Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Hansard source

As a farmer, I've always supported the coalition's very practical and effective approach in dealing with climate change, particularly in relation to water and water security. For us, as farmers, it's the most important part of our businesses. I've supported what we did with Landcare and clean energy technology as well. In government, we reduced emissions. We were on track to achieve a 30 to 35 per cent reduction when we looked at our 2030 targets. We also beat our Kyoto targets and we saw $40 billion invested in renewables in our time. We also made sure that Australia remained strong, that its economy remained strong, and we were a prosperous nation growing the economy by 23 per cent, even during the time of natural disasters, COVID and a range of other issues that we had to deal with.

In government we supported and achieved practical emissions reductions in a system that rewarded businesses that were reducing their emissions in the understanding that transition takes innovation, significant investment and time to achieve. Instead, the Labor government is punishing businesses and industry by imposing a carbon tax—one of the highest and most punitive in the world—with mandatory reductions that will be both difficult and costly to achieve, particularly in some sectors and with some businesses.

This additional carbon tax on businesses and industry for things like fertiliser, cement, gas extraction, manufacturing, plastic, steel, lithium, silica and our remaining fuel refineries will have to be passed on to consumers through higher electricity prices, higher food prices and higher prices for building materials. That will drive up the cost of living at a time when Australian families and workers can least afford it. I read recently that the IMF has said that Labor's 43 per cent emissions reduction target could cost the equivalent of at least 4,500 per household every year by 2030. In contrast, a big US survey showed the average person was prepared to pay an additional US43c a week to mitigate climate change. As I said, the five per cent year-on-year to 2030 reductions for business in hard-to-abate industries will be difficult, will be expensive and will actually take longer than expected to achieve, particularly when the technology needed to drive the reductions in those businesses is still in the innovation and development stage.

I don't want Australia to lose jobs, businesses or industries. I think there are only five cement manufacturing facilities in Australia, which is 1,300 jobs and 20,000 downstream employees. Many small and medium civil-works businesses in regional, rural and remote Australia depend on the cement industry, and we can't afford to lose these companies and these jobs overseas. They are competing with cement imported from China, a country which produces over half the world's cement, has vastly lower production and labour costs and definitely doesn't have one of the most punitive carbon taxes in the world.

Western Australia's resources sector is definitely in the firing line with the carbon tax. This is a sector that achieved a record $230 billion of sales in 2021, accounting for over half of the national goods exported in that year. They support more local jobs and play a critical role in carrying the nation's economy, particularly through the pandemic. As a reward for their billions of historic investment, the inherent financial risks and their hard work providing for over 156,000 people, the federal Labor government is punishing them with one of the highest carbon taxes in the world, on top of increasing energy costs, potential industrial action, strikes and pattern bargaining—all increasing the costs of doing business. And this is at a time when the shortage of labour is actively driving up costs and increasing sovereign risk to projects.

Equally, business and industry have to be able to apply the lowest and most cost effective emissions reductions. My understanding is that around 32 per cent of the companies affected by Labor's carbon tax are based in WA—companies such as Woodside Energy, Chevron, Worsley Alumina, Alcoa, Iluka Resources, Tronox and CSBP. Mining companies have actually warned the government about the potential for closures. They are also concerned about the damage to exports for the trade exposed industries, given many of the companies they compete with globally are producing in countries where there are no carbon taxes at all. This, of course, means they will bear an even higher cost of production than their competitors. Those of us who live and work in and are passionate about rural, regional and remote parts of Australia know this is where these companies operate and provide the jobs. It is our communities and local jobs that are most affected.

We know that the east coast LNG sector is still coming to terms with Labor's gas price caps, putting at risk new investment in LNG at a time when AEMO has said there will be serious shortages of gas and energy on the east coast. Adding to this risk, if any potential new LNG proposal considers that carbon capture and storage and/or hydrogen are their lowest cost options, this will need policy certainty but long lead times—this is the time and transition factor—however, the Labor government is actively preventing new CCS projects at safeguard facilities from being able to qualify for ACCUs.

I want to talk about some of the affected companies in my electorate that will have to pay Labor's carbon tax. I don't want to lose any one of these. I don't want to see them become unviable and have to close. At Kemerton in my electorate, Simcoa operates the only silicon manufacturing operation in Australia. It is one of the largest and most modern silicon smelters in the world. The plant produces a superior high-purity silicon metal. It provides unique advantages in producing semiconductor silicon chips, solar panels and lightweight aluminium to reduce fuel consumption and emissions. However, Simcoa is caught between two conflicting policies: federal Labor's safeguard mechanism emissions reduction requirements and state Labor's ban on hardwood logging in Western Australia. Hardwood is essential to maintaining the quality and high purity which drives Simcoa's subsequent market advantage. Simcoa uses charcoal as a chemical reductant critical for stripping the oxygen atoms off the silicon dioxide—the conversion process itself. So here we have a domestic and global demand for a critical mineral necessary to help reduce emissions across a range of sectors, but Simcoa will have to comply with federal government safeguard mechanisms at the same time its processing and quality product is being compromised by WA state Labor government policy. So we can see here that, for practical purposes, there is a conflict between carbon emissions reductions and the barriers directly in the way of what is a critical mineral, silicon, needed to reduce emissions. There is no doubt that silicon is playing now and will continue to play an important and increasing role in emissions reduction in the future.

The Safeguard Mechanism was originally designed to incentivise businesses, as we know, not to add to their cost of production through a punitive carbon tax. The former government was working with business and industry, really through technology and innovation, not taxes. Under Labor's carbon tax, should emissions intensive sectors not be able to reduce their emissions year on year, and if they are not able to secure enough ACCUs up to $75 a tonne carbon tax, there are penalties of $275. Albemarle in my electorate is producing another critical emissions reduction mineral, lithium, the lightest of all minerals, used in batteries, aircraft, you name it. They're in Kemerton in my electorate. When the five trains of production are commissioned, this plant will be one of the world's largest lithium production facilities. But it will have to pay Labor's carbon tax.

One of the other affected industries will be the aluminium industry. There are several smelters in Western Australia. This industry is an important Australian industry, our highest-earning manufacturing export, contributing around $16.9 billion in exports to the economy each year. The three parts of this industry are primary aluminium, alumina and bauxite. We are a major global player and, more importantly, it's an economic powerhouse in regional Australia, directly employing 17,000 people and indirectly supporting 60,000 families, mostly in regional Australia. It's an industry that is affected by this Safeguard Mechanism carbon tax. Given that the primary aluminium sector in Australia is the seventh largest global producer, electricity accounts for 30 to 40 per cent of a smelter's cost base and is a key driver of competitiveness. So why make it more expensive for them? But the industry already has some of the lowest emissions intensity of alumina production in the world. They are doing what they can—some of the lowest emissions intensity in the world.

We are the largest producer of bauxite, a high-earning manufacturing export and, as I said, important in employing local people. They are committed to sustainable production and recycling, whether it's bauxite, aluminium or alumina. I often feel as though the Labor government is determined to create the impression that the 200-plus entities covered by the Safeguard Mechanism are not actually committed to emissions reduction, when the opposite is the case. Our alumina industry has some of the lowest emissions intensity in the world. The sector's key global competitors in refining are China, Brazil, India and Saudi Arabia, none of which have a mandatory emissions target or a carbon tax at all, and certainly not one of the highest in the world. The two refineries in my south-west will be affected, Alcoa in Wagerup and Worsley Alumina near Collie in the member for O'Connor's electorate.

The Australian Aluminium Council has indicated that aluminium is and will be one of the most widely required elements in the global clean energy transition. It is a critical mineral, and it should be added to Australia's critical minerals list along with copper and nickel. That would identify Australia as a supplier of choice, one with significant experience and success in delivering a quality product in any market. That's something positive that could be done. The Wagerup alumina refinery is one of the world's most environmentally and technologically advanced refineries, and one of the lowest emitting refineries in the world because it runs on gas. They employ so many people in my part of the world in secure, well-paid jobs locally that have set up families and workers for life and retirement. Local businesses and regional contractors have also benefited from their presence. So we can't afford to lose or compromise their operations because of this carbon tax.

Over the years, there have been industries that have had challenges. We used to have about 300 dairy farmers in the Harvey shire alone. Now we're down to between 110 to 115 in the whole state. Many who were historically workers in this area have taken up jobs at the refineries. There are businesses operating in hard-to-abate sectors where deployable technology is still evolving and not yet available. What regional Australia cannot afford is to see any of our existing businesses caught under Labor's carbon tax and either forced into offshore processing and manufacturing or lost altogether. That's the 'technology, not taxes' approach that we need. The alumina industry underpins the economy of the Bunbury port. It's a major export out of that port and very important. It's a beautiful, fine white powder, for anybody who's never seen it. It is a beautiful product and one that's handled very efficiently through the port of Bunbury. It is a product that I'm particularly proud of when I see it in that form.

I also see where there are serious concerns as well around a number of the businesses that come to us, not necessarily just to their peak bodies but to us as local MPs, telling us about the difficulties that they're facing and will face through this carbon tax, particularly if they're in an industry where it is very difficult and will take time and they're relying on technology and innovation. We really need at all times, for those businesses as well, affordable, reliable, dispatchable and accessible power. That underpins our manufacturing and even our households. It's something that we certainly have concerns about in Western Australia, given the state Labor government's indications about power in Western Australia as well.

See this speech in context