Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make some remarks on this private senator's bill, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill 2020. I accept that there are laudable objectives being pursued here by the crossbench.

I'll start by making it known that I have a particular philosophy of government, which I would describe as a form of Menzian liberalism. When it comes to these matters, Menzies himself said in a 1961 election speech:

For governments have no money to spend except that which has been earned and paid over, by tax or loan, by the men and women of Australia.

That is my philosophy for government.

When it comes to the conduct of large companies, there's a basic judgement that governments need to make as to how these are regulated and taxed in the public interest. In this country we have regimes to deal with that, but it has to be based on the idea, in my view, that the government itself can't be the generator of revenue or the driver of the economy; that needs to be done by the private economy. In our world, where we live with a small domestic population but with the 12th-biggest economy on earth, we must rely upon foreign investment and private investment—both—in order to fund our lifestyles into the future.

As I said, I think there are some laudable objectives in this bill, and when it comes to the question of regulation and tax there's no doubt that the debate about large companies in terms of banking institutions, technology companies and oil and gas companies is an important topic for this chamber. It's one where good people will have different views. My view has been that big tech should have more regulation and my view, especially following the Hayne royal commission, is that there should be more regulation in the banking space. And my view on oil and gas is that there's a case which can be made that there should be more taxation paid. But taxation, by the way, is not levied on revenue; taxation is actually levied on profit. I think that's a sound principle, but I think we could look at this again. We have a regime, the PRRT, which deals with these matters and it is something that needs to be working in the interests of our country.

There's an industry which has been driven by my former colleagues in the accounting profession designed to harness base erosion and profit shifting for large companies, and that has been a major issue. It's not an issue that Australia, by the way, can solve on its own. Base erosion and profit shifting is like climate change: you can only solve it through a multilateral framework through international agreements. I think that most attempts to deal with it unilaterally are pretty futile. Of course we can consider going back to 1973 or 1974 and talk about Rex Connor and his plans to nationalise resources, but they weren't good plans. That was not a successful period: inflation was at 15 per cent and it took 20 years to get the budget back into the black. I don't think we should do that, but I do think the issue around the way that large resources projects have their tax arrangements set is an issue we should pursue. I think there is a case to be made that more tax could be paid, but tax has got to be paid on profit.

In my mind, the two key outputs of the gas and oil industry are the large amount of largely foreign investment that it brings—we haven't got enough money in this country to develop our own country; we never have and never will, especially not with the way the superannuation system has been allowed to run so poorly—and jobs. There are 30,000 direct jobs and 80,000 indirect jobs. Those are important things. If the crossbench is seeking more taxation to be paid on profit, that is something that could be pursued, but not through this exact bill. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.