Thank you. I ask leave of the house to move amendments one and two as circulated in my name together. Is leave granted?

Assistant Minister: Leave is granted.

Member: I move amendments one and two as circulated in my name together. 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. However, I have 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 I'm proposing here.

I recognize that the government needs to be nimble and respond to opportunities, but when making investment decisions under 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 framework, 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 also 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 labeled as 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 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, and unfortunately, governments don't have a great track record of making good investment decisions in situations of uncertainty. I recognize that with the way other countries are responding to rapid economic transition towards decarbonization, we do have to take some risks. But this amendment is designed to reduce that risk and prevent poor decisions from being made. If the government backs the process it's designed for sector assessments, it should be willing to commit to using it.

My other amendment recognizes 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 while others flourish. I recognize 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 at 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 are reviewed every five years to ensure they continue to be the appropriate areas of investment for Australian taxpayer dollars. While regular assessment may be part of the government's intention, it is not explicitly required in the bill, which may result in one sector being available for investment long after it's appropriate.

I thank the Treasurer's office for its engagement on these amendments and acknowledge the work it has done on its own amendments to improve the transparency of this bill. If the government is not going to accept these amendments, I'd appreciate any reassurance 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, 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.

Thank you.