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

It was interesting listening to Senator Ludlam speaking. He said, 'Looking after the environment: that is what the Greens are about'. I noticed the wording of the formal motion about national parks today, where the feds would take over the national parks and not allow grazing. Just let the fuel levels rise and let the bushfires come along and have the savage, hot fires—like we had a few weeks ago at Coonabarabran, where 50,000 hectares of mainly national park and 33 homes were burnt. I am thinking: this minerals resource rent tax is about the environment.

If we look at the so-called greenest government the New South Wales parliament has ever seen—in one former Premier, now senator, Bob Carr—the Greens ruled that government. We saw them locking up country and leaving it, with virtually no hazard reduction burning and no grazing allowed. It is amazing that they do not allow grazing. They do not want hard-hooved animals in the national parks. It is about environment management, which relates to the very bill we are talking about. It is all right to have brumbies, wild pigs, feral goats or deer, but don't put any cattle or sheep in there to graze the country or get the fuel levels down so we can control the environment! Enough of that, as far as Senator Ludlam's farcical comment that the Greens are concerned about the environment. They actually destroy the environment. Their policies have been wrecking the environment, killing the animals and killing the trees, and savage hot fires have destroyed the seed on the ground for regeneration. I just had to comment on that while we are looking at this bill of the Greens.

Why was the MRRT first introduced? It was because this government got into such a financial mess—we will see the figures again tomorrow—with $263 billion of gross government debt. That is just the federal government. I am sure my colleague Senator Mason will remember the luxury car tax. It put the clamps on General Motors-Holden. No-one should be able to afford to buy those Statesmans! You have worked hard, you have put some money away and you have dreamed of your luxury car, but you had better pay more tax. There was the alcopops tax. That was going to save all the young ones from binge drinking. Instead of buying a can of Bundy and cola they would buy a bottle of Bundy rum and a bottle of coke. What is the effect of that? Then we had the LPG tax—the clean Australian fuel that we produce here. Ninety-five per cent of taxis run on it. What a good way to lose an election: upset the taxi drivers who talk to so many people every day and every night of the week! Then we had the flood tax, the carbon tax that we were never going to have, and then we got to the minerals tax. The brutal, savage, political guillotining of former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd—the axing of a prime minister who was elected by the people—will go down in our political history.

We know about the presidential-style elections we have these days. Prime Minister Gillard said the government had lost its way. It was Mr Rudd who proposed the super profits tax. The word 'profit' is a naughty word in the eyes of this government and their left-wing partners in politics, the Greens. This word 'profit' is a dirty word—to have a business run at a profit and to have a business grow. Every big business started off as a small business, and they worked hard and they worked smart.

Senator Polley interjecting—

We will get to that later on, Senator Polley. I will wait for Senator Heffernan to back me up. So, apparently, this word 'profit' is terrible. The then Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd, said, 'We'll get into these profits; we'll get some of this money off them.' Of course, that all turned to tears. One of the jobs of the now Prime Minister, Ms Julia Gillard, was to clean up the superprofits tax—and 'We will give you the minerals resource rent tax.'

Senator Mason, I wish you had been on that select committee that I had the privilege to be on with our colleague, Senator Cormann, when they brought out the document signed by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer saying that all state royalties would be credited. We got into a bit of an argument with Senator Cameron—which is not unusual—and I asked one of the witnesses, 'Will you please take on notice and give the committee a definition of "all"?'