House debates

Monday, 7 November 2016

Bills

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Petroleum Pools and Other Measures) Bill 2016; Second Reading

5:45 pm

Photo of Tim HammondTim Hammond (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The alternative plan—as my friend opposite has asked—is to ensure the books of a state are run properly the first time around, without seeking to ameliorate them with a short-sighted, populist proposal which will not seek to achieve on any single level what Mr Grylls proposes it will achieve, and that is revenue into the Treasury in order to address what we have right now by way of a significant level of debt and deficit in the state of Western Australia.

But, even if all of that is not an accurate analysis, let us just look at the timing. Timing, as they say, is everything, and this is the worst possible time to impose anything that looks like a new tax on mining production. The Western Australian economy, led by the Liberal-National party, is basically on life support. You need look no further than the level of total private sector investment in Western Australia, which has collapsed by more than 30 per cent over the last two years; and state final demand, which is down by nine per cent over the same period.

When one looks at the vibrancy and the dynamism of the mining sector and the resources sector as a whole, one has to take a step back and look at what is it that as a great state and a great country we have going for us, particularly in relation to iron ore but also in relation to other resources and certainly oil and gas, the subject of this bill. What is it that sets us apart from all of our competitors all over the world?

We know that projects in other countries often attract a cheaper level of labour. We know that. If we think we are ever going to be able to compete on the level of labour costs, we are kidding ourselves. And we should be happy about that because is it due to a very proud Australian tradition that I and all of my colleagues on this side of the House will fight for with our very last breath, and that is a standard of occupational health and safety that is the envy of the developed world. That comes at a cost, as it should. So we are never going to be able to compete in that area. How about quality of product? Whilst I am very proud to say that our quality of product, particularly iron ore, is world class, the reality is that higher concentrations of product are available elsewhere. So again, whilst we are up there, it is true that other countries around the world can match us when it comes to the quality of what we produce. So where are we currently without peer? We are without peer around the globe when it comes to offering an investment environment in our resources and energy sector that is consistent, reliable and a safe choice.

If we kick this can a little bit further down the street, what do we have? We have a proposal that, if implemented, would actually extract the ace that we have always held up our sleeve, rip it up and replace it with nothing—that is, remove the certainty and stability of investment that this country and my home state of Western Australia offer and replace it with nothing at a time when we have a direct threat to jobs, when employment, particularly employment in the oil gas and mining sector, is already under siege.

It is time for us as elected representatives to take a step back and buck the modern-day trend that we see with Trumpism, with Brexit and with Mr Grylls' mining tax proposal, and simply stop peddling populist policies. Our community, very rightly, expects a lot more than that from us.

It will be very, very interesting to see what happens from here. It was only a few weeks ago, remember, that the Deputy Prime Minister was telling the New South Wales National Party to dump their plan to ban greyhound racing, and he got his way there. We cannot help but notice that, despite his initial tentative approval of Mr Grylls' proposal, the Deputy Prime Minister is now on the record as opposing the plan. It will be very interesting to see whether he goes two for two, and rolls the Western Australian Nationals as well. I, for one, at least in relation to this issue, hope he succeeds sooner rather than later, because what is important here is certainty. That is what this legislation currently before the House is about—providing certainty for the oil and gas industry, and it also needed for iron ore.

The extraction of Browse hydrocarbons is estimated to potentially provide a boost of over $2 million to Western Australia's royalties income. That is right—not 'million' but 'billion', with a 'b'. And that is just in royalties, before other economic benefits to Western Australia are taken into account. They include, of course, job creation and the local provision of construction goods and associated services.

This investment, if we land it, comes at a critical point for the Western Australian government's fiscal difficulties. I say difficulties, but the reality is that the state of the Western Australian budget is almost certainly a product of poor planning and stewardship of the economy by the current Western Australian Premier, Mr Colin Barnett. Mr Barnett refuses to take responsibility for this plight; he blames everybody else but himself. Last month we saw the Western Australian Treasurer Mr Nahan, crying poor again, arguing that his $480 million annual income from LNG royalties on the North West Shelf is not enough.

The geological skills and profound understanding of our planet required to discover hydrocarbons is significant in its own right. The feats of engineering required to build an offshore facility hundreds of nautical miles from home are immense. The jobs that these projects create are some of the best jobs in the world, but all of this expertise is only deployed because of certainty for the investors underpinning it. I commend the bill to the House.

Comments

No comments