Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Let's be very clear: the coalition isn't opposed to quantum as a technology. I've advocated for testbed strategies for the whole Australian quantum industry in this House many times. We're opposed to this government picking one winner in quantum, a Silicon Valley based American company, and having the audacity to put that under the Future Made in Australia program. The member for Swan was happy to quote Chief Scientist Cathy Foley. There was a quote about PsiQuantum that the member for Swan and those opposite won't quote, so I'll quote it. This is from the Chief Scientist:

I was also put off by the 'salesman' push and lack of detail in the information provided and how it was presented.

That's how the Chief Scientist described the PsiQuantum pitch at the start of the process, before Minister Husic—as he does—brought his pressure to bear on her and she gave some qualifiers. But she did also talk about 'high risk', and that is what we have argued from the start. It is a high-risk strategy to put everything into one company in a contested field, particularly an American company.

We also have significant concerns about the process. I've spoken on multiple occasions about the email from PsiQuantum as a company to investors prior to the EOI process. In that email, they were spruiking their advanced talks with the Australian government and the significant financial investment that they were going to get from the Australian government. They were spruiking that to investors before the EOI process had started. That leads to significant questions that PsiQuantum have to answer. If PsiQuantum are happy to take over a billion dollars of Australian taxpayer money here in Canberra and in Brisbane in Queensland, they have to answer: were they misleading those potential investors? Were they misleading them by saying they had an advanced negotiation, or did they have that agreement with the Australian government and they were telling those investors in good faith before the EOI process started? They need to enter that question. That is why we need a committee hearing—so we can ask PsiQuantum, who are prepared to take $1 billion of taxpayer money, those questions. The minister should be prepared to answer those questions. Why was this company spruiking it to investors before the EOI process had started? The minister said he was happy for scrutiny to be brought. He should accept this committee hearing. But he won't. He'll hide from this. The taxpayers deserve to know. They deserve to know about this sham process. The quantum industry is outraged.

I was first alerted to this EOI process last year. I spoke in this chamber in November last year about the process and the concern from the industry that the EOI process was set up to pick a winner, to pick PsiQuantum. Lo and behold, in April this year, PsiQuantum was the winner of this tender process. This is significant for the Australian quantum industry, because the Australian government is backing a Silicon Valley based US company over Australian industry. It's significant for the quantum industry but it's significant for all Australians because this is under the Future Made in Australia banner, the supposed flagship of the Albanese Labor government. If they are not prepared to answer questions about this investment under that banner, it calls into question every investment made by the Albanese Labor government under Future Made in Australia.

The reality is that these questions have not been answered by this minister. If he's not prepared to answer these questions around these conflicts of interest and about this email that many in the industry have seen spruiking support, showing that the EOI process was set up to divert taxpayer money, then the Prime Minister should show some courage and he should ask the minister to resign. There is over $30 billion of taxpayer money tied up in the Future Made in Australia program. This $1 billion is part of that. The Australian people need to have faith that taxpayer dollars are being spent in the best interests of the quantum industry here in Australia and in the best interests of taxpayers, not in the best interests of the minister's friends in Silicon Valley.

See this speech in context