House debates

Tuesday, 11 October 2011

Bills

Clean Energy Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge — General) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge — Auctions) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge — Fixed Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges — Customs) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges — Excise) Bill 2011, Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011, Climate Change Authority Bill 2011, Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011; Consideration in Detail

7:14 pm

Photo of Dan TehanDan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise again to speak because I was gagged in speaking in the substantive debate on this legislation. I am going to use this forum and I will advertise the fact, again, that I will use various forums to keep hammering the government on this toxic tax. I once again say how appalled I was on behalf of my constituents that, for a bill which was over 1,200 pages, the government saw fit to give the electorate of Wannon and its representative only five minutes to speak on that over 1,200-page bill.

I will now turn to the impact that the toxic carbon tax will have on manufacturing in my electorate. I have been pursuing the government in this place on the impact that it will have on manufacturing in my electorate. On 3 March I asked the Prime Minister:

Portland Aluminium, located in my electorate of Wannon, directly employs 600 people. Across the country there are 60,000 jobs dependent on the aluminium industry. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that there will be no job losses in the aluminium industry as a result of the carbon tax?

What was the answer that I got? Could I get a straight answer to that pretty straightforward question? No, I could not. I got: 'Let's have a go at this. Let's have a go at that. We'll do everything that we can bar answer that question.' So, I followed up that and I asked the Treasurer, because I thought the Treasurer might be able to shed some light. I asked the Treasurer:

I refer the Treasurer to a fact sheet from a group including the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, Environment Victoria and Greenpeace, which claims:

'… if Alcoa’s aluminium smelting did go overseas, there would be a direct environmental benefit even if the same quantity of aluminium was produced.'

Does the Treasurer agree that relocating Australia's aluminium industry, including Portland Aluminium in my electorate, to countries that do not impose a tax on carbon would help reduce global emissions?

The Treasurer did give me a direct answer on that but it was not a very expansive one. I now know why the Treasurer would not expand on that and why the Prime Minister was rather reluctant to go into too much detail about the impact of the carbon tax on the aluminium sector. When Alcoa presented to the Senate select committee inquiry into carbon tax pricing, it came out that the carbon tax will cost the company around $40 million a year. This is a trade-exposed emissions-intensive industry and competes internationally. Yet we are sitting here today and those opposite are quite happy that Alcoa takes a $40 million hit to their bottom line. Aluminium is Victoria's biggest export and we are putting an additional cost of $40 million per annum on these exports. It beggars belief that we would be doing that to Victoria's largest manufacturer.

There are other manufacturers in my electorate who are also going to be hit. I refer in particular to two in Ararat—AME Systems and Gason Industries. Both these small manufacturers actually produce equipment which reduces emissions. What is the government doing to assist and help these manufacturing businesses who are making goods here in Australia which help reduce emissions? They are adding to their costs. Go figure! We have leading technology being produced by these two businesses to help reduce emissions, and what is their reward? They are going to get hit with extra costs and in particular extra electricity costs. This carbon tax will be bad for manufacturing in my electorate; it will be bad for manufacturing in Australia.

Comments

No comments