Anthony Albanese's $1.2bn pledge amid Donald Trump's tariff threat
The Albanese government will invest $1.2bn into Australia's critical minerals supply, which will likely play a major role in negotiating a tariff carveout from the Trump administration.
This comes as Australian steel and aluminium imports have been hit with a 25 per cent levy, with other imports slapped with a 10 per cent tariff.
Anthony Albanese will on Thursday announce plans to create a Critical Minerals Strategic Reserve to secure quantities of the select minerals that will be made available for domestic projects and select international partners.
If re-elected, $1.2bn will be used to secure the initial resource stockpile, and purchases will be made according to strategic and market-conditions.
These include elements like titanium, lithium, nickel and cobalt, which are essential for the production of mobile phones, computer chips, electric vehicles, solar panels and defence technologies.
Altogether Australia has listed 31 critical minerals, and holds at least 4 per cent of the world's rare earth reserves.
The Reserve is expected to be in operation from the second half of 2026, and a taskforce will be created to consult on the design and function of the reserve.
Although the Prime Minister did not directly refer to the Trump administration in the announcement, he said the $1.2bn investment into Australia's critical mineral industry would help safeguard 'critical national assets' in 'time of global uncertainty'.
'The Strategic Reserve will mean Government has the power to purchase, own and sell critical minerals found here in Australia,' he said.
'It will mean we can deal with trade and market disruptions from a position of strength. Because Australia will be able to call on an internationally-significant quantity of resources in global demand.
'This will be a national asset and our Government will use it to advance Australia's national interest.'
Resources Minister Catherine King said the boost to the industry would also drive industry and jobs in Western Australia, where Mr Albanese will spend Thursday campaigning.
'Critical minerals and rare earths and essential not only to reducing emissions but also for our security and the security of our key partners,' she said.
'While we will continue to supply the world with critical minerals, it's also important that Australia has access to the critical minerals and rare earths we need for a Future Made in Australia.
'The Strategic Reserve, combined with Production Tax Credits and the expansion of the Critical Minerals Facility, shows the Albanese Government is taking the development of an Australian critical minerals industry seriously.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
37 minutes ago
- ABC News
Solar waste problem looms following rooftop panel boom, with batteries to add to the pile
Australia's rooftop solar revolution has slashed power bills and emissions, but behind the good news story, is a growing waste problem in need of an urgent solution. The industry is sounding the alarm, warning Australia is about to be hit with a tsunami of solar waste as more households take up batteries, thanks to the federal government's new subsidies. Currently around 4 million homes across the nation have installed solar, equating to more than 150 million panels nationwide when commercial and large-scale systems are included. But as as households upgrade to newer systems, an estimated 4 million individuals panels are decommissioned every year. That figure is set to double to 8 million a year, as Australians install batteries. Currently, there is no mandatory recycling scheme for solar panels. As a result, only about 10 per cent of panels are recycled. The rest are stockpiled, sent overseas or end up in landfill. The solar industry has been waiting since 2016 for a national product stewardship scheme — a mandatory system that would fund recycling through an up-front levy on imported or manufactured panels. Instead, recyclers and investors are being left in limbo. "There's been investor fatigue," says Darren Johannesen, executive general manager of sustainability at the Smart Energy Council. While there are seven active solar panel recyclers in Australia they face steep economic and logistical hurdles. "Right now, it can cost up to $38 per panel just to get it from a house to a landfill or recycler," Mr Johannesen says. "Even then, the cost of extracting valuable metals like silver and copper outweighs the resale value of those materials. "Recyclers can't make it work on their own." Without government intervention, there is concern the sector could collapse under its own weight. In Western Sydney, recycler James Petesic has seen competitors come and go. "Seven years since we've been in operation, I think we've seen at least two or three businesses come and go." He's managed to hang on, largely thanks to federal government grants. He says the real challenge is not competition from other recyclers, but from exporters and scrap dealers who offer to take old panels for free or pay cash. "They are able to pay customers — being the installer themselves — to move that system from their warehouse, put it into a container and ship it overseas. "Unfortunately, we're not able to compete with that. We can't pay customers for their panels." Some of those panels may be reused, he says. But many won't be. New laws regulating the export of solar panels have stopped some of the leakage of panels out of Australia but it has not solved the broader problem. Without certainty around the raw materials needed — that is, the solar panel to recycle, Mr Petesic says "it's really hard to give an investor confidence to invest in our business". About 20 per cent of solar installer Jake Warner's current jobs include replacing old panels. "Sometimes it can be workmanship, maybe an older system can fail. "It's also increased technology, we now have battery systems, we've got integrated inverters and more efficient solar panels." On a job in St Clair, New South Wales, his crew is ripping out a decade-old solar array to make way for a more efficient set-up, complete with battery storage and smarter inverters. Mr Warner says it is common to be approached by scrap metal dealers and other operators offering cash for removed panels — some of whom ship them offshore with little oversight. "We've had people pull up mid-job asking to take the panels," he says. "They end up overseas sometimes, maybe on a hobby farm or in a developing country, which isn't the worst outcome. Currently, Mr Warner's business takes retired panels back to base and passes them on to approved recyclers or second-life users. But the costs — anywhere from $250 to $650 per household depending on panel numbers — are worn by customers. He says while some reputable solar wholesalers offer recycling drop-off points, the infrastructure isn't ready to cope with what's coming. "We can actually recycle up to 85 per cent of the raw materials inside solar panels, but right now the challenge is that we don't really have these recycling facilities ready at scale like what we're going to need in the next 10 years or so," Mr Warner says. It's not just an environmental problem — it's an economic one. Experts warn the world is running short on critical minerals. "The opportunity in front of us is quite exciting in a solar module — there are metals that are in short supply, copper and silver," the Smart Energy Council's Mr Johannesen says. The International Energy Agency has forecast a potential 30 per cent supply shortfall in copper globally, without action. "The IEA is recommending that all countries adopt a regulatory policy framework that encourages recycling … so that we can use urban mining to bridge that 30 per cent gap," Mr Johannesen notes. Everyone in the sector agrees the solution is simple — and long overdue. "A national product stewardship scheme will cut costs to consumers, improve efficiency in the industry and birth an important materials recovery industry, which is good for jobs and growth," Mr Johannesen argues. There's been plenty of talk about implementing a mandatory national recycling scheme for solar panels from both sides of politics. But after nearly a decade of inaction, the industry says time is running out. "Nine years is a long time … and with the growth in the module volumes, the time to act is now." Mr Petesic says if we don't act now, we'll be throwing away the very resources we need to power Australia's energy future. "We need some kind of government push to encourage and facilitate the industry, to be able to participate in the recycling of their solar panels, rather than leave it up to their good conscience."
West Australian
an hour ago
- West Australian
AUKUS review: Pentagon's Elbridge Colby orders inquiry to ensure defence agreement aligns with ‘America First'
The Trump Administration's biggest AUKUS sceptic has ordered a review into whether the US should pull out of the submarine deal with Australia, just days after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese refused America's request to lift defence spending. The inquiry was directed by AUKUS-sceptic Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon's Deputy Under Secretary of Defence for Policy, the Financial Times reported . A US Defence official said the review was 'part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous Administration is aligned with the President's America First agenda.' 'As Secretary Hegseth has made clear, this means ensuring the highest readiness of our servicemembers, that allies step up fully to do their part for collective defence, and that the defence industrial base is meeting our needs,' the official said in a statement. 'This review will ensure the initiative meets these common-sense, America First criteria.' Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Beijing would be cheering at the news. 'News that the Trump Administration is considering backing away from AUKUS will be met with cheers in Beijing, which is already celebrating America's global pullback and our strained ties with allies under President Trump,' Senator Shaheen said. 'Scrapping this partnership would further tarnish America's reputation and raise more questions among our closest defence partners and our reliability.' Mr Colby is one of the America First movement's fiercest critics of what he views as shirker allies. He was also the first in US President Donald Trump's orbit to voice concerns about AUKUS. When asked by The Nightly, at a speaking engagement in London, he said he would have been quite sceptical about the deal if it were put to him to sign off on. 'My concern is why are we giving away this crown jewel asset when we most need it?' he said 12 months ago. 'AUKUS is only going to lead to more submarines collectively in 10, 15, 20 years, which is way beyond the window of maximum danger, which is really in this decade. 'So the benefits are questionable and the viability is also questionable.' However, Mr Colby retreated from some of his criticisms and directed most of his ire toward European NATO allies, who have subsequently begun to pledge massive defence spending increases prompting his praise. By contrast, in the last few days he has been issuing statements on X about the need for Indo-Pacific allies to heed Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth's call for more defence funding. Mr Hegseth asked Defence Minister Richard Marles to raise defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP at a meeting on the sidelines of the Shangri-la Dialogue in Singapore. Currently, Labor plans to spend 2.3 per cent of GDP on defence by the middle of the next decade. Mr Marles responded by saying he was 'totally up for a conversation' but refused to confirm the figure Mr Hegseth requested. The Defence Secretary released the figure in a statement three days later. Since then, Labor has become more strident in its opposition and said the decision is for Australia, not the US to make. Mr Albanese told the Press Club this week he had not been provided with any capabilities that need funding and was not going to commit to a blind yardstick method of government spending. Australia has already paid the first US$500 million ($760 million) to buy up to three nuclear-powered submarines from the United States, under a deal first struck with the Biden Administration by former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Mr Marles paid the cheque in Feburary when he first met Mr Hegseth after President Trump's inauguration. At the time, Mr Hegseth said Mr Trump was aware and supportive of AUKUS and this was recently further backed by comments the President's personally appointed Ambassador to the UK, Warren Stephens, made at an event in London, alongside UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. It is unclear if Mr Colby's review is the act of a lone operator or represents a change in the stance of the Administration, which is often ideologically split on key policy areas. AUKUS is the most expensive and ambitious defence acquisition project in Australia's history and aims to buy and then build nuclear-powered submarines at a cost of $368 billion. But because Australia cannot build nuclear-propelled submarines and faces an urgent capability gap with the Collins Class boats reaching their end of life, it is reliant on purchasing off-the-shelf Virginia-class boats from the Americans and then co-building an SSN AUKUS version of submarine with the British. The UK government put on a brave face. A government spokesperson said the review was 'understandable.' 'It is understandable that a new administration would want to review its approach to such a major partnership, just as the UK did last year,' the spokesperson said. 'The UK will continue to work closely with the US and Australia at all levels to maximise the benefits and opportunities which AUKUS presents for our three nations.'
Canberra Times
an hour ago
- Canberra Times
Tassie stadium plan is a lot of bread for a circus
Allan, who lived in Los Angeles for six years in the 1980s, writes: "We've visited the USA numerous times since, but never again. Our initial concerns as we've grown older were with their health system, where serious illness could literally cost millions. Now the political situation is what worries us. I wouldn't rule out something akin to civil war the way things are escalating. But no, I don't think Albanese should raise the Tomasi shooting with Trump personally, it would achieve nothing and detract from other more important discussions."
