George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Evans. I refer to the Prime Minister’s remarks to the Australian Industry Group dinner last night that ‘a deal is a deal and a signature means that you agree’. Minister, when the government signed the heads of agreement with BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Xstrata on the evening of 1 July—a document the Prime Minister described as ‘a final agreement’—was that a deal and did the government’s signature mean that it agreed?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Brandis for the question. I can make it clear that there was an agreement entered into between the government and three significant leading mining companies regarding the minerals resource rent tax. That was made public at the time.

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

You should stand up for WA.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, if you want to interrupt all through the answer, I am happy to sit down and wait until you shut up.

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

Senator Evans, ignore the interjections. They are disorderly.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann is obviously very keen to make his mark in this place, but perhaps he ought to show a little more restraint.

The agreement between the government and those three mining companies was designed to ensure that Australians got a fairer return for the use of our nonrenewable resources and allow us to invest in the long-term economic future of this country. We also indicated at the time that, in terms of extending the arrangement to other miners who were caught by our proposed minerals resource rent tax, we would continue a discussion and a consultative process. That is occurring. The policy transition group, led by Don Argus, is discussing all of the issues involved and reporting back to the government by year’s end.

There have been some discussions about the detail of one measure of the agreement with those mining companies. That, obviously, is the subject of further discussions between us and those companies. But it has been very clear from the start that we will not be giving a green light to state and territory governments to increase their royalties at the expense of the mining resource tax revenue.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank Senator Evans for confirming that the government considers that the deal was a deal and a final agreement. That being the case, why is the government now walking away from that deal by imposing a cap on the rebate of state royalties, when the term of the deal that deals with this matter provides for no cap?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With all respect, I answered most of the supplementary question in responding to the primary question. I did indicate that there had been some public discussion around the implications of that part of the agreement between the major mining companies. I understand discussions have occurred between the minister and those companies about this. But, as I say, from the start we made it clear that we would not be giving a green light to state and territory governments to increase their royalties and therefore undermine the mining resource rent tax. Clearly, that would be a very perverse outcome and defeat the purpose for which the MRRT was designed. It would undermine our ability to pay for the sorts of things we committed to—like super, infrastructure and tax relief. Those discussions are continuing, but the government’s position is clear. (Time expired)

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given that the minister has confirmed that the government considers the heads of agreement to be a binding agreement but also considers that it is at liberty to break that provision of the heads of agreement dealing with state and territory royalties by imposing a cap against the terms of the agreement, is this not just another example, along with all the other broken promises, from a carbon tax to detention centres, that this government’s word is not worth a thing?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think in a former life the senator would be accused of leading the witness with the way he constructed the question, claiming that I said a whole range of things that I did not. In this context, we call it ‘verballing the minister’. I reject the assumptions contained in the question.

This government has set about implementing the mining resource rent tax in a way that ensures that Australians get fair reward for their mineral wealth; that when mining companies are making huge profits from mining nonrenewable resources, the Australian community gets a benefit from that; and that when commodity prices are at record highs, Australian taxpayers are entitled to share in the large profits being made. We remain committed to that principle and working with the industry to achieve it. (Time expired)