John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013. I would like to comment on Senator Rhiannon's contribution to this debate just now. Several times she used the word profits—'huge profits'. Why is profit such a dirty word in the eyes of the Greens? Perhaps losses would be a more suitable word in their speeches. When Rio Tinto makes a profit, who owns Rio Tinto? What about those Australian workers who have compulsory superannuation? And what about the industry super funds, or the super funds the workers are with, which buy shares in Rio Tinto? What about the profits that have been returned to the Australian workers for their retirement? That seems to be very wrong in the eyes of Senator Rhiannon. I think it is a good thing that business makes a profit, grows, and employs more people—and raises the living standards of all Australians.

I do not think there is any argument. We all feel that the minerals in the ground belong to the people and, when wealth is created out of those minerals. the people should get a share in it. The minerals belong to the Crown—to the states and territories. As I have said on numerous occasions: if you want the people to get more, let the states raise their royalties, which some have done. Then the royalties return more money to the people for those assets in the ground, belonging to the people. This minerals resource rent tax is simply amazing. I must say I am astounded that the Greens are not over on our side of the chamber cheering us on, because their friend Mr Clive Palmer, the member for Fairfax, certainly wants the mining tax and the carbon tax repealed. Prior to the election the Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, along with many others in the coalition, made it quite clear that the carbon tax and the mining tax would go. Mr Palmer is telling Western Australians to vote for his Senate candidate to get rid of the taxes I am talking about. But then the Greens leader, Senator Milne, says: 'The Greens will not support moves to put big business and mining profits ahead of people and communities.'—that is why I am confused.

Back in 2012, Mr Palmer accused the Greens of being a tool of the US government and the Rockefeller Foundation. The Queensland Greens were putting out press releases with headlines such as 'Clive Palmer ignored solution to toxic water', 'Reef is not Clive Palmer’s dumping ground' and 'Congratulations Clive Palmer: QG Inaugural Fossilfool'. There was definitely no love lost there, but who cares about old grievances when your political future is on the line?

That is what we saw at last September's election in your state of South Australia, Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi, when Senator Hanson-Young was in grave danger of being voted out. The only thing to do was throw their principles out the window. The Greens, who hate mining, cuddled up to mining magnate Mr Clive Palmer, who hates the Greens, and they swapped preferences. Oh, how we sell out our principles when it comes to election time! The Greens do not mind who they get into bed with when it suits them. They gleefully accepted former Prime Minister Gillard's offer to run the country, and run it they did—into the ground

In the recent Tasmanian state election, Labor and the Greens were finally given the message after destroying that state's economy. You would not have thought so, though, because deposed Premier Lara Giddings and Greens leader Nick McKim gave virtual victory speeches outlining what a great job they had done. It reminded me of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grailhe had no arms or legs left but said, 'We'll call it a draw.'

The coalition government told the Australian people its priority would be to repeal the mining tax and the carbon tax. Not one voter in Australia at the 7 September election was not aware of that fact. This would have been done if Labor and the Greens were not still in denial about the election loss. The Australian people put their confidence in us to run the economy, to cut red tape and to provide jobs and hope for the future, but those on the other side refuse to take the umpire's decision—the umpire being the voting people of our nation.

Let's talk about mining tax mark 1 and mining tax mark 2. I well remember asking a question of then Minister Kim Carr when talk of the mining tax first surfaced. I asked the then minister—he is the shadow minister now, of course—if it would affect quarries. The then minister turned to his advisers and asked, 'Does anyone know anything about this?' It turned out it was not only Minister Carr who knew nothing about it. It subsequently turned out that Prime Minister Gillard and Treasurer Wayne Swan knew nothing about it either.

Let's look at the history of this tax. First we had the resource super profits tax. It was to be levied at 40 per cent and applied across a wide cross-section of the resources sector, but it never got off the ground. As Labor's faceless men were doing the numbers and Prime Minister Rudd was looking over his shoulder rather than looking ahead, along came Ms Julia Gillard to take him out. The new Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, did not want the former Prime Minister's legacy to remain, so she decided the minerals resource rent tax would be a better option and her mark would be all over it.

The mining tax was a joke from day one. You can imagine how the eyes of the miners lit up when Prime Minister Gillard and Treasurer Wayne Swan put that deal on the table. I saw the signed piece of paper in a Senate inquiry chaired by Senator Cormann in the previous parliament. The miners would have fallen over themselves to sign because you only get one opportunity like that in life—that is, to sign up to a tax that does not cost you anything.

Fast forward to 2012 and Treasurer Wayne Swan proudly proclaimed the mining tax would bring in $3 billion for the financial year. But a few months later that figure was downgraded to $2 billion. In May 2013—surprise, surprise!—the Treasurer said, 'Oh, dear. The tax will fetch only $200 million.' That was a long way from the $3 billion forecast. I can tell you that the net figure from 1 July 2012 to now is $435 million. Remember that this was going to be the pot of gold, but they ended up with loose change. But the amazing thing was that the previous Labor government, in conjunction with the Greens, then went out and spent it all and more, promising all these programs when they did not have any income. What did that do to the budget? We know what that did to the budget. Have a look at the mess the budget is in.

Evidence at the Senate inquiry revealed that mining companies and peak bodies were strongly supportive of the repeal of the minerals resource rent tax. These companies and peak bodies were broadly united in arguing that the MRRT was a poorly designed tax which imposed a significant compliance cost on the Australian mining industry and undermined the industry's competitiveness.

The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia welcomed the proposed repeal, suggesting the MRRT:

… has been administratively onerous and costly as well as ineffective, falling significantly short of delivering the genuine tax reform needed to ensure Australia's continuing international competiveness.

The most important thing is our international competitiveness. Similarly, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry indicated that it had consistently opposed the MRRT and supported its repeal on the grounds that the MRRT was a poorly designed tax that was implemented without proper consultation with the mining industry. There were just three companies consulted. The former government forgot the small guys and just had a chat with the three big guys.

Treasury also acknowledged, both at the hearing and in the explanatory memorandum, that far more companies need to comply with the MRRT than have actually had to pay the tax to date. Specifically, the explanatory memorandum confirmed that there are approximately 235 companies registered for the MRRT and 65 more are due to register should the repeal of the MRRT not proceed. However, fewer than 20 companies actually incurred an MRRT liability in 2012-13. So we have 235 companies, with another 65 to be added, that have the cost of all this paperwork when fewer than 20 are paying the tax.

A number of witnesses also indicated that the MRRT has undermined the capacity of the Australian mining industry to attract much-needed investment. We have seen that flow of investments taper off. That is concerning for the future of this industry that has delivered so much wealth to our nation, employed so many people and raised the living standards of so many Australians, along with returning taxes to government for it to deliver the services so desperately required by so many Australians.

The government is serious about getting Australia moving again. The Prime Minister has introduced legislation that will lead to the removal of 10,000 onerous regulations. Also, $1 billion worth of red tape and green tape will go so that business in Australia can get on with the job. It is time that everyone realised that we live in a free enterprise economy. Those on the other side of the chamber should learn that fact. Our nation's wealth is derived through the private sector. The more you strangle our private business sector the more you restrict our nation from growing and employing others and the more you reduce our living standards.

On this side of the chamber, we are committed to cutting the unnecessary burden of red tape. We went to the election promising a reduction of $1 billion a year in red tape costs to business, and I am glad to see that the Prime Minister is already working on that. The Prime Minister quite rightly says that cutting red tape is essential if we are to boost employment and if we are to reduce or take the pressure off the prices that families face every day. This is a very important part of our commitment to the families of Australia and to the workers of Australia.

I will not use all my time up. I would like to finish my contribution very much like I started it. I am a little bit confused about the signals coming from the other side of this chamber. Apparently the Leader of Opposition, Mr Bill Shorten, was very evasive when confronted on this question whilst campaigning in Western Australia just recently. A newspaper report said:

Mr Shorten … appeared to change his language around whether Labor would continue to support the tax.

Mr Shorten then said:

… we will engage in a dialogue with the resources sector.

This tax is a tax on Western Australia. It is a tax on our iron ore industry. Ninety-six per cent of Australia's iron ore is mined in and exported from Western Australia. When it is comes to the Senate by-election in Western Australia, people should just remember who is trying to strangle their jobs and their economy. It is the Greens and the Australian Labor Party.

I will go back to Mr Shorten. Based on a previous dialogue with the miners by Prime Minister Gillard and Treasury, my money is on the miners. But perhaps Mr Shorten had received early advice of Mr Paul Howes leaving the union movement and possibly having his eye on a spot in this place. Perhaps Mr Howes is looking at Mr Shorten's job! Who knows who will come forward from the union movement next. After all, that is the chosen path for union officials: run the union and then become a Labor Party politician.

Mr Shorten has every reason to be off his game and not know whether he supports or opposes the mining tax. He would be very nervous of Mr Howes' record of deposing Labor leaders and he is probably looking over his shoulder as we speak. I can guarantee the Nationals' Senate candidate for the Western Australian by-election, Shane Van Styn, knows exactly where he stands, as do the Liberal candidates. They stand against the carbon tax and against the mining tax, as do those on this side of the chamber. I commend the bill to the Senate.