Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. What is the government doing to invest in regional infrastructure? What would be the impact on the Regional Infrastructure Fund if the MRRT is not passed by the parliament?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Blair for his question. Indeed, today we have announced more than $200 million brought forward to this financial year to fast-track our regional infrastructure development in Queensland alone. That is money brought forward for the Cairns southern approach on the Bruce Highway, for the Calliope Crossroads, for the Yeppen roundabout and bridge upgrade in the electorate of Capricornia and, importantly for the member for Blair, for construction on the Blacksoil interchange of the Warrego Highway. This is a critical program funded by the Regional Infrastructure Fund. It is related to the billions of dollars of resource developments that are taking place in the Surat Basin. Nationwide we have more than doubled regional infrastructure funding to some $22 billion.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a rort!

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The morons opposite yell out, 'What a rort.'

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will withdraw.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw, Mr Speaker. We are funding the Mackay ring road study. Let it be said that—

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What are you funding—a study? You goose!

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Dawson!

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, when you do an infrastructure project, first you plan it—and there was none done by those opposite; they are on the record as opposing it. The fact is that the government says yes, the community says yes, and even the big miners say yes to the Regional Infrastructure Fund, but the walking vuvuzela and his team over there say no. They say no to completing the Townsville ring road; they say no to the Mackay ring road; they say no to upgrading the intersection between the Bruce and Capricorn highways; they say no to the Gladstone Port access road—

Mr Christensen interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Dawson is warned!

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They say no to upgrading the Peak Downs Highway. They say no to all these projects. At the same time, the leader of the Nats, while in regional Australia, said:

I share the disappointment about how few mining companies contribute to the areas they invade—

'Invade' was the term used—

and how little state governments return the massive royalty incomes they receive to these communities.

That is what they say out there in their communities, but in here the Nats line up with their Liberal Party colleagues to knock over funding for regional infrastructure.

There are some regional members who understand the importance of regional infrastructure and they sit on this side and up in the corner over there—the member for Lyne, the member for New England. They understand the importance of regional infrastructure and that is why they are backing the MRRT.

I must say there are some others who understand as well. Remember in the budget when we brought forward an additional $1.02 billion for the Pacific Highway? Those opposite, including the local member, said that it was a mirage—that there would be nothing built and that it was just for planning. Well, last week, I was there with the leader of the New South Wales Nats, Andrew Stoner, announcing the construction of the Clybucca section of the Pacific Highway. This is the location of the worst road accident in Australia's history. They did nothing about it for 12 years. We have brought forward funding. Construction will commence in 2012 as part of our upgrade of the Pacific Highway. I pay tribute to the member for Lyne, particularly for the work that he has done in advocating the upgrade of the Pacific Highway, unlike the member for Cowper who has been opposed to funding in his own electorate. (Time expired)

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the revenues forecast to be raised by the mining tax of $11 billion and the fact that New South Wales and Western Australia have increased their royalties by $3 billion, thereby reducing net revenue to the Commonwealth to just $8 billion. I also refer the Treasurer to the forecast spending associated with the mining tax, which is now over $14 billion. Treasurer, how are you going to find that $6.3 billion shortfall?

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He has got a lot of nerve and a lot of hide to ask that question. He has got one fact right and one only: there is $11 billion worth of revenue in the forward estimates—that is absolutely correct—but, of course, he has pointed to the fact there have been some royalty increases in Western Australia that will have an impact on revenues, and we will account for that in the mid-year economic review when it is published before the end of the year.

Regarding the attempted increase in royalties by New South Wales, there is yet no royalty increase in New South Wales. There is yet no figure provided by New South Wales.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is in their numbers.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They did put it in their numbers, but they have not told us what they are going to do. If you accept that then you believe in the tooth fairy. There is no figure that can be validly put in any calculation, but the one thing you can be absolutely sure that we will do on this side of the House is that we will put in place fiscal responsibility because we are determined to bring our budget back to surplus in 2012-13, despite the fact there has been a significant hit to revenues from events that have occurred in Europe and the United States. There has been a flow-on effect, but we understand the importance of having a clear and consistent fiscal policy, particularly at a time when there is such uncertainty in the global economy. We will send a clear message to markets and to the global economy that we will manage our economy in a fiscally responsible way, and that is what we are going to do by bringing our budget back to surplus in 2012-13 and making responsible savings to do it when we bring down the mid-year review.

We will see where they stand on fiscal responsibility because the shadow Treasurer has got a $70 billion crater in his budget bottom line and, before he takes any new policy decisions, he starts with a minus $70 billion in his budget line. All of that is on the back of the debacle of the $11 billion black hole, which was discovered by the departments of Finance and Treasury.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Treasurer is straying—I have already indicated to the Treasurer.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, on relevance: I just ask him to answer the question he was asked.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for North Sydney will resume his seat.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sometimes a difference of time zones causes remarkable events to happen. The Leader of the Opposition, who has talked down our economy year after year, a couple of weeks ago went to London, and you know what he said? Our economy was the envy of the world. 'Two-timing Tony'—he says one thing in Europe and another thing here when he runs down the economy every day of his life.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasurer will resume his seat. The Treasurer must relate his material directly to the question.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Supporting jobs and good budget management is our No. 1 priority. It was our No. 1 priority when we dealt with the global financial crisis and the global recession. It remains our No. 1 priority as we set about spreading the great opportunities, which are flowing from the mining boom, to every corner of our country. The rock that that is built on is our commitment to return our budget to surplus in a responsible way with savings when we bring down the mid-year review. The challenge for those opposite is: will they support responsible budgeting and the savings that are required or not? The answer will be: no.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. I refer to the statement by the member for Denison just before question time that only 20 to 30 miners will be paying in full the $11 billion mining tax. Given that one of the biggest miners in Australia, Fortescue Metals, has advised its shareholders that it will not be paying any mining tax for the next three years, isn't the $11 billion of revenue from this tax just an illusion? And will the government now release all modelling details on their flawed mining tax?

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have put on our website the modelling for this tax. He knows that, but we have just got more distortion and more lies from those opposite. He also knows that we are supplied with commercial-in-confidence information which, if we published it, would have major effects on the market, and we simply are not that irresponsible. But the fact is that most of this money will be paid by the largest miners in this country. Of course, we now know the lies that have been told by Fortescue have been exposed—

Mr Dutton interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasurer will resume his seat. The member for Dickson knows that he could get up and approach the dispatch box, but he continues to think that he can raise points of order by interjection. That is very foolish. He is now warned. The Treasurer will withdraw the remark, but I can indicate to the member for Dickson: it is to spite him that I have ruled that the Treasurer will withdraw. The Treasurer will withdraw and the Treasurer has the call after the withdrawal to continue his response.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Mr Speaker, I withdraw. The untruths that have been put forward by Fortescue have now been exposed at a parliamentary committee in this House. Fortescue went around and said they were a small miner and they expected to pay the tax. When they turned up here they admitted that they would not pay the tax and they also admitted that they have never, ever paid any company tax. So their opposition has been based on the fact that they do not want to pay any tax.

The effective tax rates paid by miners are lower than the statutory rate, and there is a legitimate reason for that. Because mining is very capital intensive they get a lot of deductions, and that means that in the early stages successful miners do not necessarily pay their company tax. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with that at all. What I am saying is that, when there are super profits that are unexpected, the Australian people should get a share of those for the mineral resources they own 100 per cent. And guess what? The mining industry actually agrees with that—except Fortescue, who act in their own interests and not in the national interest.

Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. How is the government spreading the benefits of the mining boom to boost superannuation for working people and give a tax cut to small business? Why is it important for the parliament to support these important reforms?

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank the member for La Trobe for her question. She understands that there will be 53,600 voters in her electorate who are going to get an increase in superannuation because of the government's mining tax. In fact, it is fair to say that the MRRT is unmistakably good news right across the Australian economy, especially for people saving for their retirement and for Australia's 2.7 million small businesses.

And why wouldn't it be good news—nine to 12 per cent in compulsory savings and the instant right-off and tax benefits for small business totalling up to over $10,000? Why wouldn't it be good news for the Australian economy and for Australians that people earning under $37,000 will get back all of the concessional tax that they have paid on superannuation? In fact, why isn't it good news for small business and all Australians that we will see a mining tax driving productivity focused infrastructure investment in the mining states?

But, of course, there are some here who still do not support the mining tax—which is a matter of some bemusement. Why shouldn't the Australian people get a dividend back for the hospitals they have funded that look after the workers that go in the mines? Why shouldn't the Australian people get a dividend back for the schools, the education and the training that they have provided for the workforce that makes the profits for these companies? Why shouldn't the Australian people get a dividend throughout the whole of the Australian economy—because it is their taxes that have helped fund the infrastructure which allows these mining companies to make their remarkable profits?

Lifting superannuation is just fiscally responsible. It is good for the whole economy. As a result of us having 12 per cent compulsory retirement savings by 2030, I suspect it is likely that we will have $10 billion less to pay in age pension outlays. I believe there is no doubt that, because we have $1.3 trillion in savings, Australian enterprise will be less reliant on foreign capital.

I am asked how it important it is to the parliament. I have looked back—as I am wont to do—to see what people in this place have said in the past, and I found an interesting quote from the member for Warringah, on 25 September 1995. Always remember that what you say comes back to haunt you. The member for Warringah said:

Compulsory superannuation—

wait for it; you will not believe he said it then—

is one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted by government on the Australian people.

A government member: He still believes it.

Well, in fact, he does still believe it. When he was talking to Melbourne Talk Radio on 4 May 2010, Mr Price, the journalist, asked Mr Abbott: 'What do you think about increasing from nine to 12?' and the Leader of the Opposition said:

I don't support this change. That is what I am saying, Steve.

Mr Price then asked:

So it'll stay at 9 under you?

And Mr Abbott said:

Yes, that's right. I am not proposing this. It isn't our policy. We are deeply sceptical ...

Mr Price then went on to say:

So let me get that clear—you would leave the contribution rate at 9?

Mr Abbott:

I have no plans to change it.

Well, at least until 8 November this year. What a backward somersaulter this fellow is who is running the opposition.

Those opposite are going to move their own amendments to the mining tax—fair enough—but then they are still going to vote against it. So what is the point of moving amendments? They say that they are against the 12 per cent and then they roll Andrew Robb in the opposition, and now they say that they are going to keep the 12 per cent. But, of course, what do you do when you do not support the 12 per cent? You abstain. So they have been against it and now they are going to abstain. They believe superannuation is a con job, but now he says that he wants to abstain—although there are some synonymous, if not valiant, members of the coalition secretly backgrounding the media saying that they support the mining tax. But I think the cracker is that, regardless of superannuation and regardless of the tax, they want to give $11 billion back— (Time expired)

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to statements made by the member for Denison before question time that, according to information provided to him by the government, by increasing the threshold for the mining tax from $50 million to $75 million, only 20 to 30 miners will be paying the tax in full. Given that this concession has been made by the Treasurer, will the Treasurer advise the House whether new modelling was actually undertaken on the impact of these changes and how the member for Denison came to know that there would be only 20 to 30 miners who would pay the tax in full? Will the Treasurer now come clean with the Australian people about the full details of the revenue on the mining tax?

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have published in all of our budget updates and in our budgets our estimates of the revenues. And our estimates of the revenues will be updated in the Mid-year economic and fiscal outlook, which will come out before Christmas. Revenues are affected by a whole variety of factors. They are affected by exchange rates, volumes and production levels—and the list goes on. They are affected by all of those factors and those factors are evaluated when we do our forecasting. They will be updated and published before Christmas. The total revenues will be out there.

We have made it very clear that this is a super-profits tax that will be paid by companies that are super profitable by definition. Most other companies pay company tax. Some of them do not, as we have heard. But they will eventually pay some company tax. But there are plenty of companies out there that are super-profitable and have become super-profitable because our terms of trade are at 140-year highs. We will update all of that in the mid-year economic review and it will be the case that a relatively small number of very large companies will be paying the bulk of the revenue. That is what Treasury officials told everybody at estimates.