Coalition Senators' Dissenting Report

Background

1.1The Bill establishes a ‘Future Made in Australia’ Framework to be administered by the Treasury, with project initiatives financed via ARENA and Export Finance Australia.

1.2It establishes a ‘National Interest Framework’ with two streams: a net zero transformation stream, and an economic resilience and security stream. It is proposed that this framework would dictate what programs, industries, or businesses are eligible for Commonwealth financial assistance.

1.3The Bill also empowers the Treasury to direct the Treasury Secretary to conduct an ‘independent sector assessment’, analysing the extent to which a sector aligns with the National Interest Framework and opportunities to address barriers to private investment.

1.4Furthermore, the Bill also establishes that any ‘Future Made in Australia’ funding would be contingent on the alignment with ‘community benefit principles’, which include “promoting safe and secure jobs that are well paid and have good conditions”. Putting such vague principles in primary legislation will have the effect of establishing government funded and mandated compulsory unionism by stealth.

1.5Labor’s ‘Future Made in Australia’ is a highly flawed, incoherent and ineffective policy proposal, which risks entrenching union involvement in government funded projects and businesses.

1.6At a total cost of $23 billion, this policy is another example of Labor’s big spending inflationary agenda. Instead of getting the basic economic policy settings right, Labor instead wants to pick winners and force taxpayers to subsidise uneconomic industries for their union fellow travellers.

Creeping compulsory unionism

1.7The Bill establishes that any Future Made in Australia funding would be contingent on alignment with so-called ‘Community Benefit Principles (CBP)’, which include “promoting safe and secure jobs that are well paid and have good conditions”.

1.8Ai Group submitted that the “CBP definitions provided in the FMIA Bill remain vague and difficult to interpret in the context of a specific investment proposal”.[1]They concluded that “the CBPs as presently defined in the FMIA Bill may reduce policy certainty and increase investment risk”.[2]

1.9At the public hearing, the Business Council of Australia (BCA) set out why it was concerned that such a seemingly innocuous line in the legislation could result in mandatory union involvement in investment decision-making:

What I am particularly worried about is this. If you take a look at the community benefit principles set out in the draft legislation, there are five of them on page 12 in clause 10(3). The first one is 'promoting safe and secure jobs that are well paid and have good conditions'. As I mentioned before, that is an innocuous enough statement and nobody would object to that on its face. However, what we're worried about is that we have seen in some overseas jurisdictions like the US that that's been interpreted to mean that particular proposals for investment need to be supported by unions.

… if you are saying that a union endorsement is required in order for a particular proponent to succeed with a grant application you are creating an inherent risk of corruption, and we think that needs to absolutely be avoided.[3]

1.10In their submission, the BCA warned that:

… setting government procurement requirements for union endorsed agreements can limit competition, and subsequently increase costs. It also creates a ‘honey pot’ and the potential incentive for side deals to secure these union agreements to gain access to contracts/benefits.[4]

1.11When asked about the ‘community benefit principles’, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU) said at the public hearing that they think all jobs borne from ‘Future Made in Australia’ investments must be unionised:

We at the AMWU want well-paid, safe, secure jobs, and that's why the jobs from this should have union agreements; they should be unionised.[5]

1.12The AMWU submission recommended that the Bill be made more explicit on mandatory union control, by recommending the following:

Firms receiving finance, grants or equity investment in their firm should be required to have an enterprise agreement with the relevant trade union/s registered or enter the relevant multiemployer bargaining stream.[6]

1.13The Maritime Union of Australia also submitted that “the Community Benefit Principles are an important aspect of the Bill which we strongly support”.[7]

1.14In their submission, the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) noted how conditions such as the ‘Community Benefit Principles’ could be used to impose union control over successful funding recipients, noting the example of the Queensland’s ‘Best Practice Industry Conditions’:

For example, the current Queensland Government has a program called the Best Practice Industry Conditions (BPICs), which, amongst other things, make tendering on government funded construction projects conditional on compliance with the BPICs. The stated objectives of the BPICs purport to be ‘to ensure that the Queensland Government projects conform with best practice industrial relations.’ However, in reality, the BPICs have been used by the Queensland Government and the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union to leverage the financial power of government funding to impose the union’s own preferred form of control over which businesses receive such funding, and the terms on which they conduct their operations.[8]

1.15The MCA noted that the BPIC policy “is not about pay and conditions but about union control”.[9]

1.16Given the ‘community benefit principles’ will have the force of legislation, the MCA expressed strong concern that similar arrangements with unions will be made effectively mandatory under ‘Future Made in Australia’, and represent a serious risk to the economy:

The workplace relations elements of the ‘community benefit principles’ in paragraph 10(3)(a)(i) of the Bill are unnecessary and will be economically damaging. They are not about improving working conditions but are a government-mandated attempt at union control of both policy decisions and workplaces.[10]

1.17At the public hearing, the MCA outlined how this approach would damage productivity:

If, in adopting this framework, the government went down that path, which is contrary to what they've been saying they are going to do, it would materially affect the ability of companies to engage creatively and innovatively with their workforce and create the highest productivity in their workplace, which is essential for both return on investment and higher wages.[11]

1.18In their submission, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI), expressed concern that ‘Future Made in Australia’, through the ‘community benefit principles, could be used to promote “other agendas”, with the cost borne by Australians:

Mandated labour arrangements will only increase the cost of projects and reduce the economic benefits of these projects to the wider community. … Mandating union-friendly inflexible contracting arrangements will only increase the cost of projects and exacerbate productivity problems.[12]

1.19Referring to the ‘community benefit principles’, the Grattan Institute submitted that they were “against the formal incorporation of these principles in the assessment process for funding support”.[13]

1.20On notice, ACCI noted that the ‘community benefit principles’ are more aligned with the government’s political priorities and would increase cost to the taxpayer:

… the Community Benefits Principles go well beyond sound investment decision-making into a range of other areas, that are more aligned with the government’s political priorities than the efficient delivery of projects. They simply represent additional regulatory requirements on the project proponents that will reduce the potential returns on investment, while increasing the cost to the taxpayer. They are likely to discourage both domestic and international companies from investing in Australia, due to the heavy hand regulatory burden they represent.[14]

Risky industry policy that will entrench rent-seeking through picking winners

1.21‘Future Made in Australia’ represents a risky and potentially wasteful expenditure of tax-payers’ money through a ‘picking winners’ approach to industry support.

1.22In their submission to the inquiry, the Productivity Commission warned the Committee about the potential pitfalls of such a policy:

… industry policy such as the FMIA can be costly for governments, act as a form of trade protection, and distort the allocation of Australia's scarce resources towards activities that Australia is not best placed to undertake.[15]

1.23At the hearing, Productivity Commission Deputy Chair, Professor Alex Robson, explained the risks of the ‘Future Made in Australia’ scheme, explaining how it could constitute a waste of taxpayer funds and reintroduce trade protection:

The first risk is that you could spend money or tax expenditures on programs whose costs may exceed their benefits, directly. … Then there's a secondary class of risks and opportunities around Australia's position with respect to the rest of the world. The pattern of these sorts of policies around the world—and we outline this in the Trade and assistance review—is that there is a risk that they could distort trade with the rest of the world, or they could distort foreign investment with the rest of the world. For a small, open economy like Australia, that is a risk that we have to take seriously, because trade matters to us. It's a source of jobs and higher living standards and all of those things that we value highly.[16]

1.24On notice, the Productivity Commission confirmed it had not been consulted on the policy:

The Productivity Commission was not consulted on the design of the Future Made in Australia policy before it was announced …[17]

1.25The Chair of the Productivity Commission, Danielle Wood, has previously described the policy as risking forever subsidies to certain sectors, noting that “we risk creating a class of businesses that is reliant on government subsidies, and that can be very effective in coming back for more”.[18]

1.26The Grattan Institute, in their submission, described the Bill as not up to the task, in terms of being appropriate industry policy.[19] They’ve noted that that the lack of clarity in the legislation creates the risk of “picking losers”:

But, without specifying the role these assessments will play and how they will factor into decision-making, there is a risk of falling into three classic industry policy traps: overreaching for competitive advantage, picking losers, and short-term policy thinking.[20]

1.27Furthermore, the Grattan Institute explained how Australia’s comparative advantage does not lie in certain manufacturing, which is not acknowledged by this policy:

An abundance of raw materials does not necessarily translate into an advantage as a manufacturer. Our analysis of battery supply chains shows Australia’s advantages in energy and materials are maintained when turning ores to metals and metals to active materials, but shrink when turning active materials to cells.[21]

1.28By going down this path, we risk subsidisation of un-commercial industries:

… Australia may find itself propping up uneconomic industries for no material increase in security, just as happened for car manufacturing.[22]

1.29The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) agreed, noting that poorly designed industry policy “risks allocating support to industries that may not have reasonable long run prospects, redirecting scarce resources away from sectors that do have comparative advantage”.[23]

1.30In their submission, ACCI laid out the industries where Australia does have a comparative advantage:

Australia has significant comparative advantage in areas such as agriculture and food processing, mining and minerals processing (beyond critical minerals), as well as significant potential in advanced manufacturing such as artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics, due to our highly educated and skilled workforce.[24]

1.31Furthermore, ACCI strongly warned against a “picking winners” approach, according to government priorities:

…trying to ‘pick winners’ in sectors that are a priority for the government, but don’t have a long-term comparative advantage for Australia. Further, FMA should not be used to develop industries that are not sustainable over the long-term without continuing government financial support.[25]

1.32ACCI spoke to the example of the subsidisation of solar panel manufacturing, explaining how Australia is not cost-competitive with competitor manufacturers in other economies:

Australia should continue to develop strong trading partnerships to benefit from low-cost technologies manufactured in other countries with highly competitive manufacturing cost bases for reasons including economies of scale. For example, the European Union, United States and Canada are investing heavily in the production of solar photovoltaic (solar PV) sectors, to derisk their reliance on production in China, which currently meets 80 per cent of global demand for solar PV panels. Australia cannot compete with the considerable public investment by these countries and the scale of their domestic market to support the economies of scale needed for these industries.[26]

1.33The Business Council of Australia submitted that based on experiences in other countries, subsidy schemes like ‘Future Made in Australia’ could actually increase costs to the market:

There is evidence emerging in other countries that providing subsidies has materially increased project costs and introduced additional delays, particularly when labour and product markets are tight.[27]

1.34Appearing at the public hearing, Grattan Institute Deputy Program Director, Alison Reeve, noted that the failure of the legislation to link sector assessments and funding decision-making could result in pork-barrelling by Labor Ministers:

The legislation brings into play the sector assessments, but there's nothing that formally links those to decision-making. That is what gives you the risk of pork barrelling. It is both a strength and a weakness of the Westminster system that ministers are allowed to just make decisions. That sometimes gives us tremendous flexibility, as it did during COVID, but it can also mean you get captain's picks.[28]

1.35On the issue of funding for solar panel manufacturing, Grattan Institute Program Director, Tony Wood, explained how it would be nonsensical to use subsidies to try to compete with countries like China:

It goes partly to the comments we made about batteries and solar panels. … We just think that would be, again, a waste of an opportunity for serious government funding in areas which will be of importance strategically to net zero in the future and also to Australia's advantage. That's where it really plays out. Right now, China has twice the total capacity that Australia and the world needs for solar panels. Competing with China is obviously nonsensical. Yet, there's been the suggestion that we might have a go at that.[29]

1.36The FMIA framework gives enormous power to the Treasurer, Treasury Secretary and the Department without increasing the accompanying scrutiny. This is because the sector assessments will be run through the Department of the Treasury, which is part of the executive. Despite purporting to be an independent process, funding decisions will be decided by Labor Ministers:

Senator BRAGG: Who makes the final decisions on spending taxpayer funds on these projects?

Ms Zaheed: That's a decision for government. It goes through ERC processes and is a decision of government.[30]

1.37Furthermore, there is a lack of clarity and transparency on which Ministers will ultimately make funding decisions, as demonstrated by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency’s (ARENA) evidence provided at the public hearing:

Senator BRAGG: Let's say, for example, I want to build solar panels somewhere in south-west Sydney and I apply to the single front door for money from the taxpayer. Who makes the decision if I get access to that money or not?

….

Mr Miller: ... So decisions are made by ARENA. There are obviously delegation limits there. When we are approving a grant above $50 million, that's in the minister's delegation, so we would take that back to the responsible minister. It might be Minister Bowen, Minister Husic or Minister King depending on how those delegations are divided up between the ministers, because the program spans across different portfolios. But that's generally how we would see it working.

…

Mr Miller: It's a decision that ARENA makes. Where it would be a grant above $50 million, we would be recommending to the minister to approve that funding. So it goes through our usual delegation process. But it's the ARENA process, correct.

Senator BRAGG: Which minister?

Mr Miller: By default, it would be the responsible minister for ARENA, which is Minister Bowen. I understand that, through the legislative amendments, the minister would have the ability to delegate his decision-making to other relevant ministers. So, if we were looking at a low carbon liquid fuel project, we perhaps would be asked to take that to Minister King, for example, in the infrastructure and transport portfolio. Or, if it's a battery thing, it might be Minister Husic. But it's really up to our minister then to essentially nominate the responsible minister for particular grants.[31]

1.38The legislation creates a shambles of a process for funding decision-making, which clearly lacks transparency. It will hand decision-making to a to-be-determined Labor Minister, who will then decide which industries and businesses receive taxpayer subsidies.

1.39Furthermore, it has been confirmed by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources that previous government funding decisions, retrospectively grouped together with Labor’s ‘Future Made in Australia’ agenda, will not be subject to the ‘National Interest Framework’ or sector analysis proposed by this Bill. When asked on notice whether the Government’s $1 billion investment in U.S. computer company PsiQuantum would be subject to scheme's proposed probity processes, the Department said the decision “pre-dated the introduction of the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 to Parliament, so could not be governed by the FMiA Act.”[32] Questions from Coalition Senators were dismissed as “hypothetical”.

1.40On notice, ACCI expressed concern that such significant expenditures would not be subject to the purported rigour proposed by the Bill:

ACCI is concerned that previously announced as FMA projects, including Solar SunShot and PSI Quantum, have not been assessed under the NIF, or subjected to a thorough sector assessment process.

…

In announcing these projects before they have been thoroughly assessed, the government risks investing in industries that may not be internationally competitive in the long term.[33]

1.41The ‘Future Made in Australia’ framework lacks all credibility, because the ‘National Interest Framework’ has not been applied to two $1 billion Labor Government investments; PsiQuantum and Solar Sunshot.

The Government needs to get the basics right

1.42While the Government’s focus is on expensive and inefficient industry subsidies, they are failing to address the essentials of Australian manufacturing. Energy costs and cumbersome industrial relations settings are making it difficult for manufacturers to succeed in Australia.

1.43The Government needs to get the basic rights, instead of focusing its attention on schemes that sound good in media releases.

1.44Bran Black, Chief Executive of the BCA, explained at the public hearing what the key economic fundamentals for manufacturers are, noting that they aren’t currently being addressed by the government:

The fundamentals are a combination of all of those things. It's our workplace settings. It's how we can go about making sure we are working with states to improve their planning processes. It's reducing red tape. It's making sure that we have reliable, dispatchable, affordable energy and security and a long-term plan in that regard. Of course, it's our workplace settings as well. It's not one single thing. It's working towards making sure, as I mentioned before, we have the scope to genuinely raise the tide that floats all boats rather than the selected few. … from our perspective, one of the challenges is that the fundamentals I mentioned before simply aren't being addressed right now.[34]

1.45On notice, ACCI stressed the importance of addressing these fundamentals:

Addressing these fundamentals is the most important priority, and critical for supporting investment and growth in emerging sectors.[35]

1.46The Committee heard from manufacturers like Mondelez International about the difficulties they are facing in Australia:

Like businesses of all sizes in the Australian economy, Mondelez is impacted by the rising cost of manufacturing, driven by rising energy costs, labour shortages, delays and price rises in logistics and supply chains, additional reporting requirements and inefficiencies of complying with different regulations across multiple jurisdictions.[36]

Mondelez acknowledges the need for new industries to develop and grow, and we want to be able to take advantage of the opportunities to transition energy in terms of hydrogen or critical minerals. However, we have present costs in Australian manufacturing, which are here and now.[37]

1.47Mondelez confirmed that energy costs are compromising their ability to invest and modernise:

Energy is our No. 1 challenge at the moment. As I said, gas prices increasing 100 per cent over a 12-month period has had a significant impact on our ability to invest in our business and continue to modernise.[38]

1.48At the public hearing, the Minerals Council of Australia spoke to the increasing labour costs due to Labor’s industrial relations changes:

Senator BRAGG: What is the major barrier that is holding back more investment in Australian mining?

Mr Marris: Investment in Australian mining has plateaued over the last five to 10 years. That is true. I think there are a range of factors which contribute altogether. I wouldn't sit here and say that there is one alone. … There might be long delays in duplication of environmental approvals, which are very important, but simplicity and clarity and understanding matter to investors so they know what is going on. On workplace relations, flexibility is obviously something that we've been very concerned about, and we're worried about the outlook, bearing in mind that the changes have only just been made. We are concerned that investors will look at that and not be able to ascertain what it will cost them to invest in a project.[39]

1.49BHP submitted that investment in the resources sector is not certain in Australia, and that a competitiveness agenda is necessary:

Australia’s success in capturing the next wave of resource investment is not assured. Many countries are endowed with vast quantities of minerals essential to decarbonisation and are aggressively competing for private sector investment to develop these projects. For this reason, BHP believes a comprehensive competitiveness agenda should be implemented … strengthening Australia’s attractiveness as a critical minerals investment destination.[40]

1.50The BCA submitted that a competitiveness agenda involves a “focus on getting the fundamentals right to make Australia an attractive investment destination”.[41]This looks like improving planning approvals and streamlining regulation, becoming a world leader in the digital economy, reducing red tape and ensuring our workplace relations settings support productivity.

1.51Witnesses made it clear that Australia’s production environment was not keeping pace with other jurisdictions.[42]

1.52Referring to the US, European Union, Canada and Japan, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia noted:

…a narrow focus on providing financial support is unlikely to shift the dial for Australia’s international competitiveness. For example, many of these economies score higher than Australia on both government efficiency (i.e., corporate tax policy, foreign investment and labour regulations) and business efficiency (i.e., entrepreneurship and workforce productivity), while the pace of our energy transition is a key cited challenge.[43]

1.53The Treasury has confirmed that gas, blue hydrogen and carbon capture and storage were not considered under the ‘National Interest Framework’, despite their alignment with net zero and domestic capability objectives.

1.54At the public hearing, the Food and Grocery Council noted the cost and reliability of energy as an immediate challenge for manufacturers:

… energy's a big challenge. I think there's the immediate supply and reliability, but then, in the longer term, it's transitioning to a renewable source and what that looks like. Labour shortages are another challenge, and then, as I think I closed off on, ineffective transport is another. Shipping and logistics around the country, as well as globally, to get Australian products out of the country and into other markets is a real challenge. I'd probably close with those three as being the bigger challenges.[44]

1.55Food manufacturer Mondelez International explained how gas supply would remain important to their viability as a business, and how simple tax solutions such as the instant asset write off could help them upgrade to other renewable options:

The chocolate-making process starts with gas boilers that melt the cocoa down into liquid form at very high temperatures. We have looked at whether the technology is ready to transition from gas boilers to renewable electricity, and the technology is not there. Similarly to what we heard from a previous witness around the cost of capex, and some of these capex decisions having 40- to 50-year life spans, that is the case with these gas boilers. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to switch those over, but they are significantly costly and don't provide the business with the commercial payback, which needs to be carefully considered, hence why we believe that there are some finance instruments, such as an instant asset tax write-off, which can make those more attractive to businesses.

…

I think that certainty of the instant asset tax write-off is quite attractive to a business such as ours and doesn't necessarily cost the government. It just changes the flow of money.[45]

1.56Rather than squandering taxpayer funds on American computer companies, or picking winners through risky industry policy, the Government should focus on getting the economic and tax settings right for manufacturers already conducting business in Australia.

1.57To do this, the Productivity Commission has pointed to productivity-enhancing reforms the government could adopt to improve Australia’s comparative advantage:

I think the best things to do if you're trying to maximise Australia's comparative advantage more broadly are all of the productivity-enhancing policies that we generally think about. We've advocated for 71 of those in the five-year productivity review, but there are likely to be others as well.[46]

1.58That the Bills not be passed.

Footnotes

[1]Ai Group, Submission 19, p. 8.

[2]Ai Group, Submission 19, p. 9.

[3]Mr Bran Black, Chief Executive Officer, Business Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, 28August 2024, p. 6.

[4]Business Council of Australia, Submission 29, p. 3.

[5]Mr Steven Murphy, National Secretary, Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, Committee Hansard, 28 August 2024, p. 21 & AMWU, Submission 36, p. 5.

[6]AMWU, Submission 36, p. 5.

[7]Maritime Union of Australia, Submission 46, p. 12

[8]Minerals Council of Australia, Submission 54, p. 6.

[9]Minerals Council of Australia, Submission 54, p. 7.

[10]Minerals Council of Australia, Submission 54, p. 7.

[11]Mr Sid Marris, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Minerals Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, 28 August 2024, p. 38.

[12]Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Submission 20, p. 6.

[13]Grattan Institute, Submission 27, p. 13.

[14]Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 002: Answers to questions on notice asked by Senator Andrew Bragg on 30 August 2024, p. 4.

[15]Productivity Commission, Submission 43, p. 2.

[16]Professor Alex Robson, Deputy Chair, Productivity Commission, Committee Hansard, 29 August 2024, p. 18.

[17]Productivity Commission, 002: Answers to questions on notice asked by Senator Andrew Bragg – PC Consultation about FMIA, p. 1.

[18]Michael Read & Phillip Coorey, ‘PM’s Made in Australia plan risks forever subsidies’, Australian Financial Review, 11 April 2024, https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/made-in-australia-plan-risks-forever-subsidies-20240411-p5fiy7.

[19]Grattan Institute, Submission 27, p. 2.

[20]Grattan Institute, Submission 27, p. 2.

[21]Grattan Institute, Submission 27, p. 6.

[22]Grattan Institute, Submission 27, p. 7.

[23]Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Submission 20, p. 1.

[24]Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Submission 20, pp. 3–4.

[25]Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Submission 20, pp. 4–5.

[26]Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Submission 20, pp. 4–5.

[27]Business Council of Australia, Submission 29, p. 2.

[28]Ms Alison Reeve, Deputy Program Director, Energy and Climate Change, Grattan Institute, Committee Hansard, 29 August 2024, p. 4.

[29]Mr Tony Wood, Program Director, Energy and Climate Change, Grattan Institute, Committee Hansard, 29 August 2024, p. 5.

[30]Ms Mohita Zaheed, First Assistant Secretary, Treasury, Committee Hansard, 29 August 2024, p. 25.

[31]Dialogue between Senator Bragg and Mr Darren Miller, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Renewable Energy Agency, Committee Hansard, 29 August 2024, p. 26.

[32]Department of Industry, Science and Resources, 002: Answers to written questions on notice asked by Senator Andrew Bragg on 30 August 2024 (received 4 September 2024), p. 4.

[33]Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 002: Answers to questions on notice asked by Senator Andrew Bragg on 30 August 2024, pp. 4-6.

[34]Mr Bran Black, Chief Executive Officer, Business Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, 28 August 2024, p. 5.

[35]Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 002: Answers to questions on notice asked by Senator Andrew Bragg on 30 August 2024, p. 1.

[36]Mondelez International, Submission 51, p. 1.

[37]Mondelez International, Submission 51, p. 6.

[38]Mrs Stephanie Saliba, Director, Corporate and Government Affairs, Mondelez International, Committee Hansard, 29 August 2024, p. 8.

[39]Mr Sid Marris, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Minerals Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, 28 August 2024, p. 37.

[40]BHP, Submission 17, p. 1.

[41]BCA, Submission 29, p. 2.

[42]Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, Submission 48, p. 2.

[43]The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, Submission 41, p. 2.

[44]Mr Scott McGrath, Director, Government and Media Relations, Australian Food and Grocery Council, Committee Hansard, 29 August 2024, p. 7.

[45]Mrs Stephanie Saliba, Director, Corporate and Government Affairs, Mondelez International, Committee Hansard, 29 August 2024, p. 8.

[46]Professor Alex Robson, Deputy Chair, Productivity Commission, Committee Hansard, 29 August 2024, p. 18.