Senate debates
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
Questions without Notice
Budget
2:15 pm
Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Wong. Is the minister aware of the report issued today by Morgan Stanley which demonstrates that under Rudd Labor’s new tax on mining the $20 billion Olympic Dam mine expansion in South Australia would have ‘no economic value’ and, further, ‘would be unlikely to be developed’? Doesn’t this analysis, independent of BHP Billiton or the mining industry, demonstrate that this new tax will make it harder to gain the investment necessary to get new projects off the ground?
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I am aware in broad terms of a range of commentary in relation to Olympic Dam, just as I am aware of a range of commentary in relation to many other projects. One of the things that has characterised this debate is that there have been a number of claims made publicly which subsequently have been found to be taken with a grain of salt. I refer particularly to Mr Palmer, who is quite a public figure these days, and also to comments made by Xstrata which subsequently had to be clarified. As a South Australian I am very aware of the issues in relation to Olympic Dam, and it is a project that has had—
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I raise a point of order. It goes to relevance. The minister was asked whether she was aware of a named report, a report by Morgan Stanley issued today. That was what the question was. She has not gone close to it. She is not even being relevant, let alone directly relevant. If the minister does not know about it, she should be honest enough to admit it.
Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
On the point of order, Mr President: if Senator Brandis were more honest with the issue he would have put the whole question, because it was about more than simply the report itself. It also went to discussion within the report about a $20 billion Olympic Dam project in South Australia. The minister is being relevant to the question. The minister is answering the question. Those opposite cannot pick and choose a part of the question and seek only to have that part answered or to have that part answered first. The minister has a minute to provide a full answer to the entire question. The minister was continuing to be relevant to the whole question that was asked.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I am listening closely to the minister’s answer. The minister has one minute remaining to answer the question that was asked.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
As I said at the outset, I was aware in broad terms of a range of claims in relation to Olympic Dam. I am aware, for example, that Mr Abbott stated on 21 May that BHP had said that the $22 billion expansion of Olympic Dam could not go ahead. We then saw Mr Kloppers, who I think is known to most people, say on 26 May: ‘At the moment, it is not frozen. We are carrying on.’ So it is quite clear that Mr Abbott was prepared to say something significantly further than what at that time was in the public arena.
We know that the opposition in relation to this tax reform debate stand on the side of those opposed to tax reform. They oppose tax reform, they oppose a reduction in the company tax rate, they oppose tax breaks for small business and they oppose increased superannuation for working Australians. But what we know they stand for is the interests of a few. (Time expired)
Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the minister clearly has not seen the Morgan Stanley report, is she aware of statements made by OneSteel’s chairman, Peter Smedley, that Rudd Labor’s new tax on mining ‘threatens the viability and hence the longevity of our steel business’? Can the minister provide comfort to the people of Whyalla that the government will not be imposing its new tax on the raw materials used in steel production that are essential to keep OneSteel’s plant open?
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I am very familiar with OneSteel. When I was a lawyer and a trade union official I in fact represented workers in that region and that company.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! When there is silence we will proceed.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! When there is silence on both sides we will proceed.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I am happy to talk to Senator Birmingham about OneSteel and the history of both of us in that region. But on this issue of OneSteel, just as we dealt very closely with OneSteel through the CPRS negotiations, and I personally dealt in detail with that company in order to understand the issues raised—
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Brandis interjecting—
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
We came to a resolution with OneSteel, Senator Brandis. You may not recall. We are also very conscious—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! I remind senators that interjections are disorderly and constant interjections totally disorderly.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Just as we have previously consulted with OneSteel in detail in relation to government policy, the government is also currently engaged in consultation with OneSteel on how the RSPT impacts on its business. We do recognise the situation of OneSteel. We will continue to take on board the nature of their operations. (Time expired)
Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Is the minister aware that thousands of current South Australian jobs at OneSteel, thousands of prospective South Australian jobs at Olympic Dam and many, many more elsewhere hang in the balance as a result of Rudd Labor’s new tax on mining? Why is the minister and her government being so cavalier with jobs in our home state, and why won’t the minister represent the workers today that she so proudly claims to have represented in the past?
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! I remind senators on both sides.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The irony of being lectured by the party of Work Choices about working people! The irony of being lectured about jobs from those who voted against the stimulus package, which has supported jobs and driven down unemployment compared to world levels! The irony of talk about representing people from people who oppose a fair share of taxation and a fair share of the mining boom for working families!
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! Senator Wong, resume your seat. It is going to be one of those days. When we have silence on both sides, we will proceed.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
We are determined to proceed with tax reform because it is the right thing for the nation and the right thing for the economy. We want to build a stronger mining sector but ensure we share the proceeds of the mining boom more fairly. So you go out there, Senator Birmingham, and you tell South Australians why they do not deserve a tax break if they work in a small business or better superannuation.
2:25 pm
Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. I refer to the cover-up by Mitch Hooke and the Minerals Council of Australia as to how much money they are prepared to spend in the political campaign against the mining boom tax—rumoured to be $100 million. I ask the minister: is that money tax deductible?
Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Thank you for your question. I have seen media reports that the mining industry is to spend a figure of up to $100 million on its advertising campaign to defeat the legislation on the resource super profits tax. I have seen those reports. Whatever the figures are, they are certainly very substantial. The issue of the tax deductibility of the costs of the mining industry’s advertising campaign is an interesting one. It has not had much, if any, attention that I can recall in the media. Spending up to $100 million on a political campaign to defeat the government’s proposals is obviously a significant level of expenditure. I note that the effective company tax rate in the mining sector is 17 per cent.
Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State and Scrutiny of Government Waste) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Whose money are you spending?
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Sherry, resume your seat. The time for debating is post question time. I remind all senators on both sides.
Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The company tax rate in Australia is 30 per cent, so it is certainly true that the tax rate of the mining sector, compared to other sectors of the Australian economy—it is a matter of fact—is on the low side at 17 per cent. Ultimately, the issue of the deductibility of perhaps up to $100 million is a matter for the tax commissioner, but I note there is a fair degree of precedence in this area that would allow them to claim their massive advertising campaign as a deduction. (Time expired)
Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer. Is this industry which gets a fuel tax credit of $1.7 billion that other sectors of the economy do not share therefore in for a windfall $17 million to $30 million remission in taxes through this campaign? Is it therefore clear that that is money that will not be available for schools, hospitals and other infrastructure for the Australian people?
Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Obviously you have highlighted a further tax concession that is available for the mining industry. It is available to other sectors, but certainly the mining industry make extensive use of that concession to reduce the overall level of the tax they pay. As I have already mentioned, the effective company tax rate in the mining sector is 17 per cent, which is very, very considerably less than the full company tax rate of 30 per cent. As I was saying, in the past when companies have funded advertising campaigns or funded their respective industry associations—so it is not just a matter of a company spending the money directly but also through the conduit of an industry association—that has frequently been allowed as a tax deduction. So, presumably, the effective company tax rate of some 17 per cent at the present time would drop lower after they claimed the cost of their advertising. (Time expired)
Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I take it from that answer that this political advertising by the mining companies is going to reduce the ability of Australians to have $17 million to $30 million spent on their welfare withdrawn to support a political campaign. I ask the government: will it consider—
Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State and Scrutiny of Government Waste) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Ronaldson interjecting—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! You might not like what Senator Brown asks but he is entitled to be heard in silence.
Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The question is: will the government support a future Greens amendment to the tax laws to remove the ability for political advertising to be subsidised in this obscene way by the taxpayers?
Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
What the Labor government have said is that we intend to ensure that the super profits that result from the increased profits in the resource sector, a resource that is owned by all Australians, will attract a super profits tax as a consequence of the increase in future mining profits. On the issue of—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! When there is silence, we will proceed. I remind senators that interjections are disorderly.
Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
What we have is a situation where the mining sector want to defeat the proposed resource super profits tax. They are against paying a fair share of tax, and they are going to reduce their already-low level of company tax by claiming it as a deduction. They are going to claim the advertising campaign as a deduction and reduce their currently effective 17 per cent company tax when the headline rate is 30 per cent. That is one of the reasons this government intends to introduce a resource super profits tax on the future profits of a resource owned by the Australian people. (Time expired)
2:33 pm
Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Wong. Has the minister seen the comments attributed to Chile’s mining minister, Laurence Golborne, who described the situation surrounding the Rudd Labor government’s new tax on mining as a ‘tremendous opportunity’ for Chile? Aren’t the Chileans right when they say that this new tax on mining means that Chile provides a more secure investment environment and a better return on investment than Australia?
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I have not seen the detail of those comments. I am amused by the prospect of Senator Bernardi quoting any Latin American government in support of some of his policies, given what I think he said about a range of similar governments previously. The next thing is that we will have him coming in here and quoting Chavez.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
That is right; we will have Senator Bernardi quoting Chavez in support of his argument. We know that those opposite are opposed to tax reform, and they will trawl, apparently, the world in order to try to find evidence to support their scare campaign. As I said previously, we on this side are supportive of tax reform. We believe that a profit based tax is more sensible and more economically efficient. In fact, you may recall there was a range of submissions to the Henry review, including some from the mining sector, which reflected that. We also believe that the Australian people should get a reasonable share of the income from the resources, which are not renewable, which they own, and we want to invest that to strengthen the economy—
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
They’re all watching this in Chile.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I will take that interjection. I somehow do not think they are watching us in Chile, although they might be watching other things. What I will say is this: this is about tax reform for the future. We know that we on this side are about building a stronger economy for the future. We know that those on the other side are about a scare campaign and the interests of a few. I think that, over time, we will see the Australian people exposed more and more to the shallowness of the campaign by those opposite. (Time expired)
Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Has the minister seen the comments attributed to Canada’s finance minister, Jim Flaherty, who thinks that this new tax offers a ‘competitive advantage for Canada’? Do the Canadians have it wrong too? Does the minister expect us to believe that every other government has it wrong but hers does not?
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator, perhaps a way of looking at this is to consider the member for Dickson’s investment strategies. If he had bought BHP shares on 4 May, which he did when the price reached $38.50, we would see that today the price is higher. If he had invested in some of the Canadian mining properties—I am coming to Canada, Senator Brandis—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Wong! Resume your seat. There is a point of order.
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. A question about the effect of Australia’s competitive advantage as a result of this tax in the context of remarks made by the Canadian finance minister does not admit of an answer that begins with the words, ‘Let us consider the member for Dickson’s investment strategies’. Plainly, the minister is treating the Senate and the questioner with contempt.
Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, on the point of order: I can understand Senator Brandis’s confected outrage in relation to his defence of the member for Dickson. I am sure he does not have that view really. What the minister has been doing is answering the question. The minister has 44 seconds remaining to provide an answer to the question. The question was very broad in its frame and the minister was providing an answer relevant to the question that was asked. I humbly submit there was no point of order.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The minister has 44 seconds remaining in which to address the question.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I was referencing Canadian mining companies. Cameco has fallen two per cent since 4 May, Tech Cominco has fallen six per cent since 4 May and London Mining has fallen by 18 per cent since 4 May. These figures do, I think, go to exposing the opposition’s scare campaign for what it is. It is a scare campaign from an opposition bereft of policies about the future.
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Conroy interjecting—
Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question—third time lucky. Could the minister explain why it is that the rest of the world appears to be celebrating the imposition of this new tax on investment and jobs in Australia? Could the minister say just whose side the Rudd Labor government is on—Australian working families, Chilean working families, Canadian working families or maybe even Russian working families?
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
When there is silence we will proceed. I am waiting to call the minister. Order!
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
This government through its stimulus package ensured that this country’s unemployment rate compares extremely favourably with those overseas. Let us talk about the UK or the United States where we see close to or double-digit unemployment. As a result of the stimulus package, against which you voted, we have seen unemployment in Australia at levels which are reasonable given the economic crisis that we faced. Remember, you voted against that package. We on this side stand for jobs; we on this side stand for investment in the future—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Wong, resume your seat. I remind senators on both sides that interjecting is disorderly. If people wish to debate the question then debate it post question time.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
We on this side support tax reform which strengthens the economy for the future, which ensures working people get a better share and more superannuation, which ensures lower taxes for small business and which lowers the company tax rate. You oppose that. (Time expired)
2:42 pm
David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Sherry. Is the Assistant Treasurer aware of the challenges to Australia’s retirement and superannuation savings as outlined in the Intergenerational report and other independent reports? Can the Assistant Treasurer inform the Senate how the government is putting in place a responsible and fair plan to improve the superannuation and retirement outcomes for all Australians? I am sure Senator Bernardi will be fascinated by the answer.
Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I have already indicated that part of the revenue from the resource super profits tax is to be directed towards reducing the company tax rate from 30 per cent to 28 per cent and providing an additional write-off to small business of up to $5,000, but it is also to be used to improve the retirement incomes of millions of Australians. There are four initiatives in the tax package, which is being funded by the resource super profits tax, in the area of superannuation. We will be gradually increasing the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent. That will assist in—
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Abetz interjecting—
Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
It is funded by the government, Senator Abetz, because it is a cost to budget. You do not understand tax, Senator Abetz, through you, Mr President. In estimates, from which you were absent for most of the period, the evidence given was that the cost to government of the superannuation guarantee will be about $3.6 billion. That is the cost to revenue as a consequence of the superannuation guarantee change, so there is a cost to government and that is what in part the resource super profits tax is to fund.
It will also fund a tax cut on superannuation for 3½ million low-income earners. Low-income earners at the moment pay a contributions tax of 15 per cent; many do not pay any effective income tax. So we are going to cut the tax for 3½ million low-income earners. We are extending the $50,000 superannuation contribution cap for those with a balance below half a million dollars who are over 50. Also, we will be ensuring that older workers currently in the workforce over the age of 70 and up to the age of 75, for the first time, will receive superannuation. At the present time, it is not a requirement that they receive superannuation. Thirty-three thousand employees will benefit. (Time expired)
David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. How do the government’s measures allow Australians to increase contributions to their superannuation and boost their retirement savings? What has been the response of the superannuation industry to the government’s forward-looking agenda to secure the retirement future of every Australian?
Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Improved superannuation is an important part of the tax package that we have announced, which is funded by the resource super profits tax. The superannuation measures will increase the superannuation savings pool by some $85 billion over the next 10 years—$85 billion in additional savings. These are savings that do not just benefit the individual and, obviously, increase their retirement income; they also benefit the broader economy, because the bulk of the $85 billion extra in savings that will flow from superannuation will be reinvested back in the Australian economy. So it serves a dual purpose: higher retirement incomes for the individual and building a stronger Australian economy—an already strong Australian economy being made stronger as a result of the increased investment dollars that predominantly flow back into the Australian economy. A range of superannuation organisations, retail industry corporates and public sector superannuation funds, and ASFA, have endorsed this approach. (Time expired)
David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Is the Assistant Treasurer aware of any alternative policies on boosting the superannuation outcomes of Australians? Would these alternative policies in fact lead to less money for Australians in their retirement?
Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Thank you, Senator Feeney, for the question. As I said in answer to an earlier question, there is only one tax policy that the Liberal and National parties have, and that is to increase company tax. Their one and only tax policy is to increase company tax from 30c to almost 32c. They have no policy to reduce company tax, very obviously. They have no policy to assist small business. They have no policy to reduce tax on small business. They have no policy to reduce tax on superannuation—none whatsoever. Their only tax policy is to increase company tax and to ensure that the broader Australian economy is less competitive than other advanced economies. It will be less competitive than other advanced economies because they intend—they proudly boast of their parental leave policy—to raise billions of dollars by increasing company tax. (Time expired)
2:48 pm
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Wong. Does the government stand by the Prime Minister’s statement at the Melbourne Press Club on 6 May 2010 that:
… if companies aren’t earning super profits, they don’t pay the tax. In fact, the new regime can actually help more marginal mining ventures because state royalties will be refunded, meaning that emerging mining companies may actually get a cash flow gain …
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
It is the case that the government’s policy in relation to this issue is a tax on profits. We have also said that it is a tax that would cut in above a reasonable rate of return; we have made that clear. There are also mechanisms within the policy which are intended to assist companies which are more marginal. In fact, one of the arguments in favour of a profits based regime as opposed to a volumetric based regime—leaving aside the specific debate on this tax—has always been that it would be a more fair way to levy taxation on the sector and that it would mean that those who earn more profit would pay relatively more tax than those who earn less. Therefore, as a matter of logic, that would mean that there would be companies at the marginal end who are likely to pay less under a profits based regime than under a volumetric regime.
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I asked a very specific question of the minister: whether the government stood by the statement that state royalties would be refunded. Yes or no? Does the minister stand by the statement that more marginal mining ventures will be better off because state royalties will be refunded?
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I believe the minister is answering the question. The minister may not be answering the question in the way in which you would like it to be answered. The minister has 51 seconds remaining if there are further matters to add to the answer.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Thank you. It is the case also that Treasury estimates which were released indicate the way in which this tax would operate. It would in fact be lower for some companies—that is, those companies who are less profitable—than the current regime. It is also true that the Treasurer has outlined that we are consulting in relation to the implementation of this regime, including transitional arrangements. That has been made public. We will continue to do that sensibly.
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. If a mining company has a rate of return of less than six per cent and therefore pays no super tax, will it still get its royalty payments repaid by a cash refund from the Commonwealth?
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
As I said previously, we have made clear the nature of this tax reform. We have also made clear that we are consulting with the sector through the processes outlined on the implementation of the tax. I know, Senator, that—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! Senator Wong, resume your seat. Order on both sides! I need to hear the response of the minister.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I know the fact that we are consulting might be uncomfortable for those opposite, who are really anxious to get into a scare campaign, but we have made it clear that we will consult on the implementation details of this tax. We also believe that it is more efficient to tax profits than to continue the current arrangements, which essentially apply taxation on the basis of volume.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
It is interesting isn’t it, that whenever the facts are put on the table they just start to yell. The only way they want to play politics is to play a scare campaign. Their accusations are often factually incorrect— (Time expired)
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given that the minister refuses to recommit to the Prime Minister’s statement on 6 May that more marginal mining ventures will benefit because state royalties will be refunded—a core assumption in the KPMG Econtech modelling, which the government relied on to assert the increase in investment and jobs—does the government now concede that its tax on mining will cost jobs and investment?
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The answer to that question is no. Again, I just remind those opposite that we have an opposition that has voted against the stimulus package—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! Senator Conroy and Senator Abetz: your exchange across the chamber is not welcome. I am trying to listen to what Senator Wong is saying.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
This is an opposition which has voted against the stimulus package and now wants people to believe that they care about jobs. You voted against the stimulus package, you voted against the investment in education, you voted against supporting employment in this economy through the global economic crisis and now you want to come in here and run a scare campaign on the basis that you actually care about jobs after all that—
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
This is a core claim of your government!
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! Senator Cormann, you asked the question, you are entitled to hear the answer and it is silly to interject on your own question, because I cannot hear the answer.
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Hear! Hear!
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Conroy—you can help by not interjecting as well.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
It is unsurprising that they do not want to hear the answer. They do not want to be reminded that they were a party against economic stimulus at a time when this nation’s economy needed it, at a time when this nation’s workers needed it and at a time when this nation’s companies needed it. They were against providing stimulus to the economy and now they want to come in here and pretend that they care about employment. I think the Australian people know which party voted for stimulus. (Time expired)