Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

I am very pleased, as the Leader of the House, to respond to this matter of public importance today on behalf of the government and to defend the rights of all Australians to get their fair share of the resources that they own. As for those opposite, the Leader of the National Party once again throws around the phrase ‘slush fund’. It is always the Nats. You love it when the Nats talk about a ‘slush fund’. You just love the sense of irony from the National Party, who established the Regional Partnerships program. The resource super profits tax is a tax that is simply moving from taxing volume to taxing profits. What is more, it is a tax which moves away from a tax on production to one on superprofits. Therefore by definition this is an efficient tax, which is why it has been backed by all serious economists right around the country and indeed internationally, as the Prime Minister indicated today with the Financial Times editorial of this week. The resource super profits tax is also a part of our national tax reform agenda.

It is somewhat ironical also that in today’s MPI debate the issue of the interests of superannuants is raised. This resource super profits tax will allow the next step in the Labor agenda of providing for national savings in the national economic interest and personal savings in the interest of working families retiring in some comfort. The increase from nine per cent to 12 per cent is the next step that would have occurred had the Keating government been re-elected in 1996. Those opposite have never understood superannuation. Those opposite have always opposed superannuation. We now have over $1 trillion in national savings as a result of the vision of the Hawke-Keating government, now followed by that of the Rudd government, and Minister Bowen, who is at the table, has played a critical role in ensuring the next step in this reform agenda. This is why when I attended with Minister Bowen the superannuation industry breakfast after this was announced we found it was so warmly received. It is interesting that the member for Cowper, in order to attack the government’s reform agenda, simply quotes big miners. There was not a single quote from the industry which he has a responsibility to represent and advocate for within the opposition and within this parliament.

But, of course, there is also the reform of company tax. We on this side of the chamber believe it should be reduced by two per cent. Those on the other side of the chamber want to increase it by two per cent. But there is another agenda as well, one that comes in my portfolio of infrastructure. We know that in spite of the tremendous mining boom when you go to regional Australia—whether it is Karratha, Port Hedland, Dampier, Newman, Mackay or Gladstone—you see there is a considerable infrastructure deficit, an infrastructure deficit that the former government was warned about by the Reserve Bank of Australia on 27 separate occasions. This is the infrastructure and skills deficit left by the former government which has been a handbrake on our economic productivity. We on this side of the House are addressing the issues. The member for Cowper spoke about projects being put on hold as a result of the resource super profits tax. Indeed, as a result of his political party’s position in the coalition, what is really under threat are infrastructure projects right around the nation. Firstly under threat is the infrastructure fund that would fix the issues that are raised in these communities. These communities, with their fly-in fly-out workforces, with their lack of housing and with their lack of export infrastructure through ports, roads and rail, all say, ‘How is it that we’ve gone through this enormous boom but we still don’t have enough infrastructure?’ Absolutely extraordinary!

What we know is that the opposition would put under threat not just that infrastructure investment but all infrastructure spending. We know of the shadow minister for finance and debt reduction’s statement on 20 May about the opposition’s commitments that had been made on road and rail infrastructure. He said any other past commitments had been discontinued. In his statement the only new commitment that was honoured by the coalition was the Toowoomba bypass, which has become a footpath because they funded a small amount of the $1.75 billion that is required for that. It took just seven days for this approach to collapse into complete confusion. The shadow finance minister, when asked by the Geelong Advertiser and the Colac Herald how the coalition would fund roads in the area, said they would use Roads to Recovery funding. So every local government area in the country now knows that their future funding is under threat. On the same day the Leader of the National Party, when asked by Australian Transport News, said, ‘We’re standing by all our promises.’ He said that they would take funding from the existing Nation Building Program, that somehow they would squeeze it in. What he ignored was the fact that the Nation Building Program is fully allocated until 2013-14. The $37 billion is the subject of memorandums of understanding with the states—all signed and agreed with work progressing and proper planning of infrastructure development.

When they came into government in 1996, the opposition cut the roads budget by $2 billion over their first eight budgets. The office of the shadow finance minister responded to the Australian Transport News about the Nation Building Program:

You would reprioritise … We would obviously consider all the programs as a whole.

When asked specifically if this review extended to projects due to start this year, the answer was, ‘Yeah, of course.’ So there is no doubt with that statement that the coalition has a hit list. We need to know what is on the hit list. Is it section 4B of the Geelong Ring Road? Construction is due to commence this year of the Kempsey bypass. Perhaps that is on the coalition’s hit list. It was never funded by them. There was no work done by them. Perhaps that is on the hit list. The member for Cowper perhaps is aware that that is the case. Perhaps the upgrade from Woolgoolga to Arawarra on the Pacific Highway is on the hit list. The Hunter Expressway is perhaps on the hit list.

See this speech in context