Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Hansard source

This debate is about mining taxation, but fundamentally it is about truthfulness. It is about the launching of scare campaigns, chaotic and confused as they are from the opposition, including claims made by the Leader of the Opposition that the resource super profits tax would increase the price of food. It is noteworthy that the member for Groom has sponsored this matter of public importance because he was asked about truthfulness yesterday. The journalist said, ‘You say what you believe, but Tony doesn’t.’ The member for Groom responded, ‘Well, Tony says what he believes at the time.’

Already there is a division between the member for Groom and the Leader of the Opposition because the Leader of the Opposition has confessed that he does not say what he believes when under pressure. He cannot handle the pressure and he will say things that he does not believe. That is what he said on the 7.30 Report. He indicated that he does not necessarily tell the truth when he is asked a question in the heat of the moment. That is not a good thing in general, but it does show that this opposition leader cannot deal with pressure and that he will say anything, including statements that are false, under pressure. Is that the sort of leader we want for this country—someone who cannot handle pressure?

The scare campaign that has been launched and prosecuted by the coalition has slipped into yet further chaos and confusion. We had the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying on Sky television, ‘I believe that mining companies are paying a fair amount of tax.’ In that she was contradicted on the same day by the Woodside CEO, Don Voelte, who said:

In talking to the big miners and the mid cap miners I have not heard that they are not willing to negotiate a different tax and a higher tax back. They want to give a fair share back to the Australian citizens.

There is Woodside accepting that the mining industry believes it can pay more tax and it would be fair if it did pay more tax. So the deputy opposition leader is being contradicted by the mining industry itself, or certainly very large sections of the mining industry.

Today we have learnt that she is also being contradicted by none other than Senator Barnaby Joyce. When asked directly about the deputy opposition leader’s comments that mining companies already pay their fair share of tax, he said: ‘No, not at all. We can have a sensible negotiation. To say there is not the capacity to change the tax is not right.’ In that statement Senator Barnaby Joyce from Queensland has blown this confused and chaotic scare campaign out of the water. Senator Joyce has blown the Deputy Leader of the Opposition out of the water. Senator Joyce has blown the Leader of the Opposition out of the water. As I said during question time, Senator Barnaby Joyce obviously believes that revenge is a dish best served cold. There was a blue yesterday between the member for Goldstein and Senator Barnaby Joyce and when Senator Joyce was asked about the member for Goldstein’s comments he said: ‘He rang me up and he was very, you know, apologetic. And so he should be. How dare he run me down like that. Bugger him.’

Today we saw the revenge for that served cold. We saw the revenge served cold with his flat contradiction of the coalition’s position on this resource super profits tax, with his flat repudiation of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, with his flat repudiation of the Leader of the Opposition and with his flat repudiation of the member for Goldstein. Today Senator Joyce had his revenge on the Liberal-National Party. Today Senator Joyce had his revenge on the member for Goldstein, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition, completely blowing out of the water this chaotic, confused scare campaign being launched and sponsored by the Leader of the Opposition.

This matter of public importance deals with, among other things, the cost of living. Just a couple of weeks ago, the Leader of the Opposition said that the resource super profits tax would increase the price of food. The fact is that the resource super profits tax would apply to minerals which are traded on international markets, such as iron ore from the Pilbara, and for which international markets set the prices. How could it possibly be that a resource super profits tax on iron ore would increase the price of food unless there are iron filings in Mars bars? Even then, it would not increase the price of iron ore, let alone food.

You do not need to rely on me for that analysis. Look no further than the KPMG Econtech report on the price impacts of the resource super profits tax and, in particular, the associated reductions in the company tax rate. That report, that modelling, shows that the resource super profits tax and the tax rate reductions it would finance would not only not increase the price of food and the general cost of living but would reduce them by more than one per cent. According to the modelling, some of the bigger price reductions would be in transport costs, down 1.7 per cent; clothing and footwear costs, down by 1.3 per cent; household contents and services costs, down by 1.1 per cent; and food costs to consumers, down by 0.9 per cent—not up, as the Leader of the Opposition claims, but down because of the reductions in the company tax rate and other factors. That is what is missing in this debate. The resource super profits tax would be used to fund reductions in the company tax rate for companies small and large and that would have a positive influence on prices—that is, it would put downward price pressure on prices.

There will be no company tax rate reductions if the resource super profits tax does not go through. There will be no small-business tax rate reductions if the resource super profits tax does not go through. There will be no small-business tax breaks in the form of $5,000 instant write-off of assets valued up to that amount—not just for the 720,000 small business companies but for every one of the 2.4 million businesses in this country. Do not believe the opposition when they say that the tax breaks for business would only be for small business companies. All businesses would get this instant write-off of the value of assets, up to the value of $5,000 for each, and all businesses would also get a reduction in the company tax rate.

If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition truly believes that mining companies are paying their fair share of tax and if she believes there should be no increase in taxes on companies, why on earth are the opposition proposing to increase taxes on mining companies and other companies by 1.7 percentage points? It will be a great big new tax on everything you buy, a tax to fund their paid parental leave scheme. BHP and Rio have already estimated that that tax would add hundreds of millions of dollars to their tax bills. So, you have the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying the opposition are totally opposed to any increase in tax on mining companies, but they want to impose a 1.7 percentage point increase in tax on mining companies. We want to use the resource super profits tax process to fund a reduction in the company tax rate, not only for mining companies but for every company in Australia, large and small.

I want to deal with this issue of a retrospective tax. We have a new definition, I think, from the member for Canning. He said the Western Australian royalty increase is not retrospective. Go figure. He said, ‘It’s because Colin Barnett told them about it’—that means it is not retrospective! This scare campaign is confused and chaotic. There are obviously objections, raised by the mining industry, to the application of this tax to the Pilbara, to the Bowen Basin coalfields and so on. They say that it should not happen. By that reasoning, when tariffs rates in this country were being reduced over time by the Hawke and Keating governments and by the Howard government, those reductions should not have applied to existing automotive manufacturers, should not have applied to existing car plants and should not have applied to existing textile, clothing and footwear producers. The truth is that investment in this country would be fine under a resource super profits tax, as reflected in analysts’ consensus recommendations. The E*TRADE Australia website today says, in most cases, ‘Buy, buy, buy.’

The Petroleum Resource Rent Tax has proved to be a very stable tax and has been consistent with high levels of exploration and development in this country. (Time expired)

See this speech in context