Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the mining company Xstrata has today announced that it will suspend the $6 billion Wandoan coal project, near Roma in my electorate of Maranoa, which will put an immediate stop to $170 million worth of current works and see the immediate loss of 150 jobs as a result of this government’s investment-destroying great big new tax on mining. Given that the Prime Minister did not have the guts to attend the Minerals Council’s dinner last night, does he have the courage to come to my electorate to personally explain why he says his great big new tax is so good for the town and the region?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order, part of that question was out of order.

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

In black and white, a lot of the question was out of order because it contained argument, and it gives a title to a program that is argumentative—it is not the official title. Over the last 2½ years I have allowed those things to go through. The element that could be seen as debate about personality is not of assistance within a question, and I rule that part out of order. Reference can be made to the first part of the question; the latter part should be ignored.

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

I thank the member for Maranoa for his question. I note that the member for Maranoa often stands in this place and speaks of the infrastructure needs for his part of Queensland. I note that the member for Maranoa has stood in this place recently and demanded extra funding for road construction in his part of Queensland. I note that the member for Maranoa is in repeated correspondence with the minister for infrastructure and local government requesting investment by this government in the infrastructure needs of his community. What the member for Maranoa does not do is stand on his feet with integrity and ask this question of himself and the House: ‘And how should such investment in infrastructure be funded in the future?’ This government has taken measures in terms of its proposal for an RSPT to provide a delivery of infrastructure investment funding for regional Australia. The member for Maranoa is very good at standing up and posturing in this place about the infrastructure needs of his region but on the other hand providing no solutions in terms of delivery of investment back into his region and the source of revenue which should provide the basis for it.

As to the honourable member’s question about Xstrata, I refer to my answer earlier to the question asked of me about the company: firstly, the impact of the proposed RSPT on that company through the refund of the royalties that they would otherwise pay to the Queensland government; secondly, the 40 per cent tax credit which has been recommended as part of the proposal; and, thirdly, their ability to use that across the life of the project particularly in its early loss-making years. That is why, for example, editorials across many parts of the country and the world, including most recently in the Financial Times, have said that this in fact is a rational way in which to tax the resources industry of this country and in fact others abroad.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yeah, and? It was proven wrong!

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

Order! The member for North Sydney!

Jim Turnour (Leichhardt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism. How will the resource super profits tax ensure that regional communities receive a fair return for the once-off development of their non-renewable resources, particularly in northern Queensland?

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

Mr Speaker—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’ve been set up!

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

The member for North Sydney is now warned.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to 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—

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. How could this be relevant to the question?

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

The minister is responding to the question. The minister is well aware that he has to be relevant.

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

It goes to the question of infrastructure and the pressure the resources sector is putting on local communities in Northern Queensland—the pressure on infrastructure, the pressure on the budget and the pressure on the daily lives of workers in these communities. Perhaps when the opposition leader is on the Mineralogy plane next week he could drop in to the seats of, for example, Leichhardt and Herbert and actually look first-hand at all the investment by the Australian government in key local infrastructure projects and the pressure it is putting on the Australian economy and the pressure it is putting on the budget. He could go, for example, to look at the $255 million being spent on the Bruce Highway from Sarena to Cairns; have a look at the port access road in Townsville, at $95 million; have a look at the Townsville ring road, at $79.5 million; have a look at the Douglas arterial duplication, at $55 million; have a look at the $150 million for the upgrade of the southern approach to Cairns along the Bruce Highway; and a range of other projects in North Queensland.

That is why we are also working with, for example, the member for Kennedy, because we understand the importance of reliability on energy. We are working with him about how we upgrade the grid between Mount Isa and Townsville. We are confident that out of that process we will also get a key commitment to a growth in renewable energy opportunities in that particular area of Australia. This government, unlike the opposition, understands and appreciates the pressures on local Queensland communities because of the resources sector and the expectation of people in those local communities that the mining sector pulls its weight in terms of sharing the huge profit growth they have had out of the opportunities to develop Australia’s national resources, which are 100 per cent owned by the Australian community.

Compare that approach to the view of the opposition leader. Let’s go to what he said yesterday at the Minerals Council lunch: ‘The resources sector is paying a fair amount of tax.’ That is contrary to what a range of resource companies are actually saying. They are actually conceding that there is room to pay more tax. He then spoke in opposition yet again to a profits based tax. I referred yesterday to the clear statements by the CEO of the Minerals Council of Australia that they themselves believe that we should be introducing a profits based system in Australia. I will tell you what all this is about: a desire by the Leader of the Opposition to create a class war in Australia. He spelt that out in his speech to the Minerals Council of Australia at lunchtime yesterday.

The Australian government is going to continue this debate because this is a very important opportunity for us as a nation to put in place a modern tax system, not only of long-term benefit to the resources sector in Australia but, importantly, of long-term benefit to the Australian community. We are committed to getting the balance right between attracting investment in the resources sector and returning a fair benefit to the Australian community. That is why the proceeds of this debate will help the states provide the major infrastructure necessary to continue our economic growth in Australia.

I appreciate why the Leader of the Opposition is standing up for special interests in the Australian community. I refer, for example to the donations of Mineralogy to the Liberal-National Party in 2008-09: $400,000 to the federal Liberal Party; the WA National Party, $110,000; the federal National Party, $50,000; the Liberal-National Party, $20,000. Then we go to the archangel of the coalition: a personal donation by Mr Clive Palmer of $280,000 to the Liberal-National Party. That was last year.

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

Order! The minister will bring his answer to a close.

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

We all know what has been coming the opposition’s way in recent weeks. They have got difficulties actually adding up the donations, because they have sold their soul yet again.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Adams interjecting

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

The member for Lyons will withdraw.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to Xstrata’s announcement this morning that it is suspending its planned $586 million expansion of the Ernest Henry copper mine near Cloncurry in Queensland, involving the immediate loss of approximately 60 contractor jobs and a further 160 jobs that would have been created over the next 18 months. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that no worker in the mining industry, or their family, will be worse off under his government’s great big new tax on the mining industry?

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

I thank the member for Groom for his question.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

I thank those opposite for their interjections, in particular the member for Dickson. I would just like to inform him that his share price is up since he invested. At lunchtime today, BHP was up 2.5 per cent.

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

Mr Speaker—

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

Order! The member for Sturt can resume his seat. The Prime Minister will go to the question.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! The Prime Minister had not even started the answer when the interjections started, so the interjections were practically interjections on the question. The Prime Minister will be heard in silence.

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

I thank the member for Groom for his question because it goes to the question of jobs. He asked specifically about jobs.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Dutton interjecting

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

The member for Dickson!

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

What I would say in response to the honourable member’s question is that, on the question of jobs, this government’s economic policy—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

The member for Dickson is warned.

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

has created 225,000 jobs while practically every advanced economy in the rest of the world has been shedding jobs. If you look right across Australia and at the employment performance of the Australian economy over that period of time, we have seen jobs added when they have been lost in so many other parts of the world. A large number of jobs in international tourism, for example, have also been affected by the impact of the global economic crisis. Take, for example, Far North Queensland—the member comes from Queensland: the unemployment rate in Far North Queensland is currently in the vicinity of 12 per cent. One of the factors associated with that is the competitiveness in Far North Queensland of tourism businesses affected by a high Australian dollar. In response to those sorts of factors, what governments can do is to bring down the overall company tax rate for companies competing internationally.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the question was whether the Prime Minister will guarantee that no mineworker will be worse off—

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

The member for Groom will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is responding to the question. The question used the title that the opposition has decided to use for a package of policy proposals and the Prime Minister was speaking about those proposals.

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

The member’s question goes to jobs. He asked specifically about jobs in one part of Australia and in one industry. My response goes also to the fact that employment across Australia is generated by many factors, not least of which has been the government’s investment in stimulus for the last year and a half. As a consequence of those measures, we have added in the vicinity of a quarter of a million jobs in this country while we have seen jobs being lost right across the rest of the world.

Secondly, the Leader of the Opposition interjected before that in fact he had never argued that stimulus was not necessary. I believe I have got his interjection correctly. He said before in an interjection that stimulus was not necessary. I also draw the attention of the House to what the Leader of the Opposition has actually said on this subject. The Leader of the Opposition, who is carefully avoiding the attention of the debate at this moment, said the following:

… the economic stimulus wasn’t necessary to strengthen Australia’s economy at a time of global recession.

That is what—

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Abbott interjecting

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

I beg your pardon? The Leader of the Opposition continues to say that he did not argue that the stimulus was not necessary. On 30 March 2010, he said:

… the economic stimulus wasn’t necessary to strengthen Australia’s economy at a time of global recession.

‘Was not’ he said—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Solomon is on thin ice. I am not sure whether there is much ice in Darwin, but he is on thin ice.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: on the widest interpretation of the meaning of ‘substance of the question’, the Prime Minister is clearly not relevant to the question that was asked. I refer you to page 553, second paragraph, and ask him to return to the substance of the question or else sit down as he is unable to answer it.

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

Page 553 goes on to say:

In practice the word has been frequently accepted by the Chair as meaning relevant in some way or relevant in part, rather than directly or completely relevant.

It might be a matter that the procedures committee could address in the next parliament or the parliament after.

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

The member for Groom’s question goes to jobs—what generates jobs and what protects jobs—and I am responding to that both for the economy in general and for regions in particular. We have argued in this place that continued positive growth in the economy and in employment has occurred on the basis of stimulus through the course of the global financial crisis. The reason I am engaging in this debate is that the Leader of the Opposition has interjected across the chamber repeatedly that his position has never been one of opposition to stimulus. That is untruthful. That is fundamentally untruthful. The Leader of the Opposition has a very deep problem with telling the truth in this chamber. The Leader of the Opposition said that the economic stimulus was not necessary to strengthen Australia’s economy at a time of global recession.

We might well ask: was that just said, or was it written down? Guess what? It was written in a speech. Therefore, it is the full gospel truth. It was a considered, scripted, written speech in which he says that the economic stimulus was not necessary to strengthen Australia’s economy at a time of global recession. Not only was that wrong in terms of economics, but also he has been untruthful today in pretending he never said it. He did say it. That is their position, and it has been consistently.

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

The Prime Minister will bring his answer to a conclusion.

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

We stand for policies which support employment. Those opposite stand for policies which destroy employment.