Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate—

(a)

notes that:

(i)

the Government continues to hide key assumptions it has used to estimate revenue from its original as well as its revised mining tax proposals,

(ii)

since the last sitting of the Senate, the Select Committee on Fuel and Energy repeatedly sought information from the Government about changes it made to those assumptions between the 2010-11 Budget and the announcement of the new proposed mining tax arrangements on 2 July 2010,

(iii)

the committee specifically sought information about changes to commodity price, production volume, exchange rate assumptions and any other variables relevant to its mining tax revenue estimates,

(iv)

the information sought by the committee is published by the Western Australian State Government in its budget papers as a matter of course,

(v)

the Government did not allow the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury (Dr Henry) to provide that information even when he appeared before the committee for a second time on 13 July 2010,

(vi)

the Prime Minister (Ms Gillard) to this day has not responded to Senator Cormann’s letter, dated 12 July 2010, asking for this information to be released,

(vii)

the Treasurer (Mr Swan) has since conceded that:

(a)

under the revised assumptions, the original Resource Super Profits Tax (RSPT) proposal would have raised approximately $24 billion over the forward estimates rather than the $12 billion revenue estimate contained in the Budget,

(b)

a massive $6 billion out of the $10.5 billion revised mining tax revenue estimate was based on changes to government assumptions, and

(c)

under the original assumptions, the Mineral Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) or expanded Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) would only have raised $4 billion over the forward estimates, and

(viii)

the release of all relevant government assumptions is necessary to enable proper scrutiny of the Government’s mining tax proposal and that, as such, release of that information is in the public interest;

(b)

calls on the Government to honour its stated commitment to openness and transparency and release all the information it holds about mining tax revenue estimates forthwith; and

(c)

orders that there be laid on the table by 5 pm on Thursday, 30 September 2010 all the Government’s assumptions used to estimate:

(i)

the revenue from the RSPT as contained in the 2010-11 Budget, including but not limited to, the assumptions on commodity prices, production volumes and exchange rates, and

(ii)

the revenue from and overall fiscal impact of the MRRT/expanded PRRT arrangement announced on 2 July 2010, including all changes to assumptions used for the 2010-11 Budget.

Notice of motion altered on 29 September 2010 pursuant to standing order 77.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a)

notes that:

(i)

the Government conducted negotiations about its revised mining tax with BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Xstrata in secret before entering into an agreement about this new mining tax proposal with those three companies only,

(ii)

approximately 99 per cent of the mining industry was excluded from those secret mining tax negotiations, and

(iii)

in its haste to reach a new deal quickly, the Government gave those three companies an unfair competitive advantage, including by:

(a)

allowing them to directly influence the ultimate design of the new tax while excluding their competitors,

(b)

using data provided by those three companies on commodity prices, production volumes and other key assumptions, and

(c)

giving them preferential access to inside information about Government assumptions and thought processes around the new tax;

(b)

considers that:

(i)

information made available by the Government to those three companies should be made available to everyone,

(ii)

any data provided by those three companies for use in any Treasury modelling of the revised mining tax proposals should be publicly released, and

(iii)

all parts of any agreement between the Government and those three companies about the revised mining tax arrangements, including any schedules and other attachments, should be publicly available; and

(c)

orders that there be laid on the table by 5 pm on Thursday, 30 September 2010:

(i)

any information held by the Government related to the negotiations and agreement about the new mining tax proposal announced on 2 July 2010, including but not limited to, briefing notes, e-mails, data provided to the Government by BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Xstrata and any other information generated in the context of the negotiations about the new mining tax proposal, and

(ii)

a copy of the signed heads-of-agreement on the new mining tax proposal between the Government and BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Xstrata.

Notice of motion altered on 29 September 2010 pursuant to standing order 77.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

I thank the Senate. I should explain that the Greens are not supporting this suite of motions from Senator Cormann, although we support the active component of it. I have spoken with the good senator about this. We do not agree with the preamble. Without going into detail, it is a politically loaded preamble. There are assertions amongst motions 4, 5 and 6 that we cannot back without going into a long debate in this place. While we are in support of the active component, to support these motions would be to support the information asserted by Senator Cormann in the lead-up to that active component. We cannot in this situation do that. That is why we are opposing the motions.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A committee of the Senate and individual senators have sought access to information for three months now in relation to key assumptions which underpin the government’s estimates for mining tax revenue. The government has for three months declined to provide that information—without any proper claim of public interest immunity and without providing a proper statement of reasons as to why the release of that information would not be in the public interest. It is not earth-shattering information that we are seeking either. The first motion relates to the commodity price, production volume and exchange rate assumptions used by the government. Changes in assumptions between the original mining tax and the revised mining tax had a significant impact on the revenue estimate outcome, yet the government continues to keep those assumptions secret. We think the release of that information is critical for the Senate and the public to be able to properly scrutinise the impact of this tax. It is information which, for example, state governments of both persuasions in Western Australia publish as a matter of course in their budget papers. I do not understand why the government is treating this as if it is a national security related state secret. As such, I commend those motions to the Senate—particularly in the context of the stated commitment from the government to a new era of openness and transparency which has been asserted by the Prime Minister on a number of occasions.

Question agreed to.

Mr President, I ask that general business notice of motion No. 6 standing in name for today, proposing an order for the production of documents on mining tax revenue estimates by state and territory, be taken as a formal motion.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? There being no objection, I call Senator Cormann.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate—

(a)

notes that:

(i)

the executive director of the Revenue Group in the Department of the Treasury (Mr David Parker) told the Select Committee on Fuel and Energy on 5 July 2010 that the department:

(a)

had assessed where the $10.5 billion estimated revenue from the revised mining tax was expected to come from ‘by commodity’, and

(b)

had not assessed where that revenue would come from on a state-by-state basis, but that ‘it would not be a difficult piece of analysis to do’,

(ii)

despite repeated requests since, the Government has refused to provide that information,

(iii)

this information is required to properly assess and scrutinise the impact of the proposed mining tax on the economy, jobs and on individual states and territories and individual sectors of the resources industry,

(iv)

furthermore, the Rudd and Gillard Governments made a commitment that funding from the mining tax related ‘infrastructure fund’ would be allocated to individual states and territories based on the level of mining tax revenue raised in those jurisdictions, and

(v)

as such, information about where the revenue is expected to come from on a state-by-state and territory basis is necessary to properly scrutinise whether, and ensure that, individual jurisdictions would receive a fair share of funding from that fund; and

(b)

orders that there be laid on the table by 5 pm on Thursday, 30 September 2010:

(i)

Government estimates of where the $12 billion in revenue from the Resource Super Profits Tax was expected to come from by commodity and by state and territory, and

(ii)

Government estimates of where the $10.5 billion in revenue from the Minerals Resource Rent Tax/expanded Petroleum Resource Rent Tax is expected to come from by commodity and by state and territory.

Notice of motion altered on 29 September 2010 pursuant to standing order 77.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Senate. I will give an instance of why it is difficult to support the preamble. It begins with ‘that the Senate notes that the executive director of the Revenue Group had not assessed where certain revenue would come from’. Straight after that it says, ‘despite repeated requests since, the government has refused to provide that information’. On the one hand ‘it has not been assessed’, and on the other hand the government is being asked to provide it. It is not good drafting, it is inherently nonsense, and a much shorter preamble would do. Again, we support the active component, but it is not clear what the preamble means. It is not logical and it ought to have been put more clearly.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a brief statement.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This issue was the subject of two lengthy Senate fuel and energy committee hearings with Dr Henry. During those meetings Dr Henry and senior Treasury officials were asked whether they were able to identify where the mining tax revenue would come from by state and territory on the basis that the Regional Infrastructure Fund, which had been committed in the context of this tax, would be allocated proportionally to where the money was raised from. We asked the obvious question: are you able to assess this? Treasury told us it would not be a difficult piece of analysis to do, and they took it on notice. When the answers on notice came back, the government essentially declined to provide that information. After Treasury took the question on notice and senior Treasury officials told us it would not be difficult to identify this information, the government made this decision, I would suggest, because they did not want the people in Western Australia and Queensland in particular to know how much of the mining tax revenue would come from those states. The government made a decision to decline to provide that information. We think it is in the public interest for that information to be provided so that, again, the impact of this particular tax on the economy, on jobs, on the budget and on individual states and territories can be properly assessed.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to motions 4, 5 and 6 moved by Senator Cormann, I note that the government opposed those motions. However, we recognise that the opposition had the support of at least Senators Xenophon and Fielding and therefore had the majority. So the government did not call for a division.

Question agreed to.