Policy Engagement Overview
InfluenceMap assessed 27 individual consultation responses to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water’s (DCCEEW) first Carbon Leakage Review. Corporate opposition to the introduction of a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) in Australia appeared to slightly outweigh support, with seven entities (26%) across the energy and metals and mining sectors either opposing the introduction of a CBAM in Australia or qualifying their support with major exceptions, such as calling for the inclusion of export rebates. In contrast, four entities (15%) across a range of sectors advocated in favor of an Australian CBAM to prevent carbon leakage, while another thirteen (48%) communicated an unclear or mixed position.
A minority of the assessed companies and industry associations also commented on the introduction of GHG emissions product standards in Australia, with 3 entities (11%) supporting their introduction, 5 entities (19%) communicating an unclear position or support with some exceptions, and 2 associations (7%) not supporting mandatory product standards.
Policy Engagement Trends
- Support for the introduction of a CBAM in Australia was expressed by Fortescue and industry associations representing a range of sectors. The Carbon Market Institute (cross sector) and Cement Industry Federation (construction materials) both supported an Australian CBAM while also appearing to advocate for the phase out of existing carbon leakage measures under the Safeguard Mechanism. The metals and mining sector provided positive advocacy through the Australian Steel Institute, which emphasized that an Australian CBAM is a desirable policy option to address the risk of carbon leakage for domestic steel producers, and Fortescue, which stressed that carbon leakage policies must be aligned with Australia’s climate targets.
- The Australian Steel Institute’s support for a CBAM appears to contrast with the positions of other entities representing the steel industry. For example, the Japan Iron and Steel Federation explicitly opposed an Australia CBAM, stressing that it had a risk of “seriously affecting free trade.” In addition, while Bluescope Steel broadly supported the introduction of a “well-designed” CBAM in Australia, the company also advocated for several conditions that could weaken the policy’s decarbonization signal, including a delayed implementation of a CBAM for the steel sector and the continuation of existing carbon leakage protection measures under Australia’s Safeguard Mechanism.
- Several other Australian entities also qualified their support for a CBAM with major exceptions, including the Australian Energy Producers and Origin Energy, both of which advocated for provisions that risk diminishing incentives to reduce carbon emissions, such as export rebates.
- Both the Australian Steel Institute and Fortescue appeared to support the mandating of GHG emissions product standards for steel products while Manufacturing Australia appeared to generally support the development of national standards and accreditation for Australian manufactured low-emissions goods. On the contrary, the Japan Cement Association and Japan Iron and Steel Federation expressed negative positions on emissions product standards, emphasizing concerns about fairness and international consistency. In addition, several other entities appeared to question the appropriateness of emissions product standards to prevent carbon leakage, including the Carbon Market Institute, the Cement Industry Federation, Bluescope Steel, and Ampol Limited.
This page will be updated when submissions to the government’s second round of consultation on the Carbon Leakage Review (November 2024) are made public.
