❓ Question on the impact of the proposed Minerals Resource Rent Tax on the magnetite industry in WA. Premier Barnett criticises the tax, highlighting its discriminatory nature and potential harm to the burgeoning magnetite industry due to its processing requirements.
AnsweredQoN 369Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
MINERALS RESOURCE RENT TAX — MAGNETITE – IRON ORE INDUSTRY
Last month I visited the Mid West region and heard firsthand from representatives of the mining sector about the disastrous impact the federal government’s proposed minerals resource rent tax will have on the industry, particularly the magnetite – iron ore industry. Could the Premier please outline how this tax grab will impact the burgeoning magnetite industry in this state and what the Premier has done to draw this matter to the attention of the federal government? Mr C.J. BARNETT
Last month I visited the Mid West region and heard firsthand from representatives of the mining sector about the disastrous impact the federal government’s proposed minerals resource rent tax will have on the industry, particularly the magnetite – iron ore industry. Could the Premier please outline how this tax grab will impact the burgeoning magnetite industry in this state and what the Premier has done to draw this matter to the attention of the federal government? Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
That is a good question. I thank the member for Kingsley for the question. I also thank the member for Geraldton for arranging a visit through the Mid West by a group of Liberal new members of Parliament. That is what members of Parliament should be doing—travelling around the state and learning about some of the developments and some of the issues. So, well done to the group that went on that trip. It was far better than wandering off to exotic parts of the world. Mr P.B. Watson : Like Wimbledon! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I think opposition members need more time out; they need a longer break. I would have thought they would come back with a bit of professionalism about them. Mr E.S. Ripper : Losing your place already! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, I formally call you for the first time! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, a major issue in Western Australia is the federal Labor government’s proposed minerals resource rent tax. This tax is flawed in many ways, but in the most obvious way, it is a discriminatory tax in the sense that it applies to iron ore and coal, and will amend — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I do not know which drone that was over there. Who was it that time? Mr P.B. Watson : It was me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: That is a good question. I thank the member for Kingsley for the question. I also thank the member for Geraldton for arranging a visit through the Mid West by a group of Liberal new members of Parliament. That is what members of Parliament should be doing—travelling around the state and learning about some of the developments and some of the issues. So, well done to the group that went on that trip. It was far better than wandering off to exotic parts of the world. Mr P.B. Watson : Like Wimbledon! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I think opposition members need more time out; they need a longer break. I would have thought they would come back with a bit of professionalism about them. Mr E.S. Ripper : Losing your place already! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, I formally call you for the first time! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, a major issue in Western Australia is the federal Labor government’s proposed minerals resource rent tax. This tax is flawed in many ways, but in the most obvious way, it is a discriminatory tax in the sense that it applies to iron ore and coal, and will amend — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I do not know which drone that was over there. Who was it that time? Mr P.B. Watson : It was me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
That is a good question. I thank the member for Kingsley for the question. I also thank the member for Geraldton for arranging a visit through the Mid West by a group of Liberal new members of Parliament. That is what members of Parliament should be doing—travelling around the state and learning about some of the developments and some of the issues. So, well done to the group that went on that trip. It was far better than wandering off to exotic parts of the world. Mr P.B. Watson : Like Wimbledon! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I think opposition members need more time out; they need a longer break. I would have thought they would come back with a bit of professionalism about them. Mr E.S. Ripper : Losing your place already! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, I formally call you for the first time! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, a major issue in Western Australia is the federal Labor government’s proposed minerals resource rent tax. This tax is flawed in many ways, but in the most obvious way, it is a discriminatory tax in the sense that it applies to iron ore and coal, and will amend — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I do not know which drone that was over there. Who was it that time? Mr P.B. Watson : It was me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr P.B. Watson : Like Wimbledon! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I think opposition members need more time out; they need a longer break. I would have thought they would come back with a bit of professionalism about them. Mr E.S. Ripper : Losing your place already! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, I formally call you for the first time! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, a major issue in Western Australia is the federal Labor government’s proposed minerals resource rent tax. This tax is flawed in many ways, but in the most obvious way, it is a discriminatory tax in the sense that it applies to iron ore and coal, and will amend — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I do not know which drone that was over there. Who was it that time? Mr P.B. Watson : It was me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I think opposition members need more time out; they need a longer break. I would have thought they would come back with a bit of professionalism about them. Mr E.S. Ripper : Losing your place already! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, I formally call you for the first time! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, a major issue in Western Australia is the federal Labor government’s proposed minerals resource rent tax. This tax is flawed in many ways, but in the most obvious way, it is a discriminatory tax in the sense that it applies to iron ore and coal, and will amend — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I do not know which drone that was over there. Who was it that time? Mr P.B. Watson : It was me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I think opposition members need more time out; they need a longer break. I would have thought they would come back with a bit of professionalism about them. Mr E.S. Ripper : Losing your place already! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, I formally call you for the first time! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, a major issue in Western Australia is the federal Labor government’s proposed minerals resource rent tax. This tax is flawed in many ways, but in the most obvious way, it is a discriminatory tax in the sense that it applies to iron ore and coal, and will amend — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I do not know which drone that was over there. Who was it that time? Mr P.B. Watson : It was me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr E.S. Ripper : Losing your place already! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, I formally call you for the first time! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, a major issue in Western Australia is the federal Labor government’s proposed minerals resource rent tax. This tax is flawed in many ways, but in the most obvious way, it is a discriminatory tax in the sense that it applies to iron ore and coal, and will amend — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I do not know which drone that was over there. Who was it that time? Mr P.B. Watson : It was me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, I formally call you for the first time! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, a major issue in Western Australia is the federal Labor government’s proposed minerals resource rent tax. This tax is flawed in many ways, but in the most obvious way, it is a discriminatory tax in the sense that it applies to iron ore and coal, and will amend — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I do not know which drone that was over there. Who was it that time? Mr P.B. Watson : It was me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, I formally call you for the first time! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, a major issue in Western Australia is the federal Labor government’s proposed minerals resource rent tax. This tax is flawed in many ways, but in the most obvious way, it is a discriminatory tax in the sense that it applies to iron ore and coal, and will amend — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I do not know which drone that was over there. Who was it that time? Mr P.B. Watson : It was me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, I formally call you for the first time! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, a major issue in Western Australia is the federal Labor government’s proposed minerals resource rent tax. This tax is flawed in many ways, but in the most obvious way, it is a discriminatory tax in the sense that it applies to iron ore and coal, and will amend — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I do not know which drone that was over there. Who was it that time? Mr P.B. Watson : It was me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, a major issue in Western Australia is the federal Labor government’s proposed minerals resource rent tax. This tax is flawed in many ways, but in the most obvious way, it is a discriminatory tax in the sense that it applies to iron ore and coal, and will amend — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I do not know which drone that was over there. Who was it that time? Mr P.B. Watson : It was me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I do not know which drone that was over there. Who was it that time? Mr P.B. Watson : It was me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I do not know which drone that was over there. Who was it that time? Mr P.B. Watson : It was me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr P.B. Watson : It was me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
[See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: That is a good question. I thank the member for Kingsley for the question. I also thank the member for Geraldton for arranging a visit through the Mid West by a group of Liberal new members of Parliament. That is what members of Parliament should be doing—travelling around the state and learning about some of the developments and some of the issues. So, well done to the group that went on that trip. It was far better than wandering off to exotic parts of the world. Mr P.B. Watson : Like Wimbledon! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I think opposition members need more time out; they need a longer break. I would have thought they would come back with a bit of professionalism about them. Mr E.S. Ripper : Losing your place already! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, I formally call you for the first time! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, a major issue in Western Australia is the federal Labor government’s proposed minerals resource rent tax. This tax is flawed in many ways, but in the most obvious way, it is a discriminatory tax in the sense that it applies to iron ore and coal, and will amend — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I do not know which drone that was over there. Who was it that time? Mr P.B. Watson : It was me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
That is a good question. I thank the member for Kingsley for the question. I also thank the member for Geraldton for arranging a visit through the Mid West by a group of Liberal new members of Parliament. That is what members of Parliament should be doing—travelling around the state and learning about some of the developments and some of the issues. So, well done to the group that went on that trip. It was far better than wandering off to exotic parts of the world. Mr P.B. Watson : Like Wimbledon! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I think opposition members need more time out; they need a longer break. I would have thought they would come back with a bit of professionalism about them. Mr E.S. Ripper : Losing your place already! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, I formally call you for the first time! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, a major issue in Western Australia is the federal Labor government’s proposed minerals resource rent tax. This tax is flawed in many ways, but in the most obvious way, it is a discriminatory tax in the sense that it applies to iron ore and coal, and will amend — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I do not know which drone that was over there. Who was it that time? Mr P.B. Watson : It was me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr P.B. Watson : Like Wimbledon! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I think opposition members need more time out; they need a longer break. I would have thought they would come back with a bit of professionalism about them. Mr E.S. Ripper : Losing your place already! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, I formally call you for the first time! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, a major issue in Western Australia is the federal Labor government’s proposed minerals resource rent tax. This tax is flawed in many ways, but in the most obvious way, it is a discriminatory tax in the sense that it applies to iron ore and coal, and will amend — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I do not know which drone that was over there. Who was it that time? Mr P.B. Watson : It was me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I think opposition members need more time out; they need a longer break. I would have thought they would come back with a bit of professionalism about them. Mr E.S. Ripper : Losing your place already! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, I formally call you for the first time! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, a major issue in Western Australia is the federal Labor government’s proposed minerals resource rent tax. This tax is flawed in many ways, but in the most obvious way, it is a discriminatory tax in the sense that it applies to iron ore and coal, and will amend — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I do not know which drone that was over there. Who was it that time? Mr P.B. Watson : It was me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I think opposition members need more time out; they need a longer break. I would have thought they would come back with a bit of professionalism about them. Mr E.S. Ripper : Losing your place already! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, I formally call you for the first time! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, a major issue in Western Australia is the federal Labor government’s proposed minerals resource rent tax. This tax is flawed in many ways, but in the most obvious way, it is a discriminatory tax in the sense that it applies to iron ore and coal, and will amend — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I do not know which drone that was over there. Who was it that time? Mr P.B. Watson : It was me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr E.S. Ripper : Losing your place already! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, I formally call you for the first time! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, a major issue in Western Australia is the federal Labor government’s proposed minerals resource rent tax. This tax is flawed in many ways, but in the most obvious way, it is a discriminatory tax in the sense that it applies to iron ore and coal, and will amend — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I do not know which drone that was over there. Who was it that time? Mr P.B. Watson : It was me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT : No. Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, I formally call you for the first time! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, a major issue in Western Australia is the federal Labor government’s proposed minerals resource rent tax. This tax is flawed in many ways, but in the most obvious way, it is a discriminatory tax in the sense that it applies to iron ore and coal, and will amend — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I do not know which drone that was over there. Who was it that time? Mr P.B. Watson : It was me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, I formally call you for the first time! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, a major issue in Western Australia is the federal Labor government’s proposed minerals resource rent tax. This tax is flawed in many ways, but in the most obvious way, it is a discriminatory tax in the sense that it applies to iron ore and coal, and will amend — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I do not know which drone that was over there. Who was it that time? Mr P.B. Watson : It was me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
The SPEAKER : Member for Albany, I formally call you for the first time! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, a major issue in Western Australia is the federal Labor government’s proposed minerals resource rent tax. This tax is flawed in many ways, but in the most obvious way, it is a discriminatory tax in the sense that it applies to iron ore and coal, and will amend — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I do not know which drone that was over there. Who was it that time? Mr P.B. Watson : It was me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, a major issue in Western Australia is the federal Labor government’s proposed minerals resource rent tax. This tax is flawed in many ways, but in the most obvious way, it is a discriminatory tax in the sense that it applies to iron ore and coal, and will amend — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I do not know which drone that was over there. Who was it that time? Mr P.B. Watson : It was me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I do not know which drone that was over there. Who was it that time? Mr P.B. Watson : It was me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I do not know which drone that was over there. Who was it that time? Mr P.B. Watson : It was me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr P.B. Watson : It was me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay; it was the member for Albany—that drone. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the Premier deliberately used an unparliamentary term when referring to a member of this house and I ask him to withdraw. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
The SPEAKER : I formally call the member for Vasse for the first time and, likewise, call the member for Victoria Park for the first time! Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
The SPEAKER : If you want to join in that, member for Cockburn, I would be happy to add your name to the list; but I am going to resist for the time being. Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr F.M. Logan : Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
The SPEAKER : I would like to see question time proceed a little more orderly at this stage, and I am not going to accept a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : The minerals resource rent tax or, if members like, the petroleum version of it, has been applied to what the federal Labor government sees as the wealthy parts of the mining industry—basically offshore petroleum, high-grade coal from the eastern states and iron ore—thinking, obviously, about the Pilbara. But there are some minerals that require a higher level of processing and so it becomes absolutely fundamental at what point of the processing this tax applies. If we take just the iron ore industry, which is obviously important to this state—we produce over a third of the world’s international trade in iron ore—the federal government is thinking about the Pilbara iron ore. The grade of iron ore in the Pilbara—the hematite iron ore—is typically 62 per cent iron content, so it can, basically, be dug up, put on a train, sent to a port and exported. It involves minimal processing, and therefore it can be taxed as a high-value, direct-shipping product. However, iron ore is iron ore; iron is an element. There are two major types of iron ore: hematite 62 per cent; and magnetite. Magnetite iron ore, which has a different formula, has about 25 to 30 per cent iron content—FeO compared with Fe 2 O 3 , if members did high school chemistry—and it is not a direct-shipping product, so it must be processed. If members think about the simple equation, because the grade is so much lower, two to three times the volume has to be mined to get the same amount of iron, so even the mining operation is two to three times the size. It is then still low grade so it cannot just be put on a ship; it has to be ground down to very, very fine particles to allow for magnetic separation. Then it has to go through further processing—washing and the like—so that it is at a quality and grade to be a saleable product. To get it to a saleable product takes a high degree of processing—quite different from hematite iron ore. Magnetite iron ore is similar—as a mineral and the processing operation involved—to lateritic nickel. It is a highly intensive, energy-intensive, complex processing operation. It is quite different from that of the processing of iron ore in the Pilbara, and yet, under the federal Labor Party’s proposal it is all in. Magnetite iron ore projects are being included by Labor in this sort of super profits mentality; they are anything but that. It is a marginal, fledgling industry, yet the federal Labor Party, with the support of members opposite, is treating this as though it is some super profit product. We have two projects under construction in Western Australia, with up to 16 other magnetite projects at various stages of feasibility studies. This is a whole new industry for Western Australia, but Labor, with its stunning, stunning level of lack of understanding of this industry, has simply lumped it in with 62 per cent iron ore. What is incredible is that all members opposite support it, do they not? They all support the magnetite iron ore industry being under minerals. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do all members opposite support it? Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The mineral resource rent tax includes magnetite iron ore, and every one of the members opposite supports it. They are out there, in federal campaigns, supporting a mineral resource rent tax not only on the Pilbara but also on the fledgling industry of the Mid West. I urge members opposite to go and see the member for Geraldton and ask him to take them up there and show them a bit of the real Western Australia and learn something about the industry! Members opposite are hopeless! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Okay, will the Leader of the Opposition tell me right now if he supports the mineral resource rent tax? Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr E.S. Ripper : Tony Abbott won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes or no? Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr E.S. Ripper : You won’t fund the infrastructure! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Does the Leader of the Opposition support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course I support it! Of course I support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do government members support it? Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Government members: No! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Do opposition members support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr E.S. Ripper : Of course they support it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT : We do not know—does the opposition support it? Do any opposition members not support it? Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr E.S. Ripper : Third time lucky—you might listen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
Mr C.J. BARNETT : What a joke, Mr Speaker—what a joke! They have had a few months to think about this and they still do not know what their position is. They still cannot stand in this chamber and say, “We do not support the mineral resource rent tax and we do not support its application to magnetite.” I wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard to make the case, and I will table the letter if members like, because they should read it and learn something about magnetite and then go and ask the member for Geraldton if he will show them around his electorate and show them something of the industry. [See paper 2393.]
[See paper 2393.]
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.