Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

To take up comments made by both of the previous speakers, the Greens approach to this budget has been one of economic responsibility. We have made it absolutely clear, to answer directly the point made by the member for Menzies, that we are not going to propose measures that would have a cost on the public purse without identifying places from which their funding could come from. One of the points that we and others have made is that, increasingly in this budget—this budget which was a missed opportunity to make Australia fairer economically—we and other observers are finding that on questions of economic orthodoxy it is actually the Greens who are most aligned with the recommendations as to what would be a sensible economic framework for Australia.

In particular, we are the only ones in this parliament who are now advocating Treasury's original proposal for a super profits mining tax. Had there not been the cave-in from the government that there was on that tax we would be receiving additional revenue in the order of $10 billion per year. The cave-in, compared with the Treasury proposal, has taken out somewhere in the order of $100 billion over the next decade, which we are now going to have to make up through measures like this. So if the question is where we would find the money from the answer is that we would do what Treasury suggested we should do, and get a fair return to the Australian people from the minerals that Australians own and that we get to dig up and sell only once. If we did that, we would not have to have these debates about how we take money away from families and how we take money away from the poorest of the poor and from those who are doing it the toughest on disability support pensions.

Putting that aside, this budget continues an enormous amount of expenditure on ill-directed subsidies to fossil fuel and mining sectors that are ill deserved. If you want to know where we could get the money for this measure, there is somewhere in the order of $10 billion to $11 billion of subsidies that continue to be paid every year to already wealthy mining corporations, many of whom send their profits overseas. To take one example, somewhere in the order of $2 billion goes to the mining and resources sector simply so that they can buy diesel fuel tax-free. So when the ordinary Australian goes to the bowser they pay 38c a litre on their fuel and, when the very wealthy mining industry goes to buy its diesel fuel, it gets it tax-free—it does not have to pay that 38c because of a subsidy, a subsidy that the Australian taxpayers are giving directly to the very wealthy mining industry. If we get rid of that alone, just for that sector—we can keep it for farmers, for those who deserve it—we will save somewhere in the order of $2 billion. So to answer the question posed by both of the previous speakers: that is where we can find the money. But what that requires is being serious about Australia's future economic prosperity and being serious about fairness—and it is unfortunate that this budget missed the opportunity to do that, and this bill enacts that unfairness.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to, Mr Bandt dissenting.

See this speech in context