Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Disclosure of MRRT Information) Bill 2013, following on from the contribution from two other Queensland members of parliament, the member for Groom and the member for Forde, both of whom have that incredible capacity to simultaneously put forward contradictory arguments and fail to mention that fundamental truth that state governments levy royalties. Neither of them made mention of what state governments have done, both Labor and LNP, in terms of increasing royalties. They talked in their speeches about the incredible impacts of the MRRT legislation on mining but failed to mention the actions of state governments, which is a glaring omission.

The bill before the chamber seeks to change the Taxation Administration Act 1953, which comprises provisions to ensure that information obtained by the ATO in the course of administering our tax laws cannot be revealed such that it could be reasonably capable of being used to identify a taxpayer. So the opposition leader, with this legislation, is seeking to change the law on the basis that the public interest in transparency around the operation of the MRRT—in particular, how much revenue the tax is raising—overrides the interests of maintaining the longstanding principle of confidentiality of taxpayer information as it also relates to large entities rather than individuals. It would likely enable the ATO to disclose information on aggregate MRRT collections on a monthly basis.

But let us be perfectly clear here: this is either political opportunism draped in legislative tinkering or it is those opposite sucking up to the mining magnates in the extreme—or, worse, it is both of these. Only an extreme opposition leader would put his personal lust for power ahead of the national interest when it comes to a profit based mining tax.

However, the Labor government is committed to openness and transparency in the reporting of Commonwealth revenue collections, including the MRRT. Just like the PRRT before it—and I thank the member for Fraser for his contribution in terms of explaining some of the history—another piece of legislation that was opposed by the Liberal and National party opposition, the MRRT is a good sensible policy, and I stress: the MRRT is basically a profit based tax.

So, while spot prices will go up and down and international prices will vary, there are some simple truths. The reality is: we have over one billion people in India, 300 million people in Indonesia, and one billion people in China who aspire to move out into the middle class and their demands for our materials mean that, in the long term, this MRRT will collect profits for the benefit of the nation.

The decision by the ATO to not report collections, following the September 2012 first quarter of MRRT instalments, was based on independent legal advice provided by the Australian Government Solicitor—the same set of legal advice that would be given to any government—and this advice indicated that the collections constituted protected information under the law since they related to a small number of taxpayers and would be reasonably capable of being used to identify some or all of the entities concerned.

This legislation before the chamber is basically a political stunt. Yet again, it shows the failure of those opposite to put the nation's interests first. Obviously, Labor believe in transparency, but this legislation put forward by the opposition is clearly politically motivated—no national regard and no future vision. It is focused on Gina's and Twiggy's bottom line, not on equity and responsibility, which an alternative government is supposed to be considering.

The MRRT collections have been lower than the Treasury initially expected to raise. If those opposite are so opposed to this legislation, I would like to see them commit to paying back every single dollar collected by the MRRT to the mining companies—to Fortescue Metals, to Gina, to these big multinational companies that are doing it so hard. (Time expired)

See this speech in context