Whilst I agree that we should be doing everything reasonably possible to protect Australian jobs and sovereign manufacturing capability, the joint federal and NSW government announcement of up to $2.5 billion in taxpayer support for the Tomago Aluminium smelter — Australia’s largest — to keep it operating through to at least 2039 raises some questions every taxpayer should be asking.
The first is: how many more businesses are taxpayers going to be put on the hook to support because Australia’s energy system can no longer provide internationally competitive electricity to major industrial users?
The second is: why should taxpayers be required to underwrite the commercial viability of a largely foreign-owned operation whose owners include some extremely large and well-capitalised multinational corporations?
Because at the heart of the Tomago problem is energy.
Aluminium smelting is extraordinarily energy-intensive. Tomago requires around 950 MW of constant power, approximately 12% of NSW electricity demand, making it Australia’s largest electricity load.
Its existing electricity contract expires at the end of 2028 and Tomago warned last year that the replacement energy proposals it had received were simply not commercially viable.
That should be setting off alarm bells.
Yes, there is an important argument for keeping Tomago operating. It employs around 1,000 people directly, hundreds more contractors, supports thousands of indirect jobs and produces almost 40% of Australia’s primary aluminium.
And yes, the owners are also putting money on the table. They have committed at least $1.1 billion to the facility, including $100 million towards decarbonisation.
But taxpayers are potentially committing $2.5 billion, more than twice the owners’ required investment.
And that disparity becomes even more striking when you look at the financial capacity of the owners.
Rio Tinto alone, which owns 51.55% of Tomago, reported underlying earnings of US$6.8 billion in 2025, roughly A$10 billion.
So who ultimately owns and benefits from keeping this privately owned asset commercially viable?
Rio Tinto — 51.55%
Rio Tinto is one of the world’s largest mining and resources companies. It is publicly traded through its dual-listed structure and owned by institutional and private shareholders around the world.
Its largest single shareholder is Chinalco, the Chinese state-owned aluminium corporation, which holds a substantial stake in Rio Tinto.
Gove Aluminium Finance — 36.05%
This interest is more complicated. Gove Aluminium Finance is an incorporated joint venture between CSR and AMP Life. CSR historically owns 70% of GAF and AMP Life 30%.
CSR itself was acquired in 2024 by Saint-Gobain, the giant French multinational.
So a substantial portion of this Tomago interest ultimately sits within another foreign multinational corporate group.
Norsk Hydro — 12.4%
Norsk Hydro is one of the world’s largest aluminium and renewable-energy companies and is listed in Norway.
Its largest shareholder is the Norwegian Government, which directly owns approximately 34% of the company.
So Australian taxpayers are potentially committing $2.5 billion to ensure the continued commercial viability of an operation owned principally by multinational corporations — including companies in which foreign governments themselves have substantial interests.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the government should have allowed Tomago to close. The economic, employment and sovereign-capability consequences of losing Australia’s largest aluminium smelter could be enormous.
But it does mean taxpayers are entitled to ask why they are being required to shoulder substantially more of the financial burden than the multinational corporations that actually own the asset.
And it raises an even bigger question:
Why has electricity become so expensive and uncertain that one of Australia’s most important industrial facilities cannot secure commercially viable power without billions of dollars of government intervention?
Tomago isn’t the only Australian business struggling with energy costs. And governments cannot keep writing multibillion-dollar cheques every time an energy-intensive business becomes commercially unviable.
Saving one smelter may protect thousands of jobs.
Fixing the structural problems in Australia’s energy system could protect Australian industry itself.
