Andrew Charlton (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It's been quite extraordinary to watch, over the last couple of weeks, the coalition's quite severe backflip and about-face on the importance of the mining sector in Australia and what governments need to do to support the mining sector. These are the parties that for many decades have been proudly claiming that they're the ones keeping mining strong. These are the parties that have been opposing tax increases on the gas sector, even though those tax increases were supported by the sector, and trying to give handouts in any possible way they could to their friends and supporters in that industry. Yet all of a sudden, when the budget is released, they are now opposing a once-in-a-generation set of measures to support the mining industry and to develop critical industries that Australia has long talked about but that the government now has a plan to deliver. So you'd forgive the Australian people for having a little bit of a sense of whiplash with this about-face from the coalition.

The question is: what is driving it? After trying so hard to deliver so much money to support their friends in the mining sector, why are they now opposed to this once-in-a-generation budget that delivers a significant investment into Australia's resources sector? Is it because suddenly they don't feel that the mining sector is important in Australia? Is it because they don't have faith in the industries that have long been talked about as being central to Australia's future—critical industries, batteries, mineral processing and green hydrogen? Have they suddenly decided that these industries don't have a hope in Australia and can't be supported, or do they think that this is a set of proposals which are old-style industry policy, won't work and won't have their intended impacts?

None of their objection to this package makes much sense. Australia has been talking about developing these industries for decades. We know that we have the underlying resources in order to be globally competitive in these sectors.

We know that Australia has a comparative advantage in these industries and all of the raw materials to create global export industries but we have waited for many decades and seen so little progress, and that is why this budget is so important. Because, for the first time, it backs these industries and creates a platform for them to reach global scale and international competitiveness. Are those opposite objecting on the basis that this money won't deliver that global competitiveness? Are they claiming that this money will lead to this industry becoming reliant on government money? Well, if that's their claim then they haven't read the substance of the proposal.

These measures are well crafted. They are designed to ensure that businesses only get the funds if they are producing and if they are delivering. That's why this mechanism of production tax incentives, particularly for critical minerals, will make such a difference and why it has been carefully crafted to safeguard the Treasury finances. It really begs the question of what is it that those opposite don't think Australia can achieve in these industries? What is their logic for opposing it, particularly when we've had so much support from across the industry? Paul Kopejtka from Alliance Nickel said, 'It's an absolute shot in the arm because this will boost investment, there is no doubt.' Rob Scott from Wesfarmers said, 'This is a smart targeted use of the tax system to solve big problems, leverage our competitive advantage and enhance Australia's prosperity.' And Adia Resources said, 'It will be significant benefit and will help make the Australian critical minerals sector more cost effective with our international peers.'

These are industries where Australia really has the capacity to achieve global excellence and achieve that global excellence in sectors where global demand is expanding. For a long time, Australia has mined minerals and delivered those minerals to our partners around Asia and around the world but we've never done much in the way of mineral processing, never done as much as we could have done on value adding to those minerals.

Finally, with the energy transformation that we have, with the abundance of solar resources that Australia has— (Time expired)

See this speech in context