Additional comments by Senator Malcolm Roberts

1.1I thank the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee (the committee) for their hard work and all who have made a submission. One Nation are largely in support of the committee’s recommendations and I look forward to the project progressing to the next stage of review. For such a complicated project the committee has done a great job in summarising the detail of Project Iron Boomerang (PIB). I do wish to make some additional comments to help form the next round of inquiry.

1.2The project is suggesting the use of the Abbot Point State Development Area for the Queensland steel park. This is a 16 885-hectare industrial estate at Abbot Point, near Bowen in Queensland. I note that this development is gazetted, with the DA including specific reference to steel mills (see paragraph 4.15—land acquisition).

1.3Recommendation 2 could be enhanced by including an additional term of reference to include use of emission capture and reprocessing in steel production. I have spoken with two different companies that have commercialised, proven technology to capture emissions of all gases, including CO₂, from the steel making process and convert the captured gasses into commercial products such as ethanol and ammonia. This process would ensure the steel parks are zero emission.

1.4While Recommendation 3 doesn’t have to be a distinct term of reference, it is important the defence industry review takes note the steel mills being planned for the steel parks provide a four-metre-wide slab, as opposed to the more common two metre slab. The difference in shipbuilding and rolling stock manufacture is significant. A four-metre-wide slab will require one half of the welds as against a two metre slab. The end result will be faster construction, lower production and maintenance costs and a stronger overall result (see paragraph 4.17).

1.5The Iron Boomerang project has been around in one form or another since the 1950s. The steel and coal industry came together to promote the project in the 1980s and this is where the current alignment was decided.The significance of this alignment has not been clearly dealt with. The route actually follows the local dreaming tracks, and after western settlement these routes become stock routes. The tracks traverse high country, providing protection against a 1 in 100 year flood event. The alignment is already used as an unmade/local access road, some of the environmental damage from the railway has already been done by the road. The road is necessary to provide access to market for local communities. Clearly further surveying work is needed to determine just how accurate this claim is, as it comes from discussions around the project in the 1980s (see paragraph1.14—history of Iron Boomerang).

1.6The steel industry worldwide in 2022/2023 was worth USD $1.35 trillion. Australia currently has about $100bn of that market. If PIB proceeds then Australian steel will be 15 per cent cheaper than Chinese steel and located closer to major markets. These include Indonesia, where a whole new capital city is being constructed. Nusantara is a 2560 sq/km city being built from scratch with a final completion date of 2045. The steel requirement for that project alone justifies PIB. The development crescent of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh is expected to exceed the steel demand of China by 2030. It is no hyperbole to say the economic benefit from an Australian steel industry using ‘boomerang’ rail or marine traffic, with steel mills close to port at Abbot Point and Port Hedland is mostly likely to be above $500bn (see paragraph 1.15—steel industry).

1.7The iron ore curve tells the story of world steel demand. The flatter curve for metallurgical coal reflects growing use of lower-quality metallurgical coal overseas. Australia has opened the door to this loss of market share through the demonising of the coal industry, which deliberately conflagrates metallurgical coal with thermal coal. Metallurgical coal is the only way to make steel and will remain the only way for the foreseeable future. I look forward to the fatal issues in hydrogen or ‘green’ steel coming to light in the next round of inquiry (see paragraph1.37—‍metallurgical coal and iron ore exports).

1.8Use of the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) map may be seen as minimising the extent of heavy rail in Australia. The recently completed Tarcoola to Darwin rail line is shown in light grey, which understates the relevance of this rail line to PIB. This line is also owned by the ARTC and leased to Aurizon. The 2248km railway was built in 3.5 years across very similar terrain to the PIB alignment, and was completed in 2004 at a cost of around $3bn (see paragraph1.38—rail construction).

1.9This map of coal lines in Queensland (Figure 1) also indicates an opportunity to connect the PIB alignment with the Mt Isa to Townsville rail line via the Phosphate Hill line. These lines are showing in part on the ARTC map but the use of light grey may mislead as to the extent of the existing network (see paragraph1.38—rail construction).

Figure 1 – Queensland Rail’s regional network and freight

Source: Queensland Rail.

1.10The Department of Industry, Science and Resources comments regarding the cyclical nature of the steel industry in my opinion is needlessly negative and does not accurately reflect the future of the world steel market (see paragraph2.5—rail construction).

1.11While there may be economic reasons that Iron Boomerang has not been built, the more likely reason is simply political – getting LNP states to co-operate with Labor states on this project. In 2023 all the relevant state, territory and Australian governments are all from the one party and I urge the committee to take advantage of this rare alignment to put politics aside and get this thing done (see paragraph2.15).

1.12What any Australian Government assistance may look like will hopefully be clarified in the months ahead. It is true however that the biggest hurdle to this project is a lack of belief in Government by the minerals, transport and finance sectors. Years of neglect of infrastructure in Australia combines with stop/start approvals for the few projects that have been approved, such as Adani to destroy confidence in the ability of the Australian Government to deliver a project of significance. Some ‘skin in the game’ is required for this reason, although other alternatives may present.

1.13The acquisition of the alignment is central to the proposal. Alternative alignments are available using the MITEZ rail line. It must be noted that the Central Land Council has 1000km of the alignment and has expressed interest in the project to myself in Senate Estimates. It should be clear this project cannot proceed without support from the Aboriginal community and it is a failing of East West Line Parks that a representative of the Aboriginal community has not been brought on board by now. I look forward to this being remedied promptly. It should go without saying that Aboriginal land custodians should also derive a financial benefit from the project, most likely a royalty for every train that passes through their land. This will be a substantial financial benefit extending across the 75–plus years of the project.

1.14The presentation to the committee by East West Line Parks did not fully reflect the benefit to remote communities across the top end in many ways.

1.15I have spoken with Meat and Livestock Australia regarding the project and found strong support for the concept from a cattle perspective. Remote cattle stations are frequently either Aboriginal owned or employ Aboriginal labour. These have to send their cattle to market by road. This is stressful for the animal which typically loses 15 per cent of body weight, requiring a period of recovery and fattening up before export. PIB will open these stations up and allow cheaper, faster transport to market, with a loss of body weight of only five per cent. The beneficial effect on remote stations really needs more attention.

1.16I spoke with Grain Growers Australia about PIB and there was substantial support for moving the export of output from the Ord River Irrigation area from road freight, which costs as much as $200/ton to rail freight at $40/tonne, for export from the east coast rather than the west coast.

1.17The multipurpose corridor must be included in further consideration of PIB. A railway such as PIB would normally be built with power and internet cables alongside the rail line for operations purposes. That cost is included in the railway. It would be a small extra price (as compared to the cost of maintaining remote Aboriginal communities) to upgrade those lines and use the PIB to support a service corridor, to bring power and internet to remote communities right across the top end.

1.18Lake Argyle also presents the opportunity to add a water pipeline to the corridor to carry drinking, stock and station water to remote communities.

1.19Tourism and transport across the top end could be supported with a series of sidings to support a rural rail service carrying passengers and freight to and from remote communities along the route. Stations could be prefabricated, use the power, water and internet from the rail line and provide a multi-purpose resource for remote communities, offering touchpoints for medical, education, welfare and Aboriginal cultural tourism.

1.20On the issue of labour market constraints. If this government is to bring in two million more Australians, and shows some discernment in who those people are, finding the labour for PIB should be feasible, and indeed if not for projects like PIB, where are these people going to find work?

Recommendation 1

1.21Recommendation 2 should include an additional term of reference which covers the use of emission capture and reprocessing in steel production.

Senator Malcolm Roberts

Participating Member

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation