Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

The Labor opposition are determined to ensure that all Australians share in the profits of our rich non-renewable mineral resources—we were in government and we are in opposition. That is why we brought in the minerals resource rent tax. The Henry review released on 2 May 2010 included a discussion of the non-renewable resources and several recommendations for replacing existing resource-charging arrangements with a uniform resource rent tax imposed and administered by the Australian government. Lest anyone think that this is a new thing from Labor, we actually had a policy for this type of thing back in 1977. The Hawke Labor government introduced this in relation to the PRRT. That is what we did in relation to offshore petroleum. So we have had a longstanding commitment to this sort of economic policy. The Henry review commissioned independent research, which included a paper on non-renewable resource taxation prepared by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

The MRRT had a long and rather convoluted history, we accept that, but there was much community consultation. The Policy Transition Group was led by Don Argus and the then minister for natural resources Martin Ferguson. In fact, as we did in so many other areas, the MRRT was developed in partnership with business and industry, particularly BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto, just to name a few in the resource sector. The MRRT was designed to apply to all new and existing iron ore and coal projects at a rate of 30 per cent. An extraction allowance of 25 per cent reduced the effective rate of the MRRT to 22.5 per cent for projects with greater than $75 million per annum income.

The MRRT was about superprofits. It was about making sure that we as a country extracted our fair share of the wealth of all Australians owned by Australians for the benefit of Australia. It resulted in an effective company tax cut provided this year, a new tax break for up to 2.7 million small businesses from 1 July 2012 and investments in all regions through the Regional Infrastructure Fund and the Regional Development Australia Fund. We did not discriminate; we provided assistance through every community and every council in the country.

The coalition's own fiscal budget impact statement that they released a couple of days before the election indicated that the MRRT would raise $3.7 billion over the forward estimates. The coalition cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that the MRRT is not working because it is making no revenue while at the same time say it is killing the mining industry, as we have heard on many occasions this morning and elsewhere. There is a certain degree of inconsistency between their positions in that regard.

The MRRT made a big difference and would make a big difference in the mining states of WA and Queensland. I noticed that the member for Grayndler mentioned the Blacksoil Interchange in my electorate, which was funded from the Regional Infrastructure Fund. The Blacksoil Interchange is the most notorious intersection in South-East Queensland. It was at the top of the list of infrastructure and road projects for the South-East Queensland Council of Mayors. We put $54 million into that project and the previous state Labor government committed $16 million. I am pleased that the current LNP government in Queensland partnered with us and it is currently under construction. It is being built by Fulton Hogan and will be opened late next year. It is a really important project. There are 300 people working on that project. It is funded by the revenue received from the MRRT. It is an important project. It shows what this sort of funding can do. In the first six months the MRRT raised $126 million. That is $126 million of funding that the government can use for the benefit of all of Australia.

I congratulate the many people opposite who have made their first speech. It is a great experience, opportunity, honour and privilege to be here, but they are about to be mugged by the political reality when they go back to their communities. They are going to have to explain, as the so-called champions of small business, why they are voting for a reduction in the small business instant asset write-off threshold from $6,500 to $1,000 for the 2.7 million small businesses.

Those opposite are about to have to explain to their local communities why they will be voting to get rid of the loss carryback for companies with up to a $1 million threshold. Those opposite are going to have to explain to small business why they are voting for the repeal of the accelerated depreciation of motor vehicles—an instant asset write-off of $5,000 for a new vehicle purchased by a small business—and the repeal of geothermal exploration provisions. Those opposite are going to have to explain why they have voted to delay or defer the increase in superannuation. This will mean, for example, that a 22-year-old shop assistant in my electorate—and in all of their electorates—will lose $100,000 by the time they retire at 67 years of age; a 35-year-old plumber will lose $74,000 by the time they retire. This will be the direct result of the decision that those opposite make either today or sometime later this week on this bill.

Those opposite will reduce the financial security of people in their electorates by the vote they make. Those opposite are going to have to explain to millions of low-income and middle-income Australians why they are being hit by the loss of their low-income superannuation contribution. I cannot understand how those people opposite have the temerity to come into this place and criticise us about class warfare when they think it is okay to give tax breaks to the 16,000 wealthiest superannuants in this country, with assets of more than $2 million in superannuation, and yet slug those people earning less than $37,000 a year with $500 in tax every year. In my electorate there are 20,900 people who will get slugged. Those opposite are also going to have to explain why they will cast their vote in support of young people, single parents and unemployed people losing their income support bonus—$210 a year for singles, $350 for couples. My electorate might be typical; 8,300 people will lose that income support bonus. They are the most vulnerable, disadvantaged people and yet those opposite have the gall to talk about class warfare.

Those opposite will also be voting against the Schoolkids Bonus. Those opposite supported the education tax refund. I could never understand why they voted against the Schoolkids Bonus when we brought it in. Before the bonus mums and dads had to keep all receipts—put them on the fridge with a fridge magnet—and so we decided to make it easier for them. So $410 per child for primary school children and $820 per child for secondary school children for eligible families—more than 9 out of 10 families in my community were eligible. In my electorate that means if you send your two children to Raceview State School and then Bremer State High School, the two biggest primary and high schools in my electorate, you would lose $15,000 over the educational life of your kids. I give this illustration because my two daughters went to both of those schools.

But the thing about this that really irritates me is that the MRRT legislation we passed had nothing to do with the Schoolkids Bonus—absolutely nothing! It was not linked in any way, shape or form, but by stealth and covert measures, in a really disingenuous and deceptive way, those opposite have linked those two things together. And now those opposite are going to have to go back, as the member for Herbert said, to their electorates and explain why they voted against that funding. We are talking about funding for 1.3 million Australian families. Those opposite should hang their heads in shame.

There is something else that really gets to me. I am someone who ran a small business. At 26 years of age I put up my own shingle and ran a small business. I did it for about 25 years, before I was elected, and built it into a multimillion dollar business, but those opposite have the gall to say that no-one on this side of the chamber has any experience in small business. They say this as if they are some sort of paragon of small business advice and gratitude and as if they really know everything, so I cannot get over the fact that they are going to punish small business operators and punish entrepreneurs in their electorates. Those opposite pose and preen and parade themselves as the champions of small business but, through their votes in this place, they are going to gut small businesses. Small business is really going to face reality with this government. Those opposite have raised expectations, but small business owners and entrepreneurs are about to find out, when they go to see their accountant or their auditor, about this stuff. They will discover that the LNP member that they voted for, the one who they just elected, actually cast a vote in this place to support the cuts to their business to make it harder. How is that going to help with the red tape et cetera? Those opposite should be supporting small business. We took a policy to the last election to raise the write-off from $6,500 to $10,000 in relation to small business. The vote of those opposite will create devastation for communities, individuals, the small-business sector and for the smaller regions.

We heard the member for Herbert talking about the regions. In terms of infrastructure, the coalition is anti-council, anti-community, anti-regions and anti-rural. Again and again in this place, in the six years I have been here, those opposite have come into this place and voted against funding for their communities. They are happy to go back to their communities and say, 'Isn't this a good project', but there are consequences. I say to those new members opposite: there are consequences to the way you vote. Trust me, your constituents note it. They will note that you voted against Regional Infrastructure Australia funding. They will note the fact that you voted against the Regional Infrastructure Fund. The councils know it, the communities know it, the businesses know it and the individuals know it. You might be feeling the great warmth of the love of your family now, after your first speech, but when you go back to your communities after you have voted they know that you voted against them and they will note it. So your arrogance might have been on display over the last few days, but I tell you what: when you go back to your communities you will find out what is what if you are going to support millionaires and mining companies and not individuals and the most vulnerable and disabled, people in the most difficult circumstances, in your communities.

Let us talk about what might happen. Let us talk about regional infrastructure. I mentioned the mining states—Queensland and WA. There are road projects everywhere which are funded not only through the MRRT but also through Regional Development Australia.

I mentioned in the Federation Chamber this morning two projects that will no longer be funded that were funded under this legislation. There was the Lowood pool upgrade and the Willowbank hard stand upgrade in the most popular motorsport precinct in South-East Queensland. There is also the $2 million flood evacuation centre in my electorate. I represent 70 per cent of Ipswich. I have the Somerset and Wivenhoe dams in my electorate and it has been flood central in the last few years. Thirty thousand people in Ipswich were left without a proper flood evacuation centre. We funded and budgeted $2 million for a proper upgrade to St Joseph's Catholic primary school hall to make sure 30,000 people in Ipswich would get proper evacuation and recovery facilities. The coalition will vote, when they vote on this bill, to take it away from them. They will take it away from my constituents who are flood affected. We had thousands of people in my electorate who were flood affected and they are going to vote to take it away from every single one of them.

What about the AFL? What about the Brisbane Lions—a $60-million relocation project, actually not in my electorate but in the electorate of the member for Oxley. There was $15 million budgeted for to relocate a centenary sports hub in the western corridor between Ipswich and Brisbane, making a big difference and hundreds and hundreds of jobs being created. These are the important things that we are funding. This is what this Labor Party supports—what we did in government, what we budgeted for. The coalition is taking it all away. So do not come into this place with your highfalutin terms and say you support the regions, you support the councils, you support the rural areas, because you don't. You are going to vote against it.

The MRRT is good policy because that wealth belongs to all of us, not just to the mining magnets who fund your campaigns. It is important for all of us. It is important to regional Queensland, which I represent. It is important for flood affected areas, which I represent. You are coming into this place to take it away from. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation this parliament will deal with in the next three years. There are consequences and in three years time your electors are going to look at it, members opposite, and look at how you voted. There are consequences and you will rue the day you voted for this legislation.

See this speech in context