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

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Conroy. I refer the minister to comments made by the Treasurer on 19 February, when he described the fiscal mess of Labor's mining tax as being 'politically inconvenient'. Can the minister inform the Senate by what measure the government can describe this flawed mining tax as a success? How much revenue has it raised? How many jobs has it created? Or how politically convenient it is?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for his question. The MRRT is an important, long-term reform for our children and our grandchildren. Let's be very clear, Mr President, those opposite want the level of collection of the tax to be zero. They are pledged to repealing it. They are pledged to repealing it. Clearly, despite claims from those opposite, the MRRT has been raising revenue, although this has been impacted by the big drop in prices in the third quarter of last year. While recovering slightly these depressed commodity prices have continued to impact through to the end of the second quarter. As commodity prices have started to pick up, we have seen an increase in the amount of revenue being raised, but, of course, it takes months for a change in the spot price to be fully reflected in MRRT revenues, as resource trades can be conducted on monthly or even quarterly averages.

As a matter of course, Treasury and the ATO always look at the operation of taxes and, in particular, new ones. The MRRT will be no different. Remember that the MRRT is a profits based tax that raises more revenue when profits are higher and less when they are lower, but they are not designed to raise zero revenue like the position of those opposite—those opposite who do not want to share the wealth of this country among the many; they just want to look after a small number of their corporate mates. So, this is very similar to the PRRT, a profit based tax that has been around for over 25 years. (Time expired)

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order on both sides!

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

I have a supplementary question, Mr President. Is the minister aware that of the $126 million to be collected from the tax this year, $44 million will be offset by foregone company tax collections and approximately $50 million will be offset by administrative costs? How does the minister justify that his government's mining tax will this year collect less revenue than the severance payout by BHP Billiton to Mr Marius Kloppers, one of the people with whom Ms Gillard and Mr Swan so cleverly designed the tax?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If we followed the opposition's logic, we would stop collecting around $2 billion in PRRT each year, because it is volatile and difficult to forecast. Those opposite want to come in here and cry crocodile tears for a revenue stream that they have opposed every single step of the way. You have spent most of the last six months claiming there was zero revenue and then you come in here and start crying crocodile tears. From day one you saw a resource rent tax as an opportunity to go down on bended knees to vested your own vested interests to protect those. And you want to give your billionaire mates a tax cut. That is what you are proposing—increased taxation for people on under $37,000. (Time expired)

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

Just wait a minute, Senator Brandis. Order on both sides!

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 government's dud mining tax was personally designed and negotiated by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, after they knifed the member for Griffith in the back, will the minister now concede that the responsibility for the fiscal fiasco of the mining tax lies solely with them and that this sees a new benchmark in failed public policy?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We on this side stand for households, small businesses, higher super and better infrastructure for all Australians. Let's be clear, Mr President, those opposite are on the side of the billionaire mining magnates and nothing will change in this debate. The glee that we are seeing from those opposite is desperate policy from those who are ashamed that they voted against the tax breaks for 2.7 million small businesses. They voted against boosting the retirement savings of 8.4 million working Australians. They fought to deprive Australia of much needed infrastructure in order to do the bidding of Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer. Those opposite should give this argument up, these crocodile tears— (Time expired)