Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Let me commence my contribution by addressing the central focus of Senator Ronaldson’s comments late in his contribution: that this government had broken its word and is not consistent in the application of its policy and that, after a miserable mere nine weeks, should forfeit its position. Let us talk about the five things that Senator Ronaldson listed. They were health reform, asylum seeker and migratory reform, carbon tax reform, mining tax reform and reform in the Murray-Darling Basin. Those are the five issues. Each of those five issues has received considerable prominence and press of late. Why is that? Because the government of Australia, through its relevant cabinet ministers, is in each instance seeking to resolve issues that were determined some nine weeks ago.

This government was given a clear mandate to go ahead with reform in each of these areas. On each of these issues, the relevant minister is engaged in consultation and negotiation. They are holding meetings and forums. They are part-way through that process. No-one on god’s earth believes that after nine weeks in government and after only some four or five weeks since the parliament first convened that each of those issues should have been resolved. The process is underway and will undoubtedly bear fruit in due course.

In contributions by opposition senators, snide references were made to the delivery of a speech last night by the Prime Minister. I must have been the only person in the Great Hall who sat and paid attention to that excellent speech by the Prime Minister, because the appropriate adjectives to use to describe it are ‘reasoned’, ‘calm’, ‘balanced’, ‘logical’, ‘forthright’, ‘deliberate’ and ‘authoritative’. They are the seven adjectives that any sensible person would use to describe both the content and the delivery of that speech.

We are also accused, as I understand it, of being somewhat inconsistent in the process of discussion and negotiation concerning the mining resources rental tax. I would suggest in response that the position that we adopted in July and that we put to the people in late August is the same position that is now being negotiated by Minister Ferguson and his officials and Mr Argus from the National Australia Bank. It is the same position that will come out when that committee of inquiry delivers its report to the government later on this year sometime around about December. Those negotiations on the mining tax have been a model of consistency. The mining tax, as we all know, has particular application in Western Australia and Queensland.

What do we have to say about the proposal that was the subject of questioning by Senator Brandis? Yes, there was an agreement entered into back in late June or early July of this year. Yes, there was a mining tax agreement entered into with the three largest mining companies in this country. Yes, it was made public. There is no disagreement on those basic propositions. We also made it quite clear under the administration of Mr Rudd and the continuing administration of Ms Gillard that we—the government; the Australian Labor Party—are absolutely insistent that there be a fairer return for the use of non-renewable resources in this country. We will continue that discussion and consultation process right across Australia. We have been quite forthright about that process.

The basics will not change. The basics were outlined in the heads of agreement that was negotiated in late June or early July. That heads of agreement was made public. That document made it quite clear that the Australian government was insistent that the Australian people—on behalf of whom it was negotiating—would, through appropriate taxation mechanisms, receive a fair return for allowing mining companies to exploit non-renewable resources in this country in the greatest boom this country has seen in terms of commodities and the extraction of resources. That is what is going on now. The committee is moving around Australia. It is particularly active in Queensland and Western Australia. It is having negotiations at both ends of the—(Time expired)