Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Wong. I refer to revelations that under the mining tax deal negotiated exclusively and in secret between the Prime Minister and the three biggest mining companies, without any direct involvement of Treasury, those large global companies and FMG will not pay any mining tax for a number of years, whereas smaller Australian based mining companies would have to generate most of the MRRT revenue from day one. Does the government now concede that its mining tax gives multinational mining companies an unfair competitive advantage at the expense of smaller Australian miners and, if not, will the government now release all of its MRRT revenue assumptions for proper public scrutiny?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I assume that the shadow minister is referring to some of the reporting about MRRT revenue, which, if he had read subsequent articles, the Treasury has refuted very clearly the assessment made. I would make the point that the opposition on the minerals tax is really in all sorts of difficulty. Their shadow minister, Mr Macfarlane, has described the money being made in the mining sector as 'extraordinary'. He has described the profits made by mining companies as 'extraordinary'. Yet Mr Abbott's position is that—and I think I am quoting—'Mining companies pay more than their fair share of tax.'

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Commentary on the opposition's position is not directly relevant to the question that this minister was asked. Albeit that the minister has a minute and seven seconds to complete her answer, it is obvious to you, Mr President, that what she is saying now bears no resemblance to the question she was asked. You chastised the opposition before. All we seek is neutrality in the chair, with the same rules applied—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! That is a reflection on me. It is a reflection on my neutrality. That is a personal reflection on me, Senator Brandis.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw any reflection, Mr President.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you reflecting on me as well, Senator Macdonald?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am saying that you should have a look at the video.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I withdraw any reflection on you, but I do ask you to be more conscious of the requirement of the sessional orders that answers be directly relevant to questions. A commentary on the opposition's policy is not directly relevant to a question of 'Will you release modelling?'

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: Senator Wong was asked a question by Senator Cormann about the minerals resource rent tax and claims that certain companies would now not have to pay it, the appropriateness of the tax and the impacts of the tax. In responding to that question, she referred to Mr Abbott's commentary on the tax and his attitude to it, which is a perfectly reasonable thing in responding to the question.

Opposition senators interjecting—

It asked for a response to commentary on the tax. She referred to remarks—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What? Are you the president, are you?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, why don't you take one of the little blue pills and calm down, all right?

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Evans, that does not help either. So if you will withdraw that.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I withdraw unreservedly, as is my wont. It is perfectly in order for Senator Wong to canvass other views about that tax in responding to the question. I would ask you to rule it in order, and I would encourage everyone to calm down a bit.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has one minute and seven seconds remaining. And I do draw the minister's attention to the question.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the shadow minister wants to ask questions about things which are incorrect then obviously I am going to respond to them. He made an assertion at the beginning of his question regarding revenue from the mining tax. In the first part of my answer, the first thing I said was that there was also reporting, which he should have been aware of, that the Treasurer had refuted—

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasury had refuted.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasurer and Treasury, I should say—thank you, Senator McEwen—had refuted those assertions. If he would like to refer to the public statements which were reported today about the inaccuracy of the modelling to which he referred, I am sure that he will become aware of those facts. But he comes in here asking a question which is not correct, which is based on incorrect premises. The reality is that you are making assertions which are not correct.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Why has the government refused to release its MRRT revenue assumptions in clear defiance of successive orders of the Senate since 30 September 2010? Is it because on reflection the government realised that the three companies which designed the Gillard version of the mining tax for them will not end up paying it? What has the government got to hide?

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When there is silence on both sides, we will proceed.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government has included the MRRT revenue figures in its budget and the shadow minister would be aware of that, which is more than I can say for any of the costings of which he has been a part. He is critical of the government on the question of having a consultation process with the mining companies. How is this not relevant?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I understand that the minister enjoys getting stuck into me and the opposition more than she does providing an answer to a difficult question, but this is not in accordance with standing orders—

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann, you are entitled to be heard. I cannot hear what you are saying. Senator Cormann, continue.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I understand that Minister Wong enjoys getting stuck into me and the opposition more than providing an answer to a difficult question, but it is not consistent with standing orders, which require her to be directly relevant to the question. The question is why the government is refusing to release revenue assumptions related to the mining tax, despite successive orders of the Senate requiring the government to do so since 30 September 2010. What have you got to hide?

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: the minister has been directly relevant in answering the question asked by Senator Cormann. Senator Cormann misses the point that the question he asked was very broad and included a part which he is now and was previously screaming across the chamber about. But that does not mean that the minister has to provide the answer that Senator Cormann is seeking directly. She is able to provide an answer to the whole question rather than to the piece that Senator Cormann seems to be plucking out in his interjection. So, Mr President, you should rule him out of order.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe the minister is answering the question. The minister has 33 seconds remaining to answer the question.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first point I would make on the question to which I was directly responding is that the senator made a comment about the government dealing with three companies. I was directly responding to the political assertion in that question by making the point that in a significant reform such as this of course it is appropriate that the government consults with industry. I would have thought that that, in fact, would not be a controversial proposition.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. What will be the impact on the budget bottom line of increases in state royalties on iron ore and coal in Western Australia, New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania since the May budget? And why has the government also refused to release the estimated budget costs over the forward estimates for each of the measures attached to the mining tax, again in clear defiance of an order passed by the Senate? Is it because the cost of the measures attached to the mining tax is higher than the revenue it will generate from 2013-14 onwards? Again, what has the government got to hide?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There were a number of propositions there. First, in relation to royalties, I know New South Wales was mentioned. I am not sure whether they have actually proceeded any further than the initial announcement telling people how those royalties that they are talking about will in fact be calculated. But the government will update its figures in the usual way in the mid-year review. We have disclosed the revenue forecast in the 2011-12 budget over the forward estimates of $11.1 billion. We will update that in the usual way.

The opposition may not like commentary on them, but I would make this point. The hypocrisy of coming in here and demanding more figures when they have $70-plus billion worth of cuts that they have yet to front up to the Australian people—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. There are only three seconds remaining for the minister to respond directly to the question. On no view could anybody believe that by attacking Senator Cormann she is responding to a question about the figures in the budget bottom line. There is no element of the three parts of this question which the minister is directly or indirectly addressing. You should bring her to the question and ask her to quote the figures in the remaining three seconds.

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: what Senator Brandis misses in all of this is that there were three parts to the question that was asked—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

I listened to you in silence.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you didn't.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I did. There were three parts to it, and the third part was a spurious assertion by Senator Cormann. The minister in responding was being directly relevant to the three parts that were asked in the one question.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has three seconds remaining.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I responded on royalties and I gave the revenue forecasts over the budget estimates.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, a point of order was raised. You failed to rule on it. You simply responded, as I understand it, by saying that the minister had three seconds left. Mr President, I also ask you to give very serious consideration as to whether the change to sessional orders, made some time ago now, requiring direct relevance by a minister in answering a question has ever been applied or has had any significance in changing the way question time has been conducted since. Mr President, many times recourse is had to the precedent. But the problem was question time was turning into a farce. That is why the Senate took a deliberate decision to change the sessional orders to require ministers to be directly relevant. I would invite you to give serious consideration to ruling in accordance with that which the Senate voted for—namely, for ministers to be directly relevant.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will review your comments, Senator Abetz, and if need be I will get back to the chamber. The time for answering the question has expired.