Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Leichhardt for the question, because he appreciates this debate is far more complex than a simple debate about a profits based system for the mining industry of Australia. Our tax reforms are also, importantly, about broadening and strengthening the economy for the future. It is also a debate about those who are up for the hard reforms that are worthwhile in Australia’s national interest, and those on the other side of the House who are not up for the debate.

It is also about those who always put the special interests of particular groups ahead of the national interest and those who are prepared to take on the major reform for the long-term national interest of Australia. I say that because I actually think Australia is well-positioned to have this debate at the moment. I refer to the overall strength of the Australian economy. We all appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition gets up every morning hoping and praying that he gets a bad economic indicator. All I can say is that he has had yet another week of waiting. We as a community can handle the tough debates. Why shouldn’t we take on the tough debate about taxation against the backdrop of yesterday’s national accounts? Even though we appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition finds economics boring, I am sure his advisers at least brought the national accounts to his attention yesterday.

Let’s consider the nature of the national accounts and our capacity as a nation to actually front hard reform. The economy grew by 0.5 per cent in the March quarter and 2.7 per cent over the year. Perhaps more importantly, Australia was only one of two advanced economies to avoid recession during the global financial crisis. I also remind the House that the report of the national accounts yesterday very clearly stated—and we should never forget that the opposition leader opposed, every inch of the way, the economic stimulus package of our government—that the Australian economy would have gone into recession, contracted for three consecutive quarters, if we had not taken the decisive action that we did. It is in that context that the member for Leichhardt has appropriately raised the all-important question: how do we assist those local communities who are feeling the pressure of the infrastructure requirements out of the strength of the Australian economy and the importance of the resources sector? That is why this debate is broader than the debate about resources; it is also a debate about broadening and strengthening the Australian economy.

I can feel a few visits coming on next week for the Leader of the Opposition. We will have the fluoro jacket and the hard hat, and I am sure he has already telephoned his close mate, Clive Palmer, and said, ‘Mate, mate, mate, can I borrow your Mineralogy jet?’—the largest corporate jet in Australia—and there is no doubt that Clive will be on board and will also be talking about the next round of donations for the purposes of funding the forthcoming election.

When it comes to pressures of infrastructure—

See this speech in context