Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate declares that it has no confidence in the Government's handling of the mining tax.

Never before in the history of the Commonwealth have the Australian people endured such a dysfunctional and incompetent government. Those of us who recall the debacle known as the Whitlam government are beginning to look on that short-term yet devastating era with a degree of fondness, as an example of sound administration and robust policy development in comparison to the past five years. In fairness, though, we do not know what depths the Whitlam government might have sunk to if given five years.

The Rudd-Gillard governments have presided over the worst governance Australia has had to endure in its 112-year history. They came to office on the back of a promise, backed up by paid commercials, that Mr Rudd was an economic conservative, yet, on gaining government, he immediately took to scribbling that essay in the Monthly condemning sound economic policy, parading his economic illiteracy in grand style.

Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard will be remembered for stunning evidence based public policy initiatives! Who can forget Fuelwatch? Who can forget GROCERYchoice? Or what about the cash splash which paid the dead and those overseas in a vain attempt to stimulate the domestic economy? We then had the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which Ms Gillard herself wanted Mr Rudd to dump. We then had the temporary deficit, which is now in its fifth year and no end in sight. We then had the border protection disgrace, and so the list goes on—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order! On both sides, Senator Abetz is entitled to be heard in silence.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And so the list goes on—

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

Wait a minute, Senator Abetz. I will give you the call when I am ready. Senator Abetz.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And so the list goes on, including the so-called Building the Education Revolution. Remember the laptops, the GP superclinics and the mining tax, the topic of today's motion. It will be recalled that Ms Gillard needed to wrest the prime ministership off Mr Rudd because the government 'had lost its way'. She, of course, was the vice-captain of that government. But itemised examples were given by Ms Gillard of the loss of direction. They were volunteered by her at her first press conference as Prime Minister. What items did she nominate? What items did she volunteer? Border protection—well, that has gone well, hasn't it? The carbon tax—a $4 billion black hole and heading south. And, of course, the mining tax.

I agree with Ms Gillard on this: Mr Rudd's handling of these issues was diabolically inept.

He did deserve to be rolled. He did deserve to be ousted. But, if Mr Rudd deserved to be ousted for his gross incompetence, what do we say of Ms Gillard's handling of those issues? Ms Gillard's ineptness, unbelievably—because one would not believe that it is possible—is 10 times, if not more, worse than Mr Rudd's; border protection—worse, the carbon tax—a $4 billion black hole—and now this mining tax. Who else! Who else could dream up a scheme which shatters Australia's enviable, second-to-none, world reputation on sovereign risk? Who else could have the arrogance to negotiate personally the details of the mining tax without officials present? Who else would do it without the states present? Who else would do it without the territories present? And who else would do it in secret? Who else would do it with only three of the mining companies out of the 3,000 mining companies that exist in Australia? Who else could agree to a scheme which collects virtually no money? Who else could design a mining tax that costs a miner like Atlas Iron $2 million to comply with, only to find out—after submitting their returns—that they will not have to pay the tax? Who else could design such a maze of red tape? Who else could design a mining tax that even the Chief Government Whip acknowledges needs to be changed and that the Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia opposes because he knows the damage it will do to his state's economy? The answer to all these questions is Ms Gillard and the Green-Labor-country Independent alliance's excuse for a government. They are the people who have put such a scheme together.

The next question is: which parties combined to ruthlessly and arrogantly guillotine the mining tax—with all its fatal flaws—through the Senate? Which senators thought they knew it all?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, a point of order!

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

Order! Just wait a minute.

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

Order! You will be given the call when there is silence on both sides.

Senator Joyce interjecting—

Order! Wait a minute Senator Joyce. You will be given the call. Order!

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I could not properly hear Senator Abetz because Senator Conroy was negotiating with their former partner about what they were going to do next.

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

That is not a point of order. Senator Abetz.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was very telling, Senator Joyce, to see these people who have allegedly ripped up the marriage certificate there in deep discussion. We will see what comes from it.

Which senators thought they knew it all? Which senators believed that guillotining 150-plus bills through the Senate was part of the new paradigm? You know, democracy at work? That the Senate would be given a proper role? Remember, what an affront it was to democracy—and I address these comments to our friends in the media gallery—and remember how the keyboards tapped away when the coalition guillotined 30 bills through the Senate in a full term? Five times that number have been guillotined in half the time, courtesy of the Green-Labor alliance in this place. I trust the keyboards will be suitably fired up.

To the Greens and the ALP senators' enduring shame, it was them who foolishly—soaked in their own self-importance and convinced of their own superior intellect—guillotined this flawed legislation through the Senate. But worse than all of this, this is the government that has also forced through this place billions of dollars' worth of expenditure predicated on the income of the mining tax, which disappeared like this morning's mist in Canberra.

Labor has again broken its own limbo record on public policy with the mining tax. No-one gets lower than Labor when it comes to public policy debacles, and the mining tax is an excellent exemplar. Yesterday's much-heralded reform is now another Labor policy dud.

I say to the Australian Greens: we can have all the faux outrage, we can have all the foot stomping and we can have all the ripping up of agreements at the National Press Club, but today the Greens have an opportunity to tell the Australian people whether they have confidence in the government's handling of the mining tax. The difficulty of course for the Australian Greens is that they helped ram it through. They helped guillotine it through the Senate, ensuring that there was no proper debate and ensuring that all the issues that we as a coalition wanted to ventilate would not be ventilated—despite their promise of a new paradigm. But today the Australian Greens can tell the Australian people whether or not they have confidence in the way that the mining tax was handled.

Let us be very clear, especially in relation to the answer given by the Leader of the Government earlier on in question time. Senator Conroy sought to put all the blame in relation to the debacle that is the mining tax at the feet of variable pricing of commodities.

Well, I am sure Senator Conroy was actually present at Senate estimates when the Secretary to the Treasury told the truth about these things and, of course, Senator Wong would have been there as well, one would hope. The Prime Minister has not only reneged on the promise of the carbon tax—not having one—she has also reneged on giving a commitment to providing monthly updates on the mining tax revenue—a rolled gold, solid commitment and, once again, broken. At Senate estimates, just a fortnight ago, the Treasury secretary, Dr Parkinson, admitted that the design of the mining tax is responsible for its failure to generate revenue, not the falling commodity prices and not the higher currency and state royalties blamed by the government. It is for exactly that reason that the Chief Government Whip, Joel Fitzgibbon, the member for Hunter, has indicated to the public that he believes that there is a design flaw in the system. I can understand Senator Wong's embarrassment at this because, as the minister for finance, she should have had control of this issue. She never has had and she never will because she is like all her colleagues around here: economic illiteracy is their strong suit.

But what did Dr Parkinson say? He said Treasury had compiled its budget forecasts in ignorance of the real cost of concessions agreed to by Mr Swan. Now why were they in ignorance of that? Because the deal was done in secret without Treasury officials present. They are the architects of their own debacle. They thought they knew it all. Take the master negotiator, Ms Gillard, who negotiated a deal with Mr Wilkie only to welsh on it, and who did that wonderful negotiation with Mr Slipper, the member for Fisher. What a great thing that was to have him elevated to the Speakership! And now, to complete the trifecta, we have the master negotiator exposed in relation to the mining tax. We have design flaws courtesy of Ms Gillard and Mr Swan thinking they knew it all, thinking that they could outsmart the three CEOs of the big mining companies. Guess who won? If you could have a sweep on it I reckon Sportsbet would have laid the odds pretty heavily in favour of the three CEOs.

Of course, unfortunately, we are now paying the price. Part of the price that we are paying is that the Labor government sought to sell this so-called reform to the Australian people on the basis of a whole range of goodies and bribes to the electorate. This is what Labor are all about: they want to buy their way back into government and on the way attack Mr Abbott. But what I say to the Australian people, through this forum, is this: the mining tax has failed. Take all the predicated expenditure which was also rammed through this place courtesy of the Greens-Labor alliance and is now clearly unaffordable on all the evidence. Who is going to pay for it? Future generations, because the government have now abandoned their promise of a surplus. If ever there were a case for young Australians to vote for the future of their country, it is this, to vote for the party that actually believes in intergenerational economic responsibility. To keep on maintaining the debt levels that we have today and try to keep our lifestyle as it is, lumbering the cost with interest onto the next generation, is an example of the gross incompetence of the Labor Party. Dr Parkinson's testimony to the economics committee disclosed quite clearly that Mr Swan was either grossly negligent or grossly reckless. We do need and deserve an explanation from the government as to how this debacle was able to be achieved. It was all their own work—we know that—because they specifically dismissed the Treasury officials. They were so smart they only had to work this out all by themselves with three CEOs! Yet we have the audacity of the Leader of the Government in the Senate trying to claim that somehow 'we do deals with rich miners'. Excuse me, but who did this deal and got done over by the three richest mining companies in Australia? Minister Conroy, you and your government did—your Prime Minister and your Treasurer—and that is the legacy that will be left, and will be remembered by the people, because of this government.

So what we have here is a gross example of ministerial incompetence mixed up with ministerial arrogance as they are thinking they know it all and then when the problem blows up, who do they blame? 'It's the states' fault but we didn't consult them' or 'It's the territories' fault but we didn't consult them' or 'It might be the miners' fault and the Treasury's fault.' When you do not include the people in the equation you can hardly blame them afterwards for the debacle. There are two people who are at the head of this government—the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, the Treasurer—who personally negotiated this fatally flawed deal, a deal which has punched a billion-dollar-plus hole in the government's forward estimates of billions and billions of dollars—and those are thousands of millions of dollars. Keep in mind, if you want to get an idea of how big that is, that they trumpeted that a $1 billion surplus was going to be a huge economic outcome. Multiply that but in the other direction—negatively—and that is the hole that is now left in the budget courtesy of Ms Gillard and Mr Swan—all their own work because they knew better than Treasury officials. So it was not surprising that, by implication, the head of Treasury dumped on the government by saying it was not the fault of commodity prices—that it was not as the leader of the government in this place sought to say—but was the fault of the scheme and its design. As I have said before and as I will say again: when even your own members, like Joel Fitzgibbon, the member for Hunter, understand that and your own Leader of the Opposition, desperate to win some votes in the west, is willing to say it is fatally flawed and hugely damaging to the sovereign risk reputation of Australia and to forward mining initiatives—when Labor doyens like that can acknowledge it—one wonders why is it that Ms Gillard and Mr Swan cannot.

One reason is their own pride—it was all their own work, so they cannot admit that they made such a fatal mistake in the design. If you have a fatally flawed scheme, at least make sure, if you are going to devastate our sovereign risk reputation, that there is a dividend on the other side of the ledger. Our sovereign risk reputation has been trashed without any real money being collected on the other side. This is the classic loss-loss that only those with the ingenious nature of Ms Gillard and Mr Swan could think up and produce.

This is serious. The mining sector in Australia has been its mainstay for a considerable period. This Labor government has sought to kill the goose laying the golden egg for the Australian economy. Fortunately, in this absolute debacle they have simply wounded the goose and it has flapped away. We hope that the likes of Joel Fitzgibbon and the Australian Greens will not get their hands on the mining tax and complete the job.

Honourable members interjecting—

Senator Cameron continues to talk across the chamber about Gina Rinehart. What his fascination with her is we do not know, but we do know that Ms Gillard had a fascination with the three top mining companies in Australia and they did over her and Mr Swan. They were done like a dinner. Labor is now confronted with the embarrassment of it all, and the Australian Greens are scrambling around for advice because they guillotined this tax through the Senate, they forced it through the Senate, and then, in a bit of a temper tantrum at the Press Club recently, they ripped up the agreement, with Adam Bandt saying that this was the straw that broke the camel's back.

The mining tax is a destructive tax cobbled together by a dysfunctional government. That is why the Senate should declare that it has no confidence in the government's handling of the mining tax.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As we were submitted to that 20 minutes of diatribe, we all got an image of Eric in his bathroom practising in front of the mirror—adjusting his tie, puffing his chest out and showing how outraged he was. What a pathetic performance. Is that the best he can do when he has actually prepared for this stunt? Let us be clear that this is nothing more than a stunt. Those opposite cannot wreck question time in the House of Representatives today, so they want to wreck it in the Senate—but they cannot even do that properly.

The only reason they have moved this motion of no confidence on the minerals resource rent tax is that the good ladies and gentlemen of the press are sitting up in the gallery. Everybody knows that is the only reason this motion has been moved by the opposition. It is not orthodox practice in the Senate and until now, in general, we have avoided the sorts of tactics that we have seen in the House of Representatives, where there is no interest in question time, no interest in discussing public policy and no interest in talking about anything important to the future of the country—only an interest in stunts. Everybody watching knows that this motion is nothing more than a grandstanding stunt, a tactic by those opposite because there is no question time in the Reps, the press gallery is here and it is the turn of the Senate coalition to look like they can blow the place up as well. That is the sum total of this opposition's contribution to public policy debate in this country.

I am happy to talk about the economy and jobs. I know that those opposite are not interested in talking about jobs—it is obvious in here that they do not want to talk about Australian jobs. We saw that when Senator Lundy was on her feet talking about Australian jobs. We saw it with the usual smart alec contribution of Senator Brandis—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not fair, Penny.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, Senator Fifield—your smart alec contributions as well. Those opposite were completely uninterested in talking about Australian jobs. Let us hear a few statistics that those opposite do not want to talk about. How about an unemployment rate of 5.4 per cent? How about 800,000 jobs being created since we came to government? It has gone very quiet over there. They do not want to talk about that. Let us talk about the size of the economy. Our economy is 13 per cent larger than it was when we came to government, prior to the global financial crisis—something those opposite lied about to pretend it did not occur. Those opposite like to scrub the GFC from the economic history of the nation and the globe, saying that somehow it did not really happen. The reality is that it did.

What have we achieved in this country—government, business and employees working together? An economy 13 per cent larger than it was at the end of 2007. There are comparable economies that still have not got back to the same level of output, that are still not the same size they were over five years ago. Have a look at some economies overseas. Senator Brandis and Mr Abbott all love to look to the United Kingdom and they talk about all the wonderful things that we should import from the UK—

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening to the minister, between interruptions from Senator Conroy coming down here and Senator Collins coming down here to talk to their former partners, the Greens. I have been trying to find a point of relevance. This debate is about the mining and resource rent tax. The only thing that will be relevant here is whether the Greens support the Labor Party—

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

That is not a point of order, Senator Joyce.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! When there is silence on both sides we will proceed.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was a great contribution from the bloke who wanted to be the deputy prime minister and still has Mr Abbott's ear when it comes to the economy! A really intelligent contribution from the Leader of the Nationals! I again remind people: 13 per cent larger. The United Kingdom is still smaller than it was at the same time, and, of course, Germany, which I think Mr Robb and others have touted as being this incredibly strong economy that we should aspire to, I think has grown 2½ per cent. So let us get the facts on the table when it comes to economic performance. Cash rate—what is the cash rate? Three per cent as at December 2012.

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

That is because the economy can barely raise a pulse!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that. The brilliant Deputy Leader of the Opposition says that the economy barely has a pulse! What a brilliant contribution that is! We had 3.1 per cent growth through the year. That is something most advanced economies would give their right arm for, and yet another example of the way those opposite believe it is entirely appropriate to talk down the Australian economy. Australian workers do not thank you for that, Australian families do not thank you for that and Australian businesses do not thank you for that because we know that talking down the economy is not good for the economy. It is quite clear that those opposite are quite happy to put political advantage above the national interest every single time. Every single time, they will put political advantage above the national interest. I was talking about the cash rate, and I know those opposite promised that interest rates would always be lower under them. Can everyone remember that? Interest rates would always be lower under a coalition government. Well, they are lower under us. Despite the fact those opposite want to forget this, they are lower under a Labor government, and, of course, we see inflation being contained.

Those opposite want to have a debate about the economy, and we are very happy to have a debate about the economy. We are very happy also to have a debate about our fiscal position, because, yet again, we hear those opposite saying things which are completely untrue. I make this point to the chamber: we have a AAA credit rating with a stable outlook from all three international ratings agencies. So the question I would ask is this: do you believe Senator Abetz or do you believe the ratings agencies? Do you believe the markets, which show confidence in the Australian economy, or do you believe Senator Abetz? Do you believe market commentators and people investing in Australia? We have investment that is approaching the highest percentage of GDP in the nation's history. Do you believe people who are investing in our economy or do you believe those opposite, who are scaremongering for nothing more than political purposes? The reality is that those opposite have no idea when it comes to the economy and no idea when it comes to public finances.

I will make another couple of points about spending and about the budget. Of the 12 coalition budgets that were handed down, nine of them showed higher spending as a percentage of GDP—nine out of 12—so higher spending as a proportion of GDP than now. I would also make this point: when you look at our last five budgets plus the last mid-year review, we have delivered $154 billion worth of saves. That is eight times the number of savings delivered by the Liberals in their last five budgets when, of course, we remember that there was revenue coming in hand over fist to government that they frittered away and failed to invest in skills or in infrastructure or in anything of long-term benefit to the nation.

Today, the coalition want to talk about the government. Let us talk about the things that they do not want to talk about. I would like to remind them that they say we should not be funding anything and that all of this expenditure associated with the mining tax should be avoided. It is really interesting that they are also agreeing to match the government when it comes to the superannuation guarantee. I am interested to see—it has gone very quiet, and I know that Mr Robb was rolled by Mr Abbott in this—if they ever fess up to the Australian people, given that they want to abolish the carbon price and abolish the mining tax, how they propose to fund the increase in the superannuation guarantee levy. It is yet another example of those opposite refusing to give any costings to the Australian people.

Let us remind Australians and the chamber of the things that the coalition do not want to talk about. They do not want to talk about the cuts that they want to implement should they win government. Let us remind ourselves about some of what we already know. We know that they want to give a tax hike to all low-income workers. Everybody earning under $80,000 a year that gets a tax cut under us will get a tax hike under the coalition by removing the tax-free threshold changes that Labor put in place. This shows their values; this shows their priorities: 'Let's hack into workers earning under $80,000 a year'.

What else will they do? They will roll back the low-income superannuation contribution. They want to impose a tax hike on 3.6 million Australians—the lowest-paid Australian workers. So, tax hikes on people earning up to $80,000 and an additional tax hike on people on the lowest incomes—the lowest-income workers in Australia, of whom the majority are women. 2.1 million of the 3.6 million people in this country who benefit from that super tax rate that a Labor government is implementing will get hit, should the coalition win power.

What does this speak to us about? It shows what their values are. It shows that the first people in line when a Liberal Party and a National Party are looking for cuts are low-paid Australians. That is what it shows. Low-paid Australians are the first ones in line for cuts and tax increases should a coalition government be elected. It says something very clear about the difference in values between this side of the chamber and those opposite. Those opposite want to go hard on low-income Australians; we want to support low-income Australians. That is the difference between the two sides of parliament.

I also want to make this point: we also know the game plan for those opposite. The game plan can be very clearly seen in what we see, particularly in Queensland, where before an election they do not actually want to tell people very much about what they want to do because it is so bad. We know what Liberals do: they cut health, they cut education and they cut services. That is what they do. We know that is what Liberals do.

What we are hearing is those opposite yet again saying, 'We actually do not want to tell people about that. We know we have to say a few things—that we are going to increase taxes on everyone earning up to $80,000. We know we have to say something about the low-income super contribution—we are going to tell people that. But we are not going to talk about anything else.' We saw that game-playing in Queensland. We saw what Premier Newman did in Queensland. He told people that he would not be too radical, and what did we see: cuts to health and cuts to education. That is what we are seeing and that is what Liberals do.

We know that because over and over again the opposition are avoiding any scrutiny when it comes to their budget position or when it comes to details of their policies. They come in here and they want to talk to us about the mining tax. What I would say to you is this: when will you tell us anything about how you will pay for anything you are promising—anything about what you will do? We know that in this economic team—among those opposite there is no Peter Costello, let me tell you—since Mr Hockey has been in his position, there has never once been delivered a policy costing which added up. He has never once delivered a policy costing that added up. Instead of making sure that it adds up, what is he doing? 'We just will not put them out. That is what we will do—we will not actually put them out.'

How do we know? Before the last election, they used a Western Australian accounting firm that was subsequently found to have acted unprofessionally. This was your budget position: an $11 billion black hole was discovered by Treasury and by Finance after the election. And what have we seen since then? We have seen another botched attempt at costings where you have used a catering company to put forward your costings.

This coalition has had such an embarrassing history when it comes to anything fiscal, when it comes to any policy costings, when it comes to any transparency and when it comes to fessing up to the Australian people about anything they will do. They have the hide to come in here and say they want a debate on taxation and the economy. What a joke! I think that everybody here knows precisely what a joke it is.

You had the opportunity in this question time if you really cared about some of the things you say you care about. We hear Senator Abetz whining about how little time they had on the MRRT package—in excess of nearly 15 hours of debate—and they say that they did not have enough time, that they never get the opportunity to talk about policy. Well, you had the opportunity today to ask ministers questions. You could have asked about the National Disability Insurance Scheme, but you do not want to do that. You could have asked about education, but you do not want to do that. You could have asked about jobs, but you do not want to do that. You could have asked about the economy, but you do not want to do that. All you want to do is continue the relentless negativity, and complete absence of any positive plans for the future of the nation, that you have become known for. That is the sum total of the contribution of this opposition to today's political debate.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This move by Senator Abetz is so transparent and expected. It is why I indicated at the Press Club last week that we would not be doing anything to move or support a no-confidence motion in the government.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have no intention of allowing Senator Macdonald to send the CSIRO to Karratha or wherever else he wants to send it. We have no intention of letting Tony Abbott put 100 dams across Northern Australia. We have zero intention of allowing Zed Seselja—

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Order! Order on my left! Senator Milne, you have the call. Please refer to members in the other place by their correct title.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. We have no intention of allowing Mr Zed Seselja to sack 20,000 public servants in the ACT and send half of the rest north of the Tropic of Capricorn.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. We have just heard the minister give a speech that was in absolutely in no way relevant to the issue of the mining resource rent tax. Now we have Senator Milne giving a speech that—

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

Order! Is this on relevance, Senator?

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is one on relevance. If she is embarrassed by the fact that she is about to support the government on the tax that she said she would not support them on, let her just say so.

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

Order, Senator Joyce! There is no point of order.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. There is only one serious embarrassment in here and he has just sat down. I get to the point here. This is a classic case where we have sat here and listened to 40 minutes of ranting on both sides of this chamber and nobody has talked about where the revenue is going to come from to do the things that the Australian community want done, particularly in the lead-up to the election. It is a classic case of a pox on both your houses as far as the community is concerned. That is why I am moving to amend the motion as follows:

Omit all words after "That", substitute "the Senate condemns the Government's failure to put in place a mining tax which raises sufficient revenue from the big miners to fund Australia's long-term needs".

Senator Joyce interjecting—

I understand that Senator Joyce does not want to raise the money to fund the Gonski reforms, for example. He does not want to raise the money to put in place national disability insurance; nor is he prepared to tell people in his electorate in Queensland that he is going to change the tax-free threshold from $18,000 back to $6,000. So let us hear from Senator Joyce, when he speaks a little later, how he is going to do anything other than open his big mouth and make an even bigger fool of himself.

I want to come to the point about revenue raising. There is all this talk about what promises are going to be made or not made in the election campaign. The people want to know where the money is going to come from in order to implement the Gonski review. Let me start with that as an example. We need a new funding model for education in Australia. Where are we going to get that money if we do not raise it from those who have the capacity to pay?

Let me just take BHP Billiton for a moment. BHP Billiton have just made a $9 billion profit, Marius Kloppers has just walked out the door with a $75 million handout, yet BHP can only spend $77 million on the mining tax. It is time that we actually raised the money so that we can put it into Australian schools. We still do not have in this House a piece of legislation for a funding model to pass between now and the election, and we need it, but we also need to know how to fund it.

I happen to agree that it is very clear that the mining industry ran rings around the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and Minister Ferguson. They did—it is now quite clear that that happened. But I want to come to this idea that the Greens should have known that somehow and I want to go through the dates to explain this. It was on 2 July 2010 that the Prime Minister and Treasurer Swan announced to the Australian people they had reached a deal with the big miners. The federal election was called on 17 July for a 21 August election. No further information was made available in the public arena in relation to the exact details of that tax, nor were they revealed throughout. Indeed, the details were not revealed until a long time afterwards, after the agreement that the Greens reached with the government.

So let us get back to the facts of the matter. Between 2 July and the time the election was called, no details were in the public arena. And, for example, it did not come out in the public arena until Senate estimates the other night that Treasury officials were not even in the room. You do have to ask yourself: what were the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and Minister Ferguson doing? In fact, where was Minister Ferguson? He seems to have slipped out the side door and managed to avoid the criticism that he ought rightly to have been there. Of course, he would be the best friend of Senator Macdonald—they are both on the same side on many issues. When we get to the point here, the fact of the matter is nobody knew and we have only just discovered from Treasury that Treasury were not in the room to negotiate this outcome.

The other reason we need to fix this mining tax is one where we get total hypocrisy from Senator Abetz and the coalition. They do not want to raise a cent. In fact, they want to let Gina Rinehart, Twiggy Forrest, Clive Palmer et al off paying any tax—any at all. Not once has Senator Abetz or anyone on that side been able to say where they are going to get the money from to be able to do what they say they are going to do. If you say you are going to get rid of the mining tax, if you say you are going to get rid of the carbon price, how are you going to fund the change to the tax-free threshold and the compensation payments more generally? How are you going to fund the superannuation contributions? How are you going to fund any of those things? You have not presented a single idea about where the money is going to come from except that, as you have already said, you do not support giving even a $4 a week increase to people who are on the lowest level of support in Australia. What a disgusting exhibition of meanness and of increasing the gap between the rich and the poor in Australia. You do not want the miners to pay anything, but you are not even prepared to give people on Newstart or youth allowance $4 a week.

As far as the government is concerned, you do not want to give them more than $4 a week; in fact, you have taken away the support for single parents and you are not prepared to see people on Newstart get $50 a week more, even though all the community NGOs who are supporting people in the community are saying it is essential and so too are the churches and the business groups. Everybody recognises that people are living below the poverty line and we have to do something about it.

How fair is it, when people are living below the poverty line, that we have a coalition saying it is fine for BHP to make their $9 billion and for Marius Kloppers to walk away with $75 million in his pocket? It is fine as far as the government is concerned not to fix the mining tax but, instead, to leave the Gonski report not fully implemented until 2019. That is on the never-never. That will never happen. That is the fact of the matter: unless you bring these things forward and fund them, they are not going to happen. It is the same with the promises about national disability. How are we going to get this actually implemented? To make them at-risk propositions, to go out there and say, 'Unless you vote for us you are not going to get these things,' is to condemn another generation of schoolkids around Australia to a completely unfair, unjust funding model.

We cannot afford to have these things made at-risk propositions. I will never facilitate the coalition determining that you will not get a fairer school funding model. The minister has said that the funding model is coming. Well, let us see it in here. The opposition spokesperson, Christopher Pyne, has said he wants to delay it for another two years. Let us go back. In 2007, when the Labor Party came to power, Prime Minister Gillard was the minister for education and she deferred that funding model for two years. It has been deferred and deferred and deferred until the last gasp of this government. Now it is right up against the election and we have a coalition saying they want to maintain disadvantage in schools around Australia. They want to maintain the poorest and most disadvantaged schools being disadvantaged and to maintain that unfair, unjust funding model. I am not going to facilitate that because I want to see this money raised.

I am not going to facilitate a coalition which wants no mining tax and is hypocritically standing up here criticising the mining tax. If you want to actually see justice in Australia—which you talk about—do something about it and let's raise the money. If you are not prepared to raise it from the miners, tell me where you are going to raise it and identify the people around Australia whose pockets you are going to rob. Which people are you going to take money from? That is the obligation of the coalition. You cannot just come in here and get stuck in about a mining tax which I agree has been poorly designed and which needs to be fixed. We need the money. I am just tired of a debate where everybody says what they will spend the money on and nobody says how they are going to raise it.

The Greens are prepared to fix this. We have said that, if you lift the rate to 40 per cent, if you block the state royalty loopholes and if you deal with the accelerated depreciation, you could get $26 billion over the forward estimates. How is the coalition going to pay, how is Labor going to meet the Gonski implementation and when are we going to see that funding model? When are we going to see some fairness and justice for people who are on Newstart, for people who are on youth allowance and for single parents? When are we going to see those sorts of things, because, as we speak, there are children in Australia who go to school hungry and are at school hungry today? The coalition would rather have the mining industry pay no taxes, the Labor Party is not prepared to fix the holes in it, and neither side is prepared to say where the money is coming from. Until we get an idea of where the money is coming from, everything that the coalition are saying about this is simply hot air because we do not have any notion from them about who is going to pay for this direct action. Where is all this money coming from? It is simply not there as far as the coalition are concerned.

Worse than that, we have even had the coalition trying to get people to breach their statutory obligations and break the law. We have had Andrew Robb—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is Mr Robb to you.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. We have had Mr Robb and Mr Hunt write to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and ask them to break the law. What sort of behaviour is that from the coalition? It is all because they do not want $10 billion to go into renewable energy. I want to see $10 billion into renewable energy. I want to see large-scale solar rolled out across Australia and I want to see the Clean Energy Finance Corporation get that leveraging of private sector finance to drive the clean energy revolution. It is shocking when you think about what the coalition have done. They have written to people asking them to breach their statutory obligations and break the law. That is how far they are prepared to go and yet they are not prepared to drive the clean energy revolution at all. They have made no undertakings in terms of the renewable energy target and actual energy at use here. We have really got big issues with the coalition running away and hiding from actually answering some questions. That is the fact of the matter.

I invite any one of you in the coalition to get up in a minute and tell us where the money is coming from. Where are you going to get the money if you are not going to support the mining tax, if you are not going to support carbon pricing? If you are not going to do that, where are you going to get the money to maintain the tax-free threshold at $18,000? Let me just hear that for a start. Where is the money coming from? Where is the money coming from to pay the polluters? No doubt it is coming out of the pockets of those who can least afford to pay because that is the coalition's track record.

As far as the government is concerned, there is no doubt that we need to raise this money and we need to raise it now. We want the funding model for Gonski in this parliament legislated and locked in so that, whatever the election outcome, the Greens will hold the balance of power and can stop it being repealed. I can tell you that, when we get this election, there will be students around Australia and their families devastated if the new funding model has not been legislated and the funding brought forward so that it is left until 2019-20 to have it implemented. It is already shocking that a child who started school in 2007 has left primary school and they still do not have the inequitable funding model dealt with.

It is interesting that Senator Nash supports coal seam gas and loss of farmlands and contamination of groundwater across northern New South Wales, a process going on as we speak. I am interested that we are not hearing anything from Senator Joyce about the massive support the Nationals have got for coal seam gas and expansion of coal mining around the country. So much for the National having a base which is supposed to be looking after agricultural land and farmers. Far from it, their former leader is head of a coal company destroying agricultural land and forests and woodlands in the Maules Creek area for a start.

The opportunity is there to raise money and that is where the Greens stand on this. Both the coalition and the Labor Party need to start getting real on where the revenue is coming from or else all of these promises and announcements about national disability, Gonski and superannuation will count for nothing if there is no money. R&D funding is exactly the same. We are hearing about $1 billion getting taken out of research and development but only $400 million going into the jobs packet—$600 million is going to the budget to prop up whatever the election announcements are going to be from the government. The fact of the matter is, if you want to be a clever, innovative country, you need to be supporting higher education, you need to be supporting universities and TAFE. You need to be supporting students—

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise a point of order on relevance, Mr Deputy President. I want to make sure that Senator Milne has said that she wants to hear what we have to say. That would mean that she is not going to guillotine the debate.

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

There is no point of order, Senator Joyce. Senator Milne, you have the call.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. The point I am making, for Senator Joyce's interest, is that you need more money put into research and development, not less. We should be increasing the money. We are low in the OECD rankings of the spend. If you spend money on research and development, it flows through into jobs. There is no question about that. It also flows through into the CRCs and into small companies that are engaged in research. You get research clusters, and that is where we need to go if we are going to be a clever country that uses fewer resources and gets more from what we do. That is what you do with R&D.

I can tell you now that the agricultural sector is desperate for more R&D funding and we need more. The question now is: where is the coalition going to get the money for R&D for agriculture? Where is the coalition going to get the money to support its so-called direct action? Where is the money from Senator Joyce to pay the polluters, because that is what he wants to do? That is what he wants to do—pay the polluters. He can go back to his constituency and explain to them how he wants to take money out of the pockets of single parents, money out of the pockets of people on Newstart, so that he can pay the polluters. He can let his friend Clive Palmer and others off taxes. That is exactly where the coalition want to go, but the Greens do not.

The Greens want a more caring society. We want one where we care for the environment and care for people, and we want to make sure that we raise the money from those who can afford to pay, which is just and fair. What we need to hear from both sides is: where is the money coming from?

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

We heard before a very remarkable speech from Senator Penny Wong. It was remarkable for two reasons. First of all, it was remarkable that, on the most solemn parliamentary occasion there can be, a motion from the opposition of confidence in the government's handling of a key issue of public policy—

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Senator Collins, it may have escaped you, but the House of Representatives is not in session today.

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

Order! Senator Brandis, please resume your seat. On my right, Senator Collins and others. Senator Brandis, you have the call.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I was simply, through you, pointing out to Senator Collins that the Senate is a coequal chamber with the House of Representatives and happens to be the only chamber in the Australian parliament in session today. It was a remarkable speech by Senator Penny Wong because, on this very important parliamentary occasion, it was the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, not the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who responded on behalf of and in defence of the government to a motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition in this place, Senator Abetz. One might imagine that after his blundering, inarticulate, uneducated, incompetent effort in answering questions directed to him, in particular by my colleague Senator Sinodinos, that Senator Stephen Conroy was feeling a little sheepish. Nevertheless, on a motion of this kind it ought to be the Leader of the Government who defends the government, not the deputy.

Be that as it may, the other remarkable thing about Senator Penny Wong's speech today is that the subject of Senator Abetz's motion—that is, the mining tax—was barely mentioned by her. In 20 belligerent minutes, in 20 minutes of relentless negativity, there was barely a mention of the MRRT, the subject of the motion, because Senator Penny Wong, I suspect, is smart enough to know that she cannot defend the indefensible. She might be smart enough to be unable to defend the indefensible but Senator Penny Wong has not been smart enough as finance minister to be able to deliver a budget surplus.

We sat through question time after question time over the last year with Senator Penny Wong as finance minister. Not a day went by in question time throughout 2012 when Senator Penny Wong did not refer to 'the budget surplus' as if a surplus budget were locked in stone. In fact, humiliatingly, just before Christmas the Treasurer had to admit, as the opposition had said all along last year, that there would be no budget surplus in 2012-13 and there would be just another historically large deficit. In fact, if the electoral fates cast their judgement on this government on 14 September, or perhaps sooner, and the government were to go out of office later this year, it will be the first Australian government in living memory never, never to have produced a budget surplus. That, Senator Wong and Senator Conroy, will be your legacy.

We know that the previous government, the government of Mr John Howard and Mr Peter Costello, made budget surpluses the norm. It was the totem of their fiscal discipline. In the 12 budgets that Mr Peter Costello brought down, 10 of the 12 were surplus budgets. We know that in the previous period—

Senator Thorp interjecting—

Senator Thorp, I know you do not sit right at the top of the Labor Party tree, but the attitude you display by your interjection sums up the mindset of this government perfectly. As I said, the last government of Australia, the government of Mr John Howard and Mr Peter Costello, delivered 12 budgets and 10 of those 12 budgets were surplus budgets. I see my friend Senator Fifield nodding with satisfaction as I say that, because Senator Fifield, of course, was one of Mr Costello's senior advisers who can take some share of the credit for producing that magnificent outcome which put Australia in the best financial position in the world at the time of the change of government in 2007.

I do not want to be unfair to my Labor Party colleagues, because there have been previous Labor governments that have produced budget surpluses, too. In the previous period of Labor government, during the Hawke and Keating governments, there were several years in which the budget was in surplus. It was a Labor government and so in most years the budget was in deficit, of course, but in several of those 13 years the budget was in surplus. In the previous period, the government of Mr Malcolm Fraser, the budget returned to surplus. It might surprise you, Mr Deputy President, to learn that during the period of the government of Mr Gough Whitlam, who produced three budgets, in two of those years the budget was in surplus—the national debt went through the roof, of course, because of borrowing, Senator Ronaldson, but nevertheless in two of the three years of the Whitlam Labor government the budget was in surplus.

Of course, in the 23 glorious golden years of coalition government, which preceded the government of Gough Whitlam, the budget was in surplus. It might surprise you, Mr Deputy President, to learn that in the last year of the wartime Labor government, the government of Mr Curtin and Mr Chifley, the budget returned to surplus in 1949. In the prewar government of the United Australia Party, under Joseph Lyons and Robert Menzies, the budget was routinely in surplus, but then one gets to the government of Joseph Scullin and that was the last time—mercifully it was only in office for three years; the government was elected in 1929—that an Australian government went out of office having never produced a budget surplus.

Mr Deputy President, you would have to have been born in 1908 to have voted for the last Australian government never to produce a budget surplus. But that, Senator Penny Wong, is your legacy. Not only is it a hopeless legacy in historical terms but it is a hopeless legacy by your own definition of your own competence, because it was your leader, Senator Penny Wong, who said that 'the test of a government's capacity to manage the budget is the test of its competence'. That is what Julia Gillard said.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She is the Prime Minister.

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

I am sorry, Ms Julia Gillard, the Prime Minister—Ms Julia Gillard, the Prime Minister, said 'the test of a government's capacity to manage the budget is the test of its competence'. And Mr Wayne Swan, who sits at the heart of the government's economics brains trust and whom I have known since we were university students in the 1970s—he had no brains then and his intellect has not grown in the years since—said: 'Come hell or high water, we will be returning to surplus.' These are the fiscal geniuses who went naked to negotiate the mining tax that produced no revenue. It produced many other things by the way, Mr Deputy President. It produced a prime ministerial scalp, because you will recall that it was on the basis of the mining tax that Ms Julia Gillard—in conspiracy with Mr Wayne Swan and in violation of her repeated and solemn and emphatic assurances of support and loyalty to Mr Kevin Rudd—tapped him on the shoulder in the dead of night on 23 June 2010, a day of infamy in Australian politics, and removed the elected, sitting prime minister. The mining tax did produce that historic result, but revenue, it produced nary a dollar.

After resisting for weeks any attempt at accountability to parliament for the revenue collected by the mining tax, eventually the Treasurer relented, and the pathetic, limpid figure of $126 million turned out to be the entirety of the revenue collected by this mining tax in this financial year. Just think about it, Mr Deputy President, originally the budget projection for the revenue from the mining tax was $3.7 billion. The revenue projection was revised downward by almost half so that it became a revenue projection of $2 billion—from $3.7 billion to $2 billion to $126 million. And Senator Conroy says, 'Well, the iron ore price has been very volatile. It's gone up and down.' Yes, it has, Senator Conroy. It has gone up. The price of iron ore has gone up by $30 a tonne. The Secretary of Treasury, Dr Martin Parkinson, himself admitted to Senate estimates under questioning from Senator Sinodinos that the fault was not in the international price of minerals; the fault was a design flaw in the heart of the tax.

Let me say that again, because we heard no answer from Senator Wong put up because Senator Conroy could no longer cope. Senator Conroy, in his answer to Senator Sinodinos's question today, said, 'Well, the reason the mining tax has collected a negligible amount of revenue is because of the volatility of international mineral prices.' But Dr Martin Parkinson, the head of Treasury, told Senator Sinodinos in estimates that that was not the reason. Dr Martin Parkinson said the mining tax did not collect the projected revenue because of design flaws in the tax.

That brings us to the obvious question: who designed the tax? Who were the fiscal geniuses who were responsible for designing this tax, the fiscal architects of this tax that was such a terrific tax that it provided a political excuse to assassinate an elected Prime Minister but barely collected a dollar for consolidated revenue? We know who they were: Ms Julia Gillard and Mr Wayne Swan. They went to the negotiating table with Mr Marius Kloppers, Mr Tom Albanese from Rio Tinto and the CEO of Xstrata, and between the five of them they designed a tax.

Mr Deputy President, who do you think were the smartest people in the room that day when it came to designing the mining tax? Do you think that perhaps Mr Marius Kloppers, who until recently ran the biggest mining company in the world, was the smartest person in the room? Do you think that Mr Tom Albanese, who until recently ran Rio Tinto—Australia’s biggest single taxpayer, by the way—was the dummy in the room?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No!

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

No, Senator Fifield, perhaps not. Or do you think the CEO of Xstrata was the dummy in the room—who had no idea what they were talking about when it came to minerals taxation? I suspect not. I do not want to be cynical; I do not want to be sarcastic or scathing, but I suspect not. I suspect the two people in that room who least knew what they were doing were Ms Julia Gillard, whose entire life experience before coming into this place had been as a dodgy trade union lawyer, and Mr Wayne Swan, who, as I said, I have known for 35 years. He was a dope then and he is a dope still. They came out of that room and Julia Gillard was smiling—

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

Order! Senator Brandis, please refer to the Prime Minister using her honorific. I also suggest that it would be better if the other comments you made a moment ago were withdrawn.

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

If you so rule, Mr Deputy President.

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

That would assist the chamber. Thank you, Senator Brandis.

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

Who do you think came out of that room with a Cheshire cat smile?

Lin Thorp (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, do tell us!

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

I am going to tell you, Senator Thorp. Senator Thorp over there from the Labor Party brains trust thinks that whether the budget is in surplus or in deficit is a matter of complete irrelevance. I am going to tell you, Senator Thorp. Ms Julia Gillard, the Prime Minister, came out with a Cheshire cat smile because she knew that, whatever the hit to the revenue, she had got past a political difficulty for herself. She had got past a short-term political difficulty for the government. Mr Wayne Swan is a person of such intellectual depth that I suspect he had no idea what was going on. But the three people who I feel very certain had the biggest Cheshire cat smiles on their faces that night were the CEO of BHP Billiton, the CEO of Rio Tinto and the CEO of Xstrata, because they knew they had found negotiating partners who were, shall we say, a walk in the park.

So who is going to suffer from this? Who is going to sufferer from the hubris, the incompetence, the ignorance of the senior ministers who negotiated this mining tax? The bottom line of the budget is going to suffer. Senator Conroy said before in his answer, 'Well, if you want to see the effect of the mining tax collections, it is in the budget bottom line.' Senator Conroy, you are right. That is the one thing you got right: it sure is in the budget bottom line, because the budget has gone from a projected surplus to a projected deficit approaching $20 billion and heading south. So, for five years out of five, we will have, on your government’s watch, a deficit budget.

I do not want to be mean-spirited, but I have to say that I have never seen—and the Australian people have never seen—a more fiscally, economically incompetent bunch of ministers than the ministers in the Rudd government and, most particularly, in the Gillard government. And there has been nobody more incompetent, nobody less equal to the task, than the Treasurer, Mr Wayne Swan—the genius who negotiated this brilliant mining tax!

If this government does go to electoral oblivion later this year—and that is by no means for sure; we go into this election as the underdog—it will be remembered as the only Australian government, in the memory of the oldest person living in Australia today, never, ever to have produced a budget surplus. That will be your legacy. That will be the badge you will wear from hereon, down the pages of Australian history for all the years and decades into the future. It was on your watch; you were the ministers who never, ever in the life of the oldest living Australian, managed to produce a budget surplus. Yet it was your Prime Minister who said, 'The capacity to manage the budget is the ultimate test of a government’s competence.'

Opposition members: Hear, hear!

An incident having occurred in the gallery—

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

Order in the gallery! It is inappropriate to applaud.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis asked us who was the smartest person in the room. Well, we know the answer. Who is the smartest person in the room every day of the week? It is none other than Lord Brandis himself! What we have seen is an arrogant, contemptuous, pompous display of the attitude that this opposition brings—

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Deputy President, I would ask that you ask the minister to refer to Senator Brandis by his correct name.

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

Thank you, Senator Nash—quite appropriate. Senator Carr, please refer to Senator Brandis as 'Senator Brandis'.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will indeed. I was simply complimenting Lord Brandis on his approach—

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

No, Senator Carr. You have to refer to Senator Brandis as 'Senator Brandis', thank you.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. Senator Brandis has tried to present to us that he is the cleverest man and is God's gift to the legal fraternity. He is obviously the most intelligent legal mind that has ever been produced in this chamber! He is a man that is knee-deep in horsehair and can advise the rest of us about what is right and what is wrong when it comes to the question of revenue in this country, because not one word has he said about the question of the revenue that was raised by this particular tax. He argues that he is very concerned about the welfare of the mining industry when it comes to the question of the revenue stream here. He argues that it has not raised enough money; that is the claim that they are making publicly. We know what crocodile tears those remarks are, because from day one of this whole exercise those opposite have opposed the resources rent tax. They have seen it as an opportunity to go down on bended knee to the wealthy and the vested interests in this country and to argue their case that they should pay no tax. That has been their proposition: they should pay no tax. That is the principle upon which they have based their entire approach. When it comes to actually helping out Australians in these times of need, what have we seen the opposition actually do? They have voted against tax breaks for 2.7 million small businesses, they have voted against supporting the retirement savings of 8.4 million working Australians, they have fought to deprive the country of the most needed infrastructure and they have done so in order to do the bidding of the most powerful and most deeply enriched vested interests in this country.

When we look at this whole issue, we do not hear one word of criticism of any state government that is imposing revenues in terms of its capacity through the royalties system. Not one word has been uttered about this. If it is such a shocking thing to tax the mining industry, why have we not heard a word about what is occurring with the states across this country? We know that the state royalties are an inefficient tax which actually discourage investment, but there is not one word from those opposite. We know that royalties do not ensure an adequate return to the community, and it is the community that owns these resources—it is not the states and governments but the people of this country that own these resources. Of course, there is not one word about the failure of the royalties system to ensure a proper return when commodity prices are high.

The Australian government has sought to engage the states on this matter, but what we know is that the states have taken full advantage of these circumstances. The New South Wales Treasurer, Mike Baird, has announced an increase in the state's mining royalties of approximately $1.5 billion over four years.

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

How much?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One point five billion dollars over four years. He says, 'Oh, this is to offset the carbon price.' What a pathetic excuse! What a miserable attempt to hide what is clearly a tax hike based on the coal industry! What we know is that the New South Wales government's increase in mining royalties increases the risk of investment cuts and increases the level of uncertainty for businesses.

We know that in Queensland a similar pattern has emerged. The Queensland government has announced an increase in the royalty payable for the coal price at more than $100 a tonne from 1 October last year. The increase will see a jump of some 10 per cent—a 10 per cent hike to 12.5 per cent—for every tonne of coal sold between $100 and $150. Coal sold for more than $150 a tonne will attract a 15 per cent royalty. This is an increase included in the Queensland 2012-13 state budget and it is expected to raise $1.64 billion over the next four years. So what we saw in the case of Queensland is that the government's decision to raise the royalty on coal will create additional pressures operating in that state, which is already being affected by the falling commodity prices, by higher costs and by the strong Australian dollar. There is not one word over there about the impact of those charges on the coal industry.

I am particularly interested that Queensland coal operators, under the resources rent tax, do not bear a liability and cannot offset it until such time as their profits exceed $75 million. If their profits are below $75 million, that means they cannot actually claim the state royalties back. So the consequences of the changes in Queensland are that small and medium-sized miners are in fact hit with that tax. There is not one word over there about the consequences of that operation and not one word in defence of the mining industry on those matters. We know now that Queensland is the fifth state—after Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and New South Wales—to increase the iron ore and/or coal royalties since the Commonwealth resources tax reforms were first introduced in May 2010. If the opposition were serious about these matters, they would have drawn attention to what has been a very substantial increase in revenues that have come from the states.

Upon coming to office, this government was faced with quite extraordinary economic difficulties flowing from the effect of the two-speed economy. We were determined to ensure that the government was able to assist people in rebuilding this country. That is why there have been record investments in health and education, record investments to build infrastructure and record investments to produce more jobs, more opportunities and more prosperity in this country. Despite the extraordinary headwinds of the international economic downturn, the economy has created 380,000 jobs, including some 67,000 jobs in the mining industry. There has been $152 billion of capital expenditure in mining, an increase of 160 per cent. There has not been one word from over there about the importance of those economic effects. Total business investment across the economy has increased by 45 per cent. There has not been one word from those opposite about the strength of the Australian economy. This government is in the business of ensuring that we, as one of the more prosperous countries in the world, are able to achieve this prosperity through having a balanced economy, not relying on resources alone but appreciating the skills and opportunities for the whole population.

That is the legacy this government has been building upon. That is why we negotiated and delivered the minerals resource rent tax. The coalition should stand condemned for their opposition to this proposition from day one. The opposition have no credibility whatsoever when it comes to these questions. The opposition have not been able to release any of the costings for their promises. They are not subject to any scrutiny, any accountability. When people had a chance to look at their costings at the last election, they left a funding gap of some $11 billion. Their approach to these issues is about covering up the fact that, in aggregate, they now have commitments of $70 billion over their expenditure. They need to find mechanisms to cover up the inevitably savage cuts that they will be making to hospitals, schools and universities. These savage cuts will have to be endured by working people across this country.

That is what this debate really is all about. It is not about the concern of the opposition for the revenue streams that are coming from the mining industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have an opportunity here to build a better country if this parliament is prepared to seize it. But those opposite have taken every opportunity to turn their backs on fairness and turn their backs on ensuring that we are able to build a stronger economy and a more equal society. After 21 years of consecutive economic growth, Australia is now the 12th largest economy in the world. This is despite the economic crisis.

You would have thought we would be able to seize that opportunity, build a much stronger and fairer economy and ensure that the people of this country are able to enjoy the security that comes from that sort of prosperity. But those opposite have been pursuing a policy which is really about defending vested interests. That is the long and the short of it. It is about defending those that are already extremely well-off. It is not about ensuring we have fairness built into the system. You have opposed every single measure to ensure we have a more productive economy and a fairer society. You are not in the business of ensuring the long-term reform that is needed to build the economic underpinnnings to secure the prosperity of Australia.

While commodity prices are down, the revenues from this arrangement will be down. As commodity prices improve, the revenues will improve. We should not, however, fall for a moment for the claims that have been made, the crocodile tears that have been shed, about concerns about the mining industry. I am particularly concerned about the position that is taken in the education area and the failure of the conservative governments around this country to meet their responsibilities. The royalties they have taken from coal and iron ore have been used for other purposes at the same time as we have seen massive reductions in the hospital and education systems across the country where conservative governments have been in office. To me, this is a harbinger of things to come. What we are likely to see, if the coalition are ever elected, is a government that is determined to ensure that the pandering to vested interests is accelerated but the opportunities to support the people of this country with proper education and health take a back seat. We are entitled to ask, with a motion of this type: what does the coalition actually stand for? What does it actually seek to do?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The abolition of the mining tax.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You say you are about the abolition of the mining tax, but are you also saying that you are opposed to all the things that flow from it?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not funding it, you goose!

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So you are going to remove the $18,000 floor from the taxation system?

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

Order! Senator Kim Carr, first of all, direct your comments to the chair and please do not interject across the table. That goes for all senators.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have today the clear statement from those opposite that those earning less than $18,000 a year will now be paying tax under a conservative government, and the measures taken on superannuation will not proceed—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. We didn't say that at all.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is exactly what you said: 'We don't have the money to pay for it, so we're not going to do it.'

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. That is untrue.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is clearly what you were saying, Senator. You were saying that those who currently do not pay tax because they earn less than $18,000 a year will lose that benefit.

That has to be understood by the clear intention that you are pursuing here today. But, if it is not your policy, I have no doubt your next speaker will make it perfectly clear that it is not your policy.

What we have to do is see what other measures are also being funded by these measures which are already built into the budget.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Are you going to continue with them or not? Are you continuing with it or not, Senator?

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

Order senators! We are not debating each other across the table. Address your remarks to the Chair, Senator Carr, please. You have the call.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It strikes me that what we are getting here is a little bit more than the opposition bargained for because they are now being forced to reveal what their policies actually are, and that is taking benefits off people—some of the poorest people in this country and some of the most vulnerable people in this country. There is an attempt being made by those opposite to actually defend what is indefensible. You want to support the vested interests of the multimillionaires, but you want to impose higher taxes and charges on the poorest people in this country. Is that how you are going to balance the budget? Is that your intention, to actually make people who earn less than $18 thousand a year pay tax? Because that is the clear implication of the proposition that you are advancing here today.

We know that since the resources rent tax was announced, those opposite immediately did the bidding of their billionaire mates. From day one, they have said that they will not support what they call an 'investment-destroying and job-destroying' tax. Of course we know the reality, and the reality is very, very different. This is a tax that is justified, is fair and is reasonable, and the Australian public know that. They know that they have to share the benefits of the resources boom. They do know that we have to have a system that ensures that we are able to build a future with confidence, and that we have to have measures in place so that the ordinary people of this country do get the benefits of the enormous wealth that this country produces.

The alternative is very straightforward, of course. The alternative is that, essentially, you want to increase the taxes and the charges for those who are least able to afford it. What you are prepared to do is to say that you will cut back on school kids' bonuses and you will cut back on superannuation reforms that benefit working people across this country. You will go down in history as amongst the greatest wreckers.

And you are not interested in building. This is a country that aspires to something much, much better. This is a country that aspires to genuine progress. This is a country that has a right to aspire to those things, and this is a country that will not get any answers from those opposite on these matters. We know that those opposite are really in the business of ensuring that those least able to afford it will pay the highest. And those with vested interests, who are already very wealthy, will get the benefits of your support. That is the real nature of this debate. You are in the business of defending the millionaires and taking from the poorest in this country—of cutting social security benefits, of making people on low incomes pay more tax and reducing the benefits that come to their social wage through the education system and the health system. You are in the business of undermining the infrastructure of this country and destroying the prosperity of this nation; that is quite clear as a result of your approach to these issues.

How else? How else will you be able to fund the $70 billion-black hole that is now being created in terms of your own arrangements? We know that those who are on low incomes, those who are, of course, entitled to the support of the taxation system, will be right in the firing line—right in the firing line under a conservative government. What we do know is that Tony Abbott has not changed his spots one bit because the previous arrangements—

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

Mr Tony Abbott, Senator Carr

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you Mr Deputy President. What we do know is that when it comes to the question of policy differences in this country, nothing could be starker. Nothing could be starker! You are on the side of the wealthy and the powerful. You want to use the state to undermine the opportunities that will ensure that the benefits are spread for the poorest and the weakest in this country. You want to reimpose that $18,000-arrangement whereby people who earn less than that will now be paying tax under a coalition government.

We know that hard-working Australians are in the firing line under Mr Tony Abbott's government, and this is a position that we will strongly argue against to ensure it does not happen.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I always wonder why people get up to speak for the last 50 seconds when they have said nothing else in the previous 19 minutes and 10 seconds before it.

But anyhow, the MRRT has always been a mystery. Was that, 'Marius' and Rio's rort tax'? Or was it the, 'must-remove-Rudd tax'? What exactly was it? How did we come to this position? This was what brought about the removal of Mr Rudd with the replacement by Ms Gillard. It was all there.

I remember the time and I remember the person, but, I can never quite remember him being elected to parliament—Paul Howes. He is not a member of parliament so what do I call him? I suppose 'Howesy'—I do not know what you call him. Mate? My mate? When 'the mate' turned up; he has never actually gone to that table and sworn an oath. He has never actually held the Bible or the Constitution in his hand. He is not actually accountable to the parliament. The Australian people have never voted for him, but somehow at the time of this mining resource rent tax—I am trying to get it right—he was instrumental in changing the makeup of our nation.

It has always perplexed me how people manage to do that when they are never actually elected to parliament. But he is back again, by the way; he is back again! The other day we heard that he has 'got her back'. I do not know if he has 'got her back' like she was lost and she has come back—he lost her down the park somewhere and he has got her back. Anyway, he has 'got her back', which means once more he is instructing the way the parliament works.

So that is Mr Paul Howes—never elected to this parliament. I must admit a man who likes to run with the fox and hunt with the hounds is Mr Paul Howes.

This is really a test on so many levels. This motion today is also going to test the Australian Greens, who in the previous week said, 'This is it. It's over. The marriage is over. We're out of the house.' Well, now it is: 'Hang on, we're back today.' They are actually supporting them. Senator Collins came down here to talk to them and Senator Conroy came down here to talk to them. And today they are going to support the Labor Party in keeping the whole thing that they said they were upset about. They will not support this motion.

I always find it fascinating when I go back and grab some of the things that Senator Milne has said. She said this at the press conference:

Labor refuses point blank to fix the loopholes in their dud of a mining tax that has only raised $126 million of a supposed $2 billion …

How true—a Daniel come to judgement! How true that is. She said it is forgoing the revenue needed for key reforms, including implementing Gonski—and you believe in Gonski, don't you?; the National Disability Insurance Scheme—now that is something that is worthwhile; Denticare; and building high-speed rail—though and I do not know about that. All those promises, by the way, add up to $365 billion over the next 10 years. They are a very rational party, the Greens! The way they were going to pay for that $365 billion was apparently out of the mining tax, but the mining tax is a dud—and today we have a motion saying that the mining tax is a dud. If this motion is passed, the government will not fail, the government will not fall over and the government will go on. So it is really just a question about the Greens: are they fair dinkum or are they hypocrites?

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

If something goes wrong, Senator Collins, you know that you should wander down here and reorganise the marriage. You have been doing that today, and others have been reorganising the marriage today. It is going to be fascinating to see if they renew their vows today for a whole new sunny outland of matrimonial bliss for the Greens and Labor—who have only been separated for a week but are back into it. So congratulations and I would like to thank you on behalf of all of us for getting the marriage back together again!

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

It's like a game show.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Every time you think they are out of the house they are back in it again—'It's great; we've just been voted back into the house.' We go through this complete and utter anarchy which is this tax. Initially they had the RSPT, Kevin Rudd's mining tax, and they thought that that tax was so good and such a ripper that it was actually going to earn more than Mr Rudd's tax in the first year. Probably one of the things they said in that meeting with Mr Paul Howes—the person who is the unelected Prime Minister of Australia—when they were trying to work out why they should remove Mr Rudd was that they had come up with a better tax that was going to earn more money. The problem is that it did not—thus we are here today.

When we go through this economic work of art which is the minerals resource rent tax we see they had their base value back on 1 May 2010, if my memory serves me correctly, and then we had the market value and they would depreciate the asset from that point in time. But, pray tell, wasn't that at the end of the so-called global financial crisis that they tell us about all the time? Could it be that this asset at the end of the global financial crisis was valued so high that the depreciation of it has meant they have never earned any money from the tax? What happened to that global financial crisis? Where did it go? So quickly did it disappear. But they had as their base value the value at the end of the crisis that they kept on telling us about. Because the crisis never existed, the market value was so high that, on the depreciation of this market base value, they have never actually really been paid any money.

So all this confusion goes on. But now we have the crux of it. In this boiling cauldron of confusion, we now have the person who was deposed because of the mining tax, Mr Kevin Rudd, the member for Griffith, out there as 'Pop-Up Kevin' and every time something is on up pops the member for Griffith. I think the reason he is popping up everywhere is that he wants his job back.

Opposition senators: No!

I think he wants his job back. I do. I was even more confirmed as to that idea today when I saw a brilliant interview by a senator from New South Wales.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Name him!

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Douglas Cameron. Douglas Cameron gave a rip snorter of an interview. They asked Douglas Cameron—

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

Order! Senator Joyce, refer to Senator Cameron as 'Senator Cameron'.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry; Senator Douglas Cameron—as his mother used to call him for dinner every night. They asked Senator Douglas Cameron, 'Do you think the momentum is coming back for Kevin?' and Senator Douglas Cameron's reply was, 'I don't know.' But, Senator Douglas Cameron, I think you do know. I think you are counting them—'One, two, three, four, five; we're getting close.' I think you do know. I think they are counting. Then it will be Senator the Hon. Douglas Cameron, because what will happen is that he will come to the front while Senator Stephen Conroy goes right to the back. He will almost go out of the building, because he said some very nasty things about Mr Rudd. So Senator Stephen Conroy will go back and Senator Douglas Cameron will come forward. I do not know where you will go, Senator Jacinta Collins. Just keep your head down and be nice and quiet and hope it all passes over.

This is how the country is being run at the moment. There is complete and utter mass confusion. If we look at Senator Stephen Conroy, who is at the table, we are about to see a big smile. He is covering up with his hand because he does not want us to see that he knows this is true. Yes, here it comes. He can see it coming. Senator Stephen Conroy is ringing up his good wife saying, 'How much do we owe on the house and how far ahead are we on the mortgage because I think I'm about to suffer a serious pay cut?'

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'And I hope we have enough saved up for broadband.'

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How sweet! So what of the people who signed off on this brilliant piece of work? There were three very clever people in the room and three other people. I will give you a hint. The three very clever people was a bloke called Marius Kloppers—he was the head of BHP Billiton—a bloke called David Peever, who is head of Rio Tinto, and a bloke called Peter Freyberg, from Xstrata Coal. They were the clever people. Then there were three other people in the room. We will not give it away totally; we will just say that their first names were Julia, Wayne and Martin. And what happened?

These three people came in and said, 'Oh, you are trying to design a tax—just hand it to us, we will design it for you.' They gave Julia, Wayne and Martin some crayons and told them to go outside and draw some pictures of flowers, or whatever, and when they came back they were told, 'Here is your tax; that will work—for us!' And we got the tax.

The one thing the Greens have got right is that they said it was a dud of a tax—and it is. But it is not a dud for Marius—it is a brilliant tax for Marius—and it is not a dud for David Peever from Rio Tinto; he thought it was a great tax. He thought it was one of the best pieces of work he had ever done. Marius had never had a better day in the office than the day he had in Julia Gillard's office. It was the best day in an office Marius had had in his life. How do you get your company out of billions of dollars of tax? You go for a cup of tea with the Prime Minister of Australia, Ms Gillard, and you will never have to pay a cent. They said that, no matter what, they would have a tax—and they got the 'no matter what' tax. It would all be hilarious except that they are running the country.

Right back to 2010 the Labor Party has been spending the money. They spent $480 million on one road around Perth—the Perth ring road. It was going to be financed by the tax. It was a regional road, by the way. Whenever they are in a corner and they are trying to get something, they put 'regional' in front of it—like the regional parliament house, the regional opera house or the regional Sydney Harbour Bridge. This was the regional ring road around Perth airport. So $480 million was to come from the mining tax for that. But the mining tax has only brought in $126 million, so there is a problem. Where do they get the money from? They borrow it. Now they are up to $262 billion in gross debt. They have crashed through the $75 billion limit, they have crashed through the $200 billion limit and they have gone through the quarter of a trillion dollar limit and now we are on our way to the $300 billion limit—all because the mining tax is a dud. But don't worry, because today the Greens will vote for the tax—they will vote for it again. Yesterday they said they did not like it but today they will vote for it. It all makes complete sense—and they are running the country; we should all remember that.

What else have we spent this mining tax on? Apparently we are going to do the Gateway upgrade with the mining tax, and the Blacksoil Interchange. There are so many things we are going to do with the mining tax. It will be interesting to see how we do them. I remember Minister Crean telling us in an interview on ABC Darwin with Julia Christensen, though he could have said it to someone else:

But for regional Australia as a whole Julia there is significant new resources available. Obviously there's the money from the mining tax …

So it is obvious—we can do these things with the money from the mining tax. The problem is, there is no money from the mining tax. There is just a massive hole and a big growing debt and a really stupid look on the face of the Treasurer and a very awkward Prime Minister and a Leader of the Government in the Senate with a funny little smile on his face—and a very nervous man he is too—and a very happy looking Senator Douglas Cameron. And there is massive confusion.

I know I am only a little old bush accountant, but I kind of like the details. On 1 May 2010, when the mining tax came in, the price of coal was about $100 a tonne; it is now $93. The price of iron ore was around $161 a tonne; it is now about $150. The global financial crisis was almost up there with them trying to cool the planet, and they were curing us of it with ceiling insulation and $900 cheques and school halls. That was how they were going to reboot the global economy. But isn't it funny that the prices of these commodities were higher then than they are now? Surely in the middle of a crisis the prices would be low, but the prices were high. How could that be? Where did that crisis go? Where is that crisis when you need it? What happened to that crisis? We seem to be in more of a crisis now than we were back at the time of the crisis. It is rather unusual. The crisis now is worse than it was then—but, apparently, we are not in a crisis now; now we are just in a state of complete and utter anarchy.

The people who knew this included Marius Kloppers, for a start. There is that famous quote by Kerry Packer about Alan Bond. He said, 'Alan Bond turns up once in your life, and when he turns up you just have to make the most of him.' I think that was ringing loud in Marius's ears when he went in to see the Prime Minister. He said to himself, 'This lady turns up once in your life, and when she turns up you just have to make the most of it.' And they did. I would love to have been a fly on the wall as they left. They would have said, 'Let's go down the boozer and have a couple of pots and talk about what just happened then; let's talk about how much we ripped off the Australian Treasury; let's talk about how we just left them in the aisles.' They must have walked out the door and said, 'You must have gone to mass last week—how did we manage to get out of that? It was so simple.' But now we are stuck with it.

My old audit boss, Philip Charles Travers Maltby, would look at these ridiculous scenarios that people would get themselves into and would sit there quietly in the smoko room and talk about how someone got themselves into this invidious financial position, and he would say that if you did not laugh you would cry. They are the only options you have. It is like that now with this client, called the Australian Labor Party. If you do not laugh, you cry—it is just so pathetic. It is a tragedy, it is a travesty, it is a joke, it is ridiculous and it cannot go on like this.

Senator Thorp interjecting—

Honestly, Senator Thorp, when you are ahead you should just be quiet. Now you have said something and I am going to quote you. In the midst of all this, when I talk about a surplus, Senator Thorp says it does not matter. That is the attitude that obviously permeates the Labor caucus—it does not matter if you cannot pay back your debts; it does not matter if you are hocked up to the eyeballs; it does not matter if you max out your credit card; it does not matter if you are going out the back door. It just does not matter. You just borrow more money. You go out and find people who will lend you more money and you borrow more money off them.

This cannot go on. This country cannot go on like this. This has to come to a conclusion. It is absolutely outrageous. Our nation cannot go on like this. It is hopeless; it is ridiculous. I say to Mr Kevin Rudd, the member for Griffith, 'If you are fair dinkum, stand up and do something for goodness sake; do not let it go on like this.' Or I say to Martin Ferguson, 'If you think you have got it, do something.' Somebody do something, because we cannot go on like this.

In the midst of this, in a few moments you are going to see one of the greatest corralling of hypocrites in the world as they stand up and vote for the tax that they, a week ago, said they were splitting the sheets over. It is just so absurd. It is just so patently absurd. It makes a farce of everything and it treats the whole of the Australian people like fools—as though they do not know what is going on. They do know what is going on. They have read this book; it is a horror story. Unfortunately, it is a horror story which we are all in.

In conclusion, the mining tax is just a manifestation of this government. It was a farce; it was premised, basically, on a lie. It was bred from the destruction of a prime minister who was voted in by the Australian people. It was manipulated by people who were, obviously, completely and utterly shrewder than those leading our government. It was done in dark corners; they did not even allow the proper Treasury representatives in to try and make sure the thing worked. Now it is going to have the imprimatur re-endorsed by the Australian Greens in a moment from now when they once more vote for the thing that they said was the biggest problem they had.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sometimes, I think about what people think of this place and what people in the gallery and those of us who occasionally listen to this place on broadcast make of all of it. After that last contribution, a contribution that treated the chamber with complete contempt and disrespect—

Opposition senators: Where is your tie?

Completely contemptible. And now I am getting fashion tips from Giorgio Armani over there. The fact is we have a very serious motion before this chamber and it warrants being treated with some respect.

A few weeks ago, I was at a public meeting in a place called Colac. For those of you who do not know, Colac is a place in south-west Victoria. It is a place that is largely a rural community with a manufacturing industry and dairy farmers—people who are struggling to get on in life. I attended the meeting because the meeting dealt with the overnight closure of the emergency department. Colac Hospital services that regional community; it provides important services to those people. It has an emergency department staffed by number of dedicated GPs.

The reason a thousand people met on one night in Colac was because they were distraught about the thought of the closure of the emergency department in Colac. The reason the emergency department was closed overnight was that midway through the financial year, this federal government ripped $100 million out of the health system in Victoria. It was part of a broader cut—$1.5 billion over four years. The cut comes on the back of chronic underinvestment by the conservative state government in Victoria, but there is no way of sugar coating the cut by the Commonwealth government. It was a huge kick in the guts to the people of Colac. The reason that people met was because kids with asthma in their communities need somewhere to go overnight, farm workers who might suffer an injury need to be able to access that emergency department and an older person who might be suffering from chronic disease, like high blood pressure and ischaemic heart disease, needs to know that they have somewhere they can go.

Why is the closure of that emergency department relevant to this debate? It is relevant because several years ago a tax was proposed by the then head of Treasury, Ken Henry: a good tax, a tax that was essentially a tax on super profits from mining companies. It was a tax that would only be paid when super profits were made. It was a tax on mineral resources that were exploited by the mining industry, for good reason, but belonged to all of us; resources that are non-renewable—they will not be there forever. A tax that, on every level, economically, in terms of equity and in terms of meeting our sustainability challenge, made sense.

Had we had that tax, this government would not be facing the financial pressures it currently faces and would not have had to have taken that money out of Victoria's public health system or, in fact, out of hospitals right around the country. The tax that was proposed by Treasury and then put forward by the former prime minister, Mr Kevin Rudd, was a good tax, but we do not have in place because, ultimately, what we saw was a government cave into an aggressive, shameless, blatant campaign by the mining interests, who essentially got together with government representatives to stitch up a deal so that they did not face a campaign from that industry. It was one of the great missed opportunities of this parliament and the previous parliament.

What is the cost of not doing it? We heard about Newstart. We have now got more money raised by taking funds from single mothers than we have raised through the mining tax. We cannot commit to raising Newstart so that people currently living in poverty are not faced with the decision of whether they can afford to buy a loaf of bread or a carton of milk or whether they have to get their public transport ticket so that they can try to attend a job interview.

We have got the great education challenge confronting the nation. We have got the Gonski reforms—reforms that are absolutely critical—and we have no means of funding them. And of course we have got the National Disability Insurance Scheme, a scheme that is long overdue and welcomed by all parties, and yet not one of them, the government or the opposition, has any explicit ideas on how disability insurance will be funded.

We have got the issue of Denticare. We have a situation in this country where people do not go to the dentist because they cannot afford it. I am proud that through the term of this parliament the Greens did get progress on Denticare. For the first time we have a situation where young kids will be able to go to the dentist in the same way they go to the doctor, handing over their Medicare card and getting treated. That is a good thing. We have got a big investment in public dental care and for rural and regional dentistry, but we need more. We need to make sure that we address the wrong that was done when Medicare was first introduced, so that we give everybody access to dental care and ensure that it is universal and that the size of your wallet does not impact on your ability to go to the dentist.

On that point I heard Minister Albanese talking about the Greens as 'parasites' for claiming achievements that were rightfully Labor achievements. He needs a history lesson here. The government tried twice to close the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme without putting anything in its place, and it was the Greens that dragged the Labor Party to the table to ensure that we had a replacement that was going to meet the needs of low-income people and young children. So we do claim that as a Greens achievement, and rightfully so. Without the Greens, the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme would have been closed and we would have nothing in its place.

Mr Albanese also needs a history lesson when it comes to the introduction of action on climate change. This government took to the election a plan for a climate assembly, a citizens assembly. There was no action, and it was the Greens that made sure that we put this country on a footing to address what is one of the great economic, environmental and social challenges of this century. We achieved that through negotiations with the government and the Independents, and what we now have for the first time is a price on pollution. We have got a massive investment in biodiversity funds and we have also got a raised tax-free threshold so that we can encourage people into work. They are good things. They are Greens achievements in this parliament.

But we need more. We need to make sure that everybody in this country can go to the dentist in the same way that they go to the doctor. We need universal dental care. We need to address the issue of rising out-of-pocket costs for medicines. We need to do more in the area of preventative health. We have to make sure that our public hospital systems are once again the first choice for people, not the last choice. Private health insurance in this country must be a choice and not a necessity. It is now the Greens that are the party of universal health care and universal education.

I heard the Prime Minister recently talking about her party not being a social democratic party. Well, the Greens are proud to take on that mantle. We do believe in the provision of education, health care, disability insurance and ensuring that people's needs are met if they are unemployed. They are core Greens policies.

But this motion is a motion of no confidence in the government. The Greens, like the Australian community, face a diabolical choice. We have got a government that has lost its way and we have an abysmal opposition, an opposition whose policy on the important action we took on climate change is to create uncertainty in the investment community and through some magical soil sequestration program to achieve the same target they criticise the government for. They signed onto the target and yet they want to pay polluters and tax the community—an economically irrational, environmentally scandalous set of policy responses. I would respect the opposition more if they listened to those elements within their own party and were honest about it and did not try to continue with this charade of pretending to have a policy that represents action on climate change when it does nothing of the sort.

It is just like their position on coal seam gas. Senator Joyce could not face a vote on that issue because he knows that his constituents are concerned about the impact of coal seam gas in his community on underground aquifers, the environment, and the fact that somebody can come and knock on your door and say, 'We are going to put in a coal seam gas well and you can do nothing about it.'

I am worried about the opposition's policies on health. They are going to abolish the National Preventative Health Agency and Medicare Locals, important reforms that do something towards addressing the issue of prevention and primary health care. On education they are going to continue with the inequitable funding model introduced by the Howard government and, with the election of an opposition government, I fear that the Gonski reforms will be dead before they have even begun.

On Newstart, they will not commit to ensuring that people facing those terrible choices will be given some comfort through a small increase that gets them somewhere near the poverty line rather than a long way beneath it. They have made some extravagant promises—on paid parental leave, for example. Of course, the question is: how are they going to pay for it?

This is an opposition that expect to sail into government with no scrutiny, with no-one pushing them on the revenue that it is necessary to raise in order to pay for some of these promises. The bottom line is that the Greens will do nothing to help this opposition coast into government. We will do nothing that will ensure that a backwards-looking, nasty, regressive opposition, with a 1950s view of what Australia should look like, becomes the next government of Australia. That is why we will not be supporting a motion of no confidence in the government.

In the end, government is about priorities. We need to decide what sort of society we want. Do we want to be a decent, caring, more compassionate society? Do we want a society where everybody, regardless of the circumstances into which they are born, gets a decent education, not just those who can afford it? Do we want a society where people can access life-saving medicines, have elective surgery done and not languish for hours in emergency departments, regardless of their ability to pay? Do we want a situation where people can marry regardless of their sexual orientation? Do we want a society where people who are seeking protection in this country because they face the very real threat of prosecution are granted that protection when they are deserving of it? And do we want a society that is prepared to meet the great challenge of sustainability, of ensuring our economy is on a sustainable footing going into this century?

That is the great challenge for our economy. And the mining tax was an opportunity to do just that, to ensure that we do not squander the benefits of the mining boom as we squandered the last decades under the coalition government, with very little to show for it apart from handouts and pork-barrelling, rather than ensuring that we meet the challenge of this century, which is to transform our economy so it is on a more sustainable footing and to provide the services—education, health care and a national disability insurance scheme—for those who need them That is why the mining tax represents one of the great missed opportunities of this parliament. It was a tax that, when it comes to equity, was to ensure that we get a fair share from the resources that belong to all of us. It was a tax that, when it comes to transforming our revenue base, would tax resources that will not be there forever, that will be gone, so as to ensure that not just this generation of Australians but also future generations will benefit, because it is their wealth that we are squandering along with ours.

We are faced with some huge challenges in this country: an ageing population and the impact of the health burden on our community, the shift in chronic diseases, the fact that our PBS system needs to provide decent medicines at low cost. How on earth are you going to meet those challenges if you are not prepared to raise the revenue? How are you going to meet the challenge of making sure that every child in this country gets access to a decent education and that we do not slip further down the rankings through our performance as a nation on a range of benchmarks?

We are not meeting the challenges because we have neither a government nor an opposition that is prepared to stand up to vested interests, to take them on and to say, 'This is the sort of society we want: a society that is decent, that is caring, that is compassionate, that recognises that the role of government is to provide those things for people.' Instead, we have a government that caved in to those interests, just like it did when it came to poker machine reform and just like it has done in a number of other areas. And we have an opposition who will not even take up the challenges because they are too close to the big end of town. What we need to do is to recognise what a modern, decent, forward-looking Australia looks like. We have got to make sure we do not miss this opportunity. We do need to amend the mining tax. We have to make sure that we use this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listeners could be forgiven for thinking that the motion before the Senate deals with every single area of public policy other than the handling of the mining tax. Let us go straight to the point with the deception of the Australian Greens contribution. The motion before the Senate is not a motion of no confidence in the government. It is a no-confidence motion in the handling of the mining tax—a specific issue that Senator Milne herself announced at the National Press Club as the reason for ripping up the agreement with the ALP. We have given the Australian Greens the opportunity to show their colours, to show whether they actually meant it.

We now know what the Greens will do. They misrepresent the motion and by misrepresenting the motion they give themselves an excuse not to vote for it. The Australian people will see through that. They will see through the faux foot-stomping of Senator Milne at the National Press Club by the vote of the Australian Greens today. The motion before us is not about curing asthma or anything else. It is about the mishandling of the mining tax—an issue that Senator Milne addressed at length at the National Press Club.

Today she and her fellow Greens will have the opportunity to vote on whether or not she has and the Greens have confidence in the way the government handled the mining tax. By their vote they will show that Senator Milne on the national stage at the National Press Club will say one thing and do the exact opposite in this chamber. That should not surprise, because when they signed the deal with the Australian government, with the Australian Labor Party, they promised a new era of consultation, a new era when the parliament would be respected. What have they done: 150 times they have joined with the ALP to guillotine legislation through this chamber. When the coalition did it when it had a majority in the Senate, like the Greens and Labor do now, we did it on 30 occasions. It was an affront to democracy, it was an outrage, and that is why the Greens had to be given the balance of power in the Senate. Well, they were given it, and what have they done with it: guillotine five times as many bills through this place than the Howard government did. The Australian people now know that the safest place to put the Australian Senate is in the hands of the coalition, because the Greens cannot be trusted. They, along with the ALP, are the big guillotiners in this place.

Let us be quite clear as to the ALP's approach and go through them speaker by speaker. When you have no capacity to defend, what does Senator Wong do: she descends to abuse, personal abuse, vilifying individuals. It is the old hoary ALP tactic, isn't it? If you do not have anything to run with, just attack. That is what they are doing to Mr Abbott relentlessly, attacking and attacking him. Why? Because they have got no policies to sell, no record to sell to the Australian people. Let us be absolutely clear on this. The ALP's crisis management 101 agenda is attack—attack personally, attack often and avoid the topic. That is what Senator Wong did for virtually all her 20 minutes. And Senator Kim Carr, well, why would you even bother?

But then we have Senator Milne and Senator Di Natale from the Australian Greens misrepresenting the motion. In fairness, I think they are intelligent people. I am sure they are not in need of the Prime Minister's reading lessons but they might like to avail themselves of that facility. If they were actually to read the motion that is before the Senate, they would know that it is not a vote of no confidence in the government full stop; it is a vote of no confidence in the government's handling of the mining tax. So you cannot pretend that you hate the way this was done, that it was a secret deal with big miners, but then not vote for it.

I am not sure if the Greens actually moved their amendment to the motion. I understand they have. This is it: to get rid of the no-confidence motion and put in its place:

The Senate condemns the Government's failure to put in place a mining tax which raises sufficient revenue from—

this is a clearly defined economic term that everybody will know—

the big miners—

Who are they? Enumerate them. How big do you have to be to be a big miner? As big as Clive Palmer? Sorry, that was a personal comment. Do you have to be personally big, does your company have to be big or does your mine have to be big? What is the definition of a big miner? It continues, and this is a doozy:

to fund Australia's long-term needs.

There is one thing about the mining tax that we always said, that mining goes in booms and regrettably also in busts. Therefore you cannot rely on an ongoing basis on the funding from such a tax. Indeed, in its previous manifestation it was called a super profits tax. Do those opposite honestly believe that the mining industry will continually be in a position of super profit making? Of course not. It has never happened in history; it is very unlikely to happen in the future, especially not under this government. So how can you predicate all this expenditure on it? Senator Di Natale gave us a great speech about how it could help asthmatics, people with heart issues, help education, help all sorts of areas. These are all worthy causes, but what happens when the mining boom, as it inevitably will do, turns into decline and bust? Where is the money going to come from? The Greens have no answer, the ALP have no answer, and that is why we at all times were indicating the terrible flaw in the system of the mining tax.

It was the Greens that rushed with the ALP to guillotine this legislation through the place. They knew so well. They were not offended by Ms Gillard and Mr Swan doing a secret deal with the three CEOs of Australia's larger mining companies. But it is interesting, isn't it? Just think if we as a coalition would have sat down in secret doing a deal with mining companies on the taxation regime. It would be the end of democracy as we know it, with the need for the Greens to move a motion of no confidence in the government full stop, not only on the handling of the mining tax. It would be indicative of everything that pervades the coalition. But when their mates the Labor Party do it, not a squeak out of the Australian Greens. Today, despite their attempt to grossly misrepresent the motion that is before us, the Australian people will be a wake-up that Senator Milne just engaged in a little bit of faux foot-stomping at the National Press Club and did not mean what she said.

She did not say what she meant, because at all times she will keep this government on life support, irrespective of how bad its policymaking is, irrespective of how bad its policies actually are.

Today, having spent so much time at the National Press Club, Senator Milne has the opportunity of voting for a very simple motion which says that this Senate has no confidence in the government's handling of the mining tax. We on this side have no doubt that the Australian people have no confidence in the government's handling of the mining tax. It is obvious that Joel Fitzgibbon, the Chief Government Whip, has no confidence in the government's handling of the mining tax. There is no doubt that the leader of the Labor Party in Western Australia has no confidence in the Labor government's handling of the mining tax. We, as a coalition, agree with them, and we would invite the Greens to join with us on that basis.

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

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Milne to the motion moved by Senator Abetz be agreed to.

Question negatived.

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

The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Abetz be agreed to.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, would you please ensure that the Greens vote for our amendment is recorded in Hansard.

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

That will be recorded.