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

Mr Speaker, my question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer to his previous answer where he said that his new $9 billion-a-year tax on mining would be a veritable bonanza of investment and jobs in that industry. If the supertax is really as good for the mining industry as he claims, why wouldn’t he introduce a supertax on a range of other industries—on retail, on manufacturing, on construction—as recommended by his Treasury secretary, Ken Henry?

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

Once again I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question because it goes to the whole challenge of tax reform. I refer also in my answer to the Leader of the Opposition’s question to what I said to the first question he asked in question time today concerning the taxation arrangements for non-renewable resources. I simply reiterate that point.

The Leader of the Opposition also asked about the reception this tax reform proposal has received from various elements of the mining industry. Can I draw the Leader of the Opposition’s attention to what I informed the House of yesterday with those seven separate resource related agreements, which were signed in the presence of myself and the Vice-President of the People’s Republic of China. Agreement No. 8 was a cooperation agreement between Chinese companies and a company called Resourcehouse Limited to establish a US$8 billion China First coal project involving the construction of a mine, the construction of 476 kilometres worth of railway to the port at Abbot Point near Bowen and the construction of a coal-loading terminal. The project is expected to result in approximately A$4 billion in exports and the—

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 on relevance. The Prime Minister was asked: if the mining tax is such a veritable bonanza for the mining industry, why isn’t it good enough for the all the other sectors of the economy to improve their jobs and investment?

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

Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat. Whilst I do not encourage the question being repeated, in repeating the question he read again the preamble, which referred the Prime Minister to statements in very floral terms about the veritable bonanza. I guess the Prime Minister is responding to that part of the question.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for you guidance and support. In the first part of my answer I referred to that element of the question and I dealt with the application of this tax reform to non-renewable resources. This part of my answer goes to the assertion in the question from the Leader of the Opposition concerning the impact of this tax reform proposal on mining companies. I was using an example of an agreement signed yesterday in the presence of myself and the Chinese Vice-President between Chinese companies and a company called Resourcehouse Limited for US$8 billion. Who owns Resourcehouse Limited? Clive Palmer owns Resource House Limited. There we have it—Clive Palmer, at maximum, representing the same principle, at minimum, we have had from the member for Dickson. When it comes to this impact of tax reform, the member for Dickson goes out and buys some shares and earns a tidy 100 on the way through. Clive says he is prepared to put an $8 billion project on the line and have it signed yesterday, notwithstanding the impact of this proposed tax reform. When it comes to those opposite, we watch what they do, not what they say.