Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the important issue of repealing the minerals resource rent tax. Today and at previous times, I have heard, endlessly, members opposite banging on about programs that will be cut. There is a schedule of programs that will be cut. One needs to ask oneself: why will these programs be cut? The reality is: of the revenue that was supposed to be raised by the minerals resource rent tax—to pay for things such as the loss carry-back, the small business instant assets write-off threshold, deductions for motor vehicles, geothermal energy, superannuation guarantee charges, low-income support contributions, the repeal of income support bonuses and repeal of schoolkids bonuses, plus infrastructure—only $340 million has been raised since its inception by this failed tax.

I just want to name one project, in infrastructure, that was funded by the money to be raised from that tax, and that was the ring road around the Perth airport—a good project, costing $480 million. Well, this tax has only raised $340 million to date, and yet the funding for the other programs continues. This is typical of the budgeting ability of a Labor government.

I heard the member for McMahon, the shadow Treasurer and former Treasurer, talk about all these cuts and how terrible it was and how good this tax was, and how we as Australians deserve to share in the mineral wealth of this country. Well, can I tell you: these programs are leading to a deficit in this country, because the tax is not raising revenue that it was designed to raise. If you, members opposite, want to mount your argument about Australians sharing in the mineral wealth of this country, you should at least have a look at the state governments, who actually place the royalties on the minerals coming out of the ground. That is how we share the mineral wealth in this country, as the states actually own the minerals. When the minerals come out, a royalty is placed on them, and that royalty can move up and down as market conditions demand. I have heard some ironic arguments in this place in my time here since 1996, but none more ironic than the one against cutting spending on programs that are funded out of a tax like this when the tax has not even raised enough to pay for one of the projects that it was being raised for.

It concerns me that members opposite argue to keep this tax and the carbon tax. It concerns me because, across Australia, we are seeing mining jobs under threat—not only direct mining jobs but indirect jobs as well. Yet members opposite, those who have coal in their regions, including the member sitting at the table opposite, the member for Cunningham—

Ms Bird interjecting—

I know you're there! She has not spoken a word about supporting the mining industry, when Illawarra coal is cutting jobs in her electorate.

Ms Bird interjecting—

I am honest enough to admit that the jobs are going primarily because of the amount that they are getting per tonne. But the difference in making a profit is the cost of extraction as against the sale price. One of the costs of extraction is the amount paid in the carbon tax, and, given that only 20 of the mining companies are actually paying the minerals resource rent tax, there are 145 companies that have to go through the auditing process, and that auditing process is another cost to the bottom line of minerals extraction.

Headline after headline after headline is about job losses and potential layoffs in the mining industry. This week, we have seen BHP over in the west put out an announcement that 500 jobs were going—100 at their headquarters—and possibly 3,000 jobs. That was a report from ABC News by Graeme Powell updated yesterday. This concerns members on this side of the House because we know that we need a viable mining industry to sustain this nation.

The mining industry was expected to contribute $49.5 billion through the original resource super profits tax over five years, and then, in 2010, that was replaced with the MRRT, and that was destined to raise $26.5 billion over five years. Let us go forward in time: it has raised $340 million in net terms. Yet the previous government had locked in $16 billion of expenditure over the forward estimates. I have heard Labor stand up and talk about their economic credentials, and there was all that talk when they were in government about posting surpluses. But this displays their understanding of how to put a tax together, as against expenditure; this displays why Labor should never be in government and never be in control of the books.

See this speech in context