Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

It is always a pleasure to speak on these MPIs—matters of public importance—to give some balance. You have to do that in this place. Balance is really important, particularly when you hear the non-contributions of a range of members from the other side. They talk about reputation, they talk about the economy, they talk about all sorts of platitudes; just words that are thrown out there, and they are not linked to anything in particular. They do not make any particular sense, they are not in relation to any of their policies—or in fact even to any of our policies—they are just thrown out there in the hope that by saying these words—throwing these words out—it will scare people, that somehow this would frighten people. Somehow we have done damage to the Australia economy in the international eye because we have a minerals resource rents tax. I do not think so, and there are plenty of facts and evidence to actually bear that out.

Before I get into that, let's get into some of the real facts about what the mineral resource rents tax that this government has introduced is really about. What does this tax do? Who does it tax? What does it represent? What will it do in the future?

It is an important long-term investment in all of our futures—for every single Australian in generations to come—because, just like the petroleum resource rent tax, it is a way that ordinary Australians can have something back for that resource which belongs to all Australians. With respect to natural resources—gas, iron ore or coal—you need to have a way for Australians to reap those benefits. And it is done through this type of mechanism—a mechanism that Labor put in place under the Hawke and Keating governments which since then, through the PRRT, has reaped more than $18 billion of revenue for this country. That is revenue that can be spent on hospitals, schools, infrastructure and so forth.

While the other side opposed it tooth and nail all the way through—they were dragged kicking and screaming—and said it was the end of our economy, that it would destroy jobs and be the end of Australia as we know it, when they got to government they did not change it or take it away. They kept the money. It is always good to keep the money! 'We oppose it but we'll keep the money.' That is right; it always works that way.

Guess what?—we have another one. It is called the MRRT, the minerals resource rent tax. It is the same principle. In fact, if you look at the Henry tax review or a review by any economist in the world they will tell you that the most effective, efficient way to collect tax on your resources is through a superprofits tax. Imagine you are a big miner and you are doing pretty well—there are a few names I could throw out there but I will not bother promoting them; they promote themselves enough—and you are making a lot of profit. That is okay. Good on you; so you should. Employ people, make some profit, contribute to the economy. But if you are making a superprofit—an absolute motza—maybe you should pay a little bit more, because that motza you are making is based on resources that ordinary Australians own now and into the future.

What is limited is the resource; what is unlimited is the profit that some of these miners make. So it is a fair thing, and it is known as a fair and efficient tax policy all around the world. From time to time you collect a lot from this tax, when there are superprofits being made. We have all seen the outrageous profits that a handful of people—one, two, three or four individuals—make on the back of resources that belong to you: every single Australian that is out there.

So the best and fairest way to do this is to have a minerals resource rent tax. When profits go up the miners pay a bit more; when profits come down they may not pay anything at all. The way our tax is designed means that they may not pay anything all but there are tax incentives to encourage mining development, job creation and wealth, because we want to make sure that that happens.

Let's get this right. This tax is based on sound policy. It is based on sound policy that will carry us through into the next generation—20, 25, 30 years down the track—just like the petroleum resource rent tax. It is not based on one month or one quarter and it is not based on the volatility or fluctuation of a particular resource in a particular segment of the market at any pinpoint moment in time. That is not what the tax is designed to do. But that is what the other side are trying to hoodwink people with. By selectively examining one point in time they determine that this should be the end of this tax and that we should scrap it. We should scrap it in lieu of what? I know for certain that some of the wealthiest people in this country—the multibillionaires, who are becoming multi-multibillionaires on the back of Australian resources—should pay their fair share. PAYG taxpayers pay their fair share. Why can't the billionaire miners pay their fare share? That is what should happen.

This tax policy did not just fall out of the sky. It was negotiated. It was the subject of extensive negotiations with the miners—BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Xstrata—and it takes into account when they have good years and bad years. It is designed to bring something back to the Australian economy, and that is what it does. We are going to use the money that is reaped from this—more in some years, less in others but growing over time—to help the Australian economy and to build infrastructure.

That is what this government has been about but the other side are promising a few things really clearly. They are going to get rid of this tax, so that revenue will be gone. It is revenue that has been going up. They are going to get rid of a whole range of other things that we have put in place, including the carbon pricing system, which reaps money for the economy as well. And they are going to take all of those away, and they are going to give more back out. So they are going to take in less—even less than today—but they are going to give even more than is going out today. How are they going to pay for it? The most incredible thing happened last year, when the shadow Treasurer, when pressured on these issues on radio, actually said, 'We haven't accounted for it.' How much was it? It was a $70 billion black hole. That was last year; we have not done the calculations of what they have added on since then.

When the opposition were pressed they said, 'Maybe there are a few areas where we could take some money away.' Where did they start? You would think you would start with some multibillionaire miners, maybe: 'Can we just have a little bit back?' No, they would not do that. Where would they start? They would start with the lowest paid workers in this country. If they are going to hit anyone they say, 'Let's hit the lowest paid.'

See this speech in context