Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have a couple of questions I'd like to ask the minister, but before that can I just say that I was stuck in the chamber yesterday afternoon and I listened to Senator Hinch when he was talking about the amendment he was proposing. I thought he made some sense, and I'm pleased that his call in relation to the banks has been heeded by the government. I address the same comments to Senator Hanson. I know that Senator Hanson, a fellow senator from my home state of Queensland, has long campaigned, loudly and strongly, against giving the banks anything, for reasons which Senator Hanson and I well understand, coming from Queensland and seeing some of the things the banks have done to the citizens of our state, our constituents, in the past. I can well understand Senator Hanson's call.

Longman has been mentioned in this debate. I stood at the same polling booth in Longman with Senator Hanson's Queensland leader and with a team of Labor workers. At one stage, I seem to recall, both Senator Ketter and Senator Watt turned up to Caboolture East. I have to say it was mainly when their leader came around and the television cameras were around, but, notwithstanding that, they were there. And if I heard it once, I heard it a thousand times that day: the Labor Party—and, I might say, Senator Hanson's party—saying to voters, 'Don't give money to the big banks.' That was their main rhetoric as people walked into the polling booths: 'Here's a how-to-vote card, and don't let the government give money to the big banks.'

I've acknowledged Senator Hinch and Senator Hanson for their campaigns. I should perhaps, in fairness, acknowledge the Labor Party for that campaign too. But here we are today accepting what has been put to us by other parties, and quite frankly by many people within Australia, and yet the Labor Party are still choosing not to support it. I will interpret that—and I will interpret that very loudly back in my home state of Queensland—to mean the Labor Party are not in favour of not helping the banks. If you put that in another form, the Labor Party now seem to be helping the banks that they were so critical of. They weren't talking about other things at the Longman by-election; they were talking about, 'Don't let the government give the money to the big wealthy banks who've been such horrible people.' Here we are. We've listened to that. We're a government that acts in the best interests of people, and a government that listens. We're a government that actually is prepared to change policy where we're convinced that the Australian people are not with us. So here we are doing this and yet we still have opposition from the Labor Party. Forget about the Greens, because we know they'll always vote against the coalition regardless of what.

I would appeal to my Queensland colleague Senator Hanson, and her team, to seriously consider the new regime. I say to them: 'Well done; you've succeeded. I now urge your support for this package, with the banks excluded.' Senator Cameron rabbits on with his rhetoric in his 'broad Scottish brogue', as Senator Hinch said, about looking after the workers. But as I always say in this chamber—I think it's one statement I say that I get universal agreement on—I'm not very bright, but I can work out that companies need to have alternatives, options, on where to invest their money. If they can invest in country A and make a profit of 100, but they only pay 15 per cent tax on that profit, and if they can invest in country B—the same investment, the same return of 100—but they have to pay 25 or 30 per cent tax, then you don't have to be very bright to work out where they will make their investment. And, of course, if you don't have companies making investments in Australia, you don't grow industry and you don't employ people.

The Labor Party are all talking about how they're interested in the welfare of workers. We know they're not. In fact, I came across an article just recently about Senator Wong's favourite union. They're not my favourite union, I have to say, but Senator Wong's a member of CFMMEU. I see that even the CFMMEU has warned the Queensland government that its ambitious 50 per cent renewable energy target is 'not realistic' and that Labor should instead back new 'clean coal' power stations. This article, by Jared Owens, says:

The influential union, which represents workers at coalmines and generators, wrote to the—

Queensland—

government in May cautioning it against rushing to "unreliable and expensive" green energy.

The CFMEU, as I say, not a union I usually quote, go on to say:

The 50 per cent renewable target is not realistic. Whilst you can build solar and wind generation to achieve the target on paper, what do we expect is going to happen at night?

They say to read the advice of Treasury, released under the right to information laws. The quote from that is:

During the summer months it is still very warm into the evening … you will have high demand, no solar and potentially little wind generation.

I do remember the CFMEU. I remember them very fondly from when, as forestry minister back in 2004, I worked with Michael O'Connor, who was then the head of the forestry section of the CFMEU and who's now the boss of the bigger union. I remember how in those days, back in 2004, we worked together because we were interested in the jobs of workers in the forestry industry. And I have to say that, working in very close concert with the forestry section of the CFMEU at the time, we did achieve that. For a while, we saved the jobs of forestry workers. The CFMEU and Michael O'Connor were very courageous in standing up to the Labor Party in those days, because they knew what was best for their workers and for workers across Australia at the time.

Now, as I say, it's a bit of deja vu that I'm onside with the CFMEU in relation to renewable energy and clean coal. I agree with the CFMEU because I have an interest in the coal workers of North Queensland. The mines are not far from where I live. I know the wealth that's there. I know the jobs that are created there, and so do the CFMEU. I'm delighted to see that they are showing the same courage they had in the 2004 forestry debates by now getting stuck into the Labor Party for their stupidity on renewable energy.

I only mention that in this debate because, again, Senator Cameron talked about looking after the workers and looking after the poor people. I don't believe him, and neither does the CFMEU, I have to say, in the two instances I met. But, if Senator Cameron and the Labor Party are correct about not favouring the big banks, as they were talking about at the Longman by-election—I heard them all day; all day they were talking about not giving money to the big banks—if it's a win for them, well, so be it. But here we have a piece of legislation which excludes the big banks.

As I say, I was impressed with Senator Hinch's speech yesterday, and he's more or less repeated that just now. I concede that I'm not always one of those who take much notice of Senator Hinch, and some of the things he talks about we're directly opposed to. But I thought his contribution on this was very important.

As to what the limit is, that's something that Senator Cormann's answered. I will seek from Senator Cormann some additional explanation of that because I'm trying to understand what Senator Hinch is proposing. Dare I repeat, Senator Hinch, that you've had a success on the banks, but I would hope that, regardless of where the government goes on the other issue, you will at least support us in this amended legislation so that we can get it through. I think you accept, Senator Hinch—I think most of the crossbenchers do accept—that you don't relate to the Labor Party's rhetoric about looking after the poor people.

You understand, as I do—and, as I say, you don't have to be very bright to understand this—that, when companies have money to invest, they're going to invest in a place where they can keep the majority of their profits, and that is in a low-tax country. If we don't get that sort of investment in our country, we're not going to have the growth of industry. We're not going to have the jobs that we need in many of these industries, which these mainly foreign companies invest in. It's so simple. So I'm just begging Senator Hinch and Senator Hanson and her colleague to think in the broader picture. We do need that investment. I think they all accept that. But then we get tied down on where the cut-off should be. I'm going to ask Senator Cormann to again explain to me what exactly Senator Hinch is proposing and why the government isn't looking at it. Until I hear that, heaven knows where I will end up. It might even be that the government should look at it, but I don't fully understand it at this time.

I conclude by again appealing to my Queensland colleague Senator Hanson and her colleagues in One Nation to look at the bigger picture of investment in Australia and, for us, investment in Queensland. Senator Hanson, you and your colleague and Senator Hinch have had a success on the banks' carve-out. The government's gone along with that. I appeal to you because I'm interested in jobs for Queenslanders. I'm even interested, Senator Hinch, in jobs for Victorians. They're going to have a better chance of getting a job if there is investment coming into this country, and there won't be investment if companies can make more money by investing in a country with a lower tax regime. So, Minister, will you again explain, for my simple mind, what the government is proposing on the cut-off, what Senator Hinch is proposing on the cut-off and why one is better than the other?