there remains a concerning loophole in this legislation which I believe needs to be closed, and my amendment seeks to do this.
This bill creates a national interest framework and the sector assessment process which are intended to provide discipline and rigour around government spending under the Future Made in Australia. Sectors should not receive support until this process identifies a clear need for it. That is a good thing. But, whilst the government has lauded this new sector assessment process, you don't need to conduct a sector assessment before a sector can receive support under the Future Made in Australia. In the current legislation, the sector assessment process is essentially optional. This creates the potential for the framework to be bypassed by a future government and for taxpayer money to be invested in industries and pet projects without clear justification. This point has been highlighted by stakeholders as diverse as the BCA and the ACF—and by many parliamentarians during the second reading debate.
My amendment will help close this loophole. It will require that the sector assessment is conducted and that the results are considered by the minister before support for the sector can be made available under the Future Made in Australia. This is a commonsense amendment which strengthens the guardrails around government spending under this bill and is aligned with how the Treasurer has said the process is meant to work. It does not unnecessarily constrain government investing. It does not prevent the government from acting quickly. It does not create an unrealistic expectation that every sector which is assessed will get government support. It simply seeks to legislation the guardrails the government has already told us they want to follow. I therefore urge the government and the opposition to support it.
~~Milton Dick~~
~~The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to.~~
~~~~
~~~~