Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024. I think we need to be very clear here because Senator Cox, a member of the Australian Greens, has just well and truly set out what the bill is about and, more than that, the danger that the Australian Greens governing in minority government with Labor after the next election poses to this country. It is very well known that the coalition will not be supporting this bill, and I will take you through the reasons as to why shortly.

But I have to say for anybody listening into this debate, the Australian Greens, in relation to a bill that affects the mining industry in this country, say this—and this is a direct quote from Senator Cox in this Senate: 'I stand here today to congratulate the Albanese government on this work.' What she means there is 'on this bill'. Then she says this: 'And I want to place on the record that in fact—' and this is the dangerous part for any Australians who think that a minority government may in some way benefit Australia. This is what the Australian Greens have said: 'We could go further and, with the Greens in minority government in the 48th parliament, this is actually possible and will make a difference to all Australians.' Senator Cox then went on to say, yet again, 'having the Greens in power'. I hope that is a wake-up call for all Australians, and I say this to the mining companies back in Western Australia: this bill does not do what you were told it would do and you were in fact, yet again, sold a pup. The good news is they've woken up to that fact.

To anybody listening: this bill will go through, but it will not go through with the support of the coalition. Why? Because we bother to read the legislation, we bother to talk to people and we understand that this is merely going to add more red and green tape to the mining industry—as if they need that! But, worse than that, it will go through with the support of the Australian Greens who, let's face it, would like to see the end of the mining industry in this country.

Honourable senators: Hear, hear!

There you go! I just stated that the Australian Greens want to see the end of the mining industry in this country, and there were Australian Greens in this chamber who said, 'Hear, hear!' to that statement.

Let me remind Australians about the mining industry. It is the backbone of the Australian economy. Particularly in Western Australia, it is what kept us going during COVID-19, when we had to make the very tough decision to close our borders. If you like the living standards that we have had, you probably need to say thank you, in part, to the mining industry in Australia, who have paid billions and billions and billions of dollars in both taxes and royalties to governments around Australia. We, as a government, have been able to utilise those billions and billions of dollars in royalties to provide the services that Australia expects.

The Greens have made it clear—and they will vote with the Australian Labor Party on this bill today—they want to see the end of the mining industry in Australia. But, more than that, they're already starting to make threats to the Australian people in relation to the power they will wield. Mr Bandt has already made it clear that they want a cabinet position in the next minority government—why stop at one, I say, when you could have two or three?—under Mr Albanese.

An honourable senator: That's right! You're so right!

You can see now that the Australian Greens are interjecting, 'That's right.' When the Greens and Labor sit next to each other on this bill, I ask all Australians to consider why they would support this bill, given that everything they say and do is to end the mining industry in Australia. Don't kill the golden goose that lays the golden eggs that quite literally sustain the Australian economy.

Let's look at the myths behind this bill, in any event. The production tax credits bill, when you bother to read it and to talk to stakeholders, will not deliver widespread tax relief. It won't do that. In fact, if and when it goes through, it will not provide a cent of tax relief to businesses for years and years. For Australian small businesses, who are being decimated by this government, it will not deliver a cent. In fact, it will cost taxpayers billions of dollars well beyond the 2020s, well beyond the 2030s and into the 2040s. That is a direct cost to the Australian taxpayer—as if you could afford another cost to you at this point in time.

Let's have a look at what Labor's impact analysis says. It says that just to apply for these tax credits will cost $100,000 in the first year. For a business to even apply for these credits, it is going to cost $100,000 in the first year and hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual costs over the duration of their operation. So it's a cost to business, but why is this? Firstly, again, read the bill. The government is tying businesses in red tape just to try and access these credits. For example, just to receive these tax credits, a business has to jump through significant red tape with the Clean Energy Regulator, with the Department of Industry, Science and Resources and with ARENA, and that's before you even get to the Australian Taxation Office.

Secondly, and far more insidiously, it is that businesses seeking to access these credits—they can now actually read the legislation, and this is in the legislation—will be held hostage to the same community benefits principles that are embedded in Labor's entire Future Made in Australia plan. That's there in this legislation. But what are these? What Labor are trying to hide—but, again, they've woken up to this fact—and what they are leaving open is plenty of options for the Treasurer to act on these with merely the stroke of a pen.

What Mr Albanese is also not telling Australians is that access to the production tax credits—which are wrapping you in more red tape, which have several hurdles that you need to get through before you can apply for them and which Labor's own impact analysis shows will cost you around $100,000 just to apply for—means a company may need a union agreement, a reconciliation plan and social procurement agreements. So, yes, it is correct that Mr Albanese, once the Australian Labor Party side with the Australian Greens—those big fans of mining in this country—to vote this through, can use this policy to allow unions to make further inroads into our mining and resources sector. That is bad news for Australia, but it is also terrible news for my home state of Western Australia.

Businesses have appeared before inquiries into this bill, and they have warned that, by having to include union agreements, First Nations involvement, training requirements, environmental and climate objectives and tax requirements, there is a huge risk to productivity and investment. If there is a huge risk to productivity and investment, that is a huge risk, ultimately, to the lifestyle that we lead in Australia and to the Australian taxpayer. Business groups are now likening this bill to Queensland's best-practice industry conditions, otherwise known as BPIC arrangements, and social procurement rules that—it is a fact—allow the criminal elements of the CFMEU to embed themselves in infrastructure and procurement in Queensland. And, as we know, Queensland Treasury modelling has estimated that BPIC's increases to project costs put them up by 25 per cent.

Unions themselves have been very upfront in relation to what they might do with the community benefits principles once this bill goes through. When asked about the community benefits principles, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union told the Senate Economics Legislation Committee that they think all jobs born from the Future Made in Australia investments must be unionised. That is not me talking. That is not industry talking. That is actually the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, who are clearly on record stating they think all jobs born from Future Made in Australia investments must be unionised. So, when you hear Mr Albanese talking up his production tax credit policy as a great boost for my home state of Western Australia, keep in mind, in particular, what Mr Albanese is not telling you and what actually is in the legislation.

As I said, a Senate inquiry has looked into this bill, and it has shed even more light on the community benefits principles and the uncertainty surrounding them. In their report, coalition Senators Dean Smith, from my home state of Western Australia, and Andrew Bragg noted that the lack of clarity regarding community benefits principles may significantly increase project costs. How does that help anybody in Australia? In fact, Senator Smith questioned witnesses about their knowledge of a union agreement requirement. This is what Senator Smith said:

The AMWU has told this committee, when it was considering the Future Made in Australia Act, that these requirements—the community benefit principles—would require a requirement for a union agreement. Is that your understanding of the community benefit principles, and would you agree with that?

The Minerals Council of Australia would be alive to the risks of this to the mining industry. They have been very emphatic about the risk that these agreements would pose, but they also noted, on top of that, the duplicative administrative burden in their submission to the inquiry. This is what they said:

The Australian minerals industry produces critical minerals utilising world leading sustainability standards, including best practice environmental management and community engagement.

They then said:

… there are already extensive and rigorous approvals process that mining and mineral processing projects must adhere to makes this an unnecessary and duplicative feature of the CMPTI.

Senator Bragg and Senator Smith, in their report, also noted:

Treasury acknowledged during the inquiry hearing that the lack of detail contained within the bill, leads to high compliance costs for businesses—with as much as … $100,000 in its very first year.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said:

The additional engagement processes required by the community benefits principles parallel existing requirements of the planning and approval processes. This is simply adding a further layer of administration and compliance, without any clear benefit.

The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia said that the community benefits principles would provide no benefit whilst providing additional costs to businesses. They said:

Introducing CBPs with separate reporting requirements under the FMA will introduce additional compliance burden and duplication without enhancing the benefits to Australian communities.

There you have it. There is a bill. It will go through the Senate with the support of the Australian Greens. It doesn't do what Mr Albanese told the Australian people it would do. In fact, it does the opposite. There is the additional compliance burden, the additional regulatory cost, which is clearly stated in Labor's own impact analysis. It says you will actually possibly do more to harm our industry, with additional red tape, than you will to benefit it. But I think the most telling part of this is that the bill will go through with the support of the Australian Greens, and they've made it clear that, if there's a minority government in this country, they will make further changes in this regard.

Quite frankly, for a party that is doing everything in its power to destroy the mining industry in this country, God help Australia.