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

Pursuant to standing order 74(5) I ask Senator Arbib, the Assistant Treasurer, for an explanation as to why 293 questions that were taken on notice by Treasury and its associated agencies more than three months ago during the last Senate estimates remain unanswered 78 days after the answers were due. Given that we are now less than a week away from the next estimates, I am really interested to know what the government's explanation is for that.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to consult with Treasury and provide an answer to Senator Cormann as soon as possible.

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

I move that the Senate take note of the minister's nonexplanation. That attitude is just not good enough.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, on a point of order: I think Senator Cormann has moved to take note of something that does not exist in the standing orders. I suggest you sit him down and we move on with the business.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Marshall. I was just taking advice from the Clerk and that is correct. There is no information to take note of, Senator Cormann. Consistent with the precedents of the Senate, that cannot take place.

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

Mr Deputy President, on the point of order—I seek clarification from the chair: consistent with standing orders, it is my understanding that I can take note of the government's failure to provide an adequate explanation to the Senate as to why the answers have not been provided. I understand there is capacity to do that.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is absolutely correct, Senator Cormann. You can now move a motion in light of what you have just discussed. If you care to move that way, you then have the right to speak.

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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the minister's failure to provide either answers or an explanation.

This government is just not serious when it comes to the economy. The Prime Minister, because this is the latest fad in her political strategy, thinks she has got to find a way of shifting the debate to the economy—not because she has got something to say, not because the government's record stands up to scrutiny but because one of her advisers, one of her spin doctors, has told her that is what she has got to do. Whenever the government is asked questions about its economic performance, its taxation plans or its spending plans, it ducks and weaves, it goes for the cover-up and it keeps things in hiding.

One of the issues that we pursued during the last Senate estimates, where Treasury took a whole series of questions on notice related to the mining tax, was the govern­ment's proposal to impose a mining tax and spend a lot of money on a whole series of related promises. When there is a proposal to introduce a new tax and when there is a proposal for new spending attached to that tax, the Senate is entitled to know whether the revenue estimates are credible, whether the revenue estimates stand up to scrutiny, whether the spending that is attached to that revenue is sensible and whether the spending estimates stand up to scrutiny. We have been going around this for the last 18 months. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Senator Wong, today said this has been going on for a long time, that we have had this discussion for a long time. It is true that since July 2010 we have been trying to get answers from this government about its mining tax revenue assumptions and what its mining tax revenue estimates are based on. The answer has been one big deafening silence. The government has not provided a single answer about the mining tax revenue assumptions. Why? Very clearly they have something to hide: the mining tax revenue estimates are entirely dodgy, like the mining tax deal was dodgy. Because there is something to hide, they go for the cover-up. That is why they are refusing to provide answers to entirely legitimate questions.

As we have had this sort of cat-and-mouse game over a procession of Senate inquiries and Senate estimates hearings, I thought I would try a new trick in the lead-up to the last Senate estimates. I wrote a letter a week before the last Senate estimates to the Secretary to the Treasury, Dr Parkinson. I listed in detail all of the areas related to the mining tax where I wanted to ask questions. It was a courtesy, and the purpose of it was to ensure that Treasury officials would be in a position to assist the committee and to provide answers. But, true to form, even though they clearly knew the questions we were going to ask about the cost over the forward estimates of the various promises Labor has attached to the mining tax and even though the Secretary of the Treasury was well aware of these, when it came to estimates a week later they were not able to provide a single answer. This meant that they took all of these questions on notice. So here we are, more than three months later, and we still do not have any answers. We have been pursuing these things for the last 18 months, not getting any answers whatsoever. We gave notice before the last estimates that we would ask these particular questions about mining tax revenue assumptions and the cost of all the related promises. At the hearing the questions were taken on notice, and three months later we still do not have any answers. So we are going around and around in circles.

Next week we are going to have another Senate estimates week. Presumably we are going to ask the same questions again and they are going to be taken on notice again, and in 12 months we might still be going around and around. In the meantime, the Senate will be expected to pass judgment on the mining tax bills without that information, which is completely and entirely unreasonable in the circumstances.

If the government is so confident that the mining tax will raise the revenue it says it will raise, why will it not release the assumptions? The Queensland state govern­ment releases these assumptions as a matter of course as part of its budget papers. The state government in Western Australia releases these sorts of assumptions as a matter of course as part of its budget papers. They do so because their revenue is sensitive to variations in commodity price, production volume and exchange rate assumptions. They do it transparently. The Labor state government in Queensland and the coalition state government in Western Australia do this—it is a non-partisan observation. But this secretive government here in Canberra, in the context of putting in a massive new complex tax on the mining industry, which is a very important industry for Australia, are refusing to be as transparent as state govern­ments in Queensland and Western Australia.

The reason for this is that the government know that their mining tax revenue estimates will not stand up to scrutiny. They know that they have fiddled the figures. They are saying, 'The information is based on commercial-in-confidence data provided by BHP, Rio and Xstrata, so we can't share it with you.' The implication of what the government is saying is that they are prepared to do a deal that is negotiated exclusively and in secret with three big commercial operations in Australia, excluding all of their competitors from the process. Treasury was excluded from the process. This was Prime Minister Gillard, Treasurer Swan and Minister Ferguson with some of their personal staff, together with the managing directors of BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Xstrata, doing a deal on the design of a tax. There were no officials in the room. All of their competitors were excluded. State and territory governments were excluded from the process. They did a deal.

Now the government is telling us that, because the revenue estimates are based on data which these companies have provided to them, these are the only companies allowed to know the government revenue assumpt­ions. That is not right and proper. The Australian people deserve to know, and the Senate deserves to know so that we can scrutinise it—quite frankly, everybody deserves to know. It is completely and highly improper and inappropriate that the government would give such a competitive advantage to the three big miners at the expense of all their competitors in the marketplace.

Why do you think the government is desperate not to release the costings of all the related promises? The answer is very simple: the government has realised that the mining tax package is a fiscal train wreck in the making. The reason for that is that the cost of all of the promises that Labor has attached to the mining tax is much higher than the revenue it will raise. That has finally dawned on them. That is why they are so reluctant to provide answers to these questions, which we have asked for some time now. They know that, once that they provide the answer, it will be there in black and white for all to see that the mining tax package is a fiscal train wreck in the making. Minister Wong again very dishonestly today made reference to this so-called $70 billion black hole—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Cormann! I think you should withdraw that remark about Minister Wong.

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

I withdraw in relation to Minister Wong.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

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

I was not referring to Minister Wong so much as to the reference she made today.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You did implicate Minister Wong. You have withdrawn that.

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

The reference that Senator Wong keeps making inaccurately to a supposed $70 billion black hole in the coalition costings is completely wrong. There is, dare I say it, a dishonest use of a figure out of context by the Labor Party which I will now explain. What the Labor Party does is accumulate all of the revenue estimates from its various new taxes and then assumes that, when you get rid of the tax, you press ahead with all of the related spending. We have found out in recent times that the Labor Party is the only party in Australia that can come up with a new tax which actually leaves the budget worse off, because the spending attached to the various Labor Party taxes is higher than the revenue it will generate. The carbon tax package leaves the budget worse off to the tune of $4.3 billion according to the government figures themselves. The mining tax package, in our view, leaves the budget worse off—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate that sometimes these discussions get wide-ranging, but there is a question before the chair and the senator is going nowhere near it.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I draw Senator Cormann's attention to the question, although he has been broadly relevant. Senator Cormann, just keep in mind the motion before the chair.

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

My comments to the Senate are entirely relevant because I am explaining the motivation of the government in refusing to answer these questions. Treasury is able to answer these questions. Treasury would have been able to answer these questions on the spot during the last Senate estimates. The reason Treasury had to take these questions on notice is that, at the political level, this Labor government did not want Treasury to provide answers. It is an absolute disgrace that, more than three months down the track, the Senate still does not have access to that information. Of course, this is the modus operandi of this government. They stuff up because they are an incompetent, divided and deeply dysfunctional government. They stuff up, and after the stuff-up they go for the cover-up. If there were an easy answer to provide, I am sure they would have provided it to us long ago.

No wonder they are trying to hide all of this information. We have to remember that Senator Wong, as finance minister, presided over a $25 billion deterioration in our budget position in one year. From December 2010 to December 2011, the budget position for the 2011-12 financial year deteriorated by $25 billion in one year, Senator Arbib.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Floods, sovereign debt crisis, global financial crisis.

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

So here we go. The minister should go out of his way to see Treasurer Swan and say, 'Listen, Wayne, this is the new era of openness and transparency that the Prime Minister has promised, and we had better start answering some questions.' You had better start answering some questions about the mining tax revenue estimates and the cost of all the promises that you have attached to it, because you are not going to be able to get away with it. People inside Treasury know that the mining tax is a fiscal train wreck in the making. People inside Treasury know not only that there is a serious question mark around the mining tax revenue estimates but also that it is highly volatile revenue which is downward trending over time. Treasury know that these are the best terms of trade in 140 years and that it is likely that over time the revenue from iron ore and coal production will trend downwards—it will be volatile, but it will trend downwards. They also know that all of the promises that Labor have irresponsibly attached to that revenue source are fixed and upward trending. All of the costs that Labor have attached to the mining tax revenue, which is volatile and downward trending, are fixed and upward trending. This is an absolute fiscal train wreck in the making.

This is typical Labor. These are the reasons that, more than three months after Treasury took these questions on notice, we still do not have any answers. The government is too embarrassed to come clean with the Australian people about the absolute disaster and dog's breakfast that is the dodgy mining tax deal negotiated between the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Resources and Energy and three managing directors of major companies in an absolutely unprecedented fashion. To get herself out of a political bind at the time, the Prime Minister went through an absolutely inappropriate process that should never be allowed to stand as a precedent for tax policy development in our great country.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just before I put the question, I will clarify for Senator Cormann and other senators. We have been debating the two provisions 74(5)(b) and (c). It is (b) that relates to whether the minister provides an answer, while (c) relates to when the minister fails to provide an answer. So you were correct, Senator Cormann, in your assumption, but you commenced on the wrong section. That is fine now. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Cormann be agreed to.

Question agreed to.