Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Hansard source

That was Paul Howes, Senator Cash; you are correct. It was the same Paul Howes who put Prime Minister Gillard in the Lodge—if Paul Howes is to be believed, anyway—who was laying down the law to Prime Minister Gillard: 'If you're going to go down the path of this carbon tax, if one job is gone, our support is gone.' They were the ominous words of the Australian Workers Union. Little wonder that Mr Hanson, the state secretary in South Australia, felt empowered—he felt liberated; he felt free—as a result of Mr Howes speaking so freely about the potential implications of the carbon tax. With the liberation, empowerment and freedom that Mr Howes gave to Mr Hanson, Mr Hanson went out there and indicated that he thought the carbon tax could wipe the towns of Whyalla and Port Pirie off the map.

Why? It is pretty simple when it comes to the steel industry. It is really very, very simple. The steel industry in Australia supports around 15,000 jobs or thereabouts. When it is making steel, more than 80 per cent of the emissions from steelmaking are released in the chemical reaction that produces iron. There is no technical alternative and, according to the steel industry, one is decades away. Let us dwell on that technical fact for just a moment: more than 80 per cent of the emissions from steelmaking are released in the chemical reaction that produces iron; there is no technological alternative to this and one is at least 20 years away, according to the steel industry. But hang on; I thought—let me just check on this, but I thought—this Steel Transformation Plan was only offering $300 million over the period of 2011-12 to 2016-17, according to the explanatory memorandum, and even then, when you look at the detail of the bill, that funding could all be committed far, far sooner than in that short window of time. So we have at least 20 years before the steel industry is going to find some way to mitigate, to overcome, the fact that, technologically, 80 per cent of its emissions are locked into the chemical reactions that take place when you make steel. Eighty per cent are locked in, and the industry faces 20 years before it thinks there might be a technological breakthrough, yet this government is offering a few pieces of silver for a few years. It is offering $300 million for just a few years. What happens after that, Senator Carr? What happens after that to Australia's steel industry? How do you expect this industry to remain competitive after that? Indeed, the Chairman of OneSteel, Mr Peter Smedley, said: 'There is no technology available today or in the foreseeable future for the company to be able to reduce its emissions. A carbon tax would merely be an additional cost.'

You might call this a transformation plan—and, Senator Carr, it might well be a transformation plan—if there were an alternative technology readily available in the next couple of years that the steel industry could pick up off the shelf out of Europe, Asia, the United States or somewhere else and apply to their production practices in Australia. That might then transform the industry. It might transform their emissions profile. It might actually be part of a transformation plan. But, when that alternative technology is not available, this is nothing more than a bandaid. It is simply a bandaid. It is a handout given, as I said before, to keep the industry intact past the next election.

Do the industry welcome it? Of course they do. It is better than facing the carbon tax without this. But, from the coalition perspective, our position is crystal clear: the industry should not have to face the carbon tax and therefore should not have to have the compensation. If you want to provide funding for alternative purposes—to address the impacts the industry feel from the higher dollar or from the higher labour force costs that come from the industrial relations policies of this government; if you want to provide funding for other purposes—that is a separate debate.

But the government in every sense except the parliamentary votes has coupled this package with the carbon tax. It was only developed after the carbon tax was developed, in response to steel industry concerns. The legislation was only drafted and released with the final pieces of the carbon tax legislation. When the government wanted to have a committee of this parliament inquire into this legislation, it lumped it in with the carbon tax legislation. At every step of the way, this has been done in tandem, in lock step, with the carbon tax because that is what this proposal is all about. It is only out of a sheer political desire of the government to try to somehow wedge the opposition on this issue that it seeks a separate vote.

That is why we will not fall for such a blatant, stupid, political tactic. Our vote on this legislation will be the same as our vote on the carbon tax legislation because the two should have been voted on together. They should have been voted on as a package. Everyone in this chamber knows that. Everyone in this chamber knows that the two are in lock step and they should be voted on as a package. It is to the government's shame that they were not voted on as a package. And that is why the coalition will stick absolutely to the consistent position that we have taken throughout the debate today and over the last few days.

I did notice whilst in the chamber before that Senator Milne sought to move a second reading amendment to this legislation. Can I just reflect—because I had the opportunity to do so a couple of times during the debate on the carbon tax bills that were debated together, as against this carbon tax bill that is being debated separately—on how the tactics and approach of the Greens have changed in this place. Once upon a time, if the Greens wanted the government to consider a plan—be it for the Illawarra or elsewhere—as part of legislation, the Greens would propose detailed amendments to that legislation. They would take it into the committee stage and those amendments would be debated and would become part of the law if they were successful. Now, though, we see that, because the Greens dare not rock the boat with the government and the government dare not rock the boat with the Greens, the Greens have been pushed down to the stage and reduced to the point of simply doing second reading amendments to try to signal what they might like—to signal that they would like the government to take into account certain things in the proposal—rather than actually trying to put it in the legislation that the government should take into account certain things. This is what the Greens have been reduced to.

Of course, I can understand why the Greens might be a little timid about what they want to say in this regard, because we had the very embarrassing situation earlier this year where Senator Hanson-Young, from my home state, was quoted in an article headlined 'Steel town could thrive without steelworks, says Hanson-Young'. I tell you what: that was news to the people of Whyalla. They are very resilient people in Whyalla. They are very hardworking people. They are very decent people. They are people who try, of course, to generate a range of other industries and activities in their city. But OneSteel is directly responsible for the jobs of up to 4,000 people in this city of 22,000, and the very notion that Whyalla could thrive without the steelworks—thrive, no less—is, of course, just utter, utter madness.

My colleague Senator Colbeck, I think, highlighted just how much damage the carbon tax has done—in particular to BlueScope and OneSteel—in his contribution. He demonstrated that more than 60 per cent of the market capitalisation of those companies has been wiped off the share market since the carbon tax was introduced—well above what has been felt anywhere else. That is because the share market knows that, for the long term, this Steel Transformation Plan does nothing. It is no more than a bandaid designed to see the government past the next election.