MEDIA RELEASE - KEEP AUSTRALIAN COMPANIES HERE OR DRIVE THEM OVERSEAS: WHY CAN’T ED HUSIC BE CONSISTENT?

PAUL FLETCHER MP

Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy

Shadow Minister for Science and the Arts

Manager of Opposition Business in the House

MEDIA RELEASE

Tuesday, 19 November 2024

According to Ed Husic in an interview today, his reason for allocating $40 million from the National Reconstruction Fund to Toowoomba based company Russell Mineral Equipment is that they “had repeated offers from overseas investors to buy them out and take them offshore”.

This is the same Minister who committed almost one billion dollars of taxpayers’ money to an American company, PsiQuantum.

Australian quantum companies missed out - with several now looking to expand operations overseas or seek extra funding overseas.

This inconsistency between word and deed is classic Ed Husic.  

When the PisQuantum deal was announced in April he said the company’s quantum computer would be operational in Brisbane by 2026-27 and the deal would generate 400 jobs.  

Yet talking points prepared for officials of Minister Husic’s department - obtained by the Opposition under FOI - say the 400 jobs will not be achieved until 2032. 

Husic claims to support the Albanese Labor Government’s so called national interest framework.  Yet the PsiQuantum deal was not assessed under this framework.

He claims competitive procurement issues were addressed through an expression of interest process before the PsiQuantum deal was announced.  But PsiQuantum was exempted from the EOI process - and for months it had been in direct discussions with Australian government officials up to and including Minister Husic.  

Husic says he welcomes transparency and would welcome an ANAO audit of the PsiQuantum deal.  Yet he has failed to provide Labor’s support for the Opposition’s motion to establish a select committee to investigate the PsiQuantum deal.

Proper scrutiny is long overdue and the Coalition will continue to push for a review into this controversial investment. Several serious questions remain unanswered and taxpayers deserve better.