Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I refer to the facts in the Treasury paper upon which you relied in your previous answer, a report which concludes that the mining industry has paid less tax than any other sector over the past decade. Can the Prime Minister explain why the report relied on data that was six years old? When the latest data from 2007-08 is used, it shows that the mining sector represents just over seven per cent of income generated by all companies but accounts for 14 per cent of all company tax paid.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the question from the opposition on tax reform and the benefits to which that reform would be put—better super for working Australians, less tax for Australian companies, tax breaks for small business and investment in infrastructure.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure you listened to the question. You would be well aware that the answer that the Prime Minister is giving could not possibly be relevant to a specific question about company tax receipts versus the income that they generate. He is answering a question about the apparent benefits for which the tax would be used. Please bring him back to the question.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did listen to the question. I was trying to listen to the answer, but there was so much hubbub that it was very difficult. I will listen to the Prime Minister’s response. He understands the requirement to be relevant to the question. The Prime Minister has the call. He will be heard in silence.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Goldstein refers to a paper entitled Disparities in average rates of company tax across industries. The authors are as specified earlier. I recall a question yesterday from the member for North Sydney, the shadow Treasurer, asking for the government to bring forward substantiating material concerning the government’s position on current tax arrangements for the mining industry. In response to that request yesterday, the Treasury brought forward a Treasury note. And in response to that the member for Goldstein stands up and objects to its contents because it concludes that the average company tax rate of the mining sector was 17 per cent in the decade to 2004-05. That is precisely what I said before. It compares that to construction, at 19 per cent; transport, at 27 per cent; and finance, at 29 per cent. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition read the paper from the Treasury, digest its contents and stop simply acting as the mouthpiece of the MCA. I suggest he undertake some independent research, which might be in the national economic interest.

Mike Symon (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is reform of the tax system important for Australian families? How have recent proposals been received?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Deakin very much for his question. This government believes in a strong economy. It is a government which believes in ensuring that the strength of our economy underpins a fair go for all Australians and enables us to protect Australian jobs.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like insulation workers.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bowman is warned!

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government has kept the Australian economy strong during the global economic recession by preventing it from going into recession. The opposition said, ‘Do nothing.’ The opposition said that it was better in effect for the Australian economy to stand unprotected from the ravages of the global recession. The Leader of the Opposition said that his prescription for the future was to do what New Zealand did. What New Zealand did was to go into recession for 1¼ years.

Secondly, the Australian government is keeping the Australian economy strong, as underpinned by the delivery of the government’s budget, which halves net peak debt, which brings back the budget to surplus in three years time, three years ahead of time. This is a core achievement in keeping the economy strong. Despite all we saw with the three-ring circus last week from those opposite, masquerading as a budget reply, those opposite still cannot nominate the year in which they would return the budget to surplus.

Thirdly, the government is keeping the economy strong by continuing its program of implementing long-term reforms in the economy. That means reforms through the education revolution, reforms in nation-building infrastructure and reforms also in creating a seamless national economy—all of which are designed to lift productivity growth. That includes also the reform of the taxation system.

There is one core fact about our proposed reform of the tax system—that is, it asks mining companies to pay a fairer share to the Australian people for the resource which the Australian people ultimately own. Furthermore, it says that the revenue derived from that fairer share will then be used to fund better super for working families. It will also be used to fund tax cuts for all Australian businesses—for small business in particular—and will be used for investing in our future infrastructure needs.

For the economy at large, what this means is boosting our global competitiveness by bringing the Australian company tax rate down, boosting our national savings—a very big buffer in times of global economic crisis—and, on top of that, ensuring that we have a consistent national taxation regime for the mining industry, as opposed to the patchwork of royalties regimes which are based on volumes rather than profits, and that assists the mining industry to grow over time.

Mention has already been made in question time today of the contribution to our national interest of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I also refer to further comments she has made in the national economic interest, in this case, when it comes to this debate on tax. Yesterday she said the mining industry did not need to pay more tax. Contrary to what the WA Liberal Premier has said, which is that the mining industry is getting away with blue murder, and contrary to the fact that we have even the CEO of Woodside saying that mining companies can pay more tax, instead what we have is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying that, in effect—

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In effect!

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I notice the interjection from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. She contests the accuracy of what I have just said. I draw the attention of the House to the following:

Question: Given their profits and the fact that these are our resources, they are not renewable, are they paying enough tax?

Deputy Leader of the Opposition: I believe that they are paying a fair amount of tax.

Any suggestion that that is misleading or misrepresenting the Deputy Leader of the Opposition suggests to me that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is having a casual relationship with the truth.

I go back to the core position which she advances. Despite what the Liberal Premier of WA says and despite what everyone else says, she has said on behalf of the opposition that the mining industry is paying enough tax. Well, there is a new development, and I turn to no-one other than Senator Barnaby Joyce. Let’s hear it for Barnaby! Barnaby entered the debate today as the shadow minister for infrastructure—onya, Barnaby! Question to Barnaby:

So you believe that the mining industry shouldn’t have to pay more tax than it is at the moment? I just want to clarify that point.

Senator Joyce: I’m prepared for people to look at the mining sector to pay more tax.

So in the space of 24 hours we have the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying they pay enough tax and we have the shadow minister for infrastructure saying that in fact they can pay more tax, and should pay more tax. Two contradictory positions within 24 hours. Of course, there is the third position on tax. It is the Leader of the Opposition’s position on tax, which is that he is going to tax the mining companies anyway through his great new big tax on everybody in order to fund his PPL. Three different tax positions. Coalition tax policy No. 1: the Julie policy, which says they should not have to pay any more tax.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Prime Minister will refer to members by their parliamentary titles.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Coalition tax policy No. 2: the Senator Barnaby Joyce policy, which says the mining companies should pay more tax. Coalition tax policy No. 3: the Leader of the Opposition’s policy, which says they will be paying more tax, it is just that they are going to be paying it through the PPL.

What we have seen is complete shambles and chaos on the part of those opposite, not just last week in delivering their budget reply but also in the coherence of their tax policy. With each policy they have outlined—1, 2 and 3—it fundamentally contradicts the others; it cancels out the one that had been delivered just before. I say to those opposite: if you are serious about managing a budget, you have got to get a budget reply right; if you are serious about a tax policy, you have got to have one policy not three policies; if you are serious about managing an economy, you have got to demonstrate some interest in the economy; and if you cannot even manage your party on tax policy, what hope have you got of managing the country?