Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Conroy, to questions by Senators Brandis and Sinodinos.

It seems some time ago that those questions were asked. I want to make a couple of comments about what we heard today. We had Senator Conroy, who squibbed it; Senator Wong, who was squawking; we had the Greens, who again have taken it upon—

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I ask you to draw the senator's attention to the question before the chair which is taking note of answers given during question time, not other matters.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor Party are obviously very touchy at the moment because the Labor Party know full well where they are positioned. At the moment, the Australian people are sick and tired of the self-indulgent behaviour coming from the Australian Labor Party. Talk about revolving doors and prime ministers. The only job those opposite and those in the other place are concerned about is their own job. They have completely lost the focus of government. Their behaviour is irresponsible. The challenges are enormous, but what do we hear day in and day out? We get leaked views from cabinet ministers and we get people in the Australian Labor Party briefing against each other. And it is all about one job—that is, who the Australian Labor Party want as Prime Minister.

The mining tax is a classic example of why this government has completely and utterly lost the plot, but it is not just the mining tax. A litany of bad decisions by bad government ultimately is going to require at least two generations of future Australians to pay off this massive debt. We heard the extraordinary intervention from Senator Thorp today when Senator Brandis was talking about the fact that Labor governments cannot deliver a surplus. The direct quote from Senator Thorp is, 'So what?' That was Senator Thorp's response to the wanton destruction of this economy by both the Rudd and Gillard Labor governments. It is quite remarkable that the budget papers still talk about $2 billion to be raised by the mining tax. We now know that only $120-odd million has been raised. The only outcome of that is that the commitments made by the Labor government can only be met by borrowing. That is the only outcome of its appalling mismanagement of this economy.

Everywhere I go, at every function, at every community event, the one question I am continually asked is, 'When will these people be thrown out?' I do not know the answer to that question. I do not know whether they will be thrown out. What I do know is that the Australian people are heartily sick and tired of what they are seeing at the moment. As I said before, a political party that starts talking about itself to the extent that the Australian Labor Party are talking about themselves at the moment has abrogated their responsibilities as a government. They have denied themselves the right to govern. They have denied the Australian people being led by a government which, at the end of the day, are concerned about their welfare, about whether they have a roof over the head, about whether they have a job, about ensuring that people will at least have some confidence that their job is secure. None of that is occurring at the moment.

How can it be that when an enormous number of Australians are concerned about their jobs and the cost of living, and are concerned about illegal arrivals— (Time expired)

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

It seems to be very coincidental, but I often get to speak straight after Senator Ronaldson.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You do it on purpose.

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

It is not on purpose actually, but it is always fun, because Senator Ronaldson likes to be very dramatic in his presentation, and he is saying that he has other commitments outside the chamber, and that is fair enough. Here we are after five o'clock taking note of answers to questions on notice, but he should have paid some attention to his leader's contribution in the last debate that we had, and I note that you have ruled, Acting Deputy President McKenzie, that we are able to talk about that last debate in this session.

Senator Abetz chastised the government for making personal attacks. I think he was getting confused between Senator Wong and Senator Brandis, because it was actually Senator Brandis who indulged himself in some of the most personal attacks that I have heard here, and Senator Ronaldson continued to carry on like that. That just demonstrates to everybody who might have been listening to the last couple of hours the double standards that are constantly applied by the opposition in all matters of debate. They criticise the government for doing one thing and then do it themselves. They have no standard nor benchmark on which to measure themselves.

The debate we have just had was another classic example of this. We are debating a tax which the opposition do not want. They do not want it to raise a single cent because they did not want the tax at all in the first place. But they come in here and complain that it has not raised enough. They cannot have it both ways. It is just another of the many examples of the double standards applied by the opposition not only to this issue but also to every other issue across the board. They simply want to be negative about it but have that double standard. So which is it? Does the opposition say it raises too much tax or not enough tax? They do not seem to know. They seem to be quite divided on this point. They make impassioned arguments and complain about the tax not raising enough money, then very clearly say, 'We don't want it to raise any money.'

In fact, if we go back some time there were some of the most outrageous statements made by people—in fact, by the Leader of the Opposition. Do coalition members recall Mr Abbott blaming BHP's decision to put their Olympic Dam project on hold on the mining tax? That is what he said, 'Based on the mining tax,' because of the amount of money they thought was going to be raised by the mining tax. The head of BHP said at the time that that was not true and clearly it is not true now. But do you hear them complaining about that? No, because they are still conflicted about whether they want it to raise more or to raise less.

Clearly, the minerals resource rent tax has been raising revenue, although it has been impacted by a big drop in revenues, particularly in the third quarter of this year. As commodity prices have started to pick up, we have seen an increase in the amount of revenue being raised by this tax. This brings the coalition to the problem they have most, because they do not believe that these resources belong to the Australian people for the ultimate benefit of the Australian people. What they believe is that these resources belong to their friends: the mining magnates and the people they support and kowtow to. They believe it belongs to them and that the Australian public ought not to get the benefit of the resources that can only be dug up once and can only be sold once. They believe that they should take all the profit and that the Australian community should not get their fair share. We on this side of the chamber believe not only that the Australian community should get their fair share but also that they deserve their fair share. When we have gone through a boom—as it has been and as will come again; it will go in cycles and the booms will come and go—and when the high profits are there, a share of those profits should be distributed amongst the Australian people. They are their resources and they should be spent on building infrastructure, reforms and for the benefit of the Australian people. That is what we want to do. We on this side of the chamber believe in a fair go for the Australian people and a fair sharing of the resources that we own as a community on behalf of all Australians.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great privilege to take note of answers given by Senator Conroy today in regard to the debate we have had about the minerals resource rent tax. I think it is fair to say that this is a government that is losing the will to live but has not yet lost the will to tax, even if that tax achieves little in revenue. The coalition opposes Labor's mining tax because it is bad for jobs and bad for Australia. If the Labor Party were the party of equity and fairness, then it would ask its faceless men to roll Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan in the same way that they rolled Kevin Rudd. But Labor is not a party of equity—

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order to remind the senator to use the proper titles when he is referring to members in the other House.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Smith, it is Prime Minister Gillard.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you Acting Deputy President and thank you Senator Brown for your timely intervention. What is important here is that the coalition position is not changing. We are unequivocally opposed to the mining tax and we will abolish it in government. It is good for Western Australia to abandon the mining tax, and what we know, in the current state of our economy, is that what is good for Western Australia is good for Australia.

In the debate today at question time we heard the government leader say that the tax was important for long-term reform. The government kept telling Australians that they would share the benefits of the boom through their historic reform of the mining tax. This historic reform has so far raised only a fraction of the money promised in the budget.

Labor is right on only one point—that the coalition will most definitely repeal the tax. Even the Reserve Bank has recognised that sharing the benefits of the boom occurs through jobs, through company tax and through royalties. The RBA, as we have heard today, found that soaring resource exports over the past seven years have created about 500,000 jobs across every major industry.

Not only is Labor dysfunctional and incompetent; it is divided and confused over its own position. Earlier this month, on 15 February, the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, Simon Crean, said:

In the meantime we're seeking to address the design flaw in—well, we're seeking to actually now change the design—

of the mining tax. Only days earlier, Prime Minister Gillard had told the parliament:

… the government has no plans to change the design of the MRRT.

Labor cannot be trusted on this tax nor on any other plans to tax the Australian community. In giving evidence at Senate estimates on 14 February, the Secretary of the Treasury, Dr Parkinson, confirmed that the flaws in Labor's MRRT were the result of the negotiations orchestrated by the Prime Minister and Treasurer after the ousting of Kevin Rudd.

Senator McLucas interjecting—

I think this is a critical point—that the flaws were the result of negotiations orchestrated by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer after the ousting of Kevin Rudd. The Australian newspaper—

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Smith, I remind you to use the proper title of members in the other place.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's 'Prime Minister in exile' for Mr Rudd.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Senator Birmingham. Later in that same week, the Australian newspaper reported:

Treasury secretary Martin Parkinson has admitted the design of the mining tax is responsible for its failure to generate revenue, not the falling commodity prices, higher currency and state royalties blamed by the government.

In explosive testimony to the Senate economics committee yesterday, Dr Parkinson said Treasury had compiled its budget forecasts in ignorance of the real cost of concessions agreed to by Wayne Swan and Resources Minister Martin Ferguson when they renegotiated the tax in private with the chief executives of BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Xstrata in mid-2010.

I think this is an important point. How critical have changing commodity prices been? Do they give the government a defence for this significant policy failure? While the government now point to changes in commodity prices, the risk of commodity price falls did not stop them from boasting at the time this tax was brought in that it would be a multibillion dollar revenue windfall. It did not stop them from putting forward a variety of programs to be funded through this tax initiative.

On 1 November 2012, the West Australian put to rest the suggestion that commodity prices are the only cause for concern in this revenue mix-up:

He—

the Treasurer—

is now trying to create the impression that lower commodity prices are the only reason the MRRT has not delivered any revenue so far. That is part of the story, but there is much, much more.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What the opposition say is that they oppose the minerals resource rent tax, but this is merely code for supporting tax cuts for their billionaire mates—some of the richest people, if not the richest people, in the country. In government, they say, they intend to repeal the MRRT. We know what will result from that—attacking low-paid workers to provide tax cuts to billionaires. How on earth is that good for all Australians?

Senator Smith talks about how the MRRT is bad for jobs and bad for Australians. How can this minerals resource rent tax be bad for Australians when the reason we are taxing mineral resources is that they belong to the Australian people? The mineral resources of Australia belong to all of us and we should all therefore have some say in how they are used and we should all get some dividend, some benefit, from their exploitation. It should not all go to the billionaires—the ones the coalition want to give a tax cut to—but should be shared in by the Australian people. As my parliamentary colleague Senator Marshall remarked: 'Once they are dug up, that is it; they are gone. We do not have them anymore. Once minerals are dug up, they are gone.' The minerals resource rent tax is about delivering something to the Australian people. This country and its minerals belong to all of us and we should all have some say in how those minerals are exploited and we should all share in the benefits when they are dug up and sold.

In looking at the design of this tax, let us go back to minerals 101. The tax is linked to commodity prices. Because it is linked to commodity prices, if commodity prices fall, as they have over the last year, the tax revenue collected is not going to be as high. It is pretty basic. The coalition argue that the minerals resource rent tax has not delivered enough tax—but, in the same breath, they say that they would repeal the tax, that they would not have the tax. They cannot have it both ways. They do not want the tax to exist, but now, while it does exist, they are saying there is not enough of it. So what is their position? Which way do they see this? I think they are just playing politics—nothing else. It is not about the fact that we have minerals in the ground, the benefits of which need to be distributed fairly, and it is not about giving a return to the Australian people—it is simply politics. It is simply going around in a circle and talking about nothing.

On this side of the chamber, we pursue policies which are good for Australia and good for the Australian people.

That is why we have introduced the minerals resource rent tax. That is why it is designed the way it is. When commodities are down, yes, there will not be as much revenue coming in, but when they are up, there will be and that will be returned to the Australian people.

Senator Brandis referred before to the fact that we have some failed public policy. Let us talk about the coalition's public policy—at least the things they have so far on the record. We could look at the failed public policies of the past, of Work Choices—the policy that got them out of government when the Australian people voted them out—or we could look at the current public policies, at the issue of GST. I understand Mr Joe Hockey is in my home state of Tasmania today. I have not heard one senator from Tasmania ask Mr Hockey, or anyone in this chamber, whether or not they support the coalition's policy of reforming the GST, of ripping $700 million from the Tasmanian budget. Here is Mr Hockey today, pretending he is a friend of the people in Tasmania. No-one should be fooled by that because that is exactly what they intend to do. (Time expired)

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with pleasure that I rise to take note of answers given by Senator Conroy to questions asked in question time today about the minerals resource rent tax. I come from South Australia so I can tell you firsthand what this tax means to people in my state. It has reduced mining activity, which equates to fewer jobs and reduced opportunities for everybody. Do not let Senator Marshall or anybody else convince you otherwise—the minerals resource rent tax did have a major impact on the decision by BHP Billiton not to proceed at Olympic Dam on the Roxby Downs expansion. I know there has been a lot of comment that this mine's expansion would not have been directly impacted on by the tax, but the cost of doing business in Australia is what has been affected. It is about the risk of doing business in Australia and that is the fundamental problem here.

When faced with a decision on whether to invest in Australia, or to spend their investment dollars somewhere else, mining companies are going to choose to invest in a country that does not keep backflipping on its decisions and a country that does not keep introducing new taxes just because it wants to balance the books. The bottom line is that Australia is no longer seen with any confidence as a safe place to do business. In short, the sovereign risk is just too great.

That is not the worst of this tax. Even at the most fundamental level, we all know that you should not spend money that you do not have and you do not know where it will come from. You can imagine walking into a bank and saying to the manager, 'I want to borrow $200,000 to buy a house. I'm not quite sure where I will get the money from but I might get a new job in a few weeks time that pays me more.' The guy would laugh you out the door. No individual, no family, no business can simply access money when they do not have any prospect or evidence of repaying it. The government have had every chance to know that this was likely to happen with that tax. All the experts have told them that the revenue from the MRRT was highly unlikely to ever be realised. But that is the track record of the government.

This is a government that was happy to give money to parents for a kids bonus with nothing to tie it to actually spending for the benefit of the education of children. Where is the investment in infrastructure promised by this government? Where are the real tax breaks that were promised for small businesses? What has happened to the promised superannuation reform? All we have seen is a massive increase in debt—$126 million raised by the MRRT, $2 billion spent so far, $14 billion in commitments, and this is all from the world's greatest Treasurer. I think not.

It is interesting that the author of this tax, the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, lost his job over this tax but not so the Treasurer. Together with the new Prime Minister, he has negotiated a tax that the mining industry basically does not have to pay. The big miners must be struggling to keep a straight face at the moment. I draw to your attention a comment made yesterday morning by Alan Kohler on the ABC: 'You've got to wonder which goose or geese paid the $126 million that the ATO collected from the minerals resource rent tax in the first six months.' If you look at some of our big miners, Rio Tinto did not pay any tax but it booked a non-cash revenue item of $1.1 billion against the MRRT. Xstrata—no revenue that we are aware of. Fortescue Metals says it is not paying anything. BHP Billiton paid $77 million—maybe they thought paying the retiring managing director more than the tax was probably a bad look.

All in all, the MRRT is a disaster, not a political inconvenience as the Treasurer has described it. Maybe the Treasurer could come to speak to the contractors who have geared up to provide goods and services in support of the mining expansion in South Australia. Maybe he can explain to these rural communities why they have not had the opportunities that were promised. This lack of regard for rural communities is nothing new from this government. I will not digress like everybody else has and talk about all the different things that have been impacted upon by this government. I will stick to the MRRT. But, by the Labor Party's own admission, straight from the Labor Party's website, the minerals resource rent tax is a true Labor reform. It is a tax that collects no money; a tax that has generated huge future liabilities for all Australians; and a tax on the back of which a huge debt for Australia has been generated. If this is true Labor reform then I reckon every Australian has every right to say that they have had quite enough of Labor Party reform.

Question agreed to.