20 March, 2012
ABC24 Capital Hill
Lyndal Curtis and Senator the Hon David Feeney
19 March 2012
5:30pm
E & OE
Subjects: Mining tax, pairing
LYNDAL CURTIS:
Joining me to chew the fat for the day are Labor Senator David Feeney, who’s also a Parliamentary Secretary, and Liberal Shadow Minister Mitch Fifield. Welcome to you both.
Mitch Fifield, we’ll start with the question of Craig Thompson and pairing him. A doctor’s certificate is good enough for every other employer in the nation, why isn’t it good enough for the Coalition?
MITCH FIFIELD:
Lyndal, as the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate, I’m going to be the last person who seeks to give directions to our Whips in the House. They are very much the masters of their own destiny. They do follow a common sense and case-by-case approach, and I think that’s what they’re doing in this case.
CURTIS:
But have you thought it through? What happens if the details of somebody’s illness has to be made public, won’t the Government then demand the same for Opposition MPs if they should get sick?
FIFIELD:
I can understand that there is perhaps a bit of a reticence sometimes to take the things that this Government says at face value, but
CURTIS:
But this is a medical certificate. It’s not a Government MP or Minister signing the document, is it?
FIFIELD:
One thing I know for sure, Lyndal, is that the Australian public I think have very little interest in the informal arrangements which we have between the parties for pairing arrangements on the floor of the House of Representatives or the Senate.
CURTIS:
David, would you agree that this is a matter of little consequence apart from the operation of the Parliament?
DAVID FEENEY:
Yes, I think Mitch is right to say that it’s not something that people of Australia are interested in these are informal arrangements we come to to make the place work. But of course having made that good point, of course what the Liberal Party have done here, and they’ve done this on earlier occasions, is I think take these issues a bridge too far. Clearly the grandstanding they’ve done at the moment I think is a mistake, and I’m sure they’ll have to crabwalk away from it over the next few days.
CURTIS:
But we’re talking about a potential vote on the floor of Parliament not being there. This is the House of Representatives, important decisions are being made, should MPs be required to provide a little more explanation if they’re not going to turn up?
FEENEY:
I think a doctor’s certificate is adequate currency. I think there obviously has to be trust between the parties when they enter into these informal arrangements. Pairing arrangements are essentially driven by common sense, and I guess I’m making the bold prediction that common sense will prevail.
CURTIS:
We’ll move on now. Both of you are Senators, you’ll be in the Parliament late tonight voting on the mining tax. David Feeney, the Government – particularly the Treasurer keeps talking about spreading the benefits of the mining boom. You’d be able to spread them a lot further if you’d kept the first iteration of the mining tax, wouldn’t you?
FEENEY:
That would be like crying over spilt milk.
CURTIS:
But it’s several billion dollars of spilt milk.
FEENEY:
Sure, but I guess that was a proposition that at the end of the day died on the editing room floor. This is a Government that has essentially carried through the strongest reform that it felt that it could, and we are very proud of the Mining and Resources Rent Tax. We think it’s a reform that spreads the benefits of the mining boom, that makes sure corporate tax rates are reduced by 1%, makes sure we can bring forward those tax cuts for small businesses, and essentially means that the Australian people are getting a slice of the super profits that are being enjoyed by the mining companies at the moment.
CURTIS:
Mitch, while your Party doesn’t like the mining tax, you do like some of the things that go with it. You’d like to propose your own company tax cuts at the time of the next election. You’re also going to keep the increase in the superannuation guarantee charge. Why not accept the way those things are funded as well?
FIFIELD:
Our basic position is that we are against the mining tax. We think it’s a very strange way to address the issue of the two-speed economy to try to whack that part of the economy which is going well. You want to lift the sectors that aren’t going so well, you don’t want to punish the sector that is. So we’re against the mining tax lock, stock and barrel. And to be consistent, we’re also against those elements which the Government put forward which they’re proposing will be funded by the mining tax. It’s important to remember the Government have a $4 billion budget black hole with this mining tax. When you add together all the items which are associated with the mining tax, the tax doesn’t cover those items which it seeks to fund. There’s a $4 billion gap.
CURTIS:
David Feeney, that’s where you could be in trouble if the mining tax doesn’t raise as much as you think it will, the spending’s already committed.
FEENEY:
I think Senator Fifield and myself can have a black hole face-off if you like, because I think the point we’re keen to keep making is that the Liberal Party’s policy proposition to the people of Australia at the moment is ultimately a $70 billion black hole.
CURTIS:
But you’re in Government at the moment. The mining tax will pass, it will be introduced and you have to be able to fund the things you’ve promised to fund.
FEENEY:
But Lyndal we’re in Government at the moment and we’re confronting an Opposition that says not only will it oppose the mining tax, but it will repeal it, and it will then write an $11 billion cheque and stand shoulder to shoulder with the billionaires’ liberation front and hand that money back to people who frankly don’t need it.
FIFIELD:
You used to like success, David.
FEENEY:
And of course, we do.
FIFIELD:
Doesn’t sound like it.
FEENEY:
But this is about sharing the benefits of prosperity. These are resources that are owned by every Australian, and every Australian is entitled to say that when the commodities price is very high, everybody benefits.
CURTIS:
Mitch, isn’t this a better way to raise revenue from the mining industry than the royalties regime which exists now, where the mining companies pay the same whatever their profits are, even if they’re not making pots of money from the mining industry they still pay the same royalties?
FIFIELD:
The reason we’re in this situation is because the Government didn’t consult with the states. We know now that Kevin Rudd turned up to the meeting with state premiers, he thought that Wayne Swan had sorted them out, that everything was sweet, but they hadn’t done the basic groundwork. Ken Henry was commissioned to undertake root and branch tax reform. He presented it to the Government. The Government responded to just one element of his package. And even that element, they didn’t consult adequately with the states which actually own the resources. So that’s the reason we’re in this situation. It’s quite possible and a good thing to have root and branch review of tax reform. But this Government hasn’t done that.
CURTIS:
If we could go to the company tax part of the mining tax, of course the legislation isn’t in the Parliament yet, it will come in in Budget week. Mitch, is there a problem for the Coalition being seen to oppose company tax cuts while you’re saying at the same time you will offer company tax cuts at the next election?
FIFIELD:
We will present our own company tax cuts and we will before the election indicate how those will be paid for.
FEENEY:
And they will be offset by your Rolls Royce Parental Leave Plan and a 1.5% tax hit on business.
FIFIELD:
I think it’s important to separate the two issues of the mining tax and company tax.
CURTIS:
Couldn’t you, though, vote for the company tax cuts now, have them funded until the election by the mining tax, and then come up with your own way of funding the same once the mining tax is gone?
FIFIELD:
We’d be party to a con. You’ve got the Government introducing new taxes the carbon tax, the mining tax, and then saying, ‘hey, we’re terrific guys, we’re giving you a company tax cut.’ That’s a con. We don’t want to be part of that.
CURTIS:
David, you’re always calling on the Coalition to be economically responsible, to say how it’s going to fund things. Isn’t it fair enough, if it doesn’t like the way something’s funded, then it shouldn’t also like the things it funds?
FEENEY:
But the Liberal Party doesn’t have to work too hard to say no in the current political landscape, does it. It’s opposing everything everywhere. So no, I don’t think there’s any integrity in the Liberal Party position here. Ultimately, this is a proposition where we say that commodity prices are at an all-time high, these businesses are making incredible profits, and as the Government representing the people of Australia who own these resources, we want to sit down and get a better cut. It’s a pretty simple proposition, and if the proposition isn’t followed through, then what does follow is that these individuals and these companies making extraordinary profits selling Australian resources that can only be sold once.
CURTIS:
But you do raise money from them anyway through the company tax.
FEENEY:
We do, and through royalties and so forth, but there is I think a very simple argument to say that these companies, when they’re making super-profits can afford to pay more for the people of Australia for the resources they’re selling.
CURTIS:
Can I ask you both, because there are both elements of your own policies where you raise tax on some companies on one hand and then cut their tax on the other. David, your policy you put a tax on mining companies’ super-profits but you also are cutting company tax as well.
FEENEY:
That tax funds benefits to the rest of the economy, and this is part of the Prime Minister’s story about the two-speed economy, and making sure that we’re not just putting all of our attention into those parts of the Australian economy the commodities sector which are doing very well. We’ve also got to be investing in our manufacturing, we’ve got to be making sure that small business gets a good go here to. The benefits of the mining boom belong to every Australian, they don’t belong to a handful.
CURTIS:
Mitch, the maternity leave policy you took to the last election you’d raise company tax one and a half per cent on big business, and then you’d cut company tax one and a half per cent on big business. Does that have an internal inconsistency, where basically big companies end up with the same company which they started with?
FIFIELD:
The levy is a temporary measure. That’s been made clear by Tony. When the budget is repaired, when the budget is in a position to, that scheme will be funded from the budget proper. That’s the objective that we have.
CURTIS:
And you have to find another way to fund that.
FIFIELD:
You’ve got to fund your commitments, and we’ve been very upfront about how we will fund the paid parental leave scheme. The difference between what we’ve proposed there, and what the government have proposed with the mining tax, is the mining tax is forever. That is going to be forever. And it’s not going to be covering the costs of the associated items, which the Government have attached to it, forever as well.
CURTIS:
David can I ask you Penny Wong the Finance Minister came out with a document on the weekend purporting to cost the Coalition’s policies. Isn’t it unfair to say what the cost of Coalition policies might be without knowing how much the Coalition would also propose to cut spending by?
FEENEY:
It’s not unfair Lyndal, but goodness me I agree with you it would be lovely to hear from the Opposition about how they are planning to fund some of these things. We live in a world at the moment where the Liberal Party oppose revenue measures but they support the benefits of those revenue measures. We live in a world where the Liberal Party says it’s repealing the carbon tax and handing money back to polluters, repealing the mining tax and handing money back to billionaires, a proposal to deal with climate change through direct action and guess who pays for that taxpayers. This is a fantasy that needs some costings, and I congratulate Penny Wong for trying to bring some shape to a debate that frankly is crying out for it.
FIFIELD:
Lyndal, the fantasy is the document which Penny Wong produced. It has a cover which makes it look like it’s a budget document or a MYEFO document. It has the same font as the budget papers or a MYEFO. But the important difference is that this hasn’t been authorised by the Australian Treasury or the Department of Finance. Look at the back and you see it’s been authorised by George Wright, National Secretary of the Australian Labor Party. It’s a political document.
CURTIS:
That’s where we’ll have to leave it. David Feeney and Mitch Fifield, thank you very much for your time.
ENDS