Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Hansard source

For some time I've been considering, wondering and pondering whether only one of the major participants in our national democracy is prepared to back resources in, and this debate is proving to be evidence of that fact. We have a speaker's list this morning that is jam-packed with coalition members—members from the Liberal Party and from their coalition partners, the National Party—who are, one after another, standing to their pins and speaking about the importance of the resources sector to Australia, our national interest and our fiscal position. Not one member opposite is prepared to stand and speak to this statement. Australians need no further evidence about who's on the side of Australian resources and who's on the side of Australian resource workers. It's evident here in the chamber. Members opposite can stand and talk about the importance of this sector; the opportunity is there.

I'm pleased the member for Hawke has found his voice! I thought the member for Moncrieff had taken it from him! But the reality is that, often, complex issues can be distilled down to very simple questions. My simple question for those opposite is this—and I want to take an earlier interjection: 'What about emissions reduction?' Okay, what about emissions reduction? Those opposite, I think, would agree that, if we are to move towards an energy mix that has a greater dependence on renewable energy, then a large component of that will be resources like—let's pick aluminium. There'll be greater demand, not less, for aluminium into the future. What does this safeguard mechanism do with respect to aluminium production in Australia? The answer is quite simple: it will ultimately move the refining effort offshore. This isn't a safeguard mechanism; it’s a straightjacket for Australian manufacturers, particularly in the mining and resource sector. Let me explain. What we have at the moment is an aluminium sector in our country which sees the ore extracted. It's then refined and utilised. Those opposite want a situation where the ore is extracted and shipped overseas; there's the first additional footprint. It'll be processed in jurisdictions overseas—jurisdictions which, I'm prepared to bet, don't have the kind of regulatory frameworks and environment that you see here in Australia, jurisdictions where there isn't the kind of preoccupation around carbon emission reduction. The first thing we've done is extracted the ore and shipped it overseas and created a greater footprint. Then we've put it in a manufacturing facility overseas, which creates a bigger footprint. Then, of course, we create a yet larger footprint by bringing it back to Australia. This is where the ideological chest beating comes into direct conflict with the business reality. Those opposite want to be able to beat their chests and say, 'Look at us'. We see the peacock feathers unfurled every day in question time as the minister walks to the dispatch box, but he's not thinking about the real world consequences. The real world consequences of this measure will result in—as it relates, in my respectful submission, to aluminium production—a greater level of emissions, not a reduction.

I remember back when we used to talk about emissions intensive import-exposed industries. There's been no discussion about that in this debate. There has been some suggestion that there will be a fund available for the large polluters, notwithstanding the fact that the Senate is asking question after question, seeking the detail—doesn't that sound familiar—but getting no answers; that exercise will be guillotined today.

This isn't just a building in the hill; it's a place where Australians get to know. Australians want to know. They want to know what's going to happen to the aluminium sector in Australia. Not far from my electorate is the smelter at Portland, in the member for Wannon's electorate. The people who work in that facility want to know. They want to know if they're going to be sacrificed on the altar of environmental utopia. The reality is that it may well be, following the science, that the most appropriate thing to do is to increase aluminium production in Australia. But that's not the kind of nuance that this safeguard measure works towards. This safeguard measure is just about creating a box that those opposite can tick so that the minister, who walks into the chamber question time after question time, thrusts his chest out and unfurls the peacock feathers, can feel satisfied about what he has done.

It's not just aluminium; I think we all have to accept that copper is going to play a more and more significant role in relation to renewables. There is four times the amount of copper in an electric vehicle than there is in an internal combustion engine. If we want a future that relies on a greater mix of renewable energies then we're going to need to back the resources sector. That copper will be extracted. It'll be refined. It'll be produced. But the question for those opposite is: will it be produced in Australia, or are we going to import it from overseas? The minister talks about being, I think his phrase is, 'an Australia that makes stuff again'. Well, I've got a message for the minister. My electorate makes stuff every day. We've been doing it since before Federation and we want to keep doing it. We don't want laws that prevent us from doing it for no reasonable or sensible objective.

Nobody here wants to take an approach relative to the environment that causes harm, but the point is that there's very little point putting a straitjacket on an Australian aluminium producer only to see that effort exported overseas in an environment where we see greater levels of carbon emissions. That's crazy. That's not in the national interest and it's not in the interest of those communities where the majority of these manufacturing facilities and mining resources exist.

In the last 90 seconds I have the attention of the chamber I want to say: if those opposite were genuine, if those opposite had the kind of conviction that members of the Greens have—and I'm not lauding them; I'm just saying that if they had that conviction which seems to be so important to those opposite—then they would do us a favour and not rely on resource revenue in the upcoming May budget. It's one thing to say: 'We're going to end with coal and gas no longer being mined in this country. That's our long-term objective.' You can't do that on the one hand and then on the other hand gleefully accept the rivers of revenue that arrive prebudget for our nation to expend.

Those on this side of the chamber are academically honest about this. We support the mining and resources sector. We thank them for the work they do. We acknowledge the very significant contribution that they make to the national interest but also to the lifestyles of every Australian. We owe a great debt to our mining sector. We owe a great debt to our miners. We owe a great debt to those who have established the industry. I am one who is prepared to stand up for them.

See this speech in context