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

I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the Government to keep its commitments to Australian industry.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

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

There was no greater commitment to Australian industry given by this government than the commitment that was given by the Prime Minister, by the Treasurer and by the Minister for Resources and Energy to the mining industry just prior to the calling of the election. This commitment has now plainly been broken. When you see someone of the stature of Australia’s Rio Tinto chief, Sam Walsh, going on national television, as he did last night, to say, ‘If you can’t trust the government, who can you trust?’ you know that there is a developing crisis of confidence surrounding this government, a gathering certainty that this is a government which simply cannot be trusted to keep any commitment. Its commitments to industry, its commitments to the public and its commitments to its own heartland all have been junked in the days and weeks following the recent election.

When it comes to the mining tax, there is no better illustration of the fact that this government cannot be trusted to keep its commitments. First of all, you could not trust the government’s figures. When it first introduced the mining tax, it said the tax would raise $12 billion in two years. That commitment lasted just a few short weeks. Then we learned that the original version of the mining tax was going to raise not $12 billion but $24 billion. You could not trust the government’s process. The initial version of the mining tax was brought in without any serious consultation with the industry. Then there was a $38 million advertising campaign brought in by this government, which had not gone through any of the due process requirements which government is supposed to observe. You could not trust its judgment, because this was plainly a tax that was going to seriously damage the most important industry in this country, the industry upon which all of us rely for our continued prosperity.

Above all else, what you could not trust this government for was honesty, because the commitment that it made in black and white, in writing, before the election has plainly been junked after the election. It is as plain as the words on the page on the minerals resource rent tax heads of agreement:

All State and Territory royalties will be creditable against the resources tax liability …

There is no question of date, no question of ‘Yes, before that time but not after this time’; it is an absolutely unqualified commitment:

All State and Territory royalties will be creditable against the resources tax liability …

So this was an absolutely straight commitment that the government made to the three big mining companies of this country, a commitment which has now been absolutely broken, a commitment which has now been completely trashed because it serves the purposes of the government after the election to do something completely different to what it promised to do before the election. This is the fundamental problem with this government. This is what erodes the real legitimacy of this government—the fact that it has not kept its commitments. It said one thing before the election to win votes, and it has done consistently another thing since the election to try to form government and hold government.

Let me offer this thought. We have the Australian boss of Rio Tinto, Mr Sam Walsh, stating calmly and honestly what is the true situation: ‘If you can’t trust the government, who can you trust?’ You would think, with a statement like that from someone as well respected as Sam Walsh, that the government would come to its senses. But I tell you what, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is obvious from what we have heard in this parliament, two days running, that there is no way that this government will honour its pre-election agreement. I give you this tip, Mr Deputy Speaker: if Mr Walsh keeps speaking out, as he should be able to, what will we see from this government? Not honesty, not going back to keep its commitment—we will see threats; we will see bullying; we will see the kind of intimidation which is the stock in trade of this government.

This is a government which simply cannot keep its word. Those of us in this chamber who watched the election debate a couple of months ago would remember the Prime Minister being asked what her greatest contribution to the life of the nation over the last three years had been. After a great deal of stumbling and hesitation she finally came up with one achievement. Her one achievement was the establishment of uniform national occupational health and safety laws right around the country. It turns out that this one achievement does not exist. It is an achievement which is being disputed, questioned and undermined by the Premier of New South Wales.

What did the Prime Minister say in response to the obstruction of the Premier of New South Wales? She said, ‘A deal is a deal.’ If a deal is a deal between the Prime Minister and the Premier of New South Wales, why isn’t a deal equally a deal between the Prime Minister and the mining industry of this country? If a deal is a deal when it suits the Prime Minister to keep it, why isn’t it also a deal when it does not suit the Prime Minister to keep it? This is the fundamental dishonesty which we see from this government time after time. This is the fundamental dishonesty that will bring this government down.

Back in June, we saw the now Prime Minister politically execute the former Prime Minister because, she said, the government had lost its way. She said back then that the way to restore the government’s position was to fix the big problems. First of all, she was going to fix the mining tax. Then she was going to fix the boat people problem. Finally, she was going to fix the climate change problem. On none of these issues has the Prime Minister’s commitment been met. Each of these fixes is unravelling. The government is still lost. What is worse is that, because the government is lost, the Australian people are still suffering these serious threats to their wellbeing.

First of all, you cannot trust this government to protect the mining industry, which is still under deadly threat. You still have out-of-control borders because you cannot trust this government to deliver on its commitments on border protection and on detention centres. Most of all, you cannot trust this government to deliver on its commitments not to have a carbon tax. I put this question to the parliament: if the former Prime Minister could not trust the current Prime Minister, why should the Australian people ever trust the current Prime Minister? If the member for Griffith could not trust the member for Lalor, why should the Australian people ever trust the current Prime Minister of this country?

As I said, this Prime Minister made commitment after commitment in the course of that election campaign and each one of those serious commitments has been systematically undermined since the election. One of the first commitments that the Prime Minister made in office was to open a processing centre in East Timor. This was the processing centre which she proudly announced to the Australian public without properly discussing with the East Timorese government. This was the Prime Minister of Australia announcing to the Australian people that something would be done in a foreign country without first discussing it properly with the government of that foreign country. It was, if I may say so, perhaps the first sign that the Prime Minister was not up to it. So in the Prime Minister’s very first major announcement there was an indication that she had been overpromoted and that she fundamentally lacks judgment—a conclusion that the Australian people are increasingly coming to because each one of her big decisions has unravelled or is unravelling.

Her commitment to have an asylum seeker processing centre in East Timor will never be delivered. The East Timorese will not have it. The Indonesians do not like it. It will not work anyway. What we have seen since this election is a government in panic. It has effectively junked the East Timorese detention centres and is now opening more detention places here in Australia in flagrant breach of its election commitments. We heard the Prime Minister on radio just before the election twisting and turning and sneaking her way around a question on the expansion of the detention centre at Curtin. We had a categorical denial from the Prime Minister’s office of any plans to have a detention centre at the Scherger air base. Both of those prime ministerial commitments were completely junked once the election was over.

Then there was the infamous commitment not to have a carbon tax. The day before the election she could not have been more clear. On the front page of the Australian newspaper she was quoted as saying, ‘I rule out a carbon tax.’ She ruled it out to win votes. Then she ruled it in to try to form a government. What we have seen from this Prime Minister is a fundamental inability to keep any commitments whatsoever. Her justification for breaking that fundamental commitment was, ‘There was an election and the state of the parliament proved, showed or meant that I could not keep that commitment.’ I remind the Prime Minister that there are no fewer than 144 members of this parliament who got elected ruling out a carbon tax. Every single member of parliament on this side got elected ruling out a carbon tax. Every single member from the Labor Party got elected ruling out a carbon tax. One member of parliament, the member for Melbourne, got elected ruling in a carbon tax. In the weird calculus of this Prime Minister, one vote somehow intimidates and coerces 144.

If the Prime Minister’s logic is to be believed, the most powerful member of the House of Representatives is not the Prime Minister but the member for Melbourne, and the most powerful person in this parliament, at least while this government is in office, is Senator Brown, the Leader of the Greens, because the Greens plainly have this government intimidated. The true situation is that Labor is in government but the Greens are in power: whether it is strengthening the mining tax, whether it is weakening border protection, whether it is introducing a carbon tax—these are Greens initiatives which this government is being drawn towards. Labor is in government but the Greens are in power.

It is no wonder that Senator Faulkner said recently that the Labor Party is long on cunning but short on courage. It is no wonder that Senator Faulkner did not want to serve in the Prime Minister’s government. It is no wonder that he preferred the member for Griffith, Mr Rudd, to the current Prime Minister. And it is no wonder that this is the first government in memory not to get a poll bounce after re-election. People do not trust it, and they should not trust it. (Time expired)

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition says this is about trust. We welcome this debate, because the Leader of the Opposition has form when it comes to trust. We all remember the 7.30 Report, where the Leader of the Opposition said you cannot trust anything he says unless it is written down.

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

Mr Abbott interjecting

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can’t trust anything that you say unless you’ve written it down. We will go to the 7.30 Report, and remember the question that Kerry O’Brien asked you, Leader of the Opposition. I think all members of the Australian public will remember what you said. Just in case anyone does not remember, this is what the Leader of the Opposition said:

Well, again Kerry, I know politicians are gonna be judged on everything they say, but sometimes, in the heat of discussion, you go a little bit further than you would if it was an absolutely calm, considered, prepared, scripted remark, which is one of the reasons why the statements that need to be taken absolutely as gospel truth is those carefully prepared scripted remarks.

That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. When he was queried on his commitment that Work Choices was dead, buried and cremated, he went to an extra effort to prove it. That is why, on the Neil Mitchell program—and the Leader of the Opposition will remember this well—he wrote it down: ‘dead, buried and cremated’. But now it seems that you cannot even trust what he says, even if it is written down, because before the body is even cold, the opposition are digging it up—it is the zombie policy that you just cannot kill.

During the election we remember that the opposition said they would do nothing when it came to the Fair Work Act—they would make no changes to the legislation. But here is what the member for Moncrieff said afterwards:

We have been elected many times before embracing small business exceptions for unfair dismissal and we should be doing everything we can to be responsive to small business needs.

Senator Williams said:

I’ve always believed that small business should be exempt from wrongful dismissal …

The member for Canning said:

In my own electorate people are saying to us, ‘Can you have a look at this? This is crazy’. I plan to report back to the partyroom and the policy review …

The member for Mayo, one of the architects of Work Choices, said:

We made a mistake with Work Choices … but it’s an important time to go back and have a look at what we took at the election and looking at our economic reform over the next three years.

Only two weeks ago the Leader of the Opposition is on record as saying:

We absolutely stand by the policy we took to the election and we have no intention, not the slightest intention, not the nearest skerrick of a hint of a plan to do anything that might resemble the policy of the last days of the Howard government.

But in the Australian today we see the shadow minister for finance with a shovel, digging Work Choices back up, saying that he will ‘look at issues such as unfair dismissal laws and the reinstatement of individual contracts’. Before the election they said the Fair Work Act should be given a chance. I remember very clearly the opposition leader saying that industry—and remember, this is an MPI about industry—wanted certainty. Now, only a couple of months after the election, we are told in the Australian today that the shadow minister for finance believes that the Fair Work Act is ‘unravelling’. So, if you want to talk about trust—and the Leader of the Opposition has said that this is a debate about trust—then the government is very happy to.

The opposition told us during the election that their costings were audited by the company WHK Howarth. I remember the shadow Treasurer saying:

… we have the fifth-biggest accounting firm in Australia auditing our books and certifying in law that our numbers are accurate …

What do we find now? We find that those books were not audited at all. A letter, signed by the Director of the Liberal Party, Mr Brian Loughnane, said that they do ‘not constitute an audit … or a review in accordance with Australian auditing standards’. So, before the election, the Liberal Party says their books were audited; after the election—‘Well, not exactly; the books weren’t exactly audited.’ And what was the consequence of that? After the election the Independents asked to see the books, asked Treasury to examine the numbers, and we found an $11 billion black hole. So, if you want to talk about trust, whether it is Work Choices or whether it is the costings that you take to the Australian people when you seek their vote to form a government, then we are very happy to talk about trust.

Let us talk about what happened after the election. We all remember here the group hug. Remember the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business signing up to a document committing this parliament to parliamentary reform, and in particular the pairing of the Speaker? Signed one week; thrown in the bin the next. It was thrown in the bin only because the opposition did not get their way.

If you want to talk about trust, if you want to talk about keeping commitments, we can talk about it all day, because every day in this place the opposition seem to be changing their position on something. Yesterday it was the structural separation of Telstra. Before the election, the member for Casey said the coalition were against the structural separation of Telstra. Now, today and yesterday, the member for Wentworth tells us that they are in support of it—that he supports structural separation, the industry supported structural separation and he believes Telstra also supported structural separation. He says in the Australian:

The case for structural separation is a very compelling one …

That is not exactly consistent with what the opposition said before the election, so perhaps the member for Wentworth, the shadow minister for communications, has to explain whether the coalition’s policy has changed again since the election or whether it is just his position which has changed—whether his position is out of kilter with that of the coalition, a little like his position on climate change.

Or take water policy. The opposition said before the election that they would sign up to the draft water plan. Now they say that they are opposed to the whole thing. On defence, a few weeks ago the shadow minister for defence said there should be more troops in Afghanistan and there should be tanks. He said there should be helicopters. Now there has been another backflip. Last week, on radio, the shadow minister for defence had to make this humiliating backdown:

I’m not demanding tanks … any more. I have changed to agree with what Abbott said.

So, whether it is defence, whether it is water or whether it is the structural separation, we see a commitment one day and a change of position the next. So, if you want to talk about trust, if you want to talk about commitments, we can talk about that.

The opposition have now got to the point where they are attacking each other. We saw that on display on the doors today. The shadow Treasurer was saying that we should remove the RBA’s independence and re-regulate interest rates. When asked about this by the media this morning, the member for Canning had this to say:

This is one of their lunatic fringe type ideas but that’s the problem …

‘That problem’s for the Gillard government now.’ There you go. That is what their own side thinks of their ideas. You have the member for Canning criticising the shadow Treasurer’s position.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. As the member well knows, there has been a personal explanation—indeed, two personal explanations—by the member for Canning, and I ask that the member at the table not continue with the lie that the member for Canning was referring to anyone other than the Greens.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is important to recognise that the honourable member for Canning did in fact make a personal explanation, and I ask the minister to be cognisant of that fact as he proceeds with his contribution.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This MPI is also about commitments. Well, when the global recession hit, when the greatest economic crisis in 75 years hit, we made a commitment. We made a commitment to keep Australia working. That is why we stimulated the economy, and we did it at a time when the other side opposed us. The action that we took protected the jobs of 200,000 Australians and kept this economy out of recession. The eminent economics professor, Professor Joseph Stiglitz, said this about the stimulus package:

I did actually study quite a bit the Australian package, and my impression was that it was the best—one of the best-designed of all the advanced industrial countries.

As a result, unemployment in Australia today—for which we all should be thankful—is 5.1 per cent. In America, unemployment is 9.6 per cent. In Europe, it is 10.1 per cent. Go back three years to when this government was first elected, in November 2007. Unemployment in Australia and unemployment in the United States were both under five per cent. Now, unemployment here is 5.1 per cent and unemployment in the United States is double, proof of the action that the government have taken and the commitment that we made to keep Australia working.

The Leader of the Opposition in this debate had something to say about the mining resource rent tax. The facts on this are pretty clear. We have said all along that we will credit existing and scheduled increases in royalties. We said that the Policy Transition Group will discuss with relevant companies how this might best occur, ensuring long-term certainty for industry. We are not going to write blank cheques; that is the responsible thing to do. We should not sign taxpayers up for things that state governments decide to do, but let us not forget what the MRRT will go towards: tax cuts for 700,000 Australian businesses, $6 billion that will be invested in infrastructure for regional communities and an increase in superannuation for every working Australian.

What does this mean? It means that, if you have constituents in your electorates—and I am sure you do—who are 30 years old and on an average wage, they are going to have an extra $108,000 in their superannuation when they retire. I ask some of the new members here to consider this as you are asked to vote on legislation about increasing the superannuation guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent, because, for a 30-year-old on an average wage, it is going to mean more money in their pocket when they retire and will make an easier, more secure retirement for them—an extra $108,000 in their pocket when they retire.

The word is that the Liberal Party are planning to vote against this. That would be very, very disappointing. It would be a repeat of what happened in the past, 20 years ago, when we did this. The Liberal Party voted against it then. They said that it was ‘little short of lunacy’. They said it would kill small business and destroy jobs. What happened? Superannuation proved to be one of the most important economic reforms of the last century. It spawned a whole new industry that now employs 60,000 people and manages a trillion dollars in managed funds. It also helped to get us through the global recession. When Australian industry could not get access to funds overseas, it was our superannuation that saved them, allowing them to raise $90 billion. The point is this: the Liberal Party was wrong two decades ago; do not let the Liberal Party be wrong on this again. This is an important reform to the Australian economy and it will be important to the people that you represent.

This is a debate that has been framed by the Leader of the Opposition as being about commitments and about trust. Well, if you want to have a debate about trust and commitments today, tomorrow or for the next few years, we are very happy to have that debate, because from all accounts the opposition cannot seem to keep a commitment from one day to the next, even if the Leader of the Opposition writes it down. The Leader of the Opposition made a written commitment at a radio station to scrap Work Choices. He said it was ‘dead, buried and cremated’, but now it seems like the zombie policy that you just cannot kill.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Briggs interjecting

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is good to see the architect has arrived in the chamber. It is good to see Dr Frankenstein here—the man who created the monster that killed his boss. It is good to see him here again.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister ought to be aware that under the standing orders it is inappropriate to refer to other honourable members in that way.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is a debate about trust and commitment. The Leader of the Opposition has told us that you cannot trust anything he says unless it is written down. We thought, ‘At least if he writes it down, we will know that we can trust it.’ But he wrote down that Work Choices was dead, and now all we see in the paper is that that is not good enough either. Even if it is written down, you cannot trust a thing that the Leader of the Opposition says.

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

I rise in this matter of public importance to speak about a breakdown in trust between this government and Australian industries, a breakdown in trust between this government and the Australian people and a breakdown in trust exemplified by this Prime Minister’s failure to honour a written commitment to three mining companies. Coming from the great mining state of Western Australia, I know how deeply concerned the Western Australian mining industry is about this broken promise from the Prime Minister. They are astonished at how the Prime Minister has walked away from a promise that she made to three mining companies. All Australians know that the Prime Minister reached an agreement with these companies prior to the election—at least she purported to reach an agreement, though the precise details have remained secret. But it now appears that the agreement is not worth the paper on which it was written. The heads of those mining companies appear somewhat shocked at this betrayal by the Prime Minister, with Rio Tinto’s chief, Sam Walsh, asking, ‘If you can’t trust the government, who can you trust?’

These mining companies appear shocked, but it is my melancholy duty to inform the House that the mining companies should have seen this coming. Ask the member for Griffith. After all, he was repeatedly assured by his loyal deputy’s public statements that she would be more likely to fly to Mars than to challenge for the leadership of the Labor Party. She ridiculed the idea of a leadership challenge, saying that she was more likely to play full-forward for the Western Bulldogs than to challenge for the leadership. Yet challenge she did. If we cast our minds back to the sorry demise of the member for Griffith, a clearer picture starts to emerge: there is a pattern in this Prime Minister’s conduct. Rely on this Prime Minister, and it will end in tears.

Remember how the former Prime Minister made the fatal decision to dump his clear 2007 election promise to implement an emissions trading scheme, having previously argued it was necessary in order to deal with what he described as ‘the greatest moral challenge’ of our age? Why did he dump his policy? On whose advice did he do it? We now know that it was his loyal deputy who was most persuasive and convinced him against his better judgment to dump the emissions trading scheme, a decision that was fatal to his leadership. When things became difficult for the member for Griffith and he as leader most needed the support of his loyal deputy, she betrayed him—she betrayed the trust he had placed in her. Given the repeated and unequivocal assurances she had given to the member for Griffith which had implications for the highest office in the land—that of Prime Minister—it is fair to ask: is there any promise, any commitment, that the current Prime Minister can be trusted to honour?

The matter of public importance today relates to Australian industry, and one of the biggest issues facing Australian industry is the government’s response to climate change. Australian industry knows that this Prime Minister convinced the former Prime Minister to dump the emissions trading scheme. They know that this Prime Minister repeatedly said prior to the election that there would be no carbon tax under any government she led. They know that this Prime Minister ruled out a carbon tax the day before the election. There were no ifs or buts; she categorically ruled out a carbon tax. Mind you, this Prime Minister’s only climate change policy was a citizens assembly, which was widely ridiculed. It was the policy howler of the 2010 election, right up there with Medicare Gold, another of her policy shockers. Yet after the election and true to form we now have a carbon tax on the agenda.

What is Australian industry to make of that astonishing backflip? What should the Australian people make of it? There is no room for interpretation and there are no grey areas—it is fundamental dishonesty. The Prime Minister gave her solemn word to the Australian people one day before an election that there would be no carbon tax and then brazenly broke that commitment a few weeks after the election. It is safe to assume that all sorts of backroom deals were done with the Greens and the Independents who supported this truly awful government. Faced with a choice between honouring commitments to the Australian people and doing deals to cling to power, the Prime Minister chooses the latter.

Let me return to the agreement the Prime Minister says she reached with the mining companies and quickly recap. The former Prime Minister announced the super profits tax on the mining sector that would have destroyed dozens of jobs and sent mining investment offshore. We on this side of the House opposed ferociously this opportunistic grab for cash. We opposed the potential destruction of jobs. We opposed the destruction of investment confidence. We opposed this attack on one of the most productive sectors of our economy. Mining companies, outraged at the complete lack of consultation or warning, launched a highly effective advertising campaign against the government’s super profits tax. The member for Griffith decided to tough it out but was betrayed by his deputy, who had been plotting his downfall for weeks, if not months. After the political assassination, the new Prime Minister justified it by saying that the government had lost its way under the member for Griffith’s leadership. She said she had to fix the problem of asylum seekers coming by boat, she had to fix the problem of climate change and she had to fix the mining tax. But we know that she has fixed none of them. This year, 107 boats have arrived, 21 of them since the election. The citizens assembly has been dumped and we now have a committee. But, with great fanfare and theatre, the great negotiator took personal responsibility for negotiating a deal with the three largest mining companies.

The Prime Minister invited them to Canberra. She excluded Treasury officials and others because the great negotiator believed she could do it all herself, with the assistance of her Treasurer. After a few days the champagne bottles were wheeled in. The Prime Minister announced she had reached an agreement. At the time, there was great suspicion that a room full of mining executives would have outsmarted the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, but the Prime Minister assured everyone she had negotiated a rock-solid deal. The Prime Minister has repeatedly said she would honour the terms of the deal but yet again her assurances have been worthless, because the Prime Minister now realises the mining executives negotiated a better deal than she understood at the time. Surprise, surprise! Who could have seen that coming—that a room full of tough and clever business operators would get the better of this Treasurer and Prime Minister? Who would have thought? The agreement makes it clear that state royalties are creditable against the mining tax. That is what the deal says. In fact, the mining companies would never have agreed otherwise. But there is an important principle at stake here. Regardless of the eventual outcome of the negotiations, the companies had an explicit written agreement with the Prime Minister of our nation.

Perhaps they should have listened to the views of one Laurie Oakes, describing this Prime Minister’s behaviour over another of her policy blunders, regarding East Timor. Remember how the Prime Minister announced a regional processing centre in East Timor and then tried to say that when she said East Timor she did not mean East Timor? Laurie Oakes said:

Julia Gillard just looked silly and slippery and slimy and shifty in all that and it’s a very, very bad start to her prime ministerial career.

No wonder the distinguished Mr Oakes is up for a Walkley award.

What is clear is that this government is bad for business. There is no commitment that this government can give that business and industry can trust will be honoured, because there is no commitment that cannot be broken under this Prime Minister. There is no promise that she will not break. At the first whiff of political opportunism, this Prime Minister will renege on any promise at any time. This is a government based on lies. This is a government based on falsehoods. Promises not to introduce a carbon tax? Broken. Promises that state royalties could be offset against the mining tax? Broken. This Prime Minister and her government cannot be trusted. Australian industry, Australian business and the Australian people cannot trust this government. They cannot trust this Prime Minister. There is no worse indictment of the leader of this nation.

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

I rise to speak on the matter of public importance. I was fortunate to be in the chamber at 12 o’clock when it was distributed by the clerks. I had a look at it: ‘The failure of the government to keep its commitments to Australian industry.’ I cogitated and I thought: ‘I wonder what industries they’ll be looking at. Will it be the education industry? Look at what’s been happening there in the last three years or so. Or perhaps it will be the superannuation industry,’ which the minister touched on in his speech—the incredible achievements that have taken place over the last three years and what we are about to see take off. We have had some great comments from the superannuation industry about our increases in the SGC. I thought it might even be the agricultural industry, since we seem to have a significant influx of young Nationals into the chamber, up in that corner. I thought maybe they were driving the agenda and it would be about the agricultural industry. Then I thought of building or broadband. Obviously the member for Wentworth is pretty interested in broadband and has been making some comments, so I thought, ‘I wonder if that’s what they’ll focus on.’ But no. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition and obviously, even though his speech was a little bit erratic, he seemed to be focusing on mining. In fact, he made this statement, and I think I am quoting it accurately: ‘The mining industry is under deadly threat.’ I have a bit of background in the mining sector. I have worked for the Queensland Resources Council as a mining adviser. I have worked for the state government in mining. I thought, ‘Okay, I’ll explore that a bit.’

I cast my mind back to a release that came out on Monday about a mining project up in Cape York, up in the wild rivers area. I thought maybe that was where Mr Abbott was getting his information from about the mining industry being under deadly threat. Perhaps it was because of something that was put out on Monday. You might remember that Mr Abbott is passionate about overturning the Queensland wild rivers legislation, which locks up the few pristine wild rivers left in Australia—well, left in Queensland. I cannot speak for the other states. But he is suggesting that it is going to overturn industry opportunities in those areas, which is actually complete rubbish. Mining can take place in wild river areas. Tourism and other things can take place in wild river areas. There just needs to be consideration of those wild river values. But I thought that maybe it was because he is passionate about wild rivers and intends to go up to North Queensland and actually talk to the traditional owners around the wild rivers. Instead of just listening to Noel Pearson and saying, ‘This is our policy,’ he said, ‘No, I will go and talk to the traditional owners who walked up and down these corridors last week and told people they loved the wild rivers legislation.’ These people said: ‘We’re the traditional owners. We can speak with authority. We’re not Noel Pearson.’ I thought, ‘Maybe that’s what guided Mr Abbott’s comments that the mining industry is under deadly threat.’

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition’s comments.

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

Sorry, the Leader of the Opposition’s comments. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. So I had a look at the press release put out on Monday, 18 October by Cape Alumina Ltd about their Pisolite Hills project being unviable. It was an interesting release. If you looked at the spot prices of aluminium, you might say perhaps they guided the viability of the project, but it was strange timing, coming out the same day that the Leader of the Opposition said he was going to reintroduce his wild rivers legislation. Then I looked at the name at the bottom of the press release.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And?

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

And it was my opponent. My Liberal-National Party opponent in the federal election put out the release by this mining company. I thought: ‘Gee, that’s a coincidence! That’s strange. These things happen, I suppose. It is a small state, Queensland, these things might happen.’ Then I thought, ‘Let’s have a look at this MPI and unpack it, particularly when it comes to mining.’ The reality is that, when we look at the deal that is on the table about the minerals resource rent tax, it is going to be a great thing for Australian businesses. We are going to lower company tax, we are going to increase SGC contributions for all Australians, we are going to do many great things for small business, we are going to provide other tax benefits, we are going to boost national savings, we are going to deliver tax cuts throughout—

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Zappia interjecting

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

Yes, infrastructure. I thank the member for Makin for that contribution. Infrastructure, particularly in places like Queensland and Western Australia, will benefit from the MRRT. There is a bit of quibbling from those opposite and there are some concerns from the mining industry. But let us go to the common-sense approach to a deal, because we understand how to keep a deal. The reality is that, when we are talking about the deal with Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton and Xstrata and when we are talking about the state government royalties, we are talking about the current state government royalties. Imagine a scenario where, say, in Western Australia the National Party, which I understand is not in a coalition with the Liberal government—is that right, member for Fremantle?

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe it is.

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

We saw that in the federal election, when the colourful Wilson Tuckey was knocked off by a National Party person. Imagine if the Western Australian Nationals said, with their Royalties for Regions program, ‘We need to ratchet up the state royalties by 10 per cent or 20 per cent.’ Imagine if that applied to state royalties and the federal government had to make a contribution—

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of relevance. Although—

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s feigned pain.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it’s not feigned pain, it’s real. It’s genuine and I know, Simon, you can feel my pain on this point.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There is no point of order.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member will resume his seat for a moment. I am listening carefully to the member for Indi. She is not convincing me at this point in time.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the shadow minister for, amongst other things, industry, I have heard the member for Moreton say nothing in the last five minutes that is relevant to this.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume her seat. This is a matter of public importance debate; it is a wide-ranging debate.

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

I would point out to the member for Indi that the mining industry is actually quite significant when it comes to Australian jobs.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then why are you trying to destroy them?

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

I am focusing on the mining industry. If you will sit there rather than play with your BlackBerry I will give you a real lesson on the mining industry. As I said, when it comes to considering the realities of deals, if we had the Western Australian Nationals come in and ratchet up their demands on the Liberal state government in Western Australia and say, ‘We need to increase royalties by 20 per cent or 30 per cent,’ how could we budget appropriately? That is why the deal that is on the table with Rio Tinto, BHP-Billiton and Xstrata is a realistic deal. And it is a good deal.

Let us look at what some of the industry leaders have said about it. I know there is a lot more work to be done by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson, and the BHP Chairman, Don Argus, but let us look at some of those left-wing commentators, like our comrade Mitch Hooke from the Minerals Council. What did he say? He said it is ‘a positive outcome for Australia’. BHP Billiton’s Marius Kloppers even said he would work constructively with this government. He said:

We are encouraged that the MRRT design is closer to our frequently stated principles of sound tax reform, in that the proposed tax will be prospective in its treatment of profits from our iron ore and coal businesses, and not apply to the other commodities in our portfolio.

We work, and those opposite wreck. That is the reality of this. As I said, I looked at this MPI and thought about the number of industries that we could have talked about and our great relationship with them—things like the NBN—but, no, there was no mention of those. Anyone who understands the opportunities in the future for a smart Australia knows that we will not get there by lowering wages—that low road way is the way of the past. We need to be a smarter country, not investing in firing up your Atari 64 and hoping that will get us through. We need a broadband network, because, as I think the minister pointed out in question time today, 85 per cent of manufacturing productivity gains come from improvements in ICT. Broadband is the way of the future that will support the mining industry. (Time expired)

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If there is one word that sums up the Gillard government it is ‘mess’. It is the Prime Minister’s own word to describe her government’s Home Insulation Program. That is indeed a mess: four dead, 200 or more house fires and a billion dollars to fix. The Building the Education Revolution—the Gillard memorial halls—in which at least 30 per cent of the money was wasted, is a mess. Since Labor softened the refugee rules 175 boats have arrived bringing 8,300 arrivals, there are more detention centres and there are people wandering free—that is a mess. The Green Loans Program—hundreds of trained assessors with nothing to do—has been abandoned because it is a mess. New workplace laws that have left half a million people worse off and uniform workplace safety laws, where the deal is off, are a mess. The emissions trading scheme was the greatest moral issue of our time. Now, ‘It is never going to happen in my time as Prime Minister.’ It is a mess. There was the 150-person assembly to try to dream up a new climate change policy and the three new committee. It is all a mess. The mining tax was always going to destroy jobs and Australian industry. The changes to the tax were made in a deal with the big boys. Now the deal is falling apart and it is another mess.

Now the Murray-Darling Basin scheme perhaps could be the biggest mess of all. The government has allowed the processes which determine the future of the Murray-Darling Basin to degenerate from widespread goodwill to massive destruction and anger. It could become the biggest mess of them all. Whole towns and communities face closure. Our food bowl could be decimated. Australia could be dependent on food imported from other parts of the world, from countries where tropical rainforests will be destroyed to create farms, from countries like China, where 50 new dams are proposed on one river alone. We are going to get our food from those countries rather than properly manage our own capability to produce the food we need for our country.

When the government had a chance to develop a comprehensive package of measures to restore the Murray-Darling to health, while protecting the producers of our food and fibre and strengthening regional communities, it betrayed the trust of everyone with its lack of transparency and its lack of imagination. Now the government is resorting to a television advertising campaign to deliver spin because it has no substance. It has gone around the proper advertising guidelines with another national emergency and has to spend tens of millions of dollars on another advertising campaign. It is another mess. The government has no solutions. It does not know where it is going.

The government’s guide to the draft plan is all about how to share the pain that is being created from the proposed plan. But the government has not provided any information about why this amount of pain has to be borne in the first place. It has not explained why it is now necessary to have 3,000 gigalitres or 7,800 gigalitres to deliver the environmental outcomes. I will remind the House that, when the Living Murray Initiative was launched, a detailed study was done about the environmental needs of the Murray-Darling Basin. On that occasion it was assessed that 1,500 gigalitres would be necessary to deliver the water that was required for environmental purposes. Why has this figure gone from 1,500 gigalitres to 3,000 or some other figure? What has changed? The government has not provided any of that information. The government has provided no detail about how the environmental management plan will work. It has not provided any information on how to manage the various water reserves provided for particular environmental purposes. None of that information has been provided. People are just being asked to bear pain without being trusted with the reasons for that pain.

The reality is that the Living Murray Initiative proved that in a well-managed way you could use a relatively small amount of water to deliver good environmental outcomes. Everyone knows that the Murray-Darling Basin needs more water for its environmental needs, but why does it now need double the amount that was considered to be necessary when the last environmental impact assessment was done? One of the keys to the success of the idea associated with the Living Murray Initiative was that the environmental water was going to be managed and managed carefully.

You can use environmental water more than once. If you put it into an area to lock in a wetland so that a bird breeding season can be completed, you avoid what happens in nature when whole generations of birds die because the breeding season lasted longer than the water supply in the wetlands. If you manage the water, you can make sure it stays in the wetlands until the breeding season is completed, then you can release the water and perhaps send it downstream to some river gums so that they can be appropriately watered. Maybe later on it can be used for irrigation or some other purpose. That is the way in which environmental water can be managed and managed in a way in which you deliver real results without having to take vast quantities from those who use it productively. Is this new plan going to ditch that method of careful management and simply take water off people because someone has an ambition or because some green group demands that a greater amount of water be provided?

Let us also remember that, when the previous government launched the National Water Initiative, developed initially by John Anderson and then legislated by John Howard and the member for Wentworth, $10 billion was set aside to modernise the Murray-Darling Basin. It was to be for the benefit of the environment, the irrigators, the basin communities and, indeed, the nation as a whole. A key element of that program was $5.8 billion to effectively replumb the basin by introducing more effective water meters and reducing seepage and evaporation. Some buybacks may well have been necessary, particularly where there were willing sellers, and the engineering and management processes would have provided a win for all.

In reality, of that $5.8 billion—although the minister could not answer the questions yesterday—it seems the government at the time spent as little as $300 million, which was a little over five per cent. It is possible to make the engineering changes to replumb the system for better infrastructure, to use better distribution systems on farms and to use better management to save the water that is needed for the environment. You do not have to take it off people; you can save it and still deliver productive outcomes without resorting to the lazy way out that this government has adopted. The lazy way out is taking and buying water out of the system rather than re-engineering it and getting into the position where you can, in fact, save the water that is necessary to deliver to the environment.

One project reported on in the Weekly Times last week estimated that $43 million—not $43 billion but $43 million—can save 1,100 gigalitres of water, which is about one-third of what is alleged may be required. Savings in the Narran Lakes and the Menindee Lakes can also make significant differences to the way in which the amount of water required can be provided. The report in the Weekly Times referred to the flooding of areas around Lindsay Island wetlands. They could cut the amount of water required to achieve the environmental outcomes from 1,200 gigalitres of water to 90 gigalitres. They could save 295 gigalitres in the Murrumbidgee River catchment through relatively cheap improvements. The Canberra Times reported last weekend that the study that identified these amounts has been mothballed. There are ways to do this properly, but once again the hallmark description of this government will prevail. It will be a mess. It will be another mess because this government cannot deliver programs.